AVES ISLAND. 245 



offending delinquent State, and hath been held to be a writ of common 

 right, not to be "denied," or ''withheld," or "delayed-" to any "free- 

 man." 



Several ancient English statutes prescribe and regulate the mode of 

 procedure by a subject to obtain such suit, 



' ' Commissions or letters of general reprisal or letters of marque ' ' 

 rest more completely in the discretion of the executive power, and in 

 which those considerations of prudence and expediency often controlling 

 the intercourse between nations (waiving strict rights) have governed 

 ^^ ordinary or s])ecial letters of reprisal," being, as before observed, in 

 the nature of a judicial process, to which the subject is entitled of right, 

 such considerations should not, except in extraordinary cases, be allowed 

 controlling influence. 



And to the honor and glory of England it may be said, that from 

 the time of Magna Charta no instance is known to have occurred in 

 which her monarchs have hesitated to exert the royal authority in 

 behalf of a subject seeking just redress from a foreign State by the use 

 of a "sj)ecial letter of reprisal." 



A memorable case, a worthy example to all governments, occurred 

 during the time of the Lord Protector Cromwell, and is related by 

 British historians with pride, though a celebrated French writer styled 

 it "insolent justice." 



An English Quaker having had some property seized by the French 

 in the time of Cardinal Mazarin, and meeting with no success in his 

 efforts to procure reparation from that government, called personally 

 on Cromwell and made his complaint, who, after hearing him, gave 

 him a letter to Mazarin, and told him to deliver it in person, and to 

 wait three days for an answer and then return. Eeceiving no answer 

 on his return, Cromwell issued a "special letter of reprisal" and seized 

 a sufficiency of French property to indemnify the English Quaker. 

 The French acquiesced in the peaceful remedy. 



It is true that, in 1752, when the law of special reprisals was applied 

 to Great Britain by the King of Prussia in the celebrated Silesian loan 

 case, the British court illustrated the moral of that famous fable of 

 -^sop in relation to the bull goring the ox, in a way not uncommon 

 with that power, by objecting to this application to lier, and since that 

 case it may be noted that some British publicists seem disposed to adopt 

 the doctrines of Sir Dudley Kyder, Lord Mansfield, and the Duke of 

 Newcastle in their correspondence with the Prussian minister, repu- 

 diating principles before then maintained by every British writer of 

 established reputation. It may be said, however, that the sequestra- 

 tion by the King of Prussia of the money due to British merchants on 

 the Silesian loan for the capture of Prussian vessels by the British^ for 

 an alleged violation of neutrality, was a case of some doubt, especially 

 insomuch as^he parties injured had full redress in the prize or admi- 

 ralty courts of Great Britain, into which the captured property had to 

 be taken, and which had full judicial power to award damages for an 

 illegal capture. Nevertheless, though the fact (as it is conceived from 

 false notions of what was the true glory and honor of that country) is 

 concealed by every British author who has adverted to the case, the 

 British government ultimately yielded to Prussia, and adjusted the 



