of 4,500 pieces of eight, which he asserts had been formerly seized by some armed ships of this island; from which sum, together with the expenses incurred, or to be incurred, he forms another greater sum of about 24,500, which he also claims.

But as it would sufficiently appear from your Majesty's letter, which contains the above-mentioned opinion of the said advocate, and also from the verbal report made to me by the said John Ansely, that your Majesty felt persuaded that the said Roger had both lost his cause before the Judge of the Prize Court, and subsequently been denied an appeal to the Supreme Court, and, lastly, that his attorney had been treated with violence, rather than under any order of right, I, to confess the truth, being much mortified, cannot but endeavour, with all due respect in my power, to demonstrate the real state of the case to your Majesty; and hope, by a more faithful narrative of all that occurred, to convince your Majesty of that equal distribution of justice which in this place is constantly observed, both to the inhabitants and foreigners, with incorruptible honesty.

Before, however, beginning to explain the affair from its commencement, it behoves me to inform your Majesty, that not only subjects of Christian Princes, but Greeks and Armenians, and other persons subject to the rule of the Turks, the bitterest enemies of this Order, are continually coming to these islands for the purpose of instituting or continuing suits at law against the captains of our ships and other inhabitants, yet we have never heard from them that justice is either denied or refused. I therefore humbly beseech your Majesty to consider, and with benignant mind to reflect, what faith ought to be given to those who have dared to affirm that any contrary course had been pursued or tolerated by me against the said Roger; and the more so, as it has been the constant wish of my Order to deserve well of your Majesty's subjects, and to take particular care of all foreigners. This we trust will be sufficiently shown from the fact of our always having employed one of the principal lawyers to undertake the defence of foreigners; not indeed altogether gratuitously, but under such laws and restrictions that he must remit to them the third part of the usual stipend which it is customary to receive from the inhabitants, and even my knights. From which it may be concluded how well and how honourably foreigners are treated here, and how unlikely it is that justice should be denied to any of those who it is proved are favoured with such grace and love.

But to return to the affair in question, I humbly submit to your Majesty, that in the year of our salvation 1661, John, called De St. Amand, acting as attorney in the name of the above-mentioned Roger, appeared before the aforesaid judge of the Prize Court, demanding the restitution of different kinds of merchandise, which he asserted had been seized by certain captains of ships; but it not appearing to the said judge that he had produced convincing proofs of the fact, they were declared inadequate, and not sufficiently legal. From this decision the said attorney, as is usual in such controversies, appealed, on the 10th of July, 1662, to the Supreme Court of Audience in council, at which I, together with the Chief Grand Crosses of my Order, assist; but he afterwards of his own accord neglected to follow up said appeal.

Subsequently, in the year 1665, there appeared another attorney of the said Roger furnished with letters from your most serene Majesty, to whom I immediately explained that I had no right to order the actual restitution of the money demanded; but that if he would act according to law, and seek it by a judgment, I promised to give my co-operation, which I undoubtedly would have done; so that he might have been permitted by the said Court of Audience to recommence the suit, although it had been in a former instance deserted. But the attorney having replied that he was not furnished with this authority, left the island of his own free will and accord.

From that time no other person has appeared, except the above-mentioned John Ansely, who

recently delivered to me your Majesty's above-mentioned letter; which I having thought proper to communicate to my Council, I procured that the venerable brethren Henry de Estampes Valancay, the Grand Prior of Campania, and Don Gregory Caraffa, Prior of Rocella, should be deputed commissioners to examine this case. And they having heard what the said Ansely had to say, offered to him in any name, and in that of all my Order, an opportunity to make an appeal which had been deserted; but the said Ansely, for want of proper authority as he stated, did not accept the proposition.

Such being the case, I reverently submit to your most serene Majesty the following arguments, to which I earnestly entreat your Majesty to apply your Royal attention, and your Majesty's accustomed serenity and clemency.

In the first place, it is possible that the said Roger may have been really deprived of his property; but it does not follow that the proofs adduced by him of that fact were perfectly convincing, or entirely in accordance with the law. And even if they had been such, they might have appeared otherwise to the said judge of the Prize Court; and it is on this account that the Superior of Ten rescind the decrees of the Inferior Tribunals.

Secondly, the omission to continue the above-cited appeal, can in no way be attributed to the judges of this island; neither is it true that any threats were made use of towards the above-mentioned attorney. Such a course would have been diametrically opposed to the statutes of my Order; neither would its members have dared to act in such a manner, either against foreigners or the inhabitants my subjects, without incurring a heavy responsibility.

Finally, as it is impossible for my knights, putting aside the order of right, and neglecting the rule of our statutes, to restore to the above-mentioned Roger that which he claims, nothing remains in our power but to grant him the faculty of again prosecuting his right before the above-mentioned Court of Audience as in law so often and earnestly offered to the aforenamed attorney. Nor certainly can it be presumed, that your Majesty in your clemency and justice can desire anything farther. To this conclusion I am the more drawn from the decision of the advocate of the Admiralty himself, for he proposes the granting of letters of reprisal not for any other reason than that he supposed justice had been denied to the said Roger, and that he had been precluded from the remedy of a Court of Appeal. This having been an erroneous conclusion, the entire foundation of the above-mentioned opinion is wholly removed. And it is the more to be hoped that this decision will be approved of by your most serene Majesty, as my necessary subjection to the Apostolic See and to the Roman Pontiff cannot be unknown to your Majesty. From which it necessarily results that so large a sum could not be taken arbitrarily or by force from the parties concerned, without grave reprehension and prejudice, and also without infringing the forms of right as prescribed in the statutes above alluded to.

Confiding therefore in the singular clemency of your Majesty, I entertain a hope that your Majesty, moved by so many and such valid reasons, and considering also the high respect of this my Order towards your Majesty, will be pleased to direct the said Roger not to prosecute his right by other means than by action at law before the said Court of Audience. And that he at length will cease to excite the mind of your Majesty against the innocent by any such vain and unjust complaints; and that he refrain from any more seeking so inopportune and final a remedy of right, as the concession of letters of reprisal against an Order obediently subject to the wishes of your Majesty, and most ready to do anything for the advantage and utility of your Majesty's subjects, as those who daily touch at these