Whitehall Aug. 13. 1664. Let this Book be Printed HENRY BENNET THE Maritime Dicaeologie OR SEA-JURISDICTION OF ENGLAND Set forth in Three several Books The first setting forth the Antiquity of the Admiralty in England The second setting forth the Ports Havens and Creeks of the Sea to be within the Jurisdiction of the Admiralty The third shewing that all Contracts concerning all Maritime Affairs are within the Jurisdiction of the Admiralty and there cogniscible By JOHN EXTON Doctor of Laws and Judge of his Majesties High Court of Admiralty LONDON Printed by Richard Hodgkinson Printer to the Kings most Excellent Majesty 1664. TO HIS ROYAL HIGHNES JAMES Duke of York and Albany Earl of Vlster Lord High Admiral of England and Ireland c. Constable of Dover Castle Lord Warden of the Cinque-Ports Governor of Portsmouth c. YOur Royal Highness having been graciously pleased to constitute me Judge or President of the High Court of Admiralty I held it my duty according to my poor ability to assert the just Jurisdiction thereof against those undue encroachments and usurpations whereby the power of the Lord High Admiral hath been heretofore and is at this present straightned in decision of matters relating to Maritime affairs wherefore having some time since in those sad and distracted times bestowed some labour in searching and perusing such of the Records of our own as well as Forreign Nations as I could meet with wherein the just extent of the Admirals Jurisdiction is sufficiently and undeniably evidenced together with the necessity of deciding all controversies about Maritime affairs according to the ancient Sea customes and the reason and directions of the Civil and Maritime Laws I held it no less my duty to recollect the said Papers and reduce them into some method for the clearing those objections which hitherto have been and still are made use of either against the antiquity or extent of the Lord High Admiral his Jurisdiction in Maritime causes or against the decision of them by the ancient Sea customes and the rules of the Civil Law And as I have observed this Nation hath happily flourished a long time under that happy Government of all Land affairs by its municipal Laws practiced in the Common Law Courts so hath it no less prospered and been enriched in its Navies Trade and Commerce under that exact Government which hath ordered and guided all Maritime businesses and Sea affairs by the Civil and Maritime Laws and Customes corresponding agreeing and according with the Laws of Forreign Nations being suitable to the nature and negotiations of the people that are subject to them exercised and practised in the High Court of Admiralty The design therefore that I propound to my self in the publishing this Treatise is to shew how necessary and fitting it is that the power and jurisdiction of this Court should be no longer subject to such interruptions and how expedient it now is that the rights and privileges of the same should be observed and kept and the Laws and ancient Customes thereof whereby all Commerce and Navigation is upheld should be precisely and strictly preserved and maintained That all which may appear I have set forth the antiquity of the Lord Admirals Jurisdiction here in England by ancient Records of the Tower Next the Jurisdiction it self and the extent thereof as also the necessity and necessary use of it in divers respects In all which I have endeavonred neither to eclipse the honour power or least right of the Muncipall Laws of this Kingdome nor in any sort to detract from the renown of the Reverend and Learned Professors thereof but hope I have manifested that the upholding of both Jurisdictions and restraining each of them to its proper limits and confines will be more advantagious to this Kingdome and the Inhabitants thereof then the suffering eitber of them to swallow up or devour the other Be pleased therefore to receive this unpolished work from the hand of your Servant as the same is dedicated unto the protection of your Royal Self THE CONTENTS The Chapters contained in the First Book of the Maritime Dicaeologie or Sea Jurisdiction Chap. 1. THe Antiquity of the Admiralty in England set forth so farre as to prove the same to have been settled and continued in and before Edward the Thirds time to whose time the Statute of the 13 of Ric. 2. referreth argued from the antiquity of the High-Officers that exercised that Jurisdiction in those times and from their Grants and Patents Page 1. Chap. 2. That these High-Officers or Admirals or Keepers of the Seas Sea-coasts and Ports had like power and authority in them and over them as the Keepers and Governours of Land-Provinces had over them and had their Maritime Laws for guidance of their Jurisdiction both Civil and Criminal as well as the other had their Land Laws for the guidance of theirs page 10. Chapt. 3. The beginning of Sea Laws and the further Antiquity of Admirals and their Jurisdiction from thence argued p. 13. Chap. 4. Of the Laws of Oleron and the Antiquity of the Admiralty argued and inferred from the introduction of them into England p. 16. Chap. 5. The ancient Introduction of the Sea Laws argued and inferred from the King of Englands Dominion over the British Seas p. 21. Chap. 6. The Antiquity of the Admiralty argued and inferred from the defect and want of ability in other Coâ—rts in deciding of Maritime Causes in those antient times p. 25. Chap. 7. Of the Exercise of the Sea Laws by the Grecians Athenians Romans Italians Venetians Spaniards and by the Admirals of Naples and Castile p. 29. Chap. 8. Of the Admiral of France and Denmark p. 30. Chap. 9. Of the Admiral of Scotland p. 32. Chap. 10. From the common acceptance of the Sea Laws in other Nations is inferred the acceptance of them in England p. 34. The Chapters contained in the Second Book of the Maritime Dicaeologie or Sea Jurisdiction Chap. 1. THat the Sea-Jurisdiction and the Land Jurisdiction are and so necessarily must be two different and distinct Jurisdictions having no dependancie each upon the other Chap. 2. That the Jurisdiction of the Admiralty doth extend to all manner of Ships Shipping Seafaring and Sea-tradingmen p. 41. Chap. 3. That the Ports and Havens and Creeks of the Sea are within the Jurisdiction of the Admiralty p. 52. Chap. 4. The Arguments deduced out of the Statute Law to prove the Ports Havens and Creeks of the Sea to be within the bodies of Counties and not within the Jurisdiction of the Admiraltie redargued p. 57. Chap. 5. The Argument deduced from the first Judgement at the Common Law that the Ports and Havens of the Seas are within bodies of Counties redargued p. 62. Chap. 6. That from the two other Actions instanced in to be brought against the Parties suing in the Admiralty Court for a business done upon the Ports no concludent Argument is deduced p. 72. Chap. 7. The Argument deduced from two
Pirats Theeves Robbers Murderers and Confederates upon the Sea many times escaped unpunished because the tryall of their offences heretofore hath been ordered judged and determined before the Admiral or his Lieutenant or Commissary after the course of the Civil Law the nature whereof is that before any Iudgement of death can be given against the offenders either they must plainly confess their offences which they will never do without torture or pains or else their offences to be so plainly and directly proved by witnesses indifferent such as saw their offences committed which cannot be gotten but by chance at few times because such offenders commit their offences upon the Sea and many times murder and kill such persons being in the Ship or Boat where they commit their offencs which should witness against them in that behalf and also such as should bear witness be commonly Mariners and Shipmen which because of their often voyages and passages on the Seas depart without long tarrying and protraction of time to the great cost and charges as well of the Kings Highness as such as would pursue such offenders For reformation whereof be it enacted by the Authority of this present Parliament That all Treasons Felonies Robberies Murders and Confederacies hereafter to be committed in or upon the Sea or in any other Haven River Creek or Place where the Admiral or Admirals have or pretend to have power authority or jurisdiction shall be enquired tryed heard determined and adjudged in such Shires and Places in the Realm as shall be limited by the Kings Commission or Commissions to be directed for the same in the like forme and condition as if any such offence or offences had been committed or done in or upon the Land and such Commissions shall be had under the Kings great Seal directed to the Admiral or Admirals or to his or their Lieutenant Deputy or Deputies and to three or four such other substantial persons as shall be named and appointed by the Lord Chancellor of England for the time being from time to time and as oft as need shall require to hear and determine such offences after the common course of the Laws of this Land used for Treasons Felonies Robberies Murders and Confederacies of the same done and committed upon the land within this Realm This Statute plainly sheweth that before the making thereof the offences of all Traitors Pirats Theeves Robbers and their Confederates done or committed upon the Sea without distinguishing the main Sea from the Ports Creeks and Havens thereof or excluding them therefrom as well as the offences of Murderers and Meighmers of men were ordered judged and determined before the Admiral his Lieutenant or Commissary Nay by the reason given in this Statute for the alteration of this Triall the Ports and Havens do appear to be comprehended in the word Sea where it is said that many times the offenders do murder and kill such persons and the Witnesses being in the Ship or Boat where they commit their offences which should witness against them in that behalf Now surely all the said offences which were done or committed in Ships or Boats and were cognizable before the Admiral or his Lieutenant or Commissary might be and were committed as well in Ships and Boats which did ride or lie at anchor within the Havens Creeks and Ports of the Sea as upon the high Sea Yet if this be doubted what followeth in the Act will make it more plain viz. That all Treasons Felonies Robberies Murders and Confederacies hereafter to be committed in or upon the Sea or in any other Haven River Creek or place where the Admirals have or pretend to have power authority or Jurisdiction shall be enquired tryed c. So that we see here the same criminal offences acknowedged to have heretofore been tryable by the Civil Law and that it is now enacted that hereafter the same offences committed upon the Sea may be otherwise enquired tryed c. And least any doubt should arise how farre the Sea heretofore extended therefore it is added or any other Haven River or Place where the Admiral or Admirals have or pretend to have Power Authority or Jurisdiction Again had these Havens Rivers and Creeks ever been within the bodies of Counties so that a Jury might have been had out of a proper County for the Tryall of these offences thereon committed then needed not this Statute have appointed any such tryall thereof by Jury to be chosen out of any County limited by the Kings Commission proper or not proper Nor assuredly would this Stature have given the cognizance of these offences committed within the bodies of Counties to the Lord Admiral and his Deputies Now if these Havens Rivers and Creeks were so farre out of the bodies of Counties that a Jury could not nor yet can be had out of a proper County but must be had out of any County by the King in Chancery appointed for the tryal of these criminal causes arising from these offences thereon committe I conceive it will seem strange that it should be affirmed that the same Havens Rivers and Creeks should be so farre within the bodies of Counties that a Jury might or may be had out of a proper County for the tryal of such Civil causes as might or may arise from Civil matters thereon had or done so that I cannot by the uttermost of my endeavour find out the foundation either of law or reason whereon this Judgement was built Sir Edward Coke not seldome termeth it a Maxime in the Common Law Quòd nemo debet videri prudentior lege that no man ought to seem wiser then the Law and truly from this Maxime as he termeth it I conceive as strong a conclusion may be drawn viz. Quod hisce statutis nulli prudentiores videri deberent none ought to have seemed wiser then these Statutes themselves But indeed as this Judgement hath been by some accepted as grounded upon law so hath it been by more and those learned in the Law refused and rejected as not grounded thereon as I shall hereafter shew by Writs de Procedendo awarded out of the Chancery upon Injunctions thence granted and Consultations both out of the Kings Bench and Common-pleas upon Prohibitions thence granted upon causes of the self same nature Now I hope by what hath been said shall hereafter be shewed it plainly will appear that this first and leading Judgement was not so grounded either upon law or reason or upon so sound a foundation as that men in succeeding ages should build their judgements thereupon nor so complete or fit a guide or rule as that Lawgivers should be directed thereby although it had been contemporanea statutorum expositio made within 20 years of the making of one of the said Statutes and that upon two years advisement and deliberation as Sir Edward Coke affirmeth which Induction or minor Proposition is as infirme as the major and both will leave the conclusion to stand alone
of those Municipal Laws the old should be decided no more are those controversies which do arise concerning maritime and sea affairs to be determined by those Municipal Laws but by their Maritime Laws by which they trade one Nation with another and which are generally the same and not Municipal as is before more fully set forth For further satisfaction vide caput 10. hujus libri tertii CHAP. II. The Arguments deduced out of the Statute of the 13 R. 2. c. 5. to prove that Maritime Contracts made at land concerning Maritime Affairs are not tryable in the Admiralty Court answered FOr the taking away the cognizance of Contracts made at land concerning Maritime affairs from the Admiralty Court the Statute of the 13 of R. 2. c. 5. the 15 of R. 2. c. 3. and the 2 of H. 4. c. 11. are urged by Sir Edward Coke in his before mentioned 22th Chapter of his Jurisdiction of Courts I shall take them in order The first of them he rendreth thus that the Admirals and their Deputies shall not meddle from henceforth with any thing done within the Realm of England but only with things done upon the sea according to that which hath been duly used in the time of the noble King Edward Grandfather to Richard the second by which saith he it is manifest that the Jurisdiction of the Admiralty is only confined to things done upon the Sea And truly taking only these words it may very well seem so to be Sed tota lex in omnibus suis partibus diligenter prospicienda est incivile est inquit Celsus nisi tota lege prolecta de una aliqua particula ejus proposita judicare vel respondere Take we then the Statute wholly as it is set down in the Parliament Roll in the Tower and then to the best of my understanding we shall find that the mis-translation hath bred a mis-construction and wrong interpretation thereof These antient Statutes were made by way of Petition and Answer and so remain still upon the Roll here is set down only the Answer to the Petition but not one word of the Petition to which the answer hath relation Et cum non sit satis ad investigationem Juris si verborum superficiem teneamus sed interius respicienda est mens legislatoris quâ ratione motus fuerit ad statuendum aliquid ut affirmat Oldendorpius loco praecitato Certè nullo modo sunt vestiganda jura si verborum omnium ne quidem superficiem istam aut teneamus aut habeamus nec quovismodo est intelligenda mens legislatoris quâ ratione motus fuit ad hoc statuendum dum abscondita sit petitio super quâ fundatur statutum Scire leges inquit Celsus non hoc est verba eorum tenere sed vim potestatem habere l. scire leges F. de legibus Quedcunque igitur negligere est legum vim potestatemque destruere I shall therefore first set down both the Petition and answer as I find them in the Tower Roll and then under correction examine the true construction and interpretation of them according to the best of my ability The words are these Item prient les comes que come les Admirals lour Deputies tiegnent lour Sessions en diverses places deins le Royalme si bien deins franchises come de hors accrochant au eux plus grant poaire que a lour office nappertinent en pre judice nostre sieūr ' le Roy le come ley du Royalme grant enblemishment de plusours diverses Franchises en destruction empourissiment del ' comen people que plese ordaine establer lour poaire en cest persent Parlament quils ne sic mellent nempriegnent sureux connisances de nulls contracts covenances regraters c. que con ques les quex divent purrant estre termines devant auter Jugges nostre sur le Roy deins les quatre miers Dengleterre deins Franchise de horse c. R. le Roy voit que les Admirals lour Deputies ne soi mellent de sore ena vant de null chose fait deins le roylme mes solemet de chose fait sur le meere solonc ce que ad estre duement use en temps du Noble Roy Edward aiel nostre sūr le Roy quorest The first part of the Petition having set forth that the Admirals keeping their Sessions in divers places in the Realm as well within the Liberties as without had incroached to themselves greater power then belonged unto their Office c. Then so much of the prayer of the Petition as is granted consisteth in these words Quils ne sic mellent nem pregnent sur eux conisances de nulls Contracts covenances regrates c. que con ques les ceux divent purrant estre termines devant autres Jugges nostre sur le Roy deins les quatre miers dengleterre deins Franchise de horse They pray that the Admirals may not so meddle or encroach upon the Cognizance of Contracts Covenants Regraters c. determinable before other the Kings Judges within the four Seas of England within franchise and without the rest of the Petition is not granted but tacitely denied and this part is thus answered by the King Le Roy vort que les Admirals lour Deputies ne soi mellent c. This Sir Edward Coke positively without any relation to the Petition rendreth in the words before set down viz. The Admirals and their Deputies shall not meddle from henceforth with any thing done within the Realm of England but onely with things done upon the Sea which Poulton more truly rendereth thus but still without relation to the Petition that the Admirals and their Deputies shall not meddle from henceforth of any thing done within the Realm but onely of a thing done upon the Sea rendring of for with which is the more proper signification of de and will as I conceive bring home the true construction of the Answer with relation to the Petition to which it hath and necessarily must have reference It hath been affirmed unto me by some professors of the Common Law that the King upon a Petition never grants more then is desired by the Petition and that that which is granted more then is desired is void in Law but that I leave to the determination of such as are of their own profession but the same thing hath been noted unto me as a rule from many expert Recordmen more especially from my old deceased friend Master W. C. not long before his death then above 80 years of age viz. that the King in Parliament never granted more then was askt many times less who affirmed that this in his younger time he had taken for a rule from those that were then ancient But this Answer here being set down positively alone without the Petition or any relation thereunto hath as it seemeth to me
will hereafter be disputed in which dispute the antiquity of the Admiralty will be further discovered CHAP. II. That these high Officers and Admirals or Keepers of the Seas Sea-coasts and Ports had like power and authority in them and over them as the Keepers and Governors of Land-Provinces had over them and had their Maritime Lawes for guidance of their Jurisdiction both Civil and Criminal as well as the other had their Land Laws for the guidance of theirs THe next thing I observe is that the preceding Officers which this prout hactenus led me unto are most of them rendred unto us under the titles of Custodes As Custos maritimarum partium Custos maris maritimarum partium Custos Portuum cum costrâ maris Custos marinae Custos portuum marinae most of which Officers so styled which I had formerly met with amongst the Records of the Tower I met with again in Mr. Seldens book de Dominio maris quoted out of the same Records who from thence and some other good and sound reasons there exprest inferreth Quod apertè constat Reges Angliae praefectos constituere solitos qui mare Anglicanam custodirent seu ejus custodes essent sive praefecti non aliter ac Provinciae cujuscunque terrestris They were to be keepers of the Seas in such wise as others were of every Land Province Primò autem saith he mari maritimae marinae idque ubi his vocibus non regio solùm maritima sed ipse etiam Oceanus Britannicus planè continetur quod non semper fieri fatemur praeficiebantur qui tuerentur custodirent nomine custodum ut interdum navium frequentius verò maritimae sensu jam dicto To which he addeth another further reason and saith that primaria Commitiorum Parliaementariorum ratio anno Regis Edvardi tertii decimo quarto est de treter sur la guard de la pees de la terre de la marche d' escoce de la mierâ— ut tractaretur de custodiâ pacis terrae limitis Scotici maris from whence he observeth Quod non alia tutelae maris quà m telluris seu terrestris provinciae habebatur ratio And he gathereth further ex tabulis ejusdem regis Parliamentariis seu consultationibus ordinum regni as he saith held upon the same matter ut dum de la saufegard de la terre seu custodia seu tutela telluris sive insulae de la saufegard de la mere seu de custodiâ maris consilium pariter ineunt tam hujus dominium quam illius ad regem suum pertinere à majoribus edocti manifestò testari videantur For saith he non de classe solùm agaunt quâ hostibus per mare resisteretur sed de ipso mari tuendo aequè ac de tutelâ insulae adeoque de jure in utroque regis avito defendendo where he maketh two distinct Dominions of the Land and Sea and the ancient right of either of them to be defended and kept and there sets forth divers who had the defending and keeping thereof in the second of Richard the Second and in the time of the three Henries succeeding him with many other things there worth noting and observing He observes further in the same Chapter the common and received acceptance of this terme Custos amongst the English in other Governments both of this Land and other Islands and even at that time when the name or terme of Custos maris was most frequently used and he instanceth in the Governours of Ireland in the time of King John and Edward the Third who were then severally styled Custos Hiberniae He instanceth likewise in John Duke of Bedford and Humphry Duke of Glocester who had one at one time and another at another the Government of England when King Henry the Fifth was absent in France who were called Custodes Angliae quod saith he tum in historiis tum in tabulis publicis saepissimè occurrit And likewise in Arthur Prince of Wales who was made Custos Angliae when King Henry the Seventh was gone out of England And in Peter Gaveston who was Custos Angliae Edward the Second being busied in France And also the in Governours of the Isles of Jersey and Gernsey who of antient times were Custodes of those Islands as they are now called Gubernatores Custodes and Capitanei And seeing it is so how can it be saith he that we should not think that our Ancestors used under the same notion or terme of Custos custodia the Custodes Maris and the Custodes Insulae c. Quod cum ita sit quomodo fieri potest ut non eadem notione vocabuli Custodis Custodiae majores nostros usos esse existimemus in Custodis Custodiae maris nomine quâ in Custodia Insulae caeteris jam dictis dignitatibus uti solebant sc in hisce omnibus dominium imperiumque singulare praeficientis apertissimè ita signatur includiturque adeo ut non magis authoritas in personam quae praeficitur quam rei custodiendae dominium nomine hoc planè innuatur If then there were Custodes Maris Marinae Portuum Maritimarum partium and that in such manner as of a Land Prince non aliter ac provinciae cujuscunque terrestris Then will it necessarily follow that if a Prince that ever was civilized by the dominion and rule of a Civil Governor or Governors for by such means and no other are all Nations Princes Islands and the like become civilized and ordered could not so continue civilized and ordered without Rules and Laws for every mans demeanour to be guided by That the Seas having anciently been used for Maritime affairs for free and peaceable Traffique and Commerce one Nation with another which be friends at unity and in concord and for Martial Fleets and Navies for the defence of every Kingdom against an Enemy And so antiently under the dominion of Civil Princes as under their Dominion and Government of a Civil Land Province must necessarily have had settled and known Laws suited and fitted for such their Dominion and Government which could be no other then the Maritime Laws so agreeable unto Sea-affairs and so commonly and antiently accepted and agreed unto by most Nations and Kingdomes which have had such free Traffique and peaceable Commerce upon and by them one with another to guide and direct these Custodes in the ministring of Justice in Sea-businesses as well as the Governors of Land Provinces have had their Land Laws for the ministring Justice in Land-affairs Hence Spelman in his Glossarie having reckoned up all the Admirals from the eighth year of Henry the Third unto the 16th year of King James saith Nos de munere caduco aut extraordinario non agimus at de summo stationarioque magistratu qui universae marinae reipublicae praeest suoqueâ—oro amplissima jurisdictione tam in causis civilibus
and inferred from the introduction of them into England AS these Sea-laws before mentioned had their beginning and the government by them sprang from the Island Rhodes upon the Mediterranean Sea so the other Sea-laws there are extant which had their beginning from an Island upon the great Ocean and it is called Oleron scituate on the sea-coast of France against the mouth of Charant and the Maraes nigh St. Martins and not farre from the entry of Garunana This Island likewise consisting altogether of skilfull and experienced men as did the other could no more subsist or proceed happily and prosperously in their maritime affairs then could the other without such government as the other had And they being not altogether ignorant of the Rhodian Laws nor yet very perfect in them and other new differences and controversies arising and supervening which they could not judge or determine by the Rhodian Laws they observed certain other Rules and Customes together with those Laws whereby they decided such differences and determined such debates as fell out and happened amongst them Which Rules and Customes King Richard the First in his return from the Holy-Land having then the power and Government over that Island of Oleron caused to be interpreted setled and published for Laws there and having so setled them there and afterwards coming into England if we shall still doubt of the acceptance and settlement of the Rhodian Laws here at or before that time yet let us not make any question but that he brought those Laws of Oleron hither with him and here setled and declared them for Laws for the rule and government of his maritime Subjects and doing justice amongst all people of what Nation soever according to those Laws as will plainly appear out of the Roll of the Articles upon which the Kings Justices in Edward the Third's time were to advise where it is said thus Item ad finem quòd resumatur continuatur ad subditorum prosecutionem sorma procedendi quondam ordinata inchoata per avum domini nostri Regis ejus Consilium ad retinendum conservandum antiquam superioritatem maris Angliae nos offic Admiralitatis in eodem quoad corrigendum interpretandum declarandum conservandum leges statuta per ejus antecessores Angliae Reges dudum ordinata ad conservandum pacem justitiam inter omnes gentes nationis cujuscunque per mare Angliae transeuntes cognoscendum super omnibus in contrarium attemptatis in eodem ad puniendum delinquentes damna passis satisfaciendum Quae quidem leges statuta per Dominum Richardum quondam Regem Angliae in reditu suo à terra sancta correcta fuerunt interpretata in Insula Oleron publicata nominata in Gallica lingua la ley Oleron Hence as it appeares that King Richard interpreted declared and published these Laws called the Laws of Oleon in that Island so doth it plainly appear that he ordained and established them here by these words Ad conservandum leges statuta per ejus antecessores Angliae Reges dudum ordinata per ejus i.e. avi sui prius nominati by his Predecessors and it doth plainly appear by that in the close that Richard the First must necessarily be one of them And hence likewise it doth appear that with the settlement of these Laws there was likewise a settlement of a form of proceeding according to those Laws for saith this Record in prin Ad finem quòd resumatur continuetur ad subditorum prosecutionem forma procedendi quondam ordinata inchoata per avum c. hoc est inchoata resumi c. which must be the construction as the words following make it plain which are ad retinendum conservandum for reteining and conserving denote something to be reteined and preserved that was before Now for the publishing and settling these Laws and ordaining a form of proceedings in the prosecution of them in Richard the First 's time I conceive I may safely conclude an Admiral and Admiralty Court to have been settled before and continued at the same time unto which he added some more exact proceedings together with these Lawes of Oleron as several Statutes are daily added either in affirmance or correction of the Common Law and my reason is because these Laws without the Rhodian Laws and those other Laws made in supplement of them are in no wise a complete Law for the guidance and direction of an Admiralty Court And it may further appear that unto the settlement of these Laws this King himself added Ordinances of the Admiralty one of which I shall here set down which he made at Grymsbie The words follow Item soit en quis de nefs qui sont arrestees pour le service du Roy ou pour autrè Raisonabile cause per les officiers du Roy ou de l' admiral debrisent l' arrest per les quelles avantdictes nefs sont amenez retainer les mariners qui sont ordinez pour la service du Roy si Retraient encas que homme soit endite qui la debruse l' arrest en sa nef arrestee pour le service du Roy de ce soit convicte per xii il perdra sa nef si'l negrace du Roy ou du hault Admiral pour ce quila este plusseurs forz debatu en Angleterre pour les arrestees des nefs quāt le Roy amande sergeants d' armes ou autre ministris pour arrester nefs al ceps du Roy les Seignieurs des nefs sont venuz devant l' admiral allegment que leurs nefs nestorent mye arrestees ordonne estoit ou temps du Roy Richard le primer à Grymsbie per advys de pluseurs Seigneurs du Royalme que quāt nefs seront arrestees pour service du Roy que le Roy escripra par ses lettres patentes à l' admiral d' arrester les nefs plus ou moins a la voulente du Roy solen ce quil a besomg l' admiral escrivera a ses lieutenants de faire de re l' execution la cause estoit pour ce que l' admiral ses lieutenants sont de record pais l' admiral escripra au Roy ou au chancelier d' Angleterre les noms des nefs amsi arrestees assemblement avec les noms de seigneurs maistres dicelles en tel cas le seigneur de lâ nef ne le mastre ne viendront pas adire que la nef nestoit mye arrestee ne a ce ne seront oyz The same ordinance being set forth in another ancient French coppy of Articles wherein divers other Ordinances were likewise set forth was by one Roughton translated into Latin in these words viz. Item inquirendum de omnibus navibus quae ad serviendum Domino Regi super mari arrestatae fuerint postea Domini possessores
reparation of their old Laws then a structure or edifice of new For the rest some say they are additional some say explanatory to remove false constructions and interpretations and some say both but certainly for the most part they are but explanatory for the other Laws before mentioned are accounted most authentick and of chiefest authority throughout all or the greatest part of Europe But be these additional yet the addition of Sea-laws to Sea-laws is no diminution of Sea-Jurisdiction but rather a compleating and perfecting thereof but the composure of new land-Laws or if it be but the reformation of old if those Laws look but toward the Sea they oftentimes cause the discomposure of Sea-laws and unless well lookt unto the very destruction of that Jurisdiction but of that more will appear by what shall be said hereafter And now before I proceed to any other argument for the proof of the antiquity of this Jurisdiction I shall give you one reason only which induceth me to believe that the same was settled long before the time before mentioned and that the Rhodian Sea-laws were here settled long before the Laws of Oleron by Richard the First and that is an Ordinance made by Henry the first at Ipswich concerning the banishing a man for Felony or Trespass which I find mentioned in an Article of the antient Inquiry of maritime offences annexed unto the antient Statutes of the Admiralty in the antient Parchment-leaved Book called the black Book of the Admiralty where after the manner of such banishment is set forth it is said Et cêste ordonnance fat faitte primerement a Gyspswiz ou temps du primer Roy Henry per les Admiralx de North West autres Seigneurs adheirdantz CHAP. V. The antient Introduction of the Sea-laws argued and inferred from the King of Englands Dominion over the British Seas THat the Kings of France have no Dominion at all over the British Seas or any right or claim thereunto whatsoever is made plain by what is set forth in the 14th Chapter of the second book De Dominio maris written by Mr. Selden who in his 27th and 28th Chapters of the same Book proceeds to make further proof thereof and therein sets forth that there being warre between King Edward the First of England and King Philip the Fair of France but agreed by Covenant that all Commerce on both sides shall be free so that to all Merchants whatsoever there should be induciae which were called sufferantia guerrae and by both of them Judges were appointed that should take cognizance of all things done against these Truces and should exercise judicia secundum legem mercatoriam formam sufferantiae Now it being contained in the first head of this League that they should defend each others rights against all others this afterwards was the ground of an action which was instituted in the same Kings time c. before these Cognitors chosen by both the said Princes by the Proctors of the Prelates Nobility and high Admiral of England and of all the Cities Towns and Subjects of England c. unto which are joyned the Proctors of the most maritime Nations throughout Europe as of Genua Catalonia Spain Alemania Zealand Holland Frise Denmark and Norway and divers others subject to the Roman Empire against Reginer Grimbald the then Admiral of France for that there being Warres between Philip King of France and Guy Earl of Flanders he had taken Merchants upon those Seas in their voyage to Flanders and dispoyled them of their goods whereas the King of England and his predecessors as they all joyntly by libell do declare and affirme without all controversie beyond the memory of man have had the supreme Government of the English Seas and the Islands thereof Praescribendo scilicet leges statuta atque interdicta armorum naviùmque alio ac mercatoriis armamentis instructarum cautiones exigendo tutelam praebendo ubicunque opus esset atque alia constituendo quaecunque fuerint necessaria ad pacem jus aequitatem conservandam inter omnimodas gentes tam exteras quà m in imperio Anglicano comprebensas quae per illud Transierint supremam â—sdem item fuisse atque esse tutelam merum mixtum imperium in juredicendo secundum dictas leges statuta praescripta interdicta aliisque in rebus quae ad sumumm imperium possint attmere in locis judicatis Ad praefecturam Admirallorum à Regibus Angliae constitui solitorum spectare jurisdictionem ex imperio ejusmodi exercendam And he sets forth further in the same Libel that they do all of them together desire ut à custodiâ liberati qui carceri ita traditi essent reddita item bona nullo jure capta jurisdictionem Admiralli Regis Angliae ad quem solum tam ex jure rerum ac loci quà n personarum hujusmodi jurisdictio attinebat subirent These things I have cited out of Mr. Selden not only to shew here for my purpose that the Kings of England have had from antient times the power and dominion over the British Seas for then might I have referred the whole matter to his whole book which doth so learnedly so many wayes and by so many several arguments convince in that point but as well to shew that the Kings of England's Admirals have likewise as antiently had jurisdiction under them over those maritime affairs which fell sub isto regimine dominio And also to shew that so many Nations did concurre and agree therein and that they had istud regimen dominium exclusivè of the Kings of France bordering upon the same seas and of all other Kings and Princes whatsoever for they all likewise joyntly agree an usurpation and interruption of the King of England's right of Dominion over these Seas by the King of France in granting a Patent of the Admiralty of the Seas unto his Admiral Reginer Grimbald and therefore all joyntly proceed in their Petition further Vt cognitorum sententia Reginerus Grimbaldus ipsa damna Actoribus resarciret si nimirum solvendo esset sin minùs tunc ut ad idem faciendum damnaretur Rex Franciae qui ejusmodi praefecturae codicillis eum donasset Damnis autem resarcitis tum etiam Reginerus ob foederis violationem poenas daret quales alios à simili facinore in posterum deterrere possent And in the 28th Chapter of the same Book the Libel is set out at large in its own language worthy the reading Now all these things considered shall any man that understands that the Kings of France who have no Jurisdiction at all over these Seas have so antiently had and continued their Admirals in such power as the Edict by Parliament at Paris declares them to have done so much as imagine that the Kings of England who have had from Edward the First 's time and so long before as that all the aforenamed Nations do joyntly acknowledge it to be then beyond
the memory of man the sole rule and dominion of these Seas should not furnish this his maritimum regimen dominium with those antient maritime Laws before spoken of Certainly whosoever imagineth this concipit istud mare sine navibus vel naves sine naucleris navarchis fluctuantes concipit istas If furnished with Lawes then consequently with a Commander Admiral or Governor for the dispensing and ministring of Justice amongst Sea-Traders and seafaring-men according to those Laws else were these constituted and appointed to that use in vain But I may here rather from the forementioned Libel deduce a proof of the antient settlement of maritime Laws in England from the antient acknowledgement of an Admirals Jurisdiction then the settlement of an Admiral and his Jurisdiction from a former Introduction of the maritime Laws into this Kingdome for an Admiral of England and an Admirals Jurisdiction are both acknowledged by all the therein mentioned Nations to have been from that time which was anno 30 Ed. primi beyond the memory of man If then the Admiral had so antiently a Jurisdiction I must necessarily inferre from thence that so antiently if not somewhat before the Laws of the Sea must be settled for his rule and guidance For they do not say there was an Admiral for so there might have been and he have ruled by Arbitrary power but they say as before is said ad praefecturam Admirallorum à Regibus Angliae constitui solitorum spectaret Jurisdictionem ex imperio ejusmodi excercendam And in their Petition as is before exprest they desire ut à custodiâ liberati qui carceri traditi essent reddita item bona nullo jure capta jurisdictionem Admiralli Regis Angliae subirent Now as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 jus so jurisdictio is juris dicendi potestas And as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 likewise from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lex so Juris consultus est is qui jus consuluit sive studuit and so juridicus quod secundùm jus est as juridicus dies quô ritè jus dici potest and juridica actio quae secundùm jus est dicitur etiam juridicus qui jus dicit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. At cui jus ignotum est ignota jurisdicendi potestas cui jus non est jus non consuluit ubi jus non est ibi jus dici nequit No man can have a Jurisdiction or power of declaring the Law or judging by the Law to whom the Law is not known more especially where there is no known Law to declare or judge by Therefore seeing the Admiral by common consent and by so common a judicial acknowledgement so antiently had a Jurisdiction necessarily he must so antiently have had certain known and settled Laws to declare and judge by I do observe likewise that all the Patents granted unto Admirals from the 35th of Edward the Third upwards unto the 34th of Edward the First do conclude in binding them to the execution of their office prout justum fuerit fieri consuevit And as this prout fieri consuevit led me to the more antient Patents wherein the Officers bear not the title of Admiral and taught me to understand that the variation of the title did not differ or alter the property in the Office or the quality of the Officer so this prout justum fuerit shews me as well as the Jurisdiction in the Libel before spoken of did that the Admirals had then and prout hactenus shews me they had so before a Law to rule and judge by For though a private man which is vir bonus a good man which deals uprightly and punctually with all men is usually said to be vir justus and not improperly when we speak of a private man in his private dealings And vir probus sanctus which observeth the Divine Law is very properly called vir justus when we speak or discourse of matters of Religion c. But if we speak of a man set and put in place and authority over others in Sea-affairs we say he is vir justus qui jus observat à jure non discedit for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth justus doth as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do come from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 jus and so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the same word signifieth legitimè jure justè 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth jus the Law it self CHAP. VI. The Antiquity of the Admiralty argued and inferred from the defect and want of ability in other Courts in deciding of Maritime Causes in those antient times THat in those antient times the Custodes marinae maritimarum partium c. to whose care and trust these marinae and maritimae partes the Seas the Coasts and Ports of the Seas were committed had a great power and grand authority over all those maritime parts whereunto they were limited and over all Ships and Shipping and over all things thereunto belonging and over all persons whatsoever who were therein concern'd within the said limits and had powet and authority of hearing and determining of all differences and controversies which did or might arise concerning the same may be very well concluded upon this further ground that no other Court in those dayes presumed ever to take cognizance of any such matters or affairs which I am confident of for the reasons ensuing I hope no man will say that maritime causes were tried in the Heal-gemote now called the Court Baron nor in the Hundresmote now called the Hundred-Court and is of the same nature with the County-Court nor yet in the Scyedgemote now called the Sheriffs Turne which were the Courts then in use and had been long before the Conquest and do yet continue and never did nor do assume nay not so much as challenge any right at all to any such power Nor did the Kings Court of Exchequer which was the first Court was settled after the Conquest ever undertake to deal in causes of that nature but as Mr. Lambard determineth this point very well was only setled and appointed for causes concerning the Kings Demeasnes and Receipts And he saith that after the Conqueror had suppressed the Forces of those that made head against him here he settled this Court for his Revenues and called it his Exchequer after the name of his Exchequer in Normandy but saith he it differed not a little from that for the Exchequer of Normandy had not only the Government of the Revenues of the Duke there but was also the Soveraign Court for the administration of Justice amongst his Subjects until Lewis the Twelfth King of France anno 1499. converted it into a Parliament consisting of a President and Councellors and established it at Roan in Normandy where it still continueth But saith he this Exchequer in England had only the
the other If not so yet let no man say that the two famous antient Universities of the Land wherein there be so many Colleges and houses of antient foundation in which have been by the Founders themselves so many Fellow-Ships Scholar-ships and places founded settled and employed properly and solely for Students in the Civil and Maritime Laws or the Laws proper and necessarily usefull for Navigation and Maritime affairs being so scattered or I will rather say decently as flowers strewed and disperst through the whole body of the Civil Law the subject whereon those Students were to spend their daily labour pains and employment could possibly be long ignorant of those Laws that these so many forenamed nations had so long and so well known What if known by this Nation was there yet any use made of them in it That they were known by what hath been said or considered cetainly I cannot have so ill a conceipt of my Country men the antient Inhabitants of this Nation as to think them so long ignorant and unskilfull of those antient Laws of the Sea and Laws so necessary for maritime affairs as some would make them to be much less will I think the Government of this Nation to be without so good order and justice in any particular as not to settle these Laws once known for the government of its maritime matters nor will I imagine the maritime men to be so dull or stupid as not gladly to embrace the settlement of such Laws as tended so much to their quiet and advance of their profit being to trade and commerce with such as used in this particular no other Laws but these Again shall we say that so many Nations some so remote and some so near home as France but over against us and Scotland even within the same Island all governed by the Civil Laws or Municipal Laws thence derived and by them regulated and guided as the Sea Laws are and keep the pathes and very footsteps thereof in their proceedings as the Sea Laws do have with so much eagerness pursued and sought for these Sea Laws and with so much chearfulness embraced and continued them and that this Nation that is invested in a Law particular and municipal which doth in no wise so much as challenge or claim any derivation from or dependency of the Civil Law but is altogether different and disagreeable thereunto in its proceedings and oftentimes in its determinations and hath no foundation or grounds whereon the dicisions of sea-controversies can be built should without the knowledge and practise of these Civil and Maritime Laws deal and trade with such as do live under them and are guided by them surely no so many inconveniences distractions distempers by reason of the variousness of two Laws both in proceedings oftentimes in determinations would long agone have destroyed all our Commerce and Traffique with these other Nations and so consequently have dispoiled us of our Navigation and Shipping the principal safeguard of this Land Nay I am so farre from doubting the acceptance of these Maritime and Sea Laws here in England as well as in other Nations that I am confident they were here settled before they were settled in divers of those Nations before mentioned For I must not so much as think or have the least conceipt that England ever borrowed any thing at all from those Articles which are cognoscible in the Admiralty of Scotland But I may very well believe that those Articles of Scotland were borrowed from some of the three antient Records of the Admiralty of England For so are all things by the Admiral Judge or Lieutenant decreed and registred by an Ordinance of Richard the First made at Grimsby styled and said to be which are with very many other antient things comprised in the black Book of the Admiralty which are therein ingrossed in an antient Character upon Vellam one of which immediately followeth the antient Statutes of the Admiralty and is there set down in old French as the said Statutes are and conteineth 38 Articles A second is a Latin Copy translated out of another antient French Record by Roughton and in an antient Character in the same manner inserted into the same book and containeth 52 Articles The third is the Inquisition taken at Quinborough the 2. of April in the 49th year of the Reign of Edward the Third at which time and to which place he caused several maritime and seafaring and sea-trading men of the best judgement and knowledge in sea-affairs of most of the maritime parts of England to be summoned and there before W. Nevel Admiral of the North Philip Courtney then Admiral of the West and William Lord Latimer Chamberlain of England and Warden of the Cinque-Ports to meet together and consider of all such points and matters as had antiently and usually been observable inquirable and punishable in the Admiralty upon which inquisition 81 Articles were concluded on which are likewise ingrossed they being more particular than the former in old French in the said antient black Book of the Admiralty But these as the Scottish Articles do concern only matters to be proceeded against criminally and not matters of Trade Traffique and Commerce and damages susteined at Sea or in Ports havens c. whereof I shall come to treat in the second Book yet do these several Records in several Articles set forth in what manner such as shall sue or implead any Merchant Mariner or seafaring man for any Contract maritime whether made by Charter-party or otherwise or for any thing whatsoever done of or concerning any Ship or other Vessel in any other Court then the Admiral shall be proceeded against as I shall more particularly hereafter set forth But my chiefest reason that the Civil and Maritime Law-Courts were here settled in England before they were settled in divers of those other Nations is for that this Nation hath had the Dominion over the British Seas and their High-Admirals their Jurisdiction over those Maritime Affairs which fell sub isto regimine dominio so antiently as that in Edward the Firsts time the same was acknowledged by very many other Nations to have been then beyond the memory of man as I have before set forth in the 5th chapter of this Book where I take my authority from an antient Record of the Tower in nature of a Libel intituled De superioritate maris Angliae jure officii Admiralitatis in eodem as is in the same 5th chapter exprest The Record it self I was a long time since shewed by my old friend Mr. Collet who for a long time had the keeping of the Tower Records under several men unto whose care and custody the same were committed and afterwards I met with the same in Mr. Seldens Book De Dominio maris which I had not before read over and after that I found the same set forth by Sir Edward Coke in his Jurisdictions of Courts yet I will not
made to appear for founding them upon then for the former which is but a quakemire CHAP. VII The Argument deduced from two Praemunires instanced in to be brought against the parties suing in the Admiralty for things done upon Ports redargued BUt to keep some method I must out of these things which Sir Edward Coke hath promiscuously urged against the Admirals cognizance of businesses done upon the Ports and Havens and of Contracts made upon the land for freight Mariners wages tackle furniture and ammunition and of things done beyond the seas c. in the next place pick and gather the rest of those things which only concern his cognizance of businesses done upon the Ports and Havens and give some answer to them first and those are Praemunire's Prohibitions Book-cases and Authorities in Law and then come in the third book of this Treatise to those things which he hath urged against the Admirals cognizance of or concerning Contracts made upon the land for freight Mariners wages c. Two Praemunire's he instanceth in the one brought Mich. 38. H. 6. By John Cassy Esquire against Richard Beuchampe Thomas Paunce Esquires and others upon the Statute of 16 Rich. 2. cap. 5. for sueing in Curiâ Romanâ vel alibi of matters belonging to the Common Law for that the Defendants did sue the Plaintiffe in the Admiralty Court before Henry Duke of Excester that the said John Cassy did take and carry away certain Jewels super altum mare ubi idem Johannes Cassy bona illa apud Stratford Bow infra corpus comitatûs Middlesexiae non super altum mare cepit which saith he is so evident and of so dangerous consequence as no application shall be made thereof but I must under favour take leave to make some application and some answer likewise hereunto and shew that the urging â—oth of this and the other which he instanceth in which is a Premunire brought 9 H. 7. for a Suit in the Admiralty Court before John Earl of Oxford for taking and carrying away quandam naviculam apud Horton Key at South-Lyn c. supposing the same to be super altum mare where it was infra corpus comitatûs is no way consequent or concludent to prove the Ports and Havens to be within the bodies of Counties For the first of these it is plainly affirmed that John Cassy did take away the goods he was sued for in the Admiralty Court at Stratford Bow being a Town or Parish plainly within the body of the County of Middlesex and no Haven or Haven-Town This suggestion being proved the Admiral had no colour at all to take cognizance of this cause For the taking and carrying away of the little Ship little Barque or Boat for navicula signifieth either of the three at Horton Key at South-Lynne it concludeth nothing against the Admirals Jurisdiction upon the Haven or Port taken for the water beneath the first Bridge for a Key is often taken for the Wharfe or place whereon goods are usually landed but strictly it is taken for the very separation of the land from the water by wood or stone or both in such places as goods are usually landed at and these are the keys that lock those dores that Sir Edward Coke would have stand wide open placed by God himself to no purpose so farre within the Seas Now At Horton Key may be as well on the dry side of the Key as on the wet as well upon the land as upon the water and little Ships little Barques or Boats are oftentimes drawn up at the Keys where they arrive to be caulked and repaired and might be from thence taken and carried away perhaps from the water their accustomed Element to the fire wherewith for the most part when they escape drowning they are at last consumed when they are become unserviceable Again these two Premunire's are said only to have been brought and nothing said of the event or what was determined thereon so that here is nothing but the opinion of those that brought them and no resolution of the Judges and so these two Praemunire's conclude nothing at all But grant two suppositions neither to be granted nor supposed unless proved viz. that these two severals Acts were done or committed upon Ports and Havens and that the determination and resolution of the Judges was against the Defendants yet he that will but look may see the two foundations whereon these determinations or resolutions were or should have been built from whence this land Argument is raised to have been laid upon the sea sands too slippery a place for them to stand on the one is that before mentioned groundless supposition of the Ports and Havens being within the bodies of Counties for which no proof is offered but that some against all reason and they know not wherefore have taken them so to be The other is the Statute upon which these Praemunire's were brought which he affirmeth to be the Statute 16 Rich. 2. for suing in Curiâ Romanâ vel alibi of matters belonging to the Common Law This Statute consisteth of a Petition made by the Commons unto the King and the King's Answer thereunto as all ancient Statutes of those dayes do In the Petition is first set forth that the King and all his liege People ought of right and of old time were wont to sue in the Kings Court to recover their presentments to Churches Prebends and other Benefices of holy Church to which they had right to present c. And when Judgement was given in the same Court upon such a Plea and Presentment the Archbishops Bishops and other Spiritual persons which had the Institutions unto such Benefices within their Jurisdiction were bound and did make execution of such Judgements by the Kings Commandments of all the time aforesaid without interuption c. And in the next place they do complain that of late divers Processes had then been made by the Bishop of Rome and Censures of Excommunication upon certain Bishops of England because they had made execution of such commandments to the open desherison of the Crown c. And further complaining that also it was said and a common clamour was made that the said Bishops of Rome had then ordained and purposed to translate some Prelates of the same Realm some out of the Realm without the Kings assent and knowledge and some out of one Bishoprick into another within the same Realme without the Kings assent and knowledge and without the assent of the Prelates so to be translated which Prelates were much profitable and necessary to the King and his Realme by which the Statutes of the Realm would become defeated c. And nothing more is contained in the said Petition but what concerneth the premisses The King in his Answer doth ordain That if any purchase or pursue or cause to be purchased or pursued in the Court of Rome or elswhere any such Translations Processes and Sentences of Excommunication Bulls Instruments
the same land should be in the very next year viz. in the 7th year of the same Kings Reign reconverted into sea Yet is there a great deal more colour for an Action to lye at the Common Law for forestalling in a Port or Haven then for the beforementioned Judgement but upon another ground then that which Sir Edward Coke would have to be the ground namely because a Port or Haven is within the body of a County which is this Though the forestalling be an act done upon the Port or Haven yet is it the forestalling of a Market which is kept at land so that act done upon the Port or Haven hath relation unto the Market which is at land And so the act done upon the Port or Haven may be said to arise from the Market which is at land and within the body of a County and that act upon the Port to be a forestalling of that Market which is at land Just as a Contract made at land for transporting goods by sea is an act done upon the land but hath relation to a thing done at sea and so the Contract though made at land is a thing that doth arise from a thing done or to be done at sea and doth not arise from a thing either done or to be done at land within the body of any County And therefore is this Contract tryable in the Admiralty and not at the Common Law And this agreeth with the Statute of the fifteenth of Richard the Second the Statute being truly examined which I shall plainly shew when I come to speak of Contract Yet may not this construction of the forestalling upon the water be allowed for this is no Contract made for the performance of any act or thing at land positive and therefore ariseth not from any act or thing to be done at land but is a Contract which doth privatively debarre a further act to be done at land And besides this is a compleat act having reference to nothing more yet to be done but the bargain is made the comomodity bought and all is done therefore is this forestalling triable in the Admiralty Court and there punishable as will hereafter appear by what I shall shew in several chapters of this second book In the next place it is objected that the 19 H. 6. 7. it is said that the Statute doth restrain that the Admiral shall not hold plea of any thing rising within any of the Counties of this Nation but Executions he may make upon the land this Statute which this Authority citeth must be the same before mentioned Statute of 15 Ric. 2. therefore I will say nothing to this here more then that Sir Edward Coke doth hence inferre that though it be said in the 22 ass pl. 93. that every water which flows and reflows is an arme of the Sea yet it followeth not saith he that the Admiral shall have Jurisdiction there unless it be out of every County or else such a place whereof the Country cannot take knowledge as it appeareth in the book of E. 2. before cited But how this hath any reference to that of the Statute to serve for his purpose I know not The last thing against that which is said 22. ass pl. 93. he would prove by that of 8 Ed. 2. before cited which I have answered already It is argued out of Fortescue cap. 32. fol. 38. that the Admirals Jurisdiction is confined to the high Sea for that he there saith Nam si quae super altum mare extra corpus cujuslibet comitatus regni illius fiant quae postmodum in prohibito coram Admirallo Angliae deducantur per testes illa juxta legum Angliae sanctiones terminari debent which saith Sir Edward Coke proveth by express words that the Jurisdiction of the Admiral is confined to the high Sea which is not within any County of the Realm If Fortescue had said much more then here he doth to have afforded him a better foundation for his Argument then this which he hath said doth I should not have much marvelled at it For he that conceived that if Adam had not sinned in Paradise all the World had been governed by the Common Law perhaps might in his time think it meritorious to reduce as much of the World as he could to the subjection of that Law But truly out of what he saith here Sir Edward Cokes conclusion is not Logically to be deduced For to say that because Fortescue saith that the Admiral hath Jurisdiction upon the high Sea which is out of any County of the Kingdom that he hath no Jurisdiction elswhere is no better an Argument then to say that Sir Edward Coke was Lord of the Mannor of N. and therefore he could have no Land elswhere For Fortescue doth not speak this exclusive to any other part of the Admirals Jurisdiction Nor by saying Quae super altum mare extra corpus cujuslibet comitatus regni illius fiant doth he averre quod aliquis portus maris est infra corpus alicujus Comitatûs If this Answer doth not satisfie adde the Answer to the next Objection to it The next Objection is deduced out of the 2 Rich. 2. fol. 12. quod Hibernici sunt sub Admirallo Angliae de re facta super altum mare Which saith he agreeth with the former viz. that the Jurisdiction of the Admiral is super altum mare And no doubt but it is but it doth not therefore follow that it is nowhere else Now this very authority sheweth the true use and ground of this distinction of super altum mare and super portum maris which is this The Admiral of England hath Jurisdiction super altum mare quo ad Hibernicos Hibernici sunt sub Admirallo Angliae de re sacta super altum mare non super portum Hibernicum nisi per appellationem And so it is between England and other Nations adjoyning to the Brittish Seas For the Kings of England have ab antiquo had the dominion of those Seas as is sufficiently demonstrated and proved by that learned Gentleman Mr. Selden by exceeding many Arguments throughout his whole Book de Dominio maris called Mare clausum which I have toucht upon before but though the King of England had the dominion of those Seas yet had those Nations Admirals who had the Jurisdiction of and over all business done in and upon their own Ports so that the Admiral of Englands Jurisdiction Respectu Regis Angliae Dominii maris is said to be super altum mare quo ad alias omnes nationes But as had his Power from the King so hath he Power Authority and Jurisdiction as over the Sea so over the Ports and Havens of the Sea belonging to this Nation aswell as the Admirals of France and the Admirals of other Nations had and have over the Ports and Havens belonging to their several Nations
to an agreement after prohibition granted when consultations would have been awarded if they had been sued for which are said to be Judgements in such Cases but a prohibition is no proof until a dispute had upon the validity and a determination thereupon no more then the bringing of an action at the Common Law and giving a Declaration without any further proceedings is a proof that what is by Declaration claimed is due or that the action was duely and legally instituted and brought CHAP. IX That the Rhodian and other Maritime Laws were ordeined as well for the decision of the differnces happening upon the Ports and Havens as upon the high Seas ALl these Proofs and Authorities which I have handled in the four last and next preceding Chapters being collected and gathered into one heap as by Sir Edward Coke they are and taken by themselves do make a specious shew and a fair colour for the turning the Lord high Admiral of England out of his Jurisdiction upon the Ports Creeks and Havens of the Sea but no more then a shew or colour as appeareth to my view For the ancient constant and continued Practice of the Admiralty Court and all the Proofs Presidents and Authorities which make to the contrary of what is by him set forth being with them well weighed and considered all that he hath shewed in this particular will serve onely to prove what interruptions have been put and inrodes made upon the Admiralty Court For certainly the Proceedings Acts and Judgements given in the Admiralty Court concerning businesses agitated and done upon the Ports and Havens will as presidents for the Admirals Jurisdiction there amount unto a great number for those few he hath quoted against it The Jurisdiction of the Admiralty and the Jurisdiction of the Common Law having always been two distinct Jurisdictions having no dependancie each upon the other but both exercised under the Kings of England I know not why the ancient Practice and Presidents of the Admiralty Court should not be as convincing in the proof of this particular which resteth in controversie between them as the practice and presidents of the other But it is like enough some will be ready to averre that the Admiralty Court is not a Court of Record and therefore presidents of that Court are not of so great credit as the Presidents of the Courts of Common Law but it will be very unfit for me to enter into that dispute when as it is upon the matter put to the question whether it be so much as a Court at all or not For if it shall have the cognizance of scarce any cause at all as it cannot have if all be true that Sir Edward Coke would prove as I shall shew hereafter when I come to summe up all together then doth it not deserve so much as the name of a Court. This only I shall say by the way that when it was a Court or if it be a Court it hath been and is as much a Court of Record as all Courts in foreign Nations beyond the seas have been and are and whatsoever hath in that Court been or is done being legally transmitted and certified would have carried and doth carry along with it as good credit in all parts of Christendome as any Record whatsoever certified out of any of the Courts at Westminster and so will and doth at this present for any thing therein transacted But if I should enter upon the presidents in Civil causes which are to be brought out of the Registry of the Admiralty for the cognizance of causes done upon the Ports and Havens I should make my self an endless piece of work and when I have done those things perhaps may for all that hath been said be thought by many not to be authentique I shall therefore pass them over and come to those things which are as authentique in my poor judgement for proof of the Admirals Jurisdiction upon the Ports and Havens as any thing that hath been brought against it And I shall begin first with the Rhodian and antient Maritime Laws made ordained and appointed for the decision of Maritime causes arising and happening as well upon the Ports and Havens as upon the high Seas and then proceed to other proofs By the Laws of the Rhodes and other sea Laws inserted into the body of the Civil Law which give directions how to steer the Judicature of so many causes which may happen and fall out upon Ports and Havens it manifestly appeareth that things there done and controversies thence arising are properly cognizable by the Admiral no other Law having the like grounds or affording the like rules for the decision of such differences or giving such directions for the avoyding of strife in businesses of that nature To introduce them all here would make a Volumne which I Intend not and it would be too tedious a labour to effect that which so few regard namely to set forth the most exquisite excellency of the Civil Law founded upon the very strength of reason it self But why should I so highly commend that which is so much scorned either to be understood or so much as lookt after and by some condemned before it be lookt into or at all understood what it is Serjeant Callis condemneth the Imperial Law which saith he the Civilians use for that the Sea-shoar is therein held to be Common to all and saith that the Common Law of England doth in reason surpass either the Imperial Law or the Civil Law which distinction sheweth the understanding he had in those two Laws which the world hitherto made but one And Sir Ed. Coke condemneth the Civil Law for proceeding by paper proofs as he calleth them slighting them as if those proofs that were taken without a publique Notary without the repetition of the Witnesses before a Judge or without the liberty of administring Interrogatories by the adverse party at the same time and only exprest by word of mouth and neither set down in Paper or Parchment but passeth away with every ayr were better taken and remained more perfect on record then those Paper proofs which are in such manner taken and with as much care preserved But surely in most controversies which do arise from a thing done upon the Ports and Havens it is most necessary that the proof for the decision thereof be taken by such Paper proofs sometimes in regard of the speedy return of the Witnesses into the parts beyond the seas who cannot stay such an examination without their undoing as to be present to afford their testimony viva voce at the time of the tryall sometimes in regard necessary and requisite Witnesses are hence departed before the Suit be instituted and resided beyond the seas where their testimony must necessarily be taken by Commission which by the manner of proof made at the Common Law cannot be done so that most differences which do arise from things done upon the Ports and Havens must
an prout ponderant an prout valent It is considered by the same Laws likewise if a Ship be taken by a Pirat whether upon the Sea or upon a Port or Haven and be redeemed whether all must contribute or not and if any thing be taken away by Theeves or Robbers whether he must lose it that did own it and if any one redeem what is so taken away whether Contribution ought to be made for the redemption And it is considered how and in what manner this Avaridge is to be made whether the goods lost are to be valued by themselves and the goods saved by themselves or whether altogether and whether goods lost are to be valued according to the price they were bought for or according to the price they might have been sold at and at whether of those two prices the goods saved are to be valued It is likewise considered whether if a Servant or Slave in the casting over board of the goods doth happen to be drowned whether any estimation be to be made of him and if any of the Passengers be not solvendo whether the payment of his share belongth to the Master or not Whether if the goods cast over board be again recovered contribution ought to be made If contribution have been made whether it be to be restored and in what way the Master ought to proceed against him that hath so received it and in what way the Contributers ought to proceed against the Master And whether goods so cast over board are to be accounted pro derelicto and so become theirs who shall afterwards possess them or not be so accounted but remain still the owners Vtrum res Domini manent an fuerint occupantis It is likewise considered by these Laws whether if the Master to avoid danger shall cut off or throw over board any of his Masts or other Instruments belonging to his Ship for preservation of his Ship and her lading contribution in this case be due Whether the consent of the Passengers and Merchants in the Ship be requisite or not And whether it must be done justi metus causâ and who is to judge thereof In like manner it is considered if the goods cast over board be afterwards regained and saved by such as for pay or reward shall adventure and take pains to effect the same si per urinatores recuperatae sint extractae and the Ship with the remainder of her lading shall afterwards be cast away whether the goods so regained shall contribute to the other afterwards cast away And if some of those goods cast away with the Ship shal in like manner be recovered whether they shall contribute unto him that made the first jacture After a jacture or casting over board if some of the goods that be saved be deteriorated damnified or made worse by these Laws it is considered whether they were so hurt by the ill stowage or by the dashing of the water at the time of the jacture or by the uncovering of them It is considered likewise whether the damage be more then the contribution will come to or the contribution will come to more then the damage is And then it is determined whether the damnified goods shall contribute or not and if they shall in what manner If a Ship be split or any otherwayes cast away whether upon the Seas or upon a Port and the goods some or all be preserved and saved it is determined whether the goods shall contribute to the loss of the Ship or not If the Masts of the Ship whether upon the Sea or upon the Port be shivered into pieces and the sails and other tacle be consumed with lightening and the goods by what means soever preserved though by obtaining new Masts new Sails and new Tacle c. these Laws determine whither the owners of the goods be to make contribution or not Hereby it is plain that the special Cases which are comprehended under one general Law or Head are very many and various and require various decisions or judgements which are upon express reasons by the Civil and Maritime Laws and Commentators upon them most exquisitely set forth as he that shall look thereinto shall find If one Ship shall fall foul upon another either upon the high Seas or upon any Port or Haven so that either or both of them have sustained hurt or damage the same Laws do most exquisitely determine between them And under this head do likewise fall very many various cases variously by those Laws determined according and agreeable to most excellent reason If the Mariners shall do damage to the Merchants Goods â—s by drawing out and drinking up their Wines c. whether they do it upon the Seas or when the Ship lyeth at Anchor upon any Port or Haven the case is the same and the Civil and Maritime Laws determine what is to be done herein Many general heads more containing under them several various particulars might be instanced in but these are sufficient to shew that the Rhodian and Maritime Laws were ordained as well for the determination of differences happening upon the Ports and Havens as upon the high Seas and have express Laws for the guiding of the judgement therein which all Nations do acknowledge and allow wherein the Common Law of England under correction is deficient CHAP. X. The Laws of Oleron and other ancient Laws of the Sea were constituted and ordained as well for the decision of controversies happening and arising from things done upon the Ports and Havens as from things done upon the high Seas BY a Record which I have before set down at large it appeareth that the Laws now called the Laws of Oleron were ancient Laws and anciently practised for the regulating of Maritime and Sea affairs in that Maritime Island and that those Laws were by Richard the First King of England in his return from the Holy Land corrected and interpreted and in that Island published in the French Tongue for that purpose and called la ley Oleron in that this Record saith they were by him Correcta interpretata it plainly appeareth that they were made before but whether then used in England or in that Island onely may seem doubtful however it appeareth by the Record it self that after such correction and interpretation they were likewise published in England and were ordinata in Edward the First 's time and consummated in the 12 year of Edward 3. Now these Laws being thus established do plainly shew that the Admiral had and ought to have Jurisdiction upon the Ports and Havens as well as upon the high Seas for that they do set forth what is to be determined in controversies arising as well from things done upon the one as the other I shall instance in some of them If a Ship perish in any place whatsoever whether upon Port or the main Sea the Laws of Oleron give direction what the
breach of a Law so general may be a cause of the breach of such league and amity or at least of the begetting of Letters of Reprizal on their part against our Merchants and owners of Ships which is Prima species belli by which way of their reparation the Subjects of this Nation are like to pay at least three fold for the damage done by such wicked and mischievous people and not by themselves But here an Objection will arise viz. that by the express words of a Statute of the Land made in the 15th year of the raign of Richard the 2. the Admiral is to have no Cognisance Power nor Jurisdiction of wreck of the Sea To which I answer that by wreck of the Sea in this Statute mentioned is as I conceive and under correction onely meant and intended such things as are cast out of the bowels of the Sea and by the waves thereof driven on shore and upon the reflux thereof left upon the Land wherein no man hath any property or to which no man can make any claim this is properly called wreck of the Sea which belongeth properly to the King and by his grant unto the Lord High Admiral But in case any Ship or other Vessel shall be wrecked at Sea or in any Port Haven or Creek or upon or near any Coast neither the Ship nor Vessel nor any of the Goods thereunto belonging howsoever found therein or found floating upon the water or driven on shore or dry land are wreck of Sea though the Ship be usually said to be a Ship wrecked and the Goods said to be wreck but indeed are bona sparsa ex naufragio Goods scattered and thrown over board through ship-wreck or fear or danger of ship-wreck wherein the owners of them have a just property and may make their claim thereunto at any time within a year and a day and ought to recover and have the same again by the Laws of the Sea and therefore hath that Law exactly set forth how and in what maner such as shall either by violence or by stealth or howsoever take and carry away or conceal any such Goods from the lawful owner and proprietor thereof ought to be punished and make satisfaction for such their offence committed against the Law And as that Law doth distinguish those things which be ex naufragio from wreck of the Sea as plainly it doth so doth it distinguish the offence of taking away such Goods at the very time of the shipwreck from the offence in some time after the same as is plain by the Laws before quoted in this Chapter But since the making of this Statute in regard of the differences which did arise and which did grow about such Goods whether the same were wreck of Sea which belonged unto the King or derelicts Ships or Goods forsaken and given over for lost or Flotson that which after a wreck was found floating upon the water and by no man claimed or Jetson that which was thrown over board to disburden and lighten the Ship for preservation thereof and of mens lives and the rest of the Goods or Lagon that which was found in the bottom of the Sea or any great river beneth the first bridges within the low water mark all which belonged to the Kings of England who have usually granted the same which belonged unto themselves unto the said Lords Admirals amongst the other things before mentioned as doubtless they may do the same being confirmed unto themselves by the Statute and unto their own use and the said Admirals have constantly had the same and the benefit thereof Another Title there is amongst the said collected Titles de Naviculariis seu naucleris by the Laws whereof it doth likewise appear that the Admiral hath Jurisdiction upon the Ports and Havens The first of them saith thus Nullam vim oportet naucleros sustinere delegatas species annonarias transferentes nec concussiones nec aliquod genus incommodi sed venientes ac remeantes omni securitate potiri decem librarum auri mulcta proponenda his qui eos inquietare tentaverint No force or violence or any manner of disturbance or hinderance shall be offered unto the Masters of Ships or Mariners which are appointed by their Prince to transport any Goods or Commodities for the publique use or benefit under the pain of ten pounds to be imposed upon such as shall adventure to molest or disquiet them Now I hope no man will say that this extendeth not to such force violence or molestation as shall be offered unto them upon any Port or Haven either before their setting sail to sea or in any Port or Haven of their discharge or in any Port or Haven they shall by storm or stresse of weather be driven into And this Priviledge saith Peckius is no small benefit unto them for they can neither be arrested nor deteyned nor compelled to pay any Custome or Tribute Quod privilegium quae praerogativa utilitas meherule modica non est etenim nec arestari ut dicunt nec detineri nec ad vectigalium solutionem compelli possunt which certainly sheweth that this Law extendeth to the Ports and Havens upon which all Arrests of Ships or other Vessels or Mariners are for the most part made and all compulsion to the payment of Tribute or Custome used or exercised If this be not enough take the last Law of the same Title and Peckius thereupon in these words Judices qui onusta navigia cum prosperior flatus invitat sub praetextu hyemis immorari permiserint unà cum municipibus corporatis ejusdem loci fortunarum propriarum feriantur dispendiis naucleri praeterea paenam deportationis accipiant si aliquid fraudis eos admisse fuerit revelatum Such Judges as shall permit or suffer such Ships or Vessels so laden with Commodities for the publique use and service of the Common-wealth having a good wind to stay or demore in any Port or Haven under the pretence of Winter shall together with the Burgers or chief of that place bear or pay the loss or damage thereby sustained And the Masters of those Ships which shall be found guilty of such offence or fraudulent in that way are to be punished with banishment Now no man will doubt but that this stay or demorage which is thus strictly to be lookt after by the Admiralty Judge under such a pain or penalty and so severely to be by him punished is such stay or demorage as is made in the Port or Haven and not upon the high Seas And Peckius saith in express words if they shall stay or demore in the Port or Stations for Ships at such time it is the office of the Judges by all wayes or means to drive them out or compel them to go on upon that Voyage they are designed Quinimo si tempore ad navigandum idoneo suspensâ navigatione in portu stationibúsve haererent Judicis erit officium omnibus
ce que ad estre duement use en temps du noble Roy ail nostre quorust doth no ways at all take away the Admirals or the Court of the Admiralties Cognizance of any thing whatsoever was cognoscible before them in Edward the 3s time and so consequently doth it not take away the Cognizance of Contracts for freight nor wages nor are they any of the encroachments complained of in the Petition whereunto that Statute is an answer And divers other Judgments there be amongst these Laws of Oleron which determine Contracts made between the Masters of Ships and Pilots or Loads-men whether the same be made at land or elsewhere for the conducting of Ships into Ports and Havens or from one Port or place to another I shall only quote some two or three of them and leave the rest Item se ung lodeman prent charge sur luy de amaner une nef en aucun port avient quen sa defaulte la nef soit perie c. marchandises endomagees c. Item estably est pour custume de mer que se une nef est perdue par la defaulte de une lodeman c. Vng bachellor est lodeman de une nef est love alamener jusquis au port ou len la doit discharger c. And some others there be of the same nature And the ancient Statutes of the Admiralty and Laws of Oleron before mentioned established by the said King Edward the Third in the 12 year of his Reign as is before declared having settled the cognizance of such Contracts and Maritime Causes in the Jurisdiction of the Admiralty he granteth the same to his Admirals by their Patents as appeareth by that Patent before mentioned granted unto Robert Herle in the 35 of his Reign But as it seemeth some in those times having opposed or at leastwise afterwards interrupted this settlement the same King caused an Inquisition to be made at Quinborough the second day of April in the 49th year of his Reign before William Latimer Chamberlain of England and Warden of the Cinque Ports and William Nevill his Admiral of the North by near twenty of the most able and best skilled seafaring men of several Port Towns of this Nation of and concerning the ancient customes of the Admiralty to be held firme and continued according to their Verdict as I have at large set forth in the twelfth chapter of the second book of this Treatise I shall therefore proceed to shew that by the said Inquisition it plainly appeareth that Contracts made at land of and concerning Maritime affairs were in Edward the Third's time cognoscible and tryable in the Admiralty Court CHAP. IIII. That by the Antient Inquisition taken at Quinborough in Edward the Third's time it appeareth that the cognizance of Contracts made at land concerning Maritime affairs belonged then and before unto the Admiralty Court IT hath been an antient Rule or Maxime amongst Merchants Owners of Ships Masters of Ships and all sorts of Mariners and Seamen that Freight is the Mother of Wages therefore are the Mariners wages to be paid out of the freight the Ship hath earned and the damages done to the Merchants goods by the Mariners or sustained through their negligence is to be paid out of the freight and what is so paid out of the freight is to be deducted out of their wages and by this rule all are necessarily cognoscible in one and the same Court or Judicature and the damage done at sea being cognoscible in the Admiralty and no where else that cause must necessarily carry the other two along with it both which are likewise there tryable both for this and divers other reasons in the first chapter of this third Book exprest But I am likewise here to shew that by the Inquisition taken at Quinborough in Edward the Thirds time for direction of the Admiralty Jurisdiction as is already set forth the same were both then and before cognoscible in the Admiralty Court By the 14th Article of that Inquisition if a Ship be let to freight for several prices or rates of affreightment the whole freight shall be cast up rateably and the Mariners paid out of the whole so that the Admiralty is to take cognizance of the several Contracts of affreightment made by the Merchants before the lading of their goods and to cause the Mariners to be paid their wages they had contracted for before their entring into their service on Shipboard according to the said agreements of affreightment the words of the Article are these Item se une nef soit affreta a divers pris de fretters lentier de tout laffret sera accompte ensemble les portages paiez aux mariners selon lafferaÌ„t du fret de chuÌ„n tonnel lun acompte coÌ„e dit est droittement avec quis lautre Divers rules there are in the Maritime Laws for direction whether and when Mariners are to have their wages contracted for when not when all when some part thereof and what part thereof which are guided by the rates of payment of freight I shall instance but in one more out of this Inquisition and that shall be out of the very next article to that before set down which followeth in these words Item une nef soit affrettee deurs quilque ' lien quae soit ait certain jour limite de paiement de son fret en endenture ou autrement les Mariners scront paiez de la moitie de lieurs louyers a la charge de la nef de lautre moitie quant mesme la nef sera venus en lien de sa discharge se le maistre ou le seigneur de la nef ny veult come dit est avoir la nef lostel de leure serout ilz paiez quant la moitie du dit fret est receu It being plain then that this Inquisition was in Edward the Third's time taken for the direction of the Judicature of the Admiralty it is as plain by these Articles that in his time the Admiral had cognizance of Contracts made for freight of Ships and Mariners wages wheresoever the said Contracts were made and then the Statute of Richard the Second cap. 13. being shut up with this clause of Solonc ce que ad estre duement use en temps du noble Roy Edward ail nostre doth no wayes take away the cognizance thereof from the Admiralty which is a thing I cannot too often repeat Neither resteth this Inquisition here but what matters were cognoâ—cible and to be determined before the Admiral by the Laws which I have in the former chapter quoted out of the Laws of Oleron and by divers others of them as well as those there quoted and by divers other Articles in the foregoing part of this Inquisition being then fully settled and established It is towards the latter end of this said Inquisition provided and care is thereby taken that neither those matters nor
fuisse nullum remedium in hac parte habere potuisse dictos Willielmum Thomam in Curia Constabularii Marescalli Angliae ad respondendum sibi in causa praedicta summoneri venire fecit ac quendam libellum super actionem praedictam in eadem Curia coram dilectis fidelibus nostris Johanne Cheyne locum tenente Constabularii praedicti Willielmo Faringdon locum tenente dicti Marescalli nostri versus praedictos Willielmum Thomas adhibuit proposuit idemque Johannes Willielmus locum tenentes in causa praedicta minùs rite indebitè procedentes ac judicialiter affirmantes allegantes ipsos nullam jurisdictionem in hac parte habuisse praefatos Willielmum Snoke Thomam à cura praedicta de instantia praedicti Johannis Coppin sine causa rationabili quacunque dimiserunt deliberaverunt ipsum Johannem Coppin in quadam magna pecuniae summa argenti pro custibus ipsorum Willielmi Snokes Thomae in hac casu coram eis in eadem Curia factis per sententiam suam seu judicium condemnârunt dictos custus ad quandam summam nimis excessivam taxarunt limitarunt de quibus quidem sententia judicio condemnatione expensarum de taxatione earundem aliis gravaminibus praetensis praefato Johanni Copyn in hac parte illatis per partem dicti Johannis ad nos nostram audientiam legitimè appellatum sicut per instrumentum publicum super hoc confectum plenius apparet qui quidem Johannis appellationem suam praedictam incendit ut asserit prosequi cum effectu nobis supplicaverit ut sibi super appellatione sua praedicta certos Judices sive Commissarios dare assignare dignaremur nos supplicationi praedictae tanquam juri consonae annuentes vobis de quorum fidelitate industria fiduciam gerimus specialem commitimus vices nostras plenam tenore praesentium potestatem ac mandatum speciale ad audiendum cognoscendum procedendum in causa sive causis appellationis hujus prout dictaverit ordo juris ipsamque ipsas cum suis emergentibus dependentibus incidentibus connexis quibuscunque secundum juris exigentiam discutiend debito fine terminand ac etiam ad testes quoscunque per utramque partium praedictarum in hujus causa appellationis coram vobis judicialiter producentes sine dolo vel fraude odio vel favore aut alià s injustè subtraxerint veritati testimonium perhibere compellandum Et mulctae alteriusque temporalis cohertionis cujuslibet potestate ideo vobis mandamus quod vocatis coram vobis partibus praedictis aliis quos in hac parte fore videretis evocand auditisque in hujus causis appellationis earum rationibus allegationibus circa praemissa diligenter intendatis ea faciatis exequamini prout justum fuerit consonum rationi volumus etiam quod si aliquis vel aliqui verstrum inchoaverint vel inchoaverit procedere in praemissis aliâ—s vel alii vestrum libere procedere valeat sive valeant in eisdem licet inchoantes absentes inchoans absens fuerint vel fuerit etiam nullo impedimento legitimo impediti vel impeditus In cujus c. T. R. apud Westm xiiii die Novembris After this and after the making of the other Statute of the 2d of Henry the fourth one Edmund Brookes Mariner brought his Action in the Admiralty Court before John Sturmister Lieutenant General of Edmund Earl of Kent Admiral of England against John Birkyrne Richard Honesse John Walls and William Burton of Kingston upon Hull Merchants Partners in a Maritime Cause of contracting and taking to freight of a certain Ship called the Laurence of Gyppelwich and the same was there proceeded in unto sentenc and sentence was given for the said Edmund Brookes against the said John Byrkyrne and Company from which sentence the said Byrkyrne and Company appealed unto the King in Chancery and there obtained a Commission of Appeal from thence directed unto John Kington and others who by virtue thereof proceeded in the said Cause unto sentence and thereby reversed the former sentence and condemned the said Brookes in expences from which said sentence the said Brookes again appealed unto the King in Chancery and obtained a Commission of Review directed unto the then Bishop of London and six Civilians to review discusse and hear the said Cause in due course of Law and to determine the same according thereunto And this last Commission of Review was granted but eight years after the making of the said Statute of the 2d of Henry the fourth and therefore the Cause must needs be instituted and begun in the first instance some years before nearer unto the time of the making of the said Statute the same having been proceeded in even unto seentences in two several instances before the granting of this Commission all which appeareth by the Commission of Review it self which is upon Record in the Tower in these words following Rex venerabili in Christo patri R. Episcopo London ac dilectis ac fidelibus suis Thomae Beauford Thomae Eppingham Magistro Thomae Field Roberto Thorley Willielmo Senenocks Johanni Oxney salutem ex parte Edmundi Brookes marinarii nobis est ostensum quod licet Magister Johannes Sturmyster nuper locum tenens generalis Edmundi nuper Comitis Cantiae nuper Admiralli nostri Angliae in quadam causa maritima quae in Curia Admirallitatis occasione affectationis conductionis sive locationis cujusdem navis Laurence de Gippelwich coram praefato Johanne tunc Judice in ea parte competenti inter praefatum Edmundum partem actricem ex una parte Johannem Birkyrne Richardum Hornesse Johannem Walas Willielmum Burton socios ut dicitur in causa praedicta Mercatores de villa de Kingston super Hull partem ream ex altera vertebatur quandam sententiam pro parte dicti Edmundi contra partem praedictorum Johannis Birkyrne c. rite legitime tulerit definitivam pars tamen eorum Johannis Birkyrne Johannis c. a sententia praedicta ad nos nostram audientiam frivole appellavit quo praetextu quidem Magister Johannes Kingston alii colore ejusdem commissionis nostrae eis ad cognoscend procedend in dicta causa appellationis praetens negotio in ea parte principali praetens directae perperam illegitimè procedentes ac dicti parti appellanti plus debito faven dictam sententiam pro parte dicti Edmundi ut permittitur latam licet nullam habuerint jurisdictionem infirmarunt cassarunt irritarunt adnullarunt ac ipsum Edmundum in expensis per partem dictorum Johannis Birkyrne Richardi Johannis c. in praedicta praetâ—â—â—sa causa appellationis negotio principali praetenso eorum actione factis parti eorum solvendis per praetensam suam sententiam diffinitivam inique latam erroneam invalidam cominaverunt in omnibus minus
Court upon several Contracts and Agreements made between them upon ordinary trading and bargaining within the City of London obtained a Supersedeas grounded upon the before mentioned Statutes to stay the proceedings there but upon further complaint of Sutton made unto the said Court and upon shewing that the said Contracts though there made were maritime and within the Jurisdiction of the Admiralty a Writ de procedendo was awarded commanding that the said Admiralty should proceed in the said Cause according to law and the custome of the said Admiralty Court and to do justice between the said parties notwithstanding the said Supersedeas The Writ de procedendo runneth thus Henricus ostavus dei gratiâ Angliae Franciae Rex fidei defensor Dominus Hiberniae in terra supremum caput Anglicanae Ecclesiae clarissimo consanguineo suo Willielmo Com. Southampton Admirallo suo Angliae sive ejus locum tenenti vel deputato salutem Cum nuper ex quodam relatu Johannis Petite de Abvile in Picardiâ Andreae Lord Daniel Lancel intellexerimus quod vos praefatos Johannem Andream Danielem coram vobis in Curiâ Admiralitatis nostrae de diversis contractibus aliis conventionibus infra Civitatem nostram London non super altum mare fact ' emergen in placitum ad sectam Lodowici Sutton contra formam diversorum statutorum inde in contrarium factorum provisorum traxistis nos igitur statuta praedicta observari praefatos Johannem Andream Danielem contra formam eorundem statutorum nullo modo placitari seu inquietari volentes per breve nostrum vobis nuper mandaverimus quod vos praefatos Johannem Andream Danielem coram vobis in Curiâ Admirallitatis nostrae praedictae occasione in placitum non traheretis sed quod vos placito illo coram vobis in Curia praedicta ulterius tenend omnino supersederetis ipsos Johannem Andream Danielem contra formam statutorum praedictorum non molestaretis in aliquo seu graveretis quibusdam tamen certis de causis nos moventibus specialiter pro eo quod ex parte praedicti Lodowici nobis graviter conquerendo est monstratum quod contractus conventiones praedicti inter ipsum Lodowicum praefatos Johannem Andream Danielem habiti conventi infra jurisdictionem curiae Admirallitatis facti contracti quod praedicti Johannes Andreas Daniel pro contractibus conventionibus praedictis in placitum praedictum contra formam statutorum praedictorum in Curia praedicta minimè tractari extitissent Et ideo vobis mandamus quod in placito illo secundem legem consuetudinem Curiae Admirallitatis nostrae praedictae procedatis partibus praedictis justitiae complementum in hac parte haberi fac ' dicto brevi nostro vobis prius indè in contrarium directo in aliquo non obstan T. meipso apud Westm xiv die Novembris Anno regni nostri vicesimo nono Horpole In the same year one Lodowick Davy sued John Turner in like manner upon several Maritime Contracts and Agreements made between them in the City of London likewise and upon the said Turners like complaint in the Chancery a Supersedeas was awarded which in the same manner and upon the same ground was dissolved by a Writ de procedendo the Writ de procedendo is the same with the other saving that they differ in the date and names c. I shall therefore spare the setting of it down In the 31 year of Henry the Eighth Myles Middleton Ralph Hall and Henry Dyconson Merchants of the City of York being sued before Robert Bishop of Landaffe and others the Kings Commissioners for his Northern parts upon Maritime businesses and contracts the said Middleton Hall and Dyconson complained in Chancery and a Supersedeas was in the Kings name awarded out of the Chancery directed unto the said Bishop and the rest of the Kings Commissioners straitly charging and commanding them altogether and without delay to forbear all examination and cognizance in any Civil Causes or Maritime Affairs of or upon whatsoever Contracts Pleas or Complaints between Merchants Masters and Owners of Ships and others whatsover with the said Merchants Masters or Proprietors for any thing by sea or water in any manner whatsoever to be expedited or contracted taking their rise or original either in the parts beyond the Seas or upon the high Seas or any where else where his high Admiral had jurisdiction whether by passage or voyage at sea or whatsoever way appertaining unto or howsoever touching or concerning Maritime affairs against the said Miles Middleton Ralph Hall and Henry Dyconson by whomsoever before them or any of them moved or howsoever to be moved or attempted remitting the parties if they would sue unto his Court of Amiralty of England for justice to be to there administred according to the Maritime Laws The Supersedeas it self runneth in these words Rex c. Reverendo in Christo patri Roberto Landavensi Episcopo ac aliis Commissionariis nostris in partibus nostris Borealibus eorum cuilibet salutem Vobis cuilibet vestrum stricte praecipimus mandamus quatenus ab omni examinatione cognitione in aliquibus causis Civilibus seu negotiis maritimis de super quibuscunque contractibus placitis vel querelis inter Mercatores ac Dominos Proprietarios navium aut alios quoscunque cum iisdem Mercatoribus Dominis seu Proprietariis pro aliquo per mare vel aquam qualitercunque expediendum contractis sive in partibus ultramarinis vel super altum mare aut alibi ubi magnus Admirallus noster habet jurisdictionem originem trahentibus fething their original or arising from any other place where the Admiral hath jurisdiction seu maris per transitum sive voiagium aut negotia maritima quoquo modo respicientibus vel qualitercunque tangentibus aut concernentibus versus Milonem Middleton Radulphum Hall Henricum Dyconson Civitatis nostrae Eboric Mercatores per quoscunque vel qualitercunque coram vobis seu vestrum aliquo motis aut quovismodo movendis sive attemptandis omnino indilate supers ' partes si litigare voluerint ad Curiam nostram Admirallitatis nostrae Angliae pro justitia eis ibidem juxta leges nostras maritimas ministranda remittentes T. meipso apud Westm tertio die Februarii Anno nostri tricesimo primo Afterwards in the same year in the same Kings Reign the said Bishop and the rest of the said Kings Commissioners being thus forbidden to meddle with matters of this nature one John Bates a Merchant was sued before the Major and Sheriffs of the City of York for selling and delivering xlii Fowder of Lead at the City of Bourdeanx in the parts beyond the seas and complaint being by him made in the Chancery a Supersedeas was awarded in the Kings name unto the Major and Sheriffs of his City of York charging them likewise
that they should altogether and without delay forbear all manner of cognizance in Civil and Maritime causes contracted in the parts beyond the seas upon the high Sea or in any place where his Admiral of England had jurisdiction or from thence proceeding against the said John Bates by what names soever called by whomsoever or in what manner soever begun or to begun for the selling and delivering of the said xlii Fowders of lead as aforesaid in like manner as before remitting the parties if they would sue to the Court of the Admiralty of England for justice to be to them there administred in that behalf The words of the Supersedeas are these Rex c. Majori Vicecomitibus Civitatis nostrae Ebor. salutem Vobis cuilibet vestrum praecipimus quatenus ab omni cognitione in causis civilibus maritimis in partibus ultramarimis vel super alto mari aut alibi ubi magnus Admirallus noster Angliae habet jurisdictionem contractus originem contrahentibus versus Johannem Bates Mercatorem cujuscunque nomine censeatur pro xlii le fowders plumbi in partibus ultra marinis apud Civitatem BurdugaliaeVenditioni expositis deliberatis per quoscunque vel qualitercunque motis seu movendis omnino indilate supersedeatis partes si litigare voluerint ad Curiam Admiralitatis nostrae Angliae pro justitiâ iis ibidem in hac parte ministranda remittentes Teste meipso apud Westm decimo quarto die Aprilis Anno Regni nostri trice simo primo Now I shall here by the way observe unto you this thing in particular out of this last Suprrsedeas and out of these words apud Civitatem Burdugaliae venditioni expositis That though by the course of the Common Law if a man do deliver certain Goods unto another man and doth intrust him with the keeping of them for his the Owners use or to be by him disposed of in one manner and he either selleth them or disposeth of them in another I do conceive he that so intrusted the other may recover of him such damage as he hath sustained by such the others sale or disposal Yet if a Merchant doth intrust a Master of a Ship with his Wares or Merchandizes to be transported to any Port or place beyond the Seas for his own use or for the use of any other particular man to whom the same are by him consigned or doth intrust him to dispose of them in any particular manner whatsoever yet he may in many cases upon certain exigencies happening sometimes sell the same sometimes he may dispose of them otherwise then he was appointed by the Merchant or Owner of them and no damage shall be by the course of the Civil and Maritime Laws recovered of him and herein those Laws have very many nice and curious distinctions and for this Cause when the Merchant very well knoweth that in such causes he cannot in the Admiralty Court recover any damages at all he presently flyeth to the Common Law where he knoweth he shall recover damage against the Master who was in no fault at all in such manner as mutinous and disobedient Mariners who have either through their misdemeanors by the Civil and Maritime Laws forfeited their wages or some part thereof or having received due correction from the Master at sea do fly to the Common Law either for recovery of their wages upon their Contract which they have no wayes deserved or do there bring their Actions of Battery against the Master when as he hath only given them such due correction as the Civil and Maritime Laws do allow that being a thing done at sea where complaint cannot be presently made or remedy had before a Magistrate as may be at land and therefore the like at land not to be allowed in both which cases they oftentimes recover and are gone on another voyage before the Master can make proof of their misdemeanour done either beyond or upon the seas which cannot oftentimes be possibly done but by Commission out of the Admiralty Court which turneth exceeding much to the disheartning and discouraging of Masters and Commanders of Ships which if not remedied will be the utter destruction of Navigation And another thing I shall observe in general from both the two preceding Supersedeas's That all Contracts of and concerning Maritime affairs made between Merchant and Merchant Masters and Owners of Ships and Mariners or between them or any other person whatsoever and in what manner soever to be agitated or performed by sea upon the seas beyond the seas or elsewhere within the Jurisdiction of the Admiralty or taking their rise or original from thence or do in any manner of wise touch or concern the same were not permitted in those times to be examined or adjudged in any Court but the Admiralty And these Supersedeas's in my judgment are a full confirmation of the Exposition I have before rendered of the two before going Statutes viz. that Contracts of this nature though made at land which do maris per transitum sive viagium aut negotia maritima quoquo modo respicere vel qualitercunque tangere concernere and so do arise from things done or to be done at sea and not from things done or to be done within the body of a County do de jure belong unto the Cognizance of the Admiralty and are in no wise by the said two Statutes taken from the same and if by them not taken from thence then doth not the penalty of the other praementioned Statute of Henry the fourth run upon those that do sue in the Admiralty Court in causes of this nature but only upon such as shall there sue upon Contracts made at land of or concerning things done or to be done or performed at land and hereof you shall have further confirmation by Consulations granted at the Common Law upon Prohibitions from thence upon false suggestions issued CHAP. IX That by Consultations granted from the Courts of Common-Law at Westminster after Prohibitions formerly from thence obtained Contracts made at land of and concerning Maritime businesses to be agitated and transacted at Sea beyond the Seas or upon the Ports and Havens or of or concerning the same are acknowledged to be cognizable in the Admiralty and have been thereunto by the same remitted I Shall here proceed to shew that the Maritime Contracts whereof I have hitherto treated in this third Book of this Treatise and particularly exprest in the Title of this Chapter have been by Consultations out of the Courts of Common-Law at Westminster after Prohibitions from thence obtained determined and adjudged to belong unto the Admiralty One Robert Baker of the City of London Vintner sued one John Maynard in the Admiralty Court upon a Contract made at land of and concerning a thing done upon the Sea as by the Consultation it self doth appear But one John Gilbert Esquire being Bail for the said Maynard endeavouring to decline the cognizance of that