There matters stood until the 11th of January, 1785, Nelson acting by the authority of the commander-in-chief, but exercising his own discretion, and with forbearance, in carrying out his instructions.  On the day named he received another order from the admiral, modifying the first upon the grounds of a more mature consideration, and of “the opinion of the King’s Attorney-General” in the islands.  Nelson was now directed, in case of a foreign merchant-ship coming within the limits of his station, to cause her to anchor near his own vessel and to report her arrival, and situation in all respects, to the governor of the colony where he then was; “and if, after such report shall have been made and received, the governor or his representative shall think proper to admit the said foreigner into the port or harbour of the island where you may be, you are on no account to hinder or prevent such foreign vessel from going in accordingly, or to interfere any further in her subsequent proceedings.”

Here the admiral not only raised, but also decided, the point as to whether the enforcement of the Navigation Act rested with naval officers, or was vested only in the civil authorities of the islands.  Nelson was convinced that an essential part of the duty of ships of war, and especially when peace took from them so much of their military function, was to afford to the commerce of the nation proper protection, of which a necessary feature, according to the ideas of the age, was the interdiction of foreign traders.  A seaman, he plausibly argued, could decide better than an unprofessional man the questions of injuries and distress upon which the unlawful traffic largely hinged.  “In judging of their distress, no person can know better than the sea officers,” he wrote to Hughes.  “The governors may be imposed upon by false declarations; we, who are on the spot, cannot.”  He was aware, also, that a petition for relaxing the Act in favor of the American trade with the West Indies had been referred to the home government, by which it had been explicitly rejected.  Strengthened by this knowledge, but actuated, after all, chiefly by his invariable resoluteness to assume responsibility where he felt he was right, he replied to the admiral’s letter with a clear statement of the facts, concluding with the words:  “Whilst I have the honour to command an English man-of-war, I never shall allow myself to be subservient to the will of any Governor, nor cooeperate with him in doing illegal acts....  If I rightly understand your order of the 29th of December, it is founded upon an Opinion of the King’s Attorney-General, viz.:  ’That it is legal for Governors or their representatives to admit foreigners into the ports of their government, if they think fit.’  How the King’s Attorney-General conceives he has a right to give an illegal opinion, which I assert the above is, he must answer for.  I know the Navigation Laws.”  As he summed up the matter in a