May I refer him, for an explanation of this phenomenon, to the words (now italicised) omitted in his quotation of my statement?
It is, of course, common enough, when the reference is obviously not to the case as a whole but to an extract from it, thus to give a clue to the extract, the formula then employed being frequently "_at_ page so-and-so." 2.

I had summarised the effect, as I conceive it, of the group of cases above mentioned in the following terms: "Such action is justifiable only in cases of the gravest importance to the captor's own State, _after securing the ship's papers, and subject to the right of the neutral owners to receive full compensation_." Here, again, while purporting to quote me, Mr.Bowles omits the all-important words now italicised.

I am, however, maltreated in good company.

Mr.Bowles represents Lord Stowell as holding that destruction of neutral property cannot be justified, even in cases of the gravest importance to the captor's own State.

What Lord Stowell actually says, in the very passage quoted by Mr.Bowles, is that "to the neutral can only be justified, under any such circumstances, by a full restitution in value." I would, suggest that Mr.Bowles should find an opportunity for reading _in extenso_ the reports of the _Actaeon_ (2 Dods.