The Sun.
London, England, 1858-04-02 00:00:00

'kilt SUN, LONDON;FRIDAY EVENING,

THE CASE ,OF THE CAGLIARI.

••••
invoked the application to these facts of the lavr in
force in the kingdom, which declared every vessel
of a piratical character; or which had assisted the
enemies of the Crown to be good prize, and they
contended that the Cagliari was liable to condem-
nation on both these grounds. Now, the crime of
piracy by the law of nations is a crime of a settled
and determined nature, and whatever may be the.
diversity of definitions in other respects, all writers
on maritime law concur in holding that piracy, by
the law of nations, is robbery, or forcible depreda-
tion on the sea, committed animo furandi. tPirata
deprredator est in marl, et potent dici fur et latro
maris. Santerna, 1. 4n. 50. Pirata3 aunt latrones
maritimi. Straccha. It is competent, indeed, for
any nation to declare any offence to be piracy, but,
alth,iugh an offence may be declared to be piracy
by the municipal law of a State, it does not thereby
become piracy by the law of nations. A State, by
declaring an offence to be piracy, may authorise its
own tribunals to punish all offenders who may be
amenable to its municipal law, in the manner in
which pirates under the law of nations would be
punishable. The slave trade, for instance, has bean
declared by some States to be piracy, but those
States can only enforce their municipal law in this
respect against their own subjects, and against the
subjects of other States with which they have trea-
ties to that effect. Although, therefore, the breach
of the sanitary laws of the Kingdom of the Two
Sicilies may be punishable as piracy under the
territorial law of the State, foreign vessels are only
amenable to that law while they are navigated in
Sicilian waters. In a similar manner the other
offences charged against the Cagliari may be punish-
able as piracy under the special provisions of the
code of the Two Sicilies ; but the Cagliari was no
longer amenable to that code when she was once
more on the highway of nations ; neither could
she be rightfully seized thereon and reduced into
possession by the seizors, so as to be lawfully
brought by them before the Neapolitan tribunals
for a breach of that code. There is a certain class
of cases to be found in the reported judgments of
the English and the American Courts which way
seem at first sight to conflict with the position that
merchant ships cannot be rightfully seized on the
high seas by a foreign cruiser for a breach of the
municipal law of the State to which the cruiser
belongs ; for instance, the Statute Law of England
against hoverers (24th of Geo. 111., cap. 47), and
the Statute Law of the United States of America
against the importation of slaves (Act of 1807),
authorize the national cruizers to seize all merchant

The following opinion has been given in this
case by Dr. TraVers Twiss, the Vicar-General :
" Having been.requested to advise the Sardinian
Government whether the documents submitted to
me disclose any sufficient grounds for the seizure
and detention of the Sardinian ship Il Cagliari by
his Sicilian Majesty's steam cruisers, Il Tancredi
and L'Ettore Fieramosca, I have directed my atten-
tion particularly to the proceedings of the com-
mission of Maritime Prize at Naples, and to the
Act of Accusation preferred by his Majesty's Pro-
curator-General against the master and crew of
the Cagliari, before the High Criminal Court at
Salerno. The above-mentioned papers appear to
me, after .a careful examination of all the docu-
ments, to furnish the most material data for form-
ing a correct notion of the legal character of the
transaction—as they disclose the cases formally
set up by the Sicilian authorities on the one hand,
against the ship, and on the other against her
master and crew. There can be no doubt, on the
face of these documents, that the. Cagliari
was seized and detained by the Sicilian cruisers in
the strict sense assigned to those by the law of na-
tions. The log book of the Tancredi, which was
produced before the commission of prize, is con-
clusive evidence on this head against the seizors.
The entry of the 29ili of June, 1857, is to the fol-
lowing effect :—‘That at 8.45 a.m. the Tancredi
was about 12 miles to the westward of the Island
of Capri, cruising, in company with the Ettore
Fieramosca, which was about two miles astern of
her, when the Tancredi descried a vessel under
steam and sail, making a course from the waters of
Cape Licosa, which would carry her outside of the
most westerly headland of Capri. That the com-
mander of the Tancredi at once directed his vessel
towards the steamer, and at about half-past 9, per-
ceiving that she was edging away to the right, to-
wards the coast, he altered his course with a view to
cut her off ; soon after which he made out that she
was a Genoese mercantile steamer, and from her
appearance, suspectingtbat she was the vessel which
he was ordered to arrest, at about 10 o'clock, having
approached sufficiently near, he fired a shot across
her bows, and summoned her to obey his signal to
bring to ; that upon the steamer complying with
the summons by shutting off her steam and furling
her sails her captain was ordered to repairon boat d
the Tancredi with his papers ; meanwhile an armed
boat's crew in the Tancredi's launch was sent on
board the steamer to search her for munitions of
war ; that an opened case of 50 gun barrels, and a
case unopened, said to contain 50 double-barrelle4
fowling-pieces, and some other loose small arms,
were found on board the Cagliari, and she was
shortly afterwards taken in tow as prize by the
Ettore Fieramosca, the captain of the Cagliari
being detained a prisoner on board the Tancredi.'
Such are the circumstances of the seizure narrated
in the log of the Tancredi. The reports made by the
commanders of the cruisers to their naval superiors
at Naples, which were given in before the Court,
agreed with the statement in the log. There was
nothing in the depositions of Capt. Sitzia and two
of his crew which were read before the Court which
conflicted with the statement on the part of the
seizors as to thecircumstances and place ot the seizure
Captain Sitzia's depositions, which seem to have,
been made on interrogatories as in prize proceed-
ing, were chiefly explanatory of the events at
Ponza and at Sapri, and did net extend to any
matters subsequent to the departure of the vessel
from Sapri, excepting so far as he was asked cv!.y
he did not at once leave the port of Sapri and in-
form the anthorities on the continent. His answer
was that his crew were compelled to leave the
vessel, and that he could not put to sea with the
passengers only on board. It appears, however,
from the depositions of a physician named Mascero,
who was a passenger on board the Cagliari, and
who was examined with the other passengers
before the magistrates at Naples, and-whose state-
ment was confirmed by his companions, that the
master of the Cagliari on leaving Sapri had told
them that he intended to proceed to Naples and
make his report, but the witness dtd not state
whether he understood that this report was in-
tended for the Sardinian Legation or the Neapo-
litan police. This evidence, however, was
not put in before the Commission of Prize, neither
was it admissible consistently with the rules of prize
proceedings, unless further proof had been allowed
by the Court to the owners of the ship. But the
circumstance of the captain's having announced
his intention, whether he spoke with good faith or
not, could not affect the legal character of the sei-
zure, either in favour of the owners or in favour of
the seizors with respect to the locality where it was
effected. It results, then, from the evidence before
the Commission of Prize—and upon which evidence
the Court proceeded—that the cruisers were upon
the high seas when they first descried the Cagliari;
that the Cagliari herself was also at such time on
the high seas, steering a westerly course away from
the Neapolitan waters and in a direction to pass
outside the most westerly headland of Capri,
and that the seizure itself took place while the
Cagliari was still on the high seas. The ques-
tions which arise upon this state of facts are
confined within a narrow compass. The pursuit
commenced, and the seizure was effected upon the
high seas, which are Ittatius territorium, and with-
in which no State can claim to exercise jurisdiction
on the grounds of local sovereignty. A State may
enforce its municipal laws within its own territo-
rial waters ratione loci against the mercantile
ships and crews of all nations, which on leaving the
open highway of the ocean sustain a new and
special relation to the sovereign whose waters they
have entered. But on the high seas a vessel is
subject to no laws but those of her own nation, of
which the general maritime law forms a part, being
common to all States. In this sense, indeed, a
ship has been sometimes said to be an extension of
the territory of IJ-e nation to which she belongs,
and the slightest application of the municipal law
of another nation to her may be resisted. The loca-
liy of the se zure of the Cagliari being thus ou the
high seas,'end the locus in quo giving to a Sicilian
cruiser no absolute title to seize and detain a vessel
under the mercantile flag of another nation, it will
be convenient to examine how the seizure and de-
tention of the Cagliari might be justifiable ratione
personarum or ratione delicti. A ship may be
la wfullyseizsd on thehigh seas for a breach of its own
municipal law, or for a breach of the general
maritime law which is a portion of the lew of nation..
It can only, however, be seized for a violation of its
own municipal law by the authority of its own
sovereign, who may either commit his 'authority
directly to the commander of a ship under his own
flag, or may communicate indirectly to the cruiser
of another State, under a treaty engagement with
the Sovereign oethat State. In the absence, how-
ever, of any such treaty-engagement rights of sove-
reignty can only be enforced against a merchant-
ship on the high seas by a cruiser belonging to the
State under the protection of whose mercantile flag
the ship is sailing. The seizure of the Cagliari does
not come within the scope of either of the above
principles. She was sailing under the protection
of the Sardinian flag, wheregs the nationality of the
seizors was Sicilian. On the other hand, there was
no treaty-engagement between the Sardinian and
Sicilian Crowns which would authorise the
seizure of a Sardinian vessel on the high seas
by a Sicilian cruiser for a breach of the muni-
, oipal law of Sardinia. It may, however, be the case
that the seizure of the Cagliari by the Siciliansbips
of war was justified by the general maritime law,
which the public cruisers of all nations are entitled
to enforce against all private ships. A public vessel
is by the law of nations entitled to verify the flag of
a private vessel on the high seas, and no private
vessel is allowed by the law of nations to sail on
the high seas without proper documents on board
to establish her right to the flag which aloe carries.
This rule is tot ally independent of any special re-
gulatious of the State under whose flag she sails,
and if a public cruiser, on visiting a private ship on
the high seas, finds her unprovided with such ship's
documents as are required by the law of nations to
verify her flag, the cruiser may lawfully seize and
detain such vessel in the interest of the general
police of the seas. The owners of any such vessel
who may have sent her to sea without proper docu-
ments on board must abide the consequences re-
sulting from their own default. The Cagliari, how-
ever, was not amenable to seizure and detention
from any defect of her ship's documents. Her
ship's papers, according to the requirements of the
law of nations, wore regular and complete, and her
captain exhibited them without delay to the com-
mander of the Tancredi. There being so far no
breach of the law of nations on the part of the
owners of the Cagliari in the mode in which they
sent the vessel to sea, if any culpability attached to
her sufficient to justify her seizure and detention it
must have arisen out of the mode in which she was
navigated—in other words, the master and crew
must have committed Some breach of the law of
nations after they quitted the Sardinian waters.
The onus probandi on this head devolves upon the
seizors. The case set up by the seizors before their
own tribunals may be taken to be the best exposi-
tion of the grounds upon which they claim to sup-
portthe seizure. The ship appears to have been pro-
ceeded against Commissionttforethe
Naples in theof pirate and of
enemy,' by reason that she had infringed the
twofold character of
Prize at
sanitary regula ionPonzaof the Island of Ponza
that her crew had landed upon that island
and fought
against the troops of his Sici-
lian _ Majesty ;. that certain fugitive felons and
other persons in rebellion against the Crown of the
Two Sicilies had disembarked fi ona her at Sapri ;
and that she was on her way back to Ponza, to em-
bark other fugitive felons, -when she was pursued
and captured by the Sicilian cruisers. The seizors

vessels which are found with certain cargoes on

board, beyond the limits of the ordinary maritime
jurisdiction, and vessels so seized have been brought
for adjudication before the tribunals of the seizors,
and sentence of forfeiture has been pronounced
against them. Again, the same and other statutes
in matters of trade authorize the seizure of vessels
which have committed an act of forfeiture within
the territorial jurisdiction, although they may be
met with by the cruiser on the high seas. Such
laws, however, are only an authority to the
seizors before the tribunals of their own Sovereign,
but they are no authority to the State which has
enacted them against the Sovereign Power under
the protection of whose flag the vessel was sailing
on the high seas at the time of the seizure, if such
Sovereign Power should not acquiesce in her seizure,
and should demand her restitution. Mr. Jus' ice
St iry, iu the Marianna Flora (11 Wheaton's Re-
ports, p. 40), has pointed out that the State which
authorizes by her municipal laws her cruizars to
effect such seizures, incurs a responsibilie y towards
foreign Powers in executing such laws ; in fact, it
is only under the comity of nations in matters of
trade that a State can venture to put such laws into
execution ; it exercises in such matters only a
permissive jurisdiction, and if any other State
should remonst? ate and resist their applica-
ti in, she must withdraw her claim to enforce such
laws. L trd Stowell, in the well-known slave case,
Le Louis' (2 Dodson p. 246), alludes to an in-
stance of thiskind in the case of a Swedish ordinance
authorising S vedish cruisers to examine foreign
vessels on the high seas bound to Swedish ports,
which, however, was resisted by the British Go-
rnxnent as unlawful, and the claim was finally
withdrawn by the Swedes. In ordinary cases, in-
deed, where a merchant ship has been seized on the
high seas for a violation of the laws of another
State in matters of trade, the sovereign whose flag
has been violated waives his privilege, considering,
the offending ship to have acted with mala fides to-
wards the other State with which he is in amity,
and to have consequently forfeited any just claim to
his protection. It is for the sovereign alone, not
for the individual whose ship has been seized, to
assert the inviolability of the flag, precisely as in
time of war, when an enemy's vessel has been cap-
tured in neutral waters,' the claim ofnieutral
privilege must be made by the State whose terri-
tory has been violated; and cannot be set up in bar
to the seizure by the owners of the ship. In the
present case the King of Sardinia, whose mercantile
flag has been violated on the high seas, has asserted
the privilege of his flag, and has claimed the resti.
tution of the vessel, considering that the transac-
tion does not disclose any case of mala fides towards
the •Sicilian State on the part either of the owners
of of the master and crew, and the King of the
Two Sicilies cannot set up the provisions of his own
law as an answer to a claim made under the law of
nations. The case of the Carlo Alberto, in 1832,
sited by the Sicilian Crown lawyers, conflicts in no
possible way with the above view of the law. The
Carlo Alberto was a Sardinian merchant ship, which
had been chartered at Leghorn by the Duchess de
Berri, with the object of effecting a landing of her-
self and her adherents on the coast of France. The
vessel left the port of Leghorn, having on the face
of her papers au ostensible destination to Barcelona,
and she succeeded in landing the Duchess and her
partisans near the port of Marseilles. The vessel,
thereupon put out to sea again, and left the French
waters, but was sulssequen ly compelled by accident
to Ler boilers to put beck into Lc .ea _:etced of °iota',
and so placed herself again within the territorial
jurisdiction of the French Crown. Her master and
crew were thereupon so zed by the municipal offi-
cers of police and brought before a French tribunal,
on a charge of having violated the municipal law of
France. The Court at Aix entered them to be re-
leased, as having been arrested in violation of the
law of nations • but the Court of Cessation, upon
appeal, overruled the decree of the inferior court,
and condemned the master and crew for an offence
against the municipal law of Franc-, by taking
part in an enterprise against the security of the
State. No pte c edings were, however, instiemted
against the ship as prize, and she appears to have
been restored to her owners. It will b 3 at once
seen that there is this notable distinction between
the Carlo Alberto and the Cagliari, that the crew
of the former vessel when seized were within the
local jurisdiction of the State whose municipal law
they had violated, and • the ordinary courts of the
country were accordingly competent to try them
for a breach of such law, whereas the Cagliari was
on the high seas when her master and crew fell
into the hands of the seizors. The judgment, how-
ever, of the-Commission of Prize at Naples did not
go all the way with the seizors. The Court ap-
pears to have condemned the ship, not as a pirati-
cal vessel, but as an enemy's ship ; and it further
condemned a portion of her cargo as contraband of
war, decreeing the restitution of the remainder of
her cargo to the owner of it. The Court applied to
the seizure of the Cagliari the considerations of law
which attach to captures made during time of war.
Assuming, than, from the moment, that the trans-
actions in which the ship was engaged at Ponza
and Sapri bore the character of what has been
termed by publicists be//um mixtum, the master
and crew would no doubt be subject to the penalties
which the law of nations has sanctioned. But the
master and ciew have been indicted before the
High Criminal Court at Salerno, not for any offence
against the law of nations, but for an offence against
the municipal law of the Two Sicilies. They are
charged with being accessories to an act of
high treason committed by subjects of his
Sicilian Majesty in an attempt to change the Go-
vernment of the country, and a tribunal whose func-
tion it is to administer the municipal law is asked to
proaoutice them liable to the penalties prescribed by
the 123 d section of the code of the Two Sicilies,
which says Emisfatto di le3a Maesta e punite
colla morte et col terzo grado di publico esempio
l'attentato ela cospirazione the abbia per oggetto o
di distruggere o di cambiard it Governor o di ecci-
tare i sudditti a gli abitanti del regno al armarsi
contro Pautorith reale.' The penalties thus invoked
against the master and crew of the Cagliari are upon
the face of the Atto di Accusa penalties unknown
to the law of nations, the offence itself being that
of 'imam irajestatis,' an offence also unknown to
the law of nations. To return, however, to the
judgment of the Commission of Prize, it is perfectly
clear—to borrow the language (mutatis mutandis)
of Lord Stowell in his judgment on Le Louis, 2
Dodson, page 246—that the Cagliari could not be
deemed a pirate from any want of a national cha-
racter legally obtained. She was the property,
not of sea rovers, but of acknowledged Sardinian
subjects ; she had Sardinian ships' papers on board,
and was an acknowledged portion of the mercan-
tile marine of that country. If, therefore, the
character of. pirate could be imprewed upon her,
it must be only on the ground of her occupation.
Under the orders of her owners she was bound with
passengers and cargo from Genoa to Tunis, touch-
nag at Cagliari. Under the conduct of those on
beard of her she was, as alleged on behalf of the
Crown of the Two Sicilies,- instrumental to an act
of high treaeon against the Sicilian State. Neither
of these occupations can be legally deemed piracy,
so as I o subjezt her to seizure wherever found as
hostis humani generic. , The cite; ge, indeed, of
piracy was not noticed in the judgment. It may

WOOL AND W OOLt,EN MARKETS.

TRADE or LEEDS, Tw-sday.—We have. no new
feature to notice in the market this morning.
There has been a fair steady Tuesday's business
transacted, principally in light summer goods.
HUDDERSFIELD,.Tuesday.—Tne improved char-
acter of the market, reported on the previous Tues-
day, was fully supported, tie() tendency being to a
better order of transactions, and a feeling of re-
newed confidence. The business is still to a con-
siderable extent restricted to purchasers in the
cheaper qualities of good, and the bulk as yet
changing hands bears a disadvantageous proportion
to the operations of former years. The inquiries
for summer goods are, however, gradually increas-
inv, and the genial aspect of the weather has con-
firmed the hopes of manufacturers in that direction.
In wool we can report no variation.

lADvsariszmmer.l A few more of the extraordinary cures
without Medicine of ladigch tion (Dyspepsia), Flatulency,
Constipation, Nervous, Bilious, and Liver complaints, Cough,
Asthma, Consumption, and Debility effected by Du Barry's
delicious health-restoring Revalenta Arabica Fe«l, are
here given : Cure 52,422. Bridgehouse, Frimley, 3d
April, 'lBs4.—Thirty-three years' diseased lungs, spitting
blood,oocstirtiion, debility, derangement,tlivedriliy,
s shortness of nedeafnes singing in the ears,
coustipption, ,
breath,
and cough, have
been removed by your Revalenta Arabica, My lungs, liver,
stomach, head, and ears aro all right, my healing perfect, and
my recovery is a marvel to all my acquaintances.—JAMES
ROBERTS, Wood Merchant. —From the Venerable Atch-
deacon. of Ross.—No. 32,838. —Three years' excessive
nervousness with pains in my neck and left arm, and
general debility, which rendered my life very miserable,
has been radically removed by Du Barry's health-restoring
Food.—ADEXAYDER STUART, Archdeacon of Ross, Skibereen.
Supported by testimonials from the following celebrated Pro-
fessors of Chemistry: Dr. A. Ure; Dr. Shorland; Dr. Harvey;
Dr. Campbell ; Dr. Gattiker ; Dr. Wurzer; Dr. Ingram ;
Lord Stuart de Decies; the Dowager Countess of Castlestuart;
Major Gee. Thomas King, and many other respectable per-
edwith full msoenas;iswohfocsuerehetaaldthfahialosdb.eensnii•te:btoivredpacbky it, after all other
instruc-
tions, In canisters, 11b. 2s, 9d.; 224- 4s. ed ; 51b. lls. ;
121 b. ggs. The 121 b canisters are sent carriage free on re-
ceipt of Post-office order. Barry Du Barry, and Co., 77,
Regent-street, London. Important Caution against the fear-
ful dangers of spurious imitations.—The Vice-Chaucellor Sir
William Page Wood granted an Injunction on the 10th March,
1854, against Alfred Hooper Nevin, for imitating' "Du
' Barry's Revalenta Arabica Food.",

APRIL 2, Ig5R„

therefore be dismissed as a chargn which the Court POLICE IN:
regarded as not sustained upon the evidence before
it. The condemnation of the ship seems to hvae GUILDHALL.---Mr. Richardson, of Charles-
proceeded on the ground that there was war de facto street, St. James's, stated that he had received a
between the ship and the Crown of the Two Sicilies. notice from the. cashier of this court informing
Now war, according to Grotius, is not an act of him that the magistrate had directed the flue
hostility, but it is the_state and situation of those recently imposed on the Mariquita- Gold Mining
,
who dispute by force of arms--'l7s us obtinet, ut non Company to be paid to him (Mr. Richardson) in
actio, sed status eo nomine indicetur, ita ut sit bel- aid of the costs incurred by him ins prosecuting
lum Status per vim certantium, quo tales seine— the complaint against that company for not corn-
Grotius de Bello et Pace, 1. 1. c. 1. According to plying the requirements of the last Joint-Stock
the above definition it seems difficult to understand. Companies Act. He said the complaint was not
how any of the doctrines of war can apply to the made merely on his own account, but on behalf
seizure of the Cagliari. There was amity between of the other shareholders, and he therefore de-
tne two Crowns, and there was no dispute by force dined to accept the amount of the fine in aid of
between the two vessels. The Cagliari submitted at his expenses, and begged it might be placed in
once upon being warned to bring to ;no r sistancc
the poor-box.
was made by her master and crew, no act of a hos- Sir J. Mitserove said he was much obliged to
tile nature was committed by them against the Mr. Richardson for remembering the poor-box, as
cruisers. As far, then, asthe conduct of the ma-ter
pitiable objects presented themselves from time to
and crew of the. Cagliari in imatediatb relation to time to whom a few shillings from the magistrate
the cruisers is concerned everything consists with a proved a great assistance. Sir John expressed a
lope that the decision of the presiding Alderman
state of peace. It was however, contended, on the
part of the seiz r 4 that the outrages committed by who imposed the fine would be beneficial to the
the revolters at Ponza and at Sepri constituted a
shareholders.
state of hostilities whereby the Cagliari became Mr. Richardson said it had settled one point ;
lawful prize of war ; in other words, that the Ca- but a fresh difficulty arose under the new Joint-
gliari was infected with the guilt of the revolts and
stock Companies Act, which deprived shareholders
that the revolt had outgrown the propoitions of an of the privilege they were entitled to under the
insurrection to be put down by the civil authorities former Act of inspecting the minute-book of the
aided by an armed force, and had acquired the ex- company.
ttemecharacter of a civil war. Now, it is compe-
tent to every State which is imperilled by a revolt
to proclaim martial law. It may use its military
power to put down an armed insurrection too strong
to be controlled by the civil authority. It may fur-
ther,
by declaring martial law, constitute a state of
war under which the sovereign authority ;may ree ert '
to the rights and usages of war to maintain its ,lf
and to overcome any unlawful opposition. (" Lutl.er
v. Borden," 7 Howard's Reports, p. 46.) But a
temporary disturbance of the peace of the country,
however violent it may be for the time, cannot be
subaequeutly invested by the judicial sentence of a
Court with the character of a state of war, so as to
reflect upon the property of the subjects of another
State seized ou the high seas during the disturbance,
and, to render it amenable to the grave consequences
which by the law of nations attaches to the property
of enemies captured on the high seas during war.
Vattel 1. 111., c. 18, s. 292, ma' ea the distiuc' ion
between & civil war and a rebellion to consist in
the fact 'that in the former the malcon-
tent have some reason to take up arms, while the
latter is a rising against the legitimate autho-
rity destitute of all appearance of justice.'
' The Sovereign,' he remarks, does not fail to
call all his subjects who resist him, rebels, but
when they are strong enough to Make head against
him so as to oblige him to make war against them
regularly he must resolve to endure the expression
"civil war."' Vattel proceeds further to remark
that 'in the case of civil war the common laws of
war are to be observed by both belligerents. If the
Sovereign considers himself entitled to hang his-pri-
soners as rebels the opposite party wilt use repri-
sals.' It is unnecessary, however, to pursue this
iiunject further. The Government of the Two Side
lies has decided to regard the revolt as an act of re-
bellion against the Stet', and to try the revolters
under the ordinary criminal law as guilty of high
' treason. They have include iin the same criminal
proceedings the maser and clew of the Cagliari as
accessories to the attempt or the conspiracy to
change the Government of the country. The Pro-
curator-General of the King of the Two Sicilies en-
deavoured before the Commission of Prize to recon-
cile the civil proceedings against the ship with the
criminal proceedings ag iinst the master and crew,
on the grounds that there was this distinction be-
tween a bellum mi.etum and a bellum publicum,—
that when a bellum mixtum was brought to an end
-the jus imperil to punish those who had engaged
in it revived, and might be exercised by the Sove-
reign ; whereas in a bellum publicum the return of
peace brings with it a general amnesty. It is obvi-
ous,however, that the jus imperii can only revert
to te Sovereign in relation to his own subjects.
The jus imperii, can h ave uo application to the
subjects of another State—against the latter the
rights which were founded on the state of bellum
mixtum terminate with the occasion of them ; so
that if it could be maintained that at the conclusion
of a Nikon mixtum the Sovereign may enforce
against such of his prisoners as are his subjects and
owe him allegiance the penalties which are pre-
scribe I by his municipal law for certain offences
committed in time of peace, which proposition, how-
ever, is totally inconsistent with the whole doctrine
of bellum mixtum as distinguished from civil tumu t,
tha theory of the revival of the jus imperii at the
termination of the war cannot be extended to
the master and crew of the Cagliari, who were
de jure subjects of the Sardinian Crown, and were
not de facto within the allegiance of the King of
the Two Siciliea. Upon the best consideration which
I have been able to give to this impertant question,
which involves in its simplest form sore intricacies
of law, but which has become inv4vd in greater
intricacies by the legal proceedings on the pert of
the Sicilian authorities subsequent to the seizure,
I am brought to the conclusion that the seizure and
detention of the Cagliari under the circumstances
sttted in the log of the seizors was not justifiable
by the lawof nations, which is the onlylaw whereby
the cruizers of a sovereign power can be entitled to
seize and detain on the high seas a merchant ship
sailing under the protection of the flag .of another
sovereign. The'right to demand the restitution of
the ship together with her master and crew on the
ground of the violation of the flag rests with the
sovereign whose flag has been violated. If the High
Criminal Court at Salerno, however, should con-
demn the master and crew under the 123 d section
of-the penal law of the Two Sicilies, and the Sici-
lian Government should proceed to enforce the pe-
nalties of its municipal law against the craw of the
Cagliari,' it will be competent at ertsh time if any of
the crew should happen to be subjects of any other
foreign Power than Sardinia, for that Power to in-
terfere in behalf of its subjects, on the ground that-
the municipal law of the seizors cannot under the
circumstances of their seizure be rightfullyenforcel
against them. I amunwilling, however, toconclude
this expression of my' opinion as to what I appre-
hend to be the strict law applicable to the case of
the Cagliari without alluding to a possible incon-
venience which may seem to result from such a con-
dition of the law, viz., that a State would be help-
less to check or punish outrages on its coasts which
do not amount to piracy committed by vessels under
the mercantile flag of anether State -if such vessels
can only escape in time on to the. high seas before
the cruisers of the State fall in with them. The re-
medy, however, for such au anomaly, which is in
practice more ideal than real, is found in thee enity
of nations, which tempers the law of nations, just as
equity tempers the appl.c stion of the rules of posi-
tive law to civil transactions. The privilege of the
flag, as already observed, is the privilege of the
Sate, and when there is mala fides in the wrong-
doers, the State, through courtesy, waives its pri-
vilege,' and extends no longer the aegis of. its
nationality over its subjects, but either permits the
State which has been injured to avenge the breach
of its laws through its own tribunals, or will assist
it to obtain redress against the wrongdoer before
the Courts of their own country, if they have in
any way made themselves amenable to punish-
ment for a breach of their own laws.
" TRIVERS TWISS.
"Doctors'-commons, March 22."

IZ-April 1

BOW-STREET. —A dirty untidy-looking woman
named Isabelle Driscoll was charged with stealing
a gold ring.
Prisoner went into the shop of Messrs. Dobree
and Tomlinson in the S'rand, and asked to look at
some w..dding-iings. A case was shown to her by
the foreman, and she tried on about half-a-d n,
ono of which she abstracted, but not without being
detected by the young man, who at once taxcu
her with the theft. She denied it, but he was
so cert.:in of it that he determined to give her in
charge. At the stationhou-e the female searcher
o-,served that prisoner had something tightly
clenched in her hand, and on forcing it open took
from her the ring in qwstion. She gave a fLlse
address at the station.
Prisoner said it was her husband's address, hut
she was separated from him. She bad no regular
means of living, and no home "in particular." Sue
pleaded guilty to the charge.
Mr. Ball sentenced her to imprisonment for six
months.

MARYLEBONE. Yesterday, Mr. Arthur
Gratigor, a starioner, &c., at 308, High Holborn,
was charged, at the instance of Mr. Col;ard, super-
in'eratent of the Great Western Railway Company's
police, wi di having sent a pack-t addressed to Mr.
Underiull, Tipton, Staffordshire, the said packet
being of an inflammable nature.
Tue defendant plea tad gttil y, and he was con-
victed in the penalty of 101. and costs.
Mr. Collard said, that some time ago inflammable
matter was sent by railway, and that 10001. damage
occurred.

THAMESI.—Thomas Jenman, aged 42, the
cook of the steamer Gibraltar, lying in the L radon
Dock, was charged wit) smuggling 341 h. of foreign
manufactured tobacco, by which hs had incurred
penalty of 1001.
Mr. Cumberland, from the Customs' solicitor's
office, pr..sacuted on the part of the Crown. Mr.
Charles Young, solicitor, defended the prisoner.
Mr. George Hardy, a tide surveyor of Customs,
stated that the Gibraltar was trading. bet seen this
port and Cadiz. On Thursday she arrived in the
London Dock. and he sear.:hel a cabin, in which
were two berths, occupied by t le prisoner and the
third mate, and found 9JO cigars, weighing 311 b.,
concealed i a the lining of the vessel. The p!acs of
deposit was very artfully made. He had to re-
move a board at the bottom cf the cabin, and th-n
take away a batten on which it rested, before he
could discover the hiding place.
In cross-examination by Mr. Young the witness
said the prisoner declared the cigars were not his
and that it was very hard to take him. The pri-
soner also said that he did not know the cigars were
in the ship until that day. Tae third mate left
th,e ship while he was seizing the first lot of cigars.
He intended to arrest the third mate wherev he
could find him.
Mr. Cumberland said the Custoals' Act was ve

stringent, and necessarily so. The whole of the
people on board were liable to be arres,ed, and
could be fine I ; bait the C immissionerA of 0 istoms
had only sleet those for prosecution who must
have had a guilty knowledge of the cigars being
secreted.
Mr. Claridge, Qmen's appraiser of condemned
goods in the port of London, said the cigars pro-
duced were of foreign mauufaJture, and. 'lathe to a
duty of 9•,. sd. per lb.
Mr. SASe. sentene,,d the prisoner to pay a fine of
Mr/, to the Queen, and be imprisonei until it was
paid.
Mr. Young—The cigars really did not belong to
the cook. They were the property of the third
' mate of the steamer.

SOUTEIWARK.—JAmes Berry was brought up
for ilia, examination, cha!g,d wt t wlially and
knowingly uttering several counterfeit crown
pieces to diff-J.ent tradeqp,ople in Bermondsey.
There were a great number of the prisoner's vic-
tims in court to identify him.
The prisoner was committed. fur trial.

L A.MBET ft —Henry Warherton, a well-dresse 1
and respectable-looking young man, who has
studiously avoided giving any account of bimsolf
by which he might be traced, bur wOo is suspected
to belong to a gang of expert tnieves who commit
robb-ries at puhliclioas,,s and heershops, was
brought up foe ui d ex.amiliation, charged with
atteinptlng to corarnit a robbery at the Queen beer-
house, East-street, Kent-road, on the 18ai of last
month.
Aft -r a recapitulation of the evidence given on
the former occasion,
The prisoner hev,ged hard to be dealt with by the
magistrate, declaring he should never commit such
an act again.
Mr. Norton said,—Do you wish to give any ac-
count of yourself, your place of residence, or who
your friends are ?
prisoner—l should rather not, as Ish ,uld only
be bringing disgrace upon my friends, who are
molt respectable.
Mr. Norton—Have you any objection to give up
the names of your confederates in this attempted
robbery to the police, so that they may be able to
trace them ?
Prisoner—l'd rather not, sir ; I h Iva no wish to
bring them into trouble.
Mr. Norton—How canyon expect, after thus re-
fusing to (live any account of yourself or your weo-
! ciates, that I shall deal favourahly with you ? Be-
sides, the case is of too serious a character to be
summarily dealt with, and I shall therefore send
you to take your trial at the Old Bailey.

WANDSWORTH.—The four prisoners, James
Touusend, alias Bennett, his cousin, Eliza Rome,
Richard, a general dealer, of Saffron-hill, Holborn,
and William Jones, a watchmaker, of No. 3,
Gravel-lane, Southwark, who have been so ire
quently remanded on the numerous charges pre-
ferred against them by persons from all par is of the
metropolis, were fully committed fur trial b) Me.
Dayman.
Tounsend, who is alleged to have 1.2 wive', and
who is committed. for trial for an attempt at mur-
der, presented to the court the following extraor-
dinary written statement as his &fence :—" Myself
and another man, named George Lewis, went to a
house in St. George's-road, Pimlico, to a policeman
named Fells. We wont with the intention of rob-
ing a house at 114, Warwick-street, St. George's-
road. The time we went wagon a Sunday. i be-
lieve about 1 o'clock. Mr. Fells was then mindin g
an empty house. We told him we had come to do
the j ib in Warwick-street. He said we could go
ui:stairs, then no one would see us hanging about.
We then could see the house we intended to r.,b.
We watched the house all Sunday afternoon till
about 11 o'clock on Sunday night. We then left
Fell's house and went towards 114, Warwick-street.
George Lewis then got over the railing mei forced
the window up, and got in. He had been in the
house about five minutes when I heard a woman
scream. I then went back to Fells's house, and
told him that George Lewis had got in, and I
thought he was knocking the girl about, as I heard
her scream. Fells then said, He will not butt the
girl.' I said, '1 doo'c know, he will not come out
without the plate.' Fells ghen said ho thought he
should go to bed. He then said, 'lf you get it,
bring it clown the are a steps and put it under them,
as it will be all right, no one will look there. You
can then place a stone between the railings near the
gate, and I then shall know it is allright.' I came the
next morning, and Fells told me what was there. I
fetched it away in a bag, and met George Lewis.
We disposed of the plate, and we then went to see
Fell.. We :met him down by Grosvenor-place.
We then gave him some money, and then went and
bad something to drink. The rope that was found
round the girl's neck was Fell's rope." The pri-
soner also made another charge against Fells, who
belongs to the B division, of conspiring with him
in ebtaining money from a young woman named
Juliet Akins, whom he married in the name of
Charles Lewis, the fact being known to Fells that
he was already a married man.
Fe the officer alluded to, has been watching
the c from the commencement, and gives a posi-
tive cl-mial to the charges. He prcves a f,rmer
I comic ion against Tounsend.