The Sun.
London, England, 1858-06-21 00:00:00

TILE CAGLIARI DESPATCHES.

In the Sun of Friday last we published at length
the final despatch addressed by Lord Malruesbury
to the Neapolitan Minister of Foreign Affairs,
Commendalore Carafa, under date of the 25th of
May, and also the reply of the Neapolitan Minis-
ter, dated the Bth of June, by which the Govern-
ment of the Two Sicilies expressed its unwilling con-
sent to the British and Sardinian demands, and pro-
mised the payment of 3,0001. as a compefisation to
the imprisoned English engineers, together with the
restitution of the steamboat Cagliari, to be deli-
vered up to Mr. Lyons, and the immediate release
of her crew. It was at the same tirie mentioned
that there were two despatelrs of Lord Malmesbury
of the same date, the 25th ult., but only the second
and more decisive of these documents was printed
by us on Friday. The first despwch, which is re-
quisite to complete the correspondence, is as fol
lows :--•

No e of Lord Malmesbury to Signor Carafa.
Foreign-office, May 25, 1858.
Sir,—l had the honour to receive on the 14. h
inst., your excellency's reply, dated the 6th inst.,
to my letter of the 15th of April, stating the expec-
tation of her Majesty's government that the govern-
ment of the King of the Two Sicilies would make
compensation to the two British engineers captured
on board the Cagliari steamer, for the long and
cruel imprisonment to which they had been so un-
justly exposed, but leaving it, at least in the first
instance, to the Neapolitan government spontane-
ously to specify the amount of compensation they
were prepared to offer.
Her 111.jesty's government learn with sincere re-
gret from your excellency's letter that the govern-
ment of Naples will not make any spontaneous
offer of compensation, not consider;ng itself, as you
state, iu any respect bound to do so. It is, there-
fore, my duty to inform your excellency that
her IV ajesty's Bove: amutt, continuing t
take the same view that they have hitherto
done of the obligation of the government of
Nap'es to make compensation to these much injured
British subjects, persistin their detuand ; and as the
Neapolitan Government will not itself take the
initiative of offering ate adequate sum, it only re-
mains f )r her Majesty's Government themselves to
fix the amount.

But I consider it due to your excellency's high
position not altogether to leave with com:r.eat
many of the statements and arguments c attained
in your let'er of the 6th inst., and I must in the
first place be permitted to observe. that that letter
rests upon an entirely erroneous basis' inasmuch
as it assumes that the Government of Naples had
originally a rightful jurisd;ction over the British
engineers, and that such jurisdiction was acknow-
leiged, or was not disputed, in the various debates
upou the subj•tct in thq British Parliament.
But that jurisdiction is not only now repudiaied
by her M .jesty's Government, but was deniel in
my letter of the 15th of April, in which I informed
your excellency that her Majesty's Government
demandnl compensation for the British engince7•s,
not merely because they were too severely treated,
or imprisoned for too long a period, but because
their treatment was from the first wholly unjusii-
fiab:e ; and I need scarcely remind you that the
question of jurisdiction is still pending between the
Neapolitan and Sardinian Governments, the la't,J.
Laving explicily demanded not only the restitu
tion of the Cagliari, but also the liberation of the
whole of her crew, as Laving beenoriginally seized
and detained, in violation of the law of nations.
Her Majesty's Government might have reason-
ably expected to find in your excellency's letter of
the Gth inst. a statement of the grounds on which
the Neapolitan Government maintain that they
had jurisdiction over these two British subjects,
forcibly seized by Neapolitan officers on board a
friendly vessel on the high seas in time of peace,
and forcibly removed out of that vessel and im-
prisoned in the Neapolitan territory. The govern.
ment of Naples li td no prima facie right to act in
this mariner, its duty hiving been to set these Bri-
tish subjects forthwith at liberty ; and the onus of
establishing her jurisdiction or rigbt to act other-
wise rests with that Government.

Your excellency, so f from attempting to show
that the Neapolitan Government had any jurisdic-
tion to seize the British subjects and to try them
for any municipal offenc3 against Neapolitan law,
is content to refer b certain implie 1 admissions to
that effect in the debates of the British Parliament.

But it is my duty to point out to your excellency
that the British Parliament is neither a court of
law nor is it the ex-cutive government of th's
country, audit is not collective!), invested with any
such attribu'es as your exceleney appears to sup-
pose ; and, in point of fact, the Parliament has
never come to any resolution or vote on the subject
of the Caglari, having, on the contrary, carefully
abstained from doing so.
Moreover, neither Parliament collectively, nor
her Majesty's Government, are in any manner re-
sponsible for, or bound by any expressions used by
any individual members of Parliament in debate,
a'id consequeu.ly, nothing which may have been
either said or omitted in Parliament can have any
tearing on the quettien of jurisdiction.
But, unless the jurisdiction of the Neapolitan
government is in the first place established, there
is no occasion to clisouss the question of the guilt or
innocence of the British engineer?. The govern-
ment of Naples, if it had no jurisdiction, was a
wrongdoer from the first and throughout ; and even
if the British engineers had been previously guilty
of any breach of the penal code of Naples, they
could not, under the circumstances, have rightly
been brought to trial for it by the Neapolit to
courts. Her Majesty's government must therefore
str mgly protest against the frtquent refe onees
made by your excellency to the Neapolitan code
and procedure. Her Majesty's government have
nothing to do with the Neapolitan municipal law,
to which they deny that these British engineers
were amenable ; and I cannot but remark that there
is no charge against them of having committed any
act of piracy under the law of nations.
Nevertheless, her Mrjesty's Government, al-
though insisting on this point, as of right, will not
refrain from observing that, as regards the ques-
tion of the guilt or innocents of the British engi-
neers, two propositiops appear to be clearly esta-
blished. •

1. Tcat not one act of violence or outrage of
any deser:ption is even charged against either of
them, their guilt being sought to be inferred, n ;t
from their having been passive throughout.
2. Thatthe Neapolitan G ,verninent having from
the tint possession of the ship am) of all who had
been at any time on board of her, and of their
papers, was at once able to discriminate and distin-
guish, and did actually discriminate and distinguish,
between the guilty and the innocent by releasing
some and detaining others, and the Neapolitan go-
vernment does not seriously contend that it in fact
considered, or that it would have been justified in
con,idering, all on board guilty.
From the minute detail given by your excellency
of the occurrences on beatd. the Cagliari, and of the
participation therein of certain individuals of her
crew (such as Lorenzo Acquarone and Giuseppe
Mercurio), it results that the first inquiries insti-
tuted by the Neapolitan Government established
the guilt of semi and the innocence of others of
tilose persons ; those who offered no violence to any
one, who never lauded, who remained on beard and
returned in the vessel toward Naples, ought by the
same principle to have been held innocent. Such
innocence was established in August, 1857, as to
several passengers, who were also then released.
Th oNeapolrtan Government has not, therefore,
attempted to set upon what your excellency de-
scribes as the first logical conclusion which must
necessarily have presented itself, viz., the assumed
guilt of the captain and crew, by bringing indiscri-
minately to trial all who were originally part of the
crew. On the contrary, it has in effect a lmitted
that this principle of assuming, without reference
to fact) the built of all indiscriminately is as ill°.
gical as unjust and unreasou4ble, and yet it hag do-