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.