fact_. Indeed, Mr. Canning, who has shed so much light on these topics, openly took the ground that “belligerency is not so much a principle as _a fact_.”[144] And the question then arises, whether Rebel Slavery has acquired such _de facto_ sovereignty on the ocean as entitles it to _ocean_ belligerent rights. There are at least two “facts” patent to all: _first_, that Rebel Slavery is without a single port into which even legal cruisers can take prizes for adjudication; and, _secondly_, that the ships which now presume to exercise _ocean_ belligerent rights in its name--constituting that navy which a member of the British Cabinet announced as “to be created”--were all “created” in England, which is the _naval base_ from which they sally forth on predatory cruise, without once entering a port of their own pretended government. These two “facts” are different in nature. The first attaches absolutely to the pretended power, rendering it incompetent to exercise _belligerent jurisdiction_ on the ocean. The second attaches to the individual ships, rendering them piratical. These simple and unquestionable “facts” are the key to unlock the present question. From the reason of the case, there can be no _ocean_ belligerent without a port into which it can take prizes. Any other rule is absurd. It is not enough to sail the sea, like the Flying Dutchman; the _ocean_ belligerent must be able to touch the land, and that land its own. This proceeds on the idea of civilized warfare, that something more than _naked force_ is essential to the completeness of capture. According to the earlier rule, transmutation of property was accomplished by the “pernoctation” of the captured ship within the port of the belligerent,--or, as it was called, _deductio infra præsidia_. As early as 1414, under Henry the Fifth of England, there was an Act of Parliament requiring privateers _to bring their prizes into a port of the kingdom_, and to make a declaration thereof to a proper officer, _before undertaking to dispose of them_.[145] The modern rule interposes an additional check upon lawless violence, by requiring the condemnation of a competent court. This rule, which is among the most authoritative of the British Admiralty, is found in the famous letter of Sir William Scott and Sir John Nicholl, addressed to John Jay, as follows: “_Before the ship or goods can be disposed of by the captor_, there must be a regular judicial proceeding, wherein both parties may be heard, and condemnation thereupon as prize, in a Court of Admiralty, judging by the Law of Nations and treaties.”[146] This is explicit, and is plainly necessary for the protection of neutral commerce. But this rule is French as well as English. It is part of International Law. A _seizure_ is regarded merely as a _preliminary_ act, which does not divest the property, though it paralyzes the right of the proprietor. A subsequent act of condemnation by a competent tribunal is necessary to