Rassegna storica del Risorgimento

Yingland, Piedmont, and the Cagliari affair 151
Clarendon's instructions to Hudson, which put as the opinion of the govemment those very views which the Law Officers contested, and which clearly hinted at what line of conduct Britain expected Cavour to follow, appcar to have had a twofold purpose. Firstly, Clarendon suspected that if Piedmont failed to object to the Neapolitan procedures regarding the Ca­gliari then England, no matter how favourable the legai posinoti, could not alone prò test, since the Cagliari was a Piedmontese vessel.15) Secondly, Clarendon probably believed that if Piedmont could be encouraged to for-mally question the legality of the capture on the very grounds that he him-self had earlier suggested to the Law Officers, then it would strengthen his claim that ali subsequent procedures against Watt and Park had been illegal.
Unaware of the instructions which Clarendon had sent to Hudson, the Law Officers reported back to the Foreign Secretary on New Year's Day, 1858. They concluded that Watt and Park had to be considered bound by the acts of the ship's captain; and that the Neapolitan frigates, under the particular circumstances of the case, had a right to pursue and capture the Cagliari beyond the territorial jurisdictìon of Naples. Piedmont could not object to the seizure, since the captain of the Cagliari had intended to vol-untarily give up the vesseL Britain could not object to the seizure if Pied­mont did not.16) What Clarendon had represented as the opinion of the Whig govemment in his despatch to Hudson of 29 December had, it seemed, no basis in English or international law.
Clarendon's dispute with the Law Officer's was to have considerable ramifìcations on Anglo-Piedmontese relations over the coming months. After Hudson had received Clarendon's instructions, he had passed the despatch on to the secretary of the Legation, Erskine, who in turn had re-duced the despatch into the forni of a note to Cavour. Hudson had signed this, and the note had been delivered to Cavour on 5 January.
The note which Hudson had signed, however, was not a faithful re­production of the originai despatch of 29 December. While Clarendon had dedared the Whig govemment's doubts surrounding the legality of the capture, he had been careful not to commit England to any course of ac­tion since he did not yet have the necessary legai backing. The despatch had been intended only as a forceful statement of opinion, not of policy. To Erskine, though, Clarendon's despatch did not go far enough: it merely implied what it should have stated clearly, namely, that Britain intended to challenge the Naples over the Cagliari case. In contrast then to Clarendon's originai despatch, which had simply asked whether Piedmont meant to ob-
15) Tfais is rcfcred to in Hammood to Law Officers, 24 December 1857, ivi, p. 67. ì6i Quecn's Advocatc and Solicitor-Gcncral to Clarendon, 1 January 1858, /w, pp. 69-70.