Earl Russell, in reaching the decision which he has communicated to you, must surely have misapprehended the facts, otherwise I cannot conceive him capable of so misapplying the law.  The facts are briefly these:—­1st.  The Tuscaloosa was formerly the enemy’s ship Conrad, lawfully captured by me on the high seas, as a recognized belligerent; 2dly.  She was duly commissioned by me as a tender to the Confederate States steamer Alabama, then, as now, under my command; and 3dly.  She entered English waters not only without intention of violating Her Britannic Majesty’s orders of neutrality, but was received with hospitality, and no question was raised as to her right to enter under the circumstances.  These were the facts up to the time of Earl Russell’s issuing to you his order in the premises.  Let us consider, then, a moment, and see if we can derive from them, or any of them, just ground for the extraordinary decision to which Earl Russell has come.

My right to capture and the legality of the capture will not be denied.  Nor will you deny, in your experience as a naval officer, my right to commission this, or any other ship lawfully in my possession, as a tender to my principal ship.  Your admirals do this every day, on distant stations; and the tender, from the time of her being put in commission, wears a pennant, and is entitled to the immunities and privileges of a ship of war, the right of capture inclusive.

Numerous decisions are to be found in your own prize law to this effect.  In other words, this is one of the recognised modes of commissioning a ship of war, which has grown out of the convenience of the thing, and become a sort of naval common law, as indisputable as the written law itself.  The only difference between the commission of such a ship and that of a ship commissioned by the sovereign authority at home is that the word “tender” appears in the former commission and not in the latter.  The Tuscaloosa having then been commissioned by me in accordance with the recognised practice of all civilized nations that have a marine, can any other Government than my own look into her antecedents?  Clearly not.  The only thing which can be looked at upon her entering a foreign port is her commission.  If this be issued by competent authority, you cannot proceed a step further.  The ship then becomes a part of the territory of the country to which she belongs, and you can exercise no more jurisdiction over her than over that territory.  The self-respect and the independence of nations require this; for it would be a monstrous doctrine to admit that one nation may inquire into the title by which another nation holds her ships of war.  And there can be no difference in this respect between tenders and ships originally commissioned.  The flag and the pennant fly over them both, and they are both withdrawn from the local jurisdiction by competent commissions.  On principle you might as well have enquired into the antecedents