indeed, was it to us to hear our subject relate such injustice on the part of the Knights of Malta; we, however, thought is right to make it clearly appear that nothing has remained untried to bring back to more sane counsels the generous minds of the Maltese; and therefore, under the advice of our Privy Council, we deemed proper to refer, without loss of time, the complaint of our subject, together with the letters which we formerly addressed to your highness, and those which your highness latterly wrote to us, to our advocate in our High Court of Admiralty, Sir Robert Wyseman, Knight; who, having well considered the whole, has expressed his opinion in the following terms:

"I have read and seriously pondered the petition of Roger Fowke, transmitted to me by your

Majesty's special mandate; as also the letters written by your Majesty to the Grand Master of the Order of Malta in favour of the above-mentioned, and those from the said Grand Master in reply; and it is evident to me, after mature examination, that your Majesty has done so much, and that it is proved that the sentence of the Maltese Tribunal against the said Roger Fowke was pronounced contrary to right and justice (as is clearly shown in the letters written by your Majesty to the Grand Master); that therefore it appears to be incumbent on me only to set forth to your Majesty, and to the Lords of the Privy Council, whether it be my opinion that sufficient satisfaction has been given by the Grand Master's letters to your Majesty, who by the above-cited letters demand restitution; and if not, whether in consequence it be lawful to your Majesty to grant the so-called letters of reprisal, on which subject I beg humbly to submit to your Majesty, and to the singular prudence and judgment of the above-mentioned Lords, this my opinion; that is to say, that the answers of the Grand Master are so far from being in any way satisfactory, that from them it may be easily perceived that the above-mentioned Grand Master, although he does not deny in express terms reparation for his loss to the above Roger, nevertheless does not decree anything certain on this head; from which your Majesty may reasonably conclude that the said reparation was refused. Nor does it tend to his defence that he asserts that all that was done by his tribunal was done by solemn sentence, that the judges were men of great reputation, and that it is to be believed that the reasons produced by both sides were justly considered; for judicial authority is not of the same value as regards foreigners and subjects. It is not lawful for subjects to demand a re-examination of the sentence pronounced by their superiors, although to foreign princes it entirely appertains to make such demand, in cases interesting themselves or their subjects; otherwise, if all given sentences were considered as freeing nations from reprisals, such decrees might perhaps be obtained in any case, even though manifestly unjust; and consequently it is by all agreed to be a just cause for reprisals, not only when justice is not rendered, but also when in any case, not of a doubtful nature, judgment may have been given against right; although certainly, in cases of a doubtful nature, the presumption would be in favour of those who may have been elected as public judges. Had the Grand Master indicated to your Majesty that the said Roger Fowke might have preferred an appeal against the sentence pronounced against him to a superior tribunal, and that by the negligence of the said Roger the first sentence had become affirmed, in that case the remedy demanded by your Majesty would have been untenable; but the said Grand Master makes no mention of such appeal: I am therefore of opinion that nothing in the law of nations could militate against the lawfulness of your Majesty's granting letters of reprisal in the manner demanded.

(Signed) Robert Wyseman."

Without doubt the law of nations would warrant our extorting from the hands of your highness' subjects, by issuing letters of reprisal, that which we have not been able to obtain after so many years by means of the letters written in favour of our beloved subject and friend; and the deplorable state of the said Roger requires that we should now exact by our own authority that which we have in vain sought to obtain by means of simple communications. But taking into serious consideration the lamentable present state of Christianity, and the daily augmentation of the large empire of our common enemy, and how distinguished has been the valour of the Maltese knights, always constantly exposing themselves as a bulwark to so pertinacious an enemy, it would be very painful to us to be compelled to have recourse to reprisals, or to any such severe mode of proceeding, for the reparation of the loss. The glory also of the Christian name, so often valiantly defended, has caused us willingly to believe that we must not yet despair of obtaining from your highness' authority that reparation for his loss which our subject hopes to obtain by reprisal, and therefore, putting aside the remedy of right, and our Privy Council persuading us to milder measures, we have thought proper by this letter to seriously request your highness, by that justice which is the duty of princes, and of the defenders of Christianity, to deign to procure without delay to our trustworthy subject, who has suffered so great an injustice from the Maltese Tribunal, and who is exhausted by the delays of so many years, full compensation for all his losses, including also the amount of his expenses; so that we may never have cause to regret that we, putting aside the law of nations, have till now abstained from reprisal, and so that henceforth the world may eulogise the Maltese as not being less just than valiant.

We have only now to recommend your highness and all your Knights to the most good and most great God.

Given in our Palace of Whitehall on the 29th day of April, of the year of Human Redemption 1668, and of our reign the twentieth.

Raphael Cottoner, to whom the last letter was addressed, ascended the Maltese throne in October, 1663, on the decease of his brother Raphael.

All historians agree in stating that he was a man of a noble carriage, high and honourable character, and withal a clever diplomatist. He died in March, 1680, after a happy and glorious rule, in the seventy-third year of his age, and seventeenth of his reign. The following letter written by him may be of sufficient interest to excuse its length. Its perusal will show the great respect which was paid by the Order of St. John to an English monarch, and the "incorruptible" manner in which justice was administered at this island nearly two centuries ago.

To the King of Great Britain.

Most serene and invincible King:

A short time since John Ansely, the attorney of Roger Fowke, delivered to us your most serene Majesty's gracious letters, in reply to mine regarding the affair of the said Roger; from which, not without great disturbance of mind, I perceived how incorrectly what had taken place had been reported to your Majesty. But my grief was in some measure assuaged by your Majesty's continued benignant protection of this my Order; through which it came to pass that it was determined to abstain from granting the letters of reprisal which it was the opinion of your Majesty's advocate in the High Court of Admiralty, inserted in the above-mentioned Royal Letters, might have been granted to the aforenamed Roger, for which I truly return your Majesty my most sincere and humble thanks. The above Roger still claims of right the sum