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
recited in the Solemn form of the Admiralls Commission by Mr. Selden as sufficient to his purpose and then saith he follow many things declaring that most ample power and Jurisdiction amongst which is expressed in Civil Causes that to him it is granted Ad cognoscendum de placitis c. To hold Conusance of Pleas Debts Bills of Exchange Policies of Assurance Accounts Charter-parties Contractions Bills of Lading and all other Contracts which may any wayes concern Moneys due for freight of Ships hired and let to hire moneys lent to be paid beyond the Seas at the hazzard of the lender and also of any Cause Businesse or Injury whatsoever had or done in or upon or through the Seas or publique Rivers or fresh Waters Streams Havens and places subject to overflowing whatsoever within the flowing and ebbing of the Sea upon the Shoares or Banks whatsoever adjoyning to them or either of them from any the said first Bridges whatsoever towards the Sea throughout our Kingdoms of England and Ireland or our Dominions aforesaid or else where beyond the Seas or in any Ports beyond the Seas whatsoever with divers other Clauses containing power of coercion for the maintenance of that Jurisdiction By the Commission of Oyer and Terminer granted likewise under the Great Seal according to the Statute of the 28th of Henry the 8. chap. 15. and other Statutes for the punishing of Offences and matters Criminal committed within the Jurisdiction of the Admirall Power is granted in the Kings name to hear and determine De omnibus singulis proditionibus c. of all and singular Treasons Robberies Murthers Felonies and Consederacies c. as well in and upon the Sea or any River Port or Fresh-water Creek or place whatsoever within the flowing of the Sea to the the full beneath the first Bridges towards the Sea as upon the shoar of the Sea or elsewhere within the Kings Maritime Iurisdiction of the Admiralty of the Realm of England and the Dominion of the same As well against the Peace and the Laws of the Land as against the Kings Laws Statutes and Ordinances of the Kings Court of Admiralty And also touching all and singular other matters which concern Merchants Owners and Proprietaries of Ships Masters Shipmen Mariners Shipwrights Fisher-men Workmen Labourers Saylours Servitours or any others That in all places where Iudges have been appointed for Sea businesses as also in England certain Causes viz. such as have Relation to Navigation and Negotiation by Sea have been held proper for their Conusance MAritime Laws saith Godeâ—ry concern persons or Dealings between Merchants and Sea-men which is agreeable to the subject matter of the several Laws mentioned in the first Chapter and what appeares to have belonged to the office of Maritime Judges Amongst the Grecians Causes happening betwixt Merchants and Sea-men were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Causes Concerconcerning Trade as Julius Pollux and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Suidas testifies The Rhodian Lawes although as they are now extant are not ranked under distinct Heads or Titles yet they may be reduced to these particulars As first Concerning hiring freighting of Ships Secondly Concerning transporting Passingers and Goods Thirdly Touching the delivery ad discharging the things received in good Condition Fourthly Touching Contributions for Losses in Common danger and for salvage of Goods Fifthly For borrowing and trusting of money for Sea-voyages Sixthly Concerning Mariners duties their wages and the like The same were the matters taken into Cosideration when the Roman Senate entred into a Consultation to settle the businesse of the Sea For when Tiberius Claudius had signified to them that the Sea-men and Merchants trading by Sea had besought him that such businesses which were incident to the Sea might be reduced into some order Nero then a Senator advised that some might be sent to the Isle of Rhodes who should diligently enquire and take notice of what was there observed Concerning Mariners Sea-men Merchants and passengers Goods put on Board shipps Partner-ships Building Buying or Selling of Ships Entrusting Gold and Silver and divers other things All which was done accordingly as appeares by the titles of the Roman Civil Lawes into which the Rhodian Laws were inserted and by the Laws touching Sea affairs which afterwards the Greek Empire received from the Romans as in the Title De Nauticis Obligationibus c. Touching the obligations or duties of Mariners and all manner of actions which may be brought concerning Ships or those who sail in Ships Owners Masters or Passengers Moreover touching wrecks of Ships casting forth of Goods and Contributions and also Fisher-men and Fishing The same businesses also are regulated by the Constitutions of the Consolato del Mare in which are conteined the Statutes and Ordinances of Antient Authority provided for all Causes of Merchandising and Navigation as it is more fully signified in a Chapter of that Book Nello progresso di questo libro In the progresse of this book it is declared how the Masters of Ships ought to demean themselves towards Merchants Mariners Strangers and all other sorts of people which passe in their Ships and also how Merchants ought to perform with Masters of Ships and how Strangers and others ought to pay fraight for the transporting of their persons c. All which are made good in the particular Ordinances and Constitutions therein conteined The Sea-Lawes in the Spanish Partidaes have the same scope as it is in the Title We intend here to speak of shipping hired to undergoe the Adventure of tbe Sea and we will shew what things the Master of the Ship ought to observe towards the Merchants and how the dammage that shall happen to goods cast over board by occasion of storm ought to be divided and of the price due for the hire of Ships and of other matters with may concern the same affair So much is likewise signified in the Title of the Laws of Oleron which in the Edition annexed to the Customes of Normandy are called Ordonances Royaul touchant le fait de la Mere as also Judgments de la mere des nef des Mariners aussi des Merchants de tout leur estre and in the Edition set out by Peter Garrias La maniere comme les Maestres de Navire The manner how Masters of Ships Merchants and Mariners ought to regulate and govern themselves according to the Iudgements of the Roll of Oleron Notwithstanding these Examples of the usages of all other Nations some amongst us as take upon theÌ„ to determine that to the Jurisdiction of the Admiralls of England no special or certain Causes do belong so the Lord Hobard in Audly and Iennings Case affirms That their Jurisdiction is not in respect of any certain Causes as the Causes of Tithes and Testaments are in the Spiritual Court but only in respect of place and no doubt but Sir Edward Cook and others who talk so much of Altum Mare are
and Weights within the Jurisdiction of the Admiralty 5 Of such as make spoil of wrecks so that the Owners coming within a year and a day cannot have their goods 6 Of such as claim wrecks having neither Charter nor Prescription 7 Of Wears Riddles Blind-stakes Water-millsâ— c. whereby ships or men have been lost or endangered 8 Of removing Anchors and cutting of Buoy-Ropes 9 Of such as take Salmons at unseasonable times 10 Of such as spoyl the breed of Oisters or dreg for Oisters and Mussels at unseasonable times 11 Of such as fish with unlawfull Nets 12 Of taking Royal Fishes viz. Whales Sturgeons Purpoises c. and detaining the one half from the King Thirdly Offences against the Admiral the Navy and Discipline of the Sea 1 Of Judges entertaining Pleas of Causes belonging to the Admiral and of such as in Admiralty Causes sue in the Courts of Common Law and of such as hinder the Execution of the Admirals process 2 Of Masters and Mariners contemptuous to the Admiral 3 Of the Admirals shares of Weifs or Derelicts and of Deodands belonging to the Admiral 4 Of Fletson Jetson and Lagon belonging to the Admiral 5 Of such as Freight Strangers bottoms where Ships of the Land may be had at reasonable rates 6 Of Ship-wrights taking excessive wages 7 Of Masters and Mariners taking excessive wages 8 Of Pilots by whose ignorance ships have miscarried 9 Of Mariners forsaking their ships 10 Of Mariners Rebellious and dis obedient to their Masters In the same antient Book of the Admiralty there is a Copy of a more antient Enquiry touching Admiral Causes wherein some things relate to Constitutions made by King Richard the first at Grimesby viz. That ships arrested for the Kings service breaking arrest shall be confiscated to the King and by King Iohn at Hastings That no private man should appropriate to himself the benefit of any salt waters by Meers Ridles and the like and that the same should be pulled down And the fishing cryed common to all people was likewise ordered by King Iohn This may suffice to confirm that there were certain special Causes both Civil and Criminal which did antiently belong and properly to the Conusance of the Admiral and to shew that his Jurisdiction was not wholly confined onely to the Sea That the Iurisdiction of the Admiral of England as it is granted by the King and is usually exercised in the Admiralty Court may consist with the Statutes and Laws of this Realm FIrst it appears by antient Record of the time of King Edward the first De superioritate Maris That it was acknowledged by the Deputies of the Parliament of England and of divers other Nations That the Kings of England time out of mind injoyed the Dominion and Soveraignty of the English Seas by prescribing Laws and Statutes for the preserving Peace and Justice and by exercising all kind of Authority in matters of Judicature and all other things which may concern his Soveraignty in the same which being granted his power to depute a Magistrate or Officer to those purposes with so much of his authority as he shall think fit cannot be denied Secondly That the Jurisdiction and power granted by the King in his Letters Patents to the Admiral is agreeable to Commissions antiently granted and which have been passed from time to time by the Kings learned Counsel and by the Lord Chancellor or the Lord Keeper for the time being who have thereunto set the Great Seal and that the authority and Jurisdiction of the Constable and Marshal is designed by St Edward Cook by referring to Grants of those Offices antiently made by many several Kings with exception onely to one irregular precedent in the time of King Edward the fourth Thirdly That Mr. Selden shews that all the Patents of the Office of the Lord Admiral from the beginning of Queen Mary's time to the time of King Charles have been conceived after one and the same form and tenor as of Edward Lord Clintâ—on afterwards Earl of Lincoln under King Philip and Queen Mary of Charles Howard Lord Effingham afterwards Earl of Nottingham under Queen Elizabeth of Charles Duke of York after King Charles under King Iames and of George Duke of Buckingham under King Iames and King Charles to which may be added the Patent of Algernon Earl of Northumberland under King Charles the first and of Iames the most Illustrious Duke of York under King Charles the Second Fourthly That the Lord Admiral and his Deputies proceeding according to his Commission is expresly allowed by King Philip and Queen Mary where they by a Statute restraining the exportation of Corn without Licence make a special provision That that Act shall not be prejudicial or hurtfull to the Lord Great Admiral of England for the time being or to the King and Queens Majesties Iurisdiction of the Admiralty but that the said Lord Admiral or his Deputies shall exercise use and execute all kinds of Iurisdiction belonging to the Sea according to his or their Commissions which provision although it seems to have been made in respect of that Statute yet it shews what respect the King and Queen intended to their Lord High Admiral their own Admiralty Jurisdiction in all matters belonging to the Sea and to the Commission by them granted Against the Jurisdiction of the Admiral as is granted by the King and as it is exercized in the Court it is pretended in general That it is not agreeable First To several Acts of Parliament Secondly To divers Judgments book-Book-Cases and Judicial proceedings to which may be added the Resolutions of the Judges upon the complaint of the Admiral in Sir Edward Cooks Articuli Admiralitatis All which more specially may be reduced to three heads First Where the Admiral meddles with Contracts and Writings concerning Sea businesses made within the Realm Secondly Where he meddles with other things done within the Bodies of Counties and Thirdly With such things as are made or done beyond the Sea The Acts of Parliament are First The Statute of the 13. Rich. 2. chap. 5. which restrains the Admiral from meddling with things within the Realm Secondly That of the 15. of the same King chap. 3. which declares that he hath no Jurisdiction within Bodies of Counties Thirdly That of 2 Hen. the 4. which inflicts penalties on those who sue or proceed contrary to that of the 13 Rich. 2. Fourthly That of the 5 of Elizabeth which is pretended to exclude the Admiral from meddling with things done within Ports and Rivers The First of these being more general may in this place be considered the rest being more particular may in discussing of some other particular points to which they are appliable be examined That of the 13 Rich. 2. chap. 5. ordains that the Admirals and their Deputies shall not meddle of any thing done within the Realm but only of things done upon the Sea as it hath been used in the time of King Edward the
Third Touching this Statute it may be observed what Sir Edward Cook delivers out of Plowdens Commentaries That the Praeamble of a Statute is the Key to open the meaning of the makers of the Act and the mischiefs which they intended to remedy now in the Praeamble of the Statute it â—s suggested that the Admiral had encroacht divers Jurisdictions and Franchises belonging to the King other Lords from whence it may be conceived that the Parliament intended only to restrain him from medling in his Courts with such things within the Realm wherein he had encroacht upon the Jurisdiction of the King and other Lords which what those things were it doth no wayes appear but it cannot be imagined or reasonably conceived that it was intended the Admiral should be debarred from proceeding in Causes of Navigation and Negotiation by Sea which never did belong to any other Courts of the King or other Lords and were formerly held proper for the conusance of the Admiral and as things were then stated could not be held encroachments So much may the rather be supposed because the Statute restraining him from meddling with things done within the Realm but only with things done upon the Sea further adds according to what hath been duly used in the time of the Noble Prince King Edward Grand-father to the King which was King Edward the Third Sir Henry Spâ—â—man writes that some men did conceive Causarum Nauticarum cognitionem forum rei maritimae quod hodie Curiam Admiralitatis vocant sub Edwardo Tertio illuxisse and it is probable that in that Kings time who did many other glorious things for the good of this Nation the Court of Admiralty received some setlement and grew more conspicuous than it was before but the Constitutions observed by Mr. Selden in the Book of the Admiralty of Henry the First Richard the First King Iohn and Edward the First do manifest that the Court was much more antient and Sir Edward Cook to shew the antiquity of the Court of Admiralty to have been long before the time of Edward the Third in whose dayes he sayes that some had dreamed that it had begun recite the antient Record De superioritate Maris before mentioned and likewise another quoted also by Mr. Seldâ—n wherein it is shewed that King Edw. the Third in the 12 year of his Reign did consult with all his Judges ad finem quod retineatur continuetur ad subditorum prosequutionem forma procedendi quondam Domini Regis c. that is To the end that the form of proceedings at the sute of the Subjects begun and ordained by his Grand-father King Edward the First and his Counsel for retaining and preserving the antient Soveraignty of the Sea of England and the Right of the Office of the Admiralty in the same might be resumed and continued touching the correcting interpreting and declaring the Laws and Statutes lately ordained for the maintaining of Peace and Iustice amongst the people of all Nations whatsoever passing through the English Seas and for punishing of Offences and for giving of satisfaction to such as were damnified which Laws and Statutes were corrected declared interpreted and published by King Richard the First King of England in his return from the Holy Land and were intituled Le Ley Oleron in the French tongue And it is manifest That the Law was continued all that Kings time in regard that in the 49 year of his Reign the selected Sea-men for the Inquisition at Quinborough in the conclusion say That touching some businesses proposed in the Articles of the Inquisition they know no better advise nor remedy than that which had been formerly used and practised after the manner which is conteined in the Law of Oleron All which being admitted and duly considered it may be presumed that such Causes as did originally by Civil Law belong to the Admiralty and what former Kings had antiently ordained for the regulating of the same as likewise such as were agreeable to the matters decided in the Iudgments of Oleron and what are conteined in the Inquisition taken at Quinborough in the time of King Edward the Third were within the conusance of the Admiralty Court and consequently the same are permitted to be tried and determined in the same Court by the Statute of the 13 of Rich. 2. Touching the Judgments Judicial Acts and book-Book-Cases intended to restrain the Admiral of England in exercise of his Jurisdiction as it is granted in the Kings Commission it may be answered in general First That those Judgments Judicial Acts c. are in Causes of difference in respect of Jurisdiction betwixt the Courts of Common Law and the Admiralty Court and it is incident to all professions where there is any competition or emulation with others to incline to that which is most to their advantage Secondly Such Judgment sand book-Book-Cases have been grounded upon the common understanding of the Statutes without any notice or respect to the Laws of the Sea or the condition of Maritime Causes the circumstances of the places being the chief Rule by which they have been framed Thirdly That many of them upon due examination may be found not so concluding as they are pretended and although much respect and reverence be due to the Authours yet we are not bound to believe that their judgments are infallible Fourthly That the Judicial proceeding as Prohibitions being the results of the former authorities they may be weighed accordingly Lastly Touching the main piece Sir Edward Cooks Articuli Admiralitatis carrying the reputation of the Resolutions of all â—â—e Judges touching the matters therein conteined it will appear that they very much differ from the Concessions of the Judges of the Kings Bench 1575 and from the Resolutions of all the Judges the 18 of February 1632 subscribed unto by them in the presence of King Charls and twenty Lords of his Counsel The particular authorities which may be collected out of Sr. Edward Cooks Notes to prove that the Admiral of England hath no conusance of things done within the Realm but only of things done upon the Sea are as followeth 1 That in the 2 Rich. 2. Hibernici sunt sub Admirallo Angliae de facto super alto Mari. 2 That the 7 Rich. 2. in an Action of trespass brought for a Ship and Merchandises taken away the Defendant pleaded that he did take them en le haut Mer ou les Normans que la enemis la Roy and it was allowed a good Plea 3 That Fortescue who lived in the time of Hen. the Sixth saith Siquae super altum mare extra Corpus Comitatus in placito coram Admirallo deducantur per testes terminari debent 4 That Dyer in the time of Queen Mary saith That by the Libel in the Admiralty Court the Case is supposed to commence sur le haut mer intra Iurisdictionem de l' Admiralty To these authorities may be answered in general First That
videtur Legislator id sensisse quod ratione caret etiamsi Verborum generalitas prima facie aliter suadeat And that the place only where a Contract is made of written should alter or transferr the Jurisdiction to the Courts of Common Law may seem very unreasonable for the reasons following First for that Contracts Pleas and Quarrels being things incorporeal or matters of right may more properly be said to arise from that from which they are caused or occasioned than from the place where they happen to be made and so Contracts Pleas and Quarrels occasioned by the businesses of the County may be said to arise within the Body of the County and Contracts Pleas and Quarrels occasioned by the businesses of the Sea may be said to arise from the Sea in what places so ever they happen to be made or Written So it is properly said Ex facto jus oritur actio oritur ex delicto Because the Law results from the fact and the Action is occasioned by the fault So where the Jurisdiction of the Admiral of France is said to be pour le fait de la Mer Mr. Selden renders it in Latin ob causam aliquam à re maritima ortam and Salmatius as before saith usurae propter pecuniam trajectitiam praestandae maritimae nauticae vocantur etsi nummi in terris dantur Secondly that the end of a Contract being to have something performed and Pleas and Quarrels are occasioned by the non-performance or ill performance of the same The place of performance is more considerable than the place where the Contract was made or written So Ulpian a famous Roman Lawyer saith Mulier exigere dotem illic debet ubi maritus â—omicilium habet non ubi instrumentum dotale conscriptum est nec enim id genus contractus est ut tam eum locum spectari oporteat in quo instrumentum dotis actum est quam locum domicilii in quem mulier per conditionem matrimonii reditura erat When a Dowry is to be restored to a Wife after her Husbands death or divorce it is not to be estimated according to the value of things where the instrument or deed of the Dowry was made but according to the value of the place where the Dowry was to be made good that is the place where her Husband lived Thirdly for that if the Question be whether a Maritime Contract were made or no it may be determined by a jury of the place But if the Plea or Sute be as most commonly it is whether the Contract be performed or not performed it cannot be determined but upon proofs made from the place of performance of which the Vicinage to the place where the Contract was made can take no notice and therefore it is improbable that the Statute should intend that such Sutes should be tried discussed and determined only by the Courts and course of Common Law Fourthly the Common Law is not so strict but that according to the nature of the business it allows Jurisdiction to other Courts For although Promises and Contracts of money are generally Pleadable in the Courts of the Common Law yet as Bracton writes causae de rebus promissis ob causam matrimonii in foro Ecclesiastico terminari debent quia cujus juris id jurisdictionis est principale ejusdem erit accessorium And in an other place he gives a reason for the same quia semper videndum propter quid aliquid sit vel promittatur And again although Sutes touching Tenures and Services belong to the same Courts of Common Law yet Littleton shews That if Tenants in Franck Almain fail to perform divine Service the Lord may complain thereof to the Ordinary and Sir Edw. Cook in his Comment thereupon observes that the Law doth appoint every thing to be done by those to whose Office it properly appertaineth and so saith he the Lord hath remedy for his Divine Service albeit it issue out of temporal Lands in foro Ecclesiastico by the Ecclesiastical Court And certainly if what constructions are made of the Law were made of this Statute it would be more easily admitted That a Maritime Contract although made or written within the County should be tried before the Judge of the Admiralty whose Office it is to determine Maritime causes Thirdly For the better discerning of the meaning of this Statute it is offered to consideration what hath been the sense of Parliaments in preceding and subsequent Statutes as first in the Statute of the Staple made in the 27 of Edw. the 3. in 3 Chap. where it is declared That the Mayors and Constables of the Staple shall have Iurisdiction and Conusance within the Towns where the Staple shall be of all manner of things touching the Staple which shall be ruled by the Law Merchant and not by the Common Law of the Land nor by the usage of Cities Burroughs or other Towns c. So that all manner of Contracts and Covenants made betwixt Merchant and Merchant or other where one party is a Merchant whether the Contract be made within the Staple or without the Plaintiff may sue his action or Quarrel before the Justices of the Staple by the Law of the Staple unless he make choice to sue in some other place of the Common Law from which may be observed First That the Merchants businesses by the Judgement of the Parliament were held fitter to be regulated by a special Law viz. the Law-merchant than by the common Laws or customes of the Countries Secondly That where Contracts or Covenants did concern Merchandize or matters belonging to the Staple it was not thought considerable to point of Jurisdiction whether the Contract or Covenant were made within or without the precincts of the Staple The susequent Statutes are that of the 32 of Hen. 8. Chap. 14. which declares that the Court of Admiralty may hold plea of Charter-parties and that of the 43 of Elizabeth Chap. 12. which hinders the Courts of common Law from medling with Policies of Assurance which two things are the main matters endeavoured to be maintained by the Statute of the 15 of Rich. the 2. to belong to the Conusance of the Courts of common Law because they are usually made at Land within the bodies of Counties The Statute of the 32 of Hen. 8. Ch. 14. prohibiting the employment of Forein ships ordained concerning the shipping of this Kingdome That the Owners or Masters make their departure from the Port of London after the Freighting or Lading of the Ship as soon as wind and weather wil serve according to the Charter-party made betwixt the Owner or Master and the Merchants without protracting of time and also that they and every of them to his power shall see and provide that all Wares and Merchandises which shall be by the said Merchants and their servants brought into any Ship or Vessel shall be honestly and in good order saved and kept Provided
goods aboard a Ship contrary to the Charter-party without any respect to the place where it was made if no reason can be shewed that Judgment may be thought not to have been grounded so much upon reason as it was upon the common received opinion of the meaning of that Statute as it is therein related quia contractus ille apud novam Sarum factus junctus fuit Touching that of the 28. of Elizabeth whereby Glynn was condemned to Constantine for breach of Covenant in a Charter-party in the summ of 500. l. it seems a Case far more reasonable though something grievous because it is not denied but that a sute upon a Charter-party may be commenced at the Common Law upon a penalty as it seems that was for breach of Covenant in not staying at Madrill so many dayes as were limitted by the Charter-party Only that is thought no concluding argument against a sute in the Admiralty for freight grounded on a Charter-party But whereas when in the Arrest of judgment it was alleged that the Trial was not sufficient because the issue did arise out of a place in a Forein Kingdome from whence no Jury by Twelve men might be had Sir Edw. Cook sayes that Sir Christopher Wray and the whole bench resolved That the Plaintiff should recover cost and dammages because the Charter-party was made at Thetford in Norfolk within the Realm it is as much as if Sir Edw. Cook had said that whether the suggestion in the issue were true or false tryed by a competent or incompetent Jury yet if the sute were brought upon a Charter-party the Conusance thereof did belong to the Common Law and whether the former Judges had proceeded well or not was not material so that what is premised formerly touching Judgments and judicial Acts in the First Chap. may from this case be excused And as touching the infinite prohibitions granted upon sutes commenced in the Admiralty concerning Charter-parties there may be something declared and made appear reasonable hereafter in an other place As to the instances of Policies of assurance held tryable at the Common Law although by the Statute of the 43. of Elizabeth it hath been shewed that the proceedings in those causes at the Common Law were altogether inconvenient to the Kingdome yet in regard Sir Edward Cooks reasons in Dowdales case for the maintaining of proceedings in such businesses may be applyed to other matters to the prejudice of the Admiralty Jurisdiction something may be observed concerning the same in Sir Edward Cooks reasons as first That the Assumpsit is the ground and foundation of the Action and that the Arrest or Imbargo in that case had been no ground of an Action if there had been no Assumpsit neither could the Assumpsit have produc'd an Action if there had not been an Arrest But what was the nearest and immediate ground of the Action without doubt the Arrest And what was chiefly in question not the Assumpsit for it was taken for granted that that was done in London but it was the Arrest which as it was declared was in issue And it is likely that the Common Law which intended a Trial of the Vicinage intended it of the thing or matter which was in issue to be tried But he further argues That the Trial must be of necessity where the Assumpsit is made for otherwise there could have been no Trial at the Common Law which might have savour'd of some reason If possibly there could have been no Trial in any other Court but the Cause being Maritime and amongst Merchants it might more properly have been tried in the Admiralty or in the Assurance Court without a Jury or Trial of Twelve men by witnesses as Fortescue acknowledgeth Thirdly touching that of the Book of 48. of Edward the 3. where it is said That if a Mariner make Covenant only to serve in a Ship on the Sea yet if the wages be not paid they shall be demanded in that Court by the Common Law not by the Law Mariner the occasion was that an action of debt being bâ—ought at the Common Law upon an Obligation dated at Harflet in Kent whereas in truth it was made in Normandy and the consideration was Service done in Warr in France thereupon one of the Judges said That the summ demanded growing due for Service done in Warr the Cause ought to be tryed in the Constable and Marshals Court Another as it seems willing to retain the cause said tâ—at he hired a man to go in a message to Rome although the service were done in another Realm yet what was due by covenant might be recovered in that Court Another said if a Mariner make a Covenant with one to serve in a Ship on the Sea yet if his wages be not paid they shall be demanded by the Common Law c. So that it is plain it was not a Resolution of the Court but a fuit dic as they say and one mans opinion by way of argument to another purpose And the ground thereof might be that if it were in issue whether such a Covenant were made it might be tryed at the Common Law but it doth not conclude but that if the Question were whether the service in the Ship were performed on the Sea it might more properly be tryed in the Admiralty Court For confirmation on this point First To the 4. Request of the Judge of the Admiralty to the Lord Chief Justice of the Kings Bench 12. May 1575. viz. That the Judge of the Admiralty may have and enjoy the knowledge of the breach of Charter-parties made between Masters of Ships and Merchants for voyages to be made to the parts beyond the Sea according as it hath been accustomed time out of mind and according to the good meaning of the Statute of 32. Hen. 8. chap. 14. though the same Charter-parties be made with in the Realm The answer is This is agreed upon for things to be performed upon or beyond the Seas though the Charter-party be made upon the Land by the Statute of 32. Hen. 8. chap. 14. Secondly it was agreed unto by all the Judges and Attorney General before the King and his Counsel That if a Sute be before the Admiral for Freight or Mariners wages or for breach of Charter-parties for Voyages to be made beyond the Sea although the Charter-parties happen to be made with in the Realm and although the money be payable within the Realm so as the penalty be not demanded a Prohibition is not to be granted But if the Sute be for the penalty or if the Question be made whether the Charter-party were made or not or whether the party did release it is to be tryed by the Kings Court at Westminster So that at first it be denied upon Oath that a Charter-party was made or a denial upon Oath tendred to which it may be added that it was there further agreed That if Sute shall be made in the Court of Admiralty for building
in those times Saeculis priscis antequam summorum Admirallorum authoritas c. In ancient times before the Authority of the high Admirals of England was sufficiently established by our Kings and so distinguished that the Government of the Sea did wholy belong unto ihem the Sheriffs had some Authority in the Sea adjoyning to the County which did appear in that they did execute the Kings Precepts upon the Sea and convey the Kings ships from one Port to another through the Seas which was done about the time of Hen. the 3. and of Edw. â—he 1. but in subsequent times it was never â—eard of postquam omnimoda Maris custodia c. after that all manner of guarding the Sea c. was by our Kings reâ—erred to the high Admiral and to them â—nely and their Deputies which now belonâ—s â—nto them by right unquestionable In â—hich times if the Coroner did exercise is office where at this time he cannot â—or the reason aforesaid it may be â—ranted but no good argument can be â—rawn from those times to the times â—ollowing when the Admiralty Jurisâ—iction was better settled Thirdly The authority of the Marsh grounds over which the Sea did flow and reflow adjudged to be within the Mannor of Brancaster in the time of Edw. the 3. whence it is concluded to be within the County is taken up by Sir Edw. Coole upon the credit of Dyer But Sergeant Callis in his Readings cites the Record in this manner Contra Abbot de Ramsey de quodam processu facto versus dictum Abbot ad ostendendum quare sexaginta acrae Marisci in manum Domini Regis non debent seiziri Et Abbas respondet quod ipsa tenet Manerium de Brancaster quod scituatum est iuxta Mare quod est ibidem Mariscus qui aliquando per Fluxum Maris minoratur aliquando per Fluxum Mardo augetur c. By which it is apparent that those grounds were claimed by that King as waste and floted grounds and no parcel of the Mannor which the Abbot did justifie and howsoever they might be part of the County yet they could not be places concerning which there might grow any question of Jurisdiction for although they were subject to flowing and reflowing of the Sea yet they were not either fit for the sayling nor arriving of Ships and admitting that some thing may be inferreâ— from thence to prove that places where the Sea floweth may be within the bodies of Counties yet it doth not wholy exclude the Admiral from having Jurisdion by Sir Edw. Cooks learning in Sir Henry Constables Case where he sheweth That it hath been resolved by the whole Court that the soyl over which the Sea doth flow and reflow inter le High-water mark and the Low-water mark the Land may be parcel of a Mannor of a subject and yet it was resolved That when the Sea did flow ad plenitudinem the Admiral should have Jurisdiction of any thing done upon the water betwixt the High-water mark the Low-water mark by the ordinary and natural course of the Sea and when the Sea doth reflow the Land may appertain to a subject and then any thing done upon the Land shall be tried at the Common Law for it is then parcel of the County whereupon he makes an observation That beyond the Low-water mark the Admiral alwayes hath Jurisdiction and betwixt the High-water mark and the Low-water mark the Common Law and the Admiralty have divisum imperium interchangeably and why the same should not hold as well in Arms of the Sea as in the open Sea may deserve some consideration Fourthly The allowance of the Common Law of the Haven of Hull to be within the Burrough in respect of an Action of Trespass determinable at the Common Law for the reasons before shewed in general it doth not hinder but that in the same place if damage be done by one ship to another remedy may be given according to the Judgements in the Roll of Oleron and so in respect of the place though not of the cause the Common Law and the Admiralty may have conjunctum imperium occasionally Secondly There remain those Authorities which shew that the Courts of Common Law have punished and restrained such as have sued in the Admiralty for things done in Havens and Navigable Rivers as by actions of double Damages Praemuniries and Prohibitions Touching the first it is related That 6 Hen. 6. Iohn Burton in the Common Pleas recovered against Bartholomew Putt for double damages 1400 l. for that the said Putt had sued Burton in the Admiralty for entring and taking away three ships with Merchandises and Prisoners with force of Arms Super Alâ—um mare whereas the taking thereof was in the Haven of Bristol intra corpus Comitatus Again That the like Action 12 of Henry 6. was brought by Robert Cupper against Iohn Reyner who had sued him in the Admiralty Court for entring his ship in the Haven of Yarmouth infra Corpus Comitatus Norf. Secondly Concerning Praemunires it is said That 38 of Hen. 6 one was brought by Iohn Cassy against Richard Beauchamp and Thomas Paunce for that they sued him in the Admiralty Court for taking away certain Iewels super Altum mare whereas he took them apud Stratford-Bow infra corpus Comitatus Middlesexiae Again That in the 9 of Hen. 7. a Praemunire was brought for a Sâ—te in the Admiralty Court for taking and carrying away Quandam naviculam apud Horton Key at South Lynn supposing the same to have been done super altum mare It cannot be denied but that these Authorities especially contain forcible Arguments and fit to fright men from suing in the Admiralty Court but how reasonable it may be considered Touching the Action of double Damages in the leading Case of Burton against Put the point of Issue was as it may be supposed whether the thing done in the River of Bristol were done within the body of the County and eight Terms as Sir Edw. Cook relates were spent in deliberation of the Case which argues that the Judges could not easily agree upon the same and happily the reason was because the Statute of Henry 4. for double Damages relates onely to that of the 13 of Richard the 2. chap. 5. and the Action was layed upon that of the 15 Richard the 2. chap. 3. Touching things done within the Bodies of Counties it being not proper to extend a penal Law from one Statute to another and how rightly it was so adjudged may be better considered and it may be thought upon why that being a leading Case and having received so long deliberation the Reasons of the Resolutions of the Judges are no way published It may be farther noted as to our purpose that the taking of Ships in the Haven of Bristol was done with force of Arms which made it more than an ordinary business of which the Admiral claimeth the Conusance in such places but was of the condition of
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-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