Page:The American Cyclopædia (1879) Volume I.djvu/145

ADMIRALTY 125 were governed by the practice of those and the like courts on the continent by the ancient customary laws of the sea and commerce, and by those collections such as the laws of Rhodes and O16ron, the Waterricht of Wisby, the Hanseatic ordinances, and the Consolato del Mare which from time to time shaped the admiralty law of Europe. From the course of the administration of the law in those con- tinental courts from which the English admi- ralty borrowed its procedure, and from the fact that its characteristic jurisdiction related so largely to commercial dealings with the states of continental Europe where the Roman law prevailed, the law and practice of the English court adopted and followed also the principles and rules of that system of jurisprudence. But the Roman law was regarded in those early periods with great jealousy and suspicion in England, and many efforts were made to re- strain the jurisdiction of the admiralty with- in the narrowest possible limit. It was charged in the reign of Edward III. that now the admiralty claimed jurisdiction of tres- passes on land and within the bodies of coun- ties, and undertook to regulate the wages of labor and the prices of provisions. As a result of the complaint it was enacted in the 13th year of Richard II. (1390), that "the admirals and their deputies shall not meddle henceforth of anything done within the realm, but only of a thing done upon the sea ; " and in the 15th year of the same reign (1392), that "all man- ner of contracts, pleas, and quereles, and all other things rising within the bodies of coun- ties, as well by land as by water, as afore, and also wrecks of the sea, shall be determined and remedied by the laws of the land, and not be- fore nor by the admiral nor his lieutenant in any wise." The admonitions of these statutes were still further emphasized by a law of Henry IV. (1411), which not only inflicted fines on persons proceeding in the admiralty courts in the forbidden causes, but also fined the admiralty judges who entertained their suits. About the same time the common law courts began to issue their prohibitions to the courts of admiralty, forbidding their interfer- ence in certain disputed cases. This matter of prohibitions became the subject of a sort of convention between the judges of the rival courts early in the reign of Elizabeth (1575), which quelled the discord until the next reign. Coke (1551-1633) repudiated the agreement just referred to, though it had been observed for a quarter of a century, on the ground that it was not signed, and that the justices of the queen's bench had never assented to it; and he accordingly sent out prohibitions from his court more fierce than had ever issued yet. There was never much peace with the admiral- ty courts during his time, and the common law courts had their own way. In 1632 cer- tain ordinances were drawn up by the king and his council and the judges of the two courts, which were again favorable to the ad- miralty. But these were set aside by the com- monwealth, and in turn a new ordinance of that period (1648), still more favorable to the admiralty,' was annulled at the restoration, and the common law judges began anew rtth their prohibitions. The jurisdiction of the court was now very much narrowed, and among the more important branches of it which were lost were cases of seamen's wages, freight, charter parties, claims for the building, repairing, or supplying of ships, and questions involving disputes of title to ships. The stat- ute 3 and 4 Victoria began to repair and re- store the damaged capacity of the admiralty. That act extends the power of the court to all cases of salvage or damage, though arising within the body of a county ; to questions of title in causes for possession ; to cases of damages, bottomry, and wages ; to suits for sup- plies furnished to foreign ships; and to the claims of mortgagees when the ship or her pro- ceeds are under the control of the court. The so-called admiralty court act of 1854, the elab- orate merchant shipping act of the same year, and especially and notably the admiralty court act of 1861, "to extend the jurisdiction and improve the practice" of the court, have in- creased very materially its power, and bear strong testimony to its usefulness in all matters of a maritime character. The. criminal juris-- diction of the English admiralty was anciently very extensive, and included all crimes and in- juries committed on the high seas, and the general government of the navy. In later times, however, this branch of its jurisdiction was withdrawn. Cases arising in the public ships of the realm were transferred to naval courts martial by acts of Charles II. and George II. ; and cases arising on ships of commerce or in foreign ports were assigned to certain commis- sioners and courts created by acts of 28 Henry VIII., 39 and 46 George III., and 4 and 5 Wil- liam IV., in which tribunals the acts provide that the lord high admiral, or as now the judge of the admiralty, shall be included ; and by the operation of still more recent statutes the criminal jurisdiction of the court is almost en- tirely annulled. Apart from the general, or as it is called the instance side of the court, it has exercised very important functions in time of war as a court of prize. This court is called into being by the special warrants of the crown at the outbreak of each war, and takes cogni- zance of all seizures of prizes and their con- demnation, and all other matters relating to capture. (See PRIZE.) In France admiralti" courts existed prior to the revolution of 1790, and there as in England derived their authority from a lord high admiral. Their jurisdiction was even more extensive than that of the Eng- lish courts, and included all questions of prize, salvage, bottomry, charter parties, average, wages of seamen, fisheries, and the building, fitting, manning, and sale of ships; and also all crimes or misdemeanors committed on the high seas, except those connected with the