it was manifestly necessary to act with prudence and caution and
to do nothing in violation of the municipal law, because a single
conviction would both expose the object and defeat the aim." His
solicitor "therefore drew up a case for counsel's opinion and
submitted it to two eminent barristers, both of whom have since
filled the highest judicial positions. The case was submitted;
was a general and not a specific proposition. It was not intimated
for what purpose and on whose behalf the opinion was asked, and
the reply was therefore wholly without bias, and embraced a full
exposition of the Act in its bearing upon the question of building
and equipping ships in Her Majesty's dominions.

"The inferences drawn from the investigation of the Act by counsel
were put in the following form by my solicitor:--

"'1. It is no offense (under the Act) for British subjects to
equip, etc., a ship at some country _without_ Her Majesty's dominions
though the intent be to cruise against a friendly State.

"'2. It is no offense for _any_ person (subject or no subject) to
_equip_ a ship _within_ Her Majesty's dominions if it be _not_ done
with the intent to cruise against a friendly State.

"'3. The mere building of a ship _within_ Her Majesty's dominions
by any person (subject or no subject) is no offense, _whatever may
be the intent of the parties_, because the offense is not in the
_building_, but the _equipping_.

"'Therefore any ship-builder may build any ship in Her Majesty's
dominions, provided he does not equip her within Her Majesty's
dominions, and he had nothing to do with the acts of the purchasers
done _within_ Her Majesty's dominions without his concurrence, or
without Her Majesty's dominions even with his concurrence.'"--
[BULLOCK's _Secret Service of the Confederate States_, vol. i, pp.
65-67.]

It is an amazing courtesy which attributes to the eminent counsel
a complete ignorance of the object and purpose for which their
weighty opinion was sought in the construction of British law.
Such ignorance is feigned and not real, and the pretense of its
existence indicates either on the part of the author or the counsel
a full appreciation of the deadly consequences of that malign
interpretation of England's duty for which two illustrious members
of the English Bar were willing to stand sponsors before the world.
Conceding, as we fairly may concede, that the decision in the case
of the _Alexandra_ is confirmatory