PBISEEND PRIVATEER 17 don, 1872) ; La question penitentiaire, by Ro- bin (Paris, 1873) ; " Causes of Criminal Re- committals and their Means of Prevention," by Olivacroua (Stockholm, 1873) ; " Peniten- tiary Studies," by Don P. Armengol y Cornet (Barcelona, 1873); "Swiss Prison Discipline," by J. K. Kiihne (St. GaU, 1873) ; " Works of Edward Livingston on Criminal Jurispru- dence" (2 vols., New York, 1873); "Report on the Working of the Separate System of Imprisonment in Holland," byDeVries (the Hague, 1874) ; "National Education and Pun- ishments," by C. B. Adderly (London, 1874); Les etablissements penitentiaires en France et aux colonies, by Viscount d'Haussonville (Paris, 1875) ; and "Memorials of Millbank and Chap- ters in Prison History," by Arthur Griffiths (2 vols., London, 1875). The Rimsta di disci- pline, edited by Beltrani Scalia, inspector gen- eral of Italian prisons, and devoted to peniten- tiary science, is published monthly in Rome. PRISREVD, or Perserin, a town of European Turkey, capital of a vilayet of the same name in northern Albania, on the Rieka near its confluence with the Drin, 75 m. E. of Scutari ; pop. variously estimated at from 20,000 to 48,000. It is built at the foot of a mountain, which is commanded by a castle, where the governor resides ; a Greek bishop also resides here. It is chiefly noted for its manufacture of firearms and extensive traffic. PRIVAS, a town of Languedoc, France, capi- tal of the department of Ardche, 70 m. S. of Lyons ; pop. in 1872, 7,836. It is situated on a steep ridge near the junction of the Ouveze and M6zayon, and contains a prefecture with a park, a small geological museum, a college and primary normal school, and manufactories of silk and other goods. It was a stronghold of the Huguenots, with an almost exclusively Protestant population. A synod of all French reformed churches was held here in 1612. Louis XIII. exterminated the Protestants in 1629, and razed the fortress in which they had taken refuge. PRIVATEER, an armed private vessel which bears the commission of a state to cruise against the commerce of its enemy. When one sov- ereign has duly declared war against another, all the subjects of the former are enemies of all the subjects of the latter. From this prin- ciple of the law of nations follows the unques- tionable corollary, that no citizen of one of the belligerent states can complain of the hos- tile acts of any citizen of the other. There- fore, as far as absolute international rights are concerned, it makes no difference whether a depredation or capture by a subject of the enemy has been expressly sanctioned by his sovereign. The universal practice of nations, however, condemns all unauthorized hostili- ties ; and a capture or other hostile act with- out the sanction of a competent sovereign power, although, strictly speaking, it would not be piracy, yet would be so much like it, or so irregular and odious, that it would un- questionably provoke the severest treatment at the hands of an enemy against those who en- gaged in it. Yet, though unauthorized cap- ture of enemy property is no offence under the law of nations, it is an infraction of the public law of the captor's own state. For the universal rule is that, except in self-defence, only those subjects may take part in hostili- ties who are thereto expressly or constructive- ly authorized by their sovereign. But the sov- ereign may, if he will, avail himself of the pri- vate vessels of his subjects by commissioning them to seize the merchant ships of the ene- my. These commissioned private ships or pri- vateers are in naval warfare much the same as the volunteer corps are in the land service. In both cases the commissions proceeding from the sovereign make those who bear them the instruments and servants of the state. On the sea it is the letters of marque which give that interest in the prize which, is the inducement to engage in the service. For, primarily, all prizes vest in the state, and it is the commis- sion alone which, under the municipal regula- tions of each state, defines the proportion of the captured property and the other rewards which shall fall to the privateersman. (See PEIZE.) To guard against the excesses and abuses which are incident to privateering, it has been subjected to various restrictions. Soine states have regulated the composition of the crews, and have forbidden all cruising in the rivers or along the coasts within the sea line of the enemy. Generally commissions are granted on condition that the rights of neu- trals shall be respected, and that belligerent rights shall in all cases be enforced according to the rules of war ; that prizes shall be brought for adjudication before the proper tribunal; and that the whole conduct of the cruise shall be confined to the instructions of government. Bonds are taken for the due performance of these engagements, and owners and officers are subjected to penalties for the violation of them. Privateering may be regarded in two aspects, or rather it may be said that there are two kinds of privateering, one of which is far more legitimate and defensible than the other. The former of these kinds is that in which the citizens of one of the states at war sail under their own flag against the enemy. They find employment in this way for the ships which during war must almost of necessity be with- drawn from trade ; and they contribute very materially to the maritime strength of their state. The other and more odious form of privateering is that in which a neutral accepts a commission from one of two belligerents. Here the legitimacy of the practice is not so clear, at least so far as affects the neutral. He can certainly have no patriotic motive in ac- cepting such a commission. Such a motive is rare probably even when the privateer sails under the flag of his own country ; but then the country does really derive some benefit from the service,. In the case supposed, the
