Under these circumstances, I trust the Government of her Majesty will find no difficulty in supplying me.

By the recent letter of Earl Russell (31st January, 1862), it is not inconsistent with neutrality for a belligerent to supply himself with coal in a British port.

In other words, this article has been pronounced, like provisions, innoxious; and this being the case, it can make no difference whether it be supplied by the Government or an individual (the Government being reimbursed the expense), and this even though the market were open to me.

Much more, then, may the Government supply me with an innocent article, the market not being open to me.
Suppose I had come into port destitute of provisions, and the same illegal combination had shut me out from the market, would the British Government permit my crew to starve?
Or, suppose I had been a sail ship, and had come in dismasted, and the dockyard was the only place where I could be refitted, would you have denied me a mast?
and if you would not deny me a mast, on what principle will you deny me coal, both articles being declared by your Government innoxious?
The true criterion is, not whether the Government, or an individual may supply the article, but whether the article itself be noxious or innoxious.

The Government may not supply me with powder--why?
Not because I may have recourse to the market, but because the article is noxious.