is an act of war, but because it is a dishonourable act of war.  And can an enemy make use of neutral territory to do that, which would subject him to an ignominious death, if he were without such territory, and within reach of the opposite belligerent?  When my men come within his Excellency’s jurisdiction I lose all control over them, and must rely upon his comity to regain possession of them.  If they leave me of their own freewill, in the absence of the recognition of my Government, and of treaty stipulation, perhaps I have no remedy.  But when I permit them to go on shore, and enter the jurisdiction of a neutral and friendly power, I do so with the just expectation that they will receive the shelter and protection of the neutral flag; and that they will not be permitted to be run off by my enemy; and to wheedle and entice a sailor from his ship, and that too when, perhaps, he is half drunk, is little better than kidnapping him.  In the present case, the violation of the neutral jurisdiction is as complete as if the Consul had seized my men by force; for he has accomplished the same object; to wit, weakening his enemy by stratagem—­a stratagem practised by one belligerent against another.  If this act had been committed by a military or naval officer of the enemy, transiently within the limits of Gibraltar, every one would have been surprised at it, and would have exclaimed against it as a flagrant violation of the law of nations.  And is the offence of less magnitude when committed by a Consul, who is peculiarly favored by the law of nations, as an officer of peace, and one whose pursuits lie wholly in the walks of commerce?  Mr. Sprague, the United States consul, is a gentleman whom I have heard favourably spoken of, and it is barely possible I may do him injustice in imputing to him the conduct described, but the evidence came to me in a very satisfactory shape, and I shall be ready to produce it if the allegation be denied.  Should the proof be made out to his Excellency’s satisfaction, I shall deem it my duty to request that the Consul be suspended from his functions, and that the question of withdrawing his Exequatur be referred to the British Government.

   I have, &c., &c.,
   (Signed) R. SEMMES.

   To Capt.  J. Freeling, Col.  Sec.

   C.S.  Steamer Sumter, Bay of Gibraltar. 
   Feb. 10th.

Sir,—­I have the honour to inform you that I have made every effort to procure a supply of coal, without success.  The British and other merchants of Gibraltar, instigated I learn by the United States Consul, have entered into the un-neutral combination of declining to furnish the Sumter with coal on any terms.  Under these circumstances, I trust the Government of her Majesty will find no difficulty in supplying me.  By the recent letter of Earl Russell (31st January, 1862), it is not inconsistent with neutrality for a belligerent to supply himself with coal in a British port.  In other words, this article