circumstance mentioned by me solely to show, that until the man made his appearance on board the Elbe, no forcible means were employed to secure his person, and therefore British Laws were not infringed against, but not as you seem to interpret the sentence with a view to lend additional weight to my argument. It was sufficient for my purposes to prove that the man acted on his own impulses and was free from restraint while under the sole control and protection of British Authority - until the moment he set his foot on board the Elbe, where such protection accessorily at once ceased, because there Prussian Authority commenced and this cancelled the pretended rights of third parties. Beyond this I had no interest in the question whether or not the man acted of his own free accord, as it could in nowise affect the bearing of the case.
I am far from underrating the alarming Consequences which would result from a state of things such as you describe, where any sailor, having a grievance against his ship, could with impunity avail himself of the opportunity to desert, and I fully concur with you that if such a state of things was permitted to exist, it would be utterly impossible to preserve law and order amongst the numerous Mercantile Marine frequenting this port.