There is no inconsistency here between my friend Sir Sherston Baker and myself.

We can discourage access, and of course, by refusal of coal, render egress impossible for privateers.

Mr.Coltman would apparently be inclined to carry this policy so far that he would disarm and intern even belligerent ships of war which should visit our ports: a somewhat hazardous innovation, one would think.
It is quite possible that the question of privateering may not become a practical one during the approaching war.

Both parties may expressly renounce the practice, or they may follow the example of Prussia in 1870, and Russia at a later date, in commissioning fast liners under the command of naval officers--a practice, by the by, which is not, as Sir George seems to think, "right in the teeth of the Declaration of Paris." See Lord Granville's despatch in 1870.
On Sir George's proposals with reference to the carriage of enemy goods, little more need be said, except to deprecate arguments founded upon the metaphorical statement that "a vessel is part of the territory covered by her flag," a statement which Lord Stowell found it necessary to meet by the assertion that a ship is a "mere movable." There can be no possible doubt of the right, under international law, of Spain and the United States to visit and search neutral ships carrying enemy's goods, and to confiscate such goods when found.

They may also visit and search on many other grounds, and the question (one of policy) is whether, rather than permit this addition to the list, we choose to take a step which would practically make us belligerent.