awarded Secondly if sute be before the Admiral for freight or Mariners wages or for breach of Charter-parties for Voyages to be made beyond the Seas though the Charter-party happen to be made within the Realm so as the Penalty be not demanded a Prohibition is not to be granted But if the sute be for penalty or if question be made whether the Charter-party be made or no or whether the Plaintiff did release or otherwise discharge the same within the Realm this is to be tried in the Kings Courts and not in the Admiralty Thirdly if sute be in the Admiralty for building amending saving or necessary Victualling of a Ship against the Ship it self and not against any party by name but such as for his interest makes himself a party no Prohibition is to be granted though this be done within the Realm Fourthly although of some causes arising upon the Thames beneath the Bridge and divers other Rivers beneath the first Bridge the Kings Courts have conusance yet the Admiral also hath Jurisdiction there in the point especially mentioned in the Statute of 15. of Richard 2. and also by Exposition and Equity thereof he may enquire of and redress all Annoyances and Obstructions that are or may be any Impediment to Navigation and passage to or from the Sea and also to try personal Contracts and Injuries done there which concern Navigation on the Sea and no Prohibition is to be granted in such cases Fifthly if any be imprisoned and upon habeas Corpus brought it be certified that any of these be the cause of his Imprisonment the party shall be remaunded Subscribed the 4. Feb. 1632. by all the Judges of both Benches Sir George Crooks Reports being published by Sir Harbotle Grimston are approved and allowed as for the Common benefit by the Judges then being viz. by Iohn Glynn Oliver St. Iohn Edward Atkins Robert Nicholas Matthew Hales Hugh Windham Peter Warburton and Iohn Parker It may be presumed that what so many persons Eminent both for their place and also for their knowledge of the Laws and Statutes of the Realm did so deliberately and cautiously resolve upon and others of like quality have countenanced ought to be received and respected as sufficient Authorities as to those points whereof they did declare their Resolutions notwithstanding the confident opinions of any others either private or singular persons to the contrary And that the Kings Majesty and his Councels approbation being added thereunto should be of force enough to settle all doubts and differences concerning the same the rather for that antiently as before is shewed the Kings of England with their Councel only have made Constitutions concerning the Admiralty and that in point of Jurisdiction and it is apparent by the ancient Record cited both by Mr. Selden and Sir Edward Cook That the most famous Prince King Edward the 3. in whose time the Admiralty received its chief establishment in the 12. year of his Reign did consult and advise with his Councel and his Judges concerning the same And it may seem strange that whereas by the Statute of the 13. of Richard the 2. whose Acts are insisted upon as the greatest obstructions to the Admirals Jurisdiction the Kings Councel alone are enabled to decide what belongs to the Constables and Marshals Jurisdiction the King himself with his Councel and Judges should not have as much power to determine what belongs to the Jurisdictions of his Admiral That the Courts and Iudges of the Common Law do intermeddle and interrupt the Courts of Admiralty in causes properly belonging to the same HItherto it hath been Endeavour'd to be made appear That the proceedings in the Courts of Admiralty in the chief points in difference with the Courts of Common Law may consist with the Laws and Statutes of the Realm It may now be taken into Conâ—ideration how far the proceedings of the Courts and Judges of the Common Law in intermedling with causes properly belonging to the Admiralty and in obstructing the proceedings of that Court may be justified By the former is intended their drawing of such causes by actions of Trover and of Trespass to their Conusance by the later their disparaging of Stipulations and prescribing the forms of libells in such causes The former may the rather be insisted upon in regard Sir Edward Cook doth so often and so earnestly in general inveigh against the encroaching of the Court of Admiralty upon the businesses belonging to the Courts of Common Law and in particular where he chargeth That in the blessed time of peace those who belong to that Court wanting businesses proper to that Jurisdiction do encroach upon matters belonging to the Kings Courts lest they should sit idle and have nothing to do the like practice of encroaching being far more unexcusable in those who belong to the Kings Courts which do alwayes abound with businesses sufficient for the same Concerning the Actions of Trover Amongst the grievances complained of by the Admiral 8 Iacob It is presented in the first place That whereas the Conusance of all Contract and other things done on the Sea belongeth to the Admirals Jurisdiction the same are made triable at the Common Law by supposing the same to have been done in Cheap-side or such places And under favour the answer thereunto is neither clear nor direct nor to the purpose For the ground of that answer being laid That the Admiral hath no Conusance of any thing done within any County it is said That it is not material whether the place be upon the Water Infra fluxum Aquae but whether it be upon any water within the County wherefore it is acknowledged That of things done upon the Sea out of any County the Admiral ought to have Jurisdiction and that no presidents can be shewed that any Prohibition hath been granted for any Contract Plea or Quarrel for any Maritine cause done upon the Sea In this Answer it is confest That the Admiral ought to have Jurisdiction of things done on the Sea and that no Prohibitions have been granted for any such causes but whether by the supposal or fiction of a ships arriving in Cheap-side the Courts of Common Law do hold Plea of things done on the Sea it is nether confessed nor denied much less is there any reason given for the same Where it is said It is not material whether the place be upon the water infra fluxum refluxum Aquae but whether it be upon any water within the County That may be true in respect that it is supposed that all things done in the County belongs to the Conusance of the Common Law but when the place where a thing is done belongs apparently to anothe Jurisdiction which pretends as well to the right of the place as to the right of the cause the place of the action can in no wayes be suppressed and another suggested in the room thereof for if that be permitted the one Jurisdiction being the greater a more potent
may soon swallow up the other not onely to the prejudice of the subjects for whose good the diversity of Courts were erected but also the wrong of the Prince from whom those Jurisdictions are derived Sir Thomas Rydlye in his view of the Civil Laws further shews how injurious to the Admiralty and unreasonable this practice is in regard that in Law no Fiction ought to be admitted but such as is both possible and equitable First That it ought to be Possible because otherwise it were to admit that by way of supposition which nature will not alow and therefore although one that is dead to some constructions of Law may be feigned to be alive if at that time any of his equals in age be still living yet one who dyed two hundred years since cannot to any purpose be supposed to be living all of the same age being long before dead Secondly The Fiction ought to be Equitable because if there be no reason for it it is altogether unnecessary and useless and therefore although the Law may admit a Fiction or supposition that a childe in the mothers womb is already born for its benefit in regard that otherwise it might be deprived of its filial portion or some other right in equity belonging to it yet where there is no such reason or equity it ought not to be admitted as vain and ridiculous but for the fiction of a ship to arrive in wardo de cheap where there is no water to bear or carry is of a thing utterly impossible and it is wholy void of equity because a Trial of any business thereupon cannot obtain any just and fait remedy thereby at the Common Law which might not have been had in the Court of Admiralty which is a more competent and proper Court for the trial of such things than any Court of the Common Law Secondly Concerning Actions of Trespass the Admiral in his ordinary capacity claiming no Jurisdiction of offences against the Crown but onely on the Sea and of wrongs and injuries done in other places without force or violence to make such causes triable in the Kings Courts it is suggested that they were done vi armis which is the usual form of Endictments of Trespasses in the Kings Bench as of cutting of a purse although in truth there were no fear nor violence used in committing the same Touching the interrupting and obstructing the proceedings in the Court of Admiralty in causes properly belonging to the same concerning Stipulations and Libels although it may be presumed that what Sir Edward Cook affirms That where the principal matter is acknowledged to be of Ecclesiastical Cognisance the Temporal Iudges ought not to call in question the form of proceedings though they be against the reason of the Common Law because Cuilibet in sua arte merito credendum that the same should be allowed in the Admiral Court Yet in the third Objection of the Complaint 8 Iacob it is shewed That whereas time out of minde the Admiral Court hath used to take Stipulations for appearance and performance of the Acts and Judgements of the same Court It is now affirmed by the Iudges of the Common Law that the Amiralty Court is no Court of Record and therefore not able to take such Stipulations and hereupon Prohibitions are granted to the utter overthrow of that Court The answer whereunto is That the Admiralty proceeding by the Civil Law is no Court of Record and therefore cannot take any such Recognizances as a Court of Record may do and for taking of Recognizances against the Law of the Realm we finde that Prohibitions have been granted as by the Law they ought And if an erronious sentence be given in that Court no Writ of Errour but an appeal to certain Delegates doth lye as it is apparent by the Statute of the 8 Eliz. Reginae Cap. 5. which proveth that it is no Court of Record Whereunto it may be replied That some things done by or before the Admiral are matters of Record may be maintained from an ancient Ordinance of King Richard the first with advice of the Lords at Grimsby viz. That when the King writes by his Letters Patents to the Admiral to arrest Ships more or less for his service and that the Admiral should write to his Lieutenant to see things put in execution accordingly forasmuch as the Admiral and his Lieutenants are of Record After the Admiral shall have written to the King or to the Chancellour of England the names of the Ships arrested together with the names of the Owners and Masters of them in that case neither the Owner of the Ship nor the Master shall be admitted to say that the Ship is not arrested but admitting that the Court of Admiralty is not a Court of Record in ordinary matters no more are the Stipulations taken there such Recognizances as are required to be taken in Courts of Record by the Common Law those Stipulations causing no privileged obligations before other bonds nor extending to any part of mens Lands which is otherwise in Recognizances taken in Courts of Records by the Common Law And it may seem strange thâ—◠〈◊〉 Edward Cook acknowledging and â—â—â—â—â—ing the proceedings of that 〈…〉 according to the Civil Laws 〈…〉 Stipulations or bayls for the 〈◊〉 appearance and the performances of Deâ—crees and Sentences in â—hat Court prâ—scribed by the Civil Law Ne judicia sint elusoria and unversally practised where judicial proceedings are according to that Law as likewise in this Kingdome in the Constable and Marshals Court and in the Courts of the Universities proceeding by the Civil Law the same should not be allowed in the Admiralty Court And the complaint in this point may seem the more considerable in regard that to the publique Notaries about the Exchange with out Exception or Controll it hath been allowed That Merchants appearing before them in a manner nearer to the Recognizances of the Common Law do acknowledge bonds and bind Se Executores bona tam immobilia quam mobilia praesentia in futura And sometimes themselves being absent the same things are done in their namâ—s by their servants or factors Exhibiting Procurations from them to that purpose And it may be noted that amongst Sir Edw. Cooks Authorities there cannot be discerned any Statute Judgement or Book-case to make good the Answer to that Objection in the Complaint Secondly concerning Libells in the Court of Admiralty The Lord Hobard in Audly and Iennings case affirms that if a Contract in truth were made at Sea and in the Admirals Court it be laid generally without saying super alto mari a Prohibition might lye for the Libel must warrant the sure in it self But Justice Reeves in his Argument Paschae 22. Garoli differs from him in opinion and distinguishes betwixt a particular Jurisdiction created in diminution of the general Courts of Common Law and a particular Jurisdiction over things that never did belong to the Courts of Common Law
but which is wholly distinct from the same In the first case he confesseth that it is necessary to allege the cause of Action to arise within the new created Jurisdiction because prima facie nay de Iure the Courts of Common Law have general Jurisdiction of those things but in the later case as of the Admiralty if the cause be Maritime there is no need to averr it to have been done upon the Sea out of any respect to the Courts of Common Law for that it doth not tend to the diminution of any of those Courts and for Confirmation thereof he affirms that the Jurisdiction of the Marshalsey stands partly upon the Statute Articuli super Chartas and the words of that Statute are as restrictive as any words of the Statutes touching the Admiralty and by the books of the Common Laws the Marshal cannot hold Plea in some cases unless both parties be of the Kings Houshold nor in any case unless one of the parties be so yet it is resolved that the Declaration is good although it be not averred therein that any of the parties be of the houshold and therefore a Fortiori it is not necessary in the Admiralty to specifie in the Libel the thing to have been done super alto mari the Admiralty Jurisdiction being more distinct from the Common Law than that of the Court of Marshalsey That the trial of Causes concerning Navigation and Trade in the Court of Admiralty is more commodious for the Subjects and Kingdome of England than in the Courts of Common Law HOw much the maintenance and advancement of Navigation and trade by Sea concerns the Kingdome and Subjects thereof Sir Edward Cook delivers who saith That Trade and Trafique is the lively-hood of a Merchant and the life of the Common-wealth wherein the Kingdome and every Subject hath interest For the Merchant is the good Bailiff of the Realm to Export and Vent the Native Commodities and to Import and bring in the necessary Commodities for the defence and benefit of the Realm So much is confirmed by several Acts of Parliament fram'd by common consent of the Kingdome The Statute of the 32. of Henry the 8. chap. 24. sets forth That it is notoriously known that the Realm of England for the most part is invironed with the Seas so that the Subjects cannot convey and transport their Wares Merchandizes and Commodities by Land but only by Ships and that the Navy and multitude of Ships of the Realm is very commodious and necessary as well for the intercourse and concourse of Merchants conveying and transporting their Wares and Merchandizes and a great defence and security to this Realm as well to offend and defend as also for the maintenance of many Masters Mariners and Seamen and also hath been the chief maintenance and supportation of Cities Towns Havens and Creeks near adjoyning unto the Sea-coasts Likewise that of the 43. of Elizabeth chap. 12. declares That it hath alwayes been the Policy of this Realm by all good means to comfort and encourage the Merchant thereby to advance the general Wealth of this Realm the Kings Customs and Strength of Shipping c. It hath been formerly observed That for the encouragement of those who maintain trade by Sea in all Nations and States there have been special Judges appointed to hear and determine causes concerning Trade and affairs of the Sea and it may be further noted that such Judges have been directed to proceed at such times and in such manner as might best consist with the opportunities of Trade and least hinder or detain men from their Imployments Amongst the Graecians as at Athens it was provided That all sutes betwixt Sea-men and Merchants should be determined in those vacations when the Seas were barred or in those Moneths when Navigation was restrained So much is confirmed by Salmatius Eo tempore quo oritur Arcturus navigationes suas ut plurimum desinebant mercatores domumque redibant Boedromion quippe mensis qui septembri respondet quo tempore ferè Arcturus oritur terminus erat navigationum Atticarum ideo ab eo mense Munichiâ—nem usque quo mense iterum se mari committebant ac vela dabunt Mercatores Athenienses in urbe desidebant lites suas disceptabant ut videre est apud Demosthenem adversus Apaturium Amongst the Romans likewise for the better dispatch of causes concerning Sea-businesses the Judges were ordered to proceed Levato velo and de plano without that Solemnity and formality which was used in ordinary Courts and Causes So in Italy Spain and France the Judges proceed in causes concerning the Sea Summarily and in a more compendious way than other Judges use And the like as Sir Iohn Davies relates hath seemed to the wisdome of this Kingdome Our Parliaments saith He have not only made extraordinary provisions for a more speedy recovery of debts due unto Merchants for their Merchandizes than is provided by our Common Law as appears by the Statute of Acton Burnel made the 11. of Edward 1. and the Statute De Mercatoribus made the 13. of Edward 1. but also hath allowed a Court of Proceedings in cases of Merchants different from the course of our Common Law For by the Statute of the 27. of Edw. 3. cap. 2. it is declared That the proceedings in causes of Merchants shall be from day to day and from hour to hour according to the Law of the Staple and not according to the course of the Common Law and by another Article in the same Parliament That all Merchants coming to the Staple shall be ruled by Law-merchant touching all things coming to the Staple and not by the Common Law of the Land and by another Article That neither any of the Benches nor any of the Iudges of the Common Law shall have any Iurisdiction in those cases To which may be added the Statute of 32 of Hen. 8. Chap. 15. and of the 43 of Elizabeth Chap. 12. which direct That such causes betwixt Seamen and Merchants shall be ordered summarily and without delay and as in discretion shall seem most convenient All which was and may be observed in the Court of the Admiralty which in many causes proceed at any time and in all causes summarily and according to Equity but neither is nor can be observed in Courts of Common Law which are open onely in Term times and proceed in an ordinary and strict way Secondly For the advantage of those who use Navigation and Trade by Sea The Law-merchant and Laws of the Sea admit of divers things not agreeable to the Common Law of the Realm which may be better insisted on in the Court of Admiralty than in the Courts of the Common Law So much is likewise declared by Sir Iohn Davyes relating several instances to that purpose 1. If two Merchants saith he be joynt Owners or Partners of Merchandizes which they have acquired by a joynt Contract the one shall have an Action of
account against the other Secundum Legem Mercatoriam but by the Rule of the Common Law if two men be joyntly seized of other goods the one shall not call the other to account for the same 2. If two Merchants have a joynt interest in Merchandizes if one dye the surviver shall not have all but the Executor of the party deceased shall by the Law-Merchant call the surviver to an account for the Moity whereas by the Rule of the Common Law if their be two joynt Tenants of other goods the surviver Perjus accrescendi shall have all 3. In an Action of Debt upon a simple Contract which is without a Deed in Writing the Defendant by the Common Law may wage his Law That is he may barr the Plaintiff from his Action by taking an Oath that he doth not owe the Debt but when one John Cumpton Merchant brought an Action of debt Secundum Legem Mercatoriam against another Merchant upon a Contract without Deed and the Defendant would have waged his Law he was not permitted so to do and the Judgement was given for the Plaintiff It is not hereby intended that the Courts of Common Law cannot or do not take notice of the Law-Merchant in Merchants cases but that other things likewise considered it might be thought reasonable if they so desire to allow them the choice of that Court where the Law-Merchant is more respected than to confine them to other Courts where another Law is more predominant Besides there may be danger of doubt thereof because those things are not approved for proofs at the Common Law which are held sufficient in the Admiralty amongst the Merchants for as Sir Iohn Davies further observes At the Common Law no mans Writing can be pleaded against him as his Act and Deed unless the same be sealed and delivered But in sutes between Merchants Bills of Lading and Bills of Exchange being but ticquets without Seals Letters of advice and Credence Policies of assurance Assignations of Debts all which are of no force at the Common Law are of good credit and force by the Law-Merchant To which may be added what Malines observes That the bearer of such Bills by the course amongst Merchants shall be admitted to demand and recover the Contracts without Letters of Atturney which is not admitted in the Common Law It is moreover considerable That the Law of the Sea looks one way when the Common Law looks another As for instance A Ship is Freighted or hired for a Voyage to the Indies at 20 l. per moneth by Charter-party it appeareth that having been eight Moneths in the Imployment of the Merchant who Freighted her before she makes any Port with her Lading she perisheth in the Sea in this case by the Common Law as it hath been averred the Owner of the Ship ought to have Freight for eight Moneths but by the Law of the Sea which hath alwayes been allowed The Merchant losing his goods the Owner loseth his Freight Again if the Owner loseth his Freight the Mariner although he escape loseth his Wages for the time he served which happily would not be thought so if he sued at the Guild-Hall for the same Thirdly for encouragement and advantage of those who use Navigation and Trade by Sea it is considerable That in the Court of Admiralty one and the same Action may be brought against diverse and several persons undertaking the same business as when many joyn in subscription to a Policy of assurance but if a sute be brought at the Common Law every man must be sued severally which the Parliament in the Act concerning assurances held inconvenient and in the like manner divers and several Persons may joyn in the same sute as Mariners for wages at a small charge to themselves with little prejudice to the Masters or Owners which are sued and obtain a Decree or Order all together whereas when they sue at the Guild-Hall every man sues severally to the great charge of every particular and to the excessive dammage of the Masters or Owners if Judgements be given against them Besides the inconvenience of which the Statute of the 28. of Hen. the 8. cap. 15. takes notice That if Mariners or Shippers which by reason of their often Voyages and Passages must depart without long tarrying and protracting of time be enforced to attend the ordinary terms of the Common Law Fourthly the Court of Admiralty for the conveniency and dispatch of Merchants and Sea-mens causes admits of proofs which the Courts of Common Law do not allow for in that Court according to the Civil Law the Plaintiff may be relieved by the Defendants answer upon Oath which in the ordinary Courts of the Common Law is not afforded Again whereas in those Courts the Evidence must be produced at the Barr before the Jury Sea-men and Mariners which are many times necessary witnesses for the reason before exprest cannot be present without great prejudice to themselves and the Trade of the Kingdome But in the Admiralty Court they may be produc'd at any time after the sute is begun and their Examinations being taken in Writing they have liberty to follow their own and the common occasions Moreover many times in causes concerning Navigation and Trade by Sea no proof can be made but by Witnesses remaining in Forein parts to which the Writs of the Common Law do not extend but those Witnesses by Commission out of the Admiralty Court are usually sworn and examined by Magistrates in those places and their examinations so taken are allowed for sufficient proof upon return Divers other instances might be given by which it would appear that the Court of Admiralty can give redress in Sutes concerning Navigation and Trade with more conveniency than the Courts of Common Law but these considered and how much it concerns the good of the Kingdome and those who sâ—pport Navigation and Trade may be sufficient to discover which Court may be best justified in proceeding in causes of that nature What inconvenience may follow both to the Private and Publick by the interposing of the Courts of Common Law and by obstructions made unto the Admiralty in such businesses may appear in one particular that is concerning Charter-parties and Freight due for imployment of shipping There is but one instance given of a Sute brought at the Common Law upon a Charter-party viz. the 28 of Elizabeth which was on the Merchants part for breach of Covenant viz. for not staying in a Port of discharge so many dayes as were agreed upon for which the Owner was condemned in 500 l. without any respect to the Loss or Damage which the Merchant had sustained And if it be considered how many clauses there are in Charter-parties and Covenants of things to be performed for which the Owners are bound under a general penalty if upon every breach advantage should be taken in extremity no man would have great comfort in hiring out Ships to the Sea And it may be observed that
THE JURISDICTION OF THE ADMIRALTY Of England Asserted AGAINST Sr. EDWARD COKE'S Articuli Admiralitatis In XXII Chapter of his Jurisdiction Of COURTS By RICHARD ZOUCH Doctor of the Civil Law and late Judge of the High Court of ADMIRALTY LONDON Printed for Francis Tyton and Thomas Dring and are to be sold at their Shops in Fleetstreet 1663. Thomas Foley of Great Witley Court in the County of Worcester Esqr. TO THE READER I Do certifie and attest that the Treatise Entituled The Jurisdiction of the High Court of Admiralty asserted c. by Dr. ZOUCH was delivered into my hands by the Author himself to be Printed and which he intended to have Dedicated to his Royal Highness JAMES Duke of YORK Lord High Admiral of England Drs Commons Febr. 25. 1663. Tim. Baldwyn ASSERTIONS Concerning the JURISDICTION of the ADMIRALTY OF ENGLAND 1. THat in all places where Navigation and Trade by Sea have been in Use and Esteem and particularly in England Special Laws have been provided for regulating the same 2. That in all places where Laws have been provided for businesses concerning the Sea as also in England special Judges have been appointed to determine differences and to redresse offences concerning the same 3. That in all places where special Judges have been appointed for Sea affairs as also in England certain Causes viz. all such as have relation to Navigation and Negotiation by Sea have been held proper for their Conusance 4. That the Jurisdiction of the Lord High Admiral of England as it is granted by the King and usually exercised in the Court of Admiralty may consist with the Laws and Statutes of the Realm 5. That the Lord Admiral of England may hold Conusance of Contracts and Writings made at Land touching businesses of Navigation and Trade by Sea 6. That the Admiral of England may hold Conusance of things done in Ports and Navigable Rivers as touching damage done to Persons Ships and Goods Annoyances of free Passage and unlawfull Fishing 7. That the Lord Admiral of England may hold Pleas of Contracts and other things done beyond the Sea relating to Navigation and Trade by Sea 8. That the Courts and Judges of the Common-Law do intermeddle with and interrupt the Court of Admiralty in Causes properly belonging to that Court 9. That the Tryal of Causes concerning Navigation and Trade in the Court of Admiralty is more commodious for the Kingdome and the Subjects thereof than in the Courts of Common-Law Sir EDWARD COKE'S Jurisdiction of COURTS CAP. XXII The Court of the Admiralty proceeding According to the Civil LAW THe Complaint of the Lord Admiral of England to the Kings most Excellent Maiesty against the Iudges of the Realm concerning Prohibitions granted to the Court of the Admiralty 11 Febr. penultimo die Termini Hillarii Anno 8. Jac. Regis the Effect of which complaint was after by his Majesties Commandment set down in Articles by Dr. Dun Iudge of the Admiralty which are as followeth with answers to the same by the Iudges of the Realm which they afterwards confirmed by three kinds of authorities in Law 1. by Acts of Parliament 2. by Iudgements and Iudicial proceedings and lastly by Book cases Certain grievances whereof the Lord Admiral and his Officers of the Admiralty do especially complain and desire redresse THat whereas the Conusance of all Contracts and other things done upon the Sea belongeth to the Admiral Jurisdiction the same are made tryable at the Common-Law by supposing the same to have been done in Cheapside or such places By the Laws of this Realm the Court of the Admiral hath no Conusance power or Iurisdiction of any manner of Contract Plea or Querele within any County of the Realm either upon the Land or Water but every such Contract Plea or Querele and all other things rising within any County of the Realm either upon the Land or Water and also Wreck of the Sea ought to be tryed determined discussed and remedied by the Laws of the Land and not before or by the Admiral or his Lieutenant in any manner So as it is not material whether the place be upon the water infra fluxum refluxum aquae but whether it be upon any water within any County Wherefore we acknowledge that of Contracts Pleas and Quereles made upon the Sea or any part thereof which is not within any County from whence no tryal can be had by Twelve men the Admiral hath and ought to have Iurisdiction And no President can be shewed that any Prohibition hath been granted for any Contract Plea or Querele concerning any marine cause made or done upon the Sea taking that only to be the Sea wherein the Admiral hath Iurisdiction which is before by Law described to be out of any County See more of this matter in the answer to the sixth Article When Actions are brought in the Admiralty upon Bargains or Contracts made beyond the Seas wherein the Commom-Law cannot administer Justice yet in these causes Prohibitions are awarded against the Admiral Court Bargains or Contracts made beyond the Seas wherein the Common-Law cannot administer Iustice which is the effect of this Article do belong to the Constable and Marshal for the Iurisdiction of the Admiral is wholly consined to the Sea which is out of any County But if any Indenture Bond or other Specialty or any Contract be made beyond Sea for doing of any Act or Payment of any money within this Realm or otherwise wherein the Common-Law can administer justice and give ordinary remedy in these cases neither the Constable and Marshal nor the Court of the Admiralty hath any Iurisdiction And therefore when this Court of the Admiralty hath dealt therewith in derogation of the Common-Law we find that Prohibitions have been granted as by Law they ought Whereas time out of mind the Admiral Court hath used to take Stipulation for appearance and performance of the Acts and Judgments of the same Court It is now affirmed by the Judges of the Common-Law that the Admiral Court is no Court of Record and therefore not able to take such Stipulations and hereupon Prohibitions are granted to the utter over-throw of that Jurisdiction The Court of the Admiralty proceeding by the Civil Law is no Court of Record and therefore cannot take any such Recognisance as a Court of Record may do And for taking of Recognisances against the Laws of the Realm we find that Prohibitions have been granted as by Law they ought and if an Erroneous sentence be given in that Court no Writ of Error but an Appeal to certain Delegates does lye as it appeareth by the Statute of 8 Eliz. Reginae Cap. 5. which proveth that it is no Court of Record That Charter-parties made only to be performed upon the Seas are daily withdrawn from that Court by Prohibitions If the Charter-party be made within any City Port Town or County of this Realm although it be