Third Touching this Statute it may be observed what Sir Edward Cook delivers out of Plowdens Commentaries That the Praeamble of a Statute is the Key to open the meaning of the makers of the Act and the mischiefs which they intended to remedy now in the Praeamble of the Statute it â—s suggested that the Admiral had encroacht divers Jurisdictions and Franchises belonging to the King other Lords from whence it may be conceived that the Parliament intended only to restrain him from medling in his Courts with such things within the Realm wherein he had encroacht upon the Jurisdiction of the King and other Lords which what those things were it doth no wayes appear but it cannot be imagined or reasonably conceived that it was intended the Admiral should be debarred from proceeding in Causes of Navigation and Negotiation by Sea which never did belong to any other Courts of the King or other Lords and were formerly held proper for the conusance of the Admiral and as things were then stated could not be held encroachments So much may the rather be supposed because the Statute restraining him from meddling with things done within the Realm but only with things done upon the Sea further adds according to what hath been duly used in the time of the Noble Prince King Edward Grand-father to the King which was King Edward the Third Sir Henry Spâ—â—man writes that some men did conceive Causarum Nauticarum cognitionem forum rei maritimae quod hodie Curiam Admiralitatis vocant sub Edwardo Tertio illuxisse and it is probable that in that Kings time who did many other glorious things for the good of this Nation the Court of Admiralty received some setlement and grew more conspicuous than it was before but the Constitutions observed by Mr. Selden in the Book of the Admiralty of Henry the First Richard the First King Iohn and Edward the First do manifest that the Court was much more antient and Sir Edward Cook to shew the antiquity of the Court of Admiralty to have been long before the time of Edward the Third in whose dayes he sayes that some had dreamed that it had begun recite the antient Record De superioritate Maris before mentioned and likewise another quoted also by Mr. Seldâ—n wherein it is shewed that King Edw. the Third in the 12 year of his Reign did consult with all his Judges ad finem quod retineatur continuetur ad subditorum prosequutionem forma procedendi quondam Domini Regis c. that is To the end that the form of proceedings at the sute of the Subjects begun and ordained by his Grand-father King Edward the First and his Counsel for retaining and preserving the antient Soveraignty of the Sea of England and the Right of the Office of the Admiralty in the same might be resumed and continued touching the correcting interpreting and declaring the Laws and Statutes lately ordained for the maintaining of Peace and Iustice amongst the people of all Nations whatsoever passing through the English Seas and for punishing of Offences and for giving of satisfaction to such as were damnified which Laws and Statutes were corrected declared interpreted and published by King Richard the First King of England in his return from the Holy Land and were intituled Le Ley Oleron in the French tongue And it is manifest That the Law was continued all that Kings time in regard that in the 49 year of his Reign the selected Sea-men for the Inquisition at Quinborough in the conclusion say That touching some businesses proposed in the Articles of the Inquisition they know no better advise nor remedy than that which had been formerly used and practised after the manner which is conteined in the Law of Oleron All which being admitted and duly considered it may be presumed that such Causes as did originally by Civil Law belong to the Admiralty and what former Kings had antiently ordained for the regulating of the same as likewise such as were agreeable to the matters decided in the Iudgments of Oleron and what are conteined in the Inquisition taken at Quinborough in the time of King Edward the Third were within the conusance of the Admiralty Court and consequently the same are permitted to be tried and determined in the same Court by the Statute of the 13 of Rich. 2. Touching the Judgments Judicial Acts and Book-Cases intended to restrain the Admiral of England in exercise of his Jurisdiction as it is granted in the Kings Commission it may be answered in general First That those Judgments Judicial Acts c. are in Causes of difference in respect of Jurisdiction betwixt the Courts of Common Law and the Admiralty Court and it is incident to all professions where there is any competition or emulation with others to incline to that which is most to their advantage Secondly Such Judgment sand Book-Cases have been grounded upon the common understanding of the Statutes without any notice or respect to the Laws of the Sea or the condition of Maritime Causes the circumstances of the places being the chief Rule by which they have been framed Thirdly That many of them upon due examination may be found not so concluding as they are pretended and although much respect and reverence be due to the Authours yet we are not bound to believe that their judgments are infallible Fourthly That the Judicial proceeding as Prohibitions being the results of the former authorities they may be weighed accordingly Lastly Touching the main piece Sir Edward Cooks Articuli Admiralitatis carrying the reputation of the Resolutions of all â—â—e Judges touching the matters therein conteined it will appear that they very much differ from the Concessions of the Judges of the Kings Bench 1575 and from the Resolutions of all the Judges the 18 of February 1632 subscribed unto by them in the presence of King Charls and twenty Lords of his Counsel The particular authorities which may be collected out of Sr. Edward Cooks Notes to prove that the Admiral of England hath no conusance of things done within the Realm but only of things done upon the Sea are as followeth 1 That in the 2 Rich. 2. Hibernici sunt sub Admirallo Angliae de facto super alto Mari. 2 That the 7 Rich. 2. in an Action of trespass brought for a Ship and Merchandises taken away the Defendant pleaded that he did take them en le haut Mer ou les Normans que la enemis la Roy and it was allowed a good Plea 3 That Fortescue who lived in the time of Hen. the Sixth saith Siquae super altum mare extra Corpus Comitatus in placito coram Admirallo deducantur per testes terminari debent 4 That Dyer in the time of Queen Mary saith That by the Libel in the Admiralty Court the Case is supposed to commence sur le haut mer intra Iurisdictionem de l' Admiralty To these authorities may be answered in general First That
whereas some of them speak of Altum Mare the Statute of the 13 of Rich. 2. hath no such Attribute but mentions simply the Sea 2 That the same Authorities granting that the Admiral hath jurisdiction on the Sea do not declare much less conclude that he hath no jurisdiction elsewhere And as to the particulars 1 The Authority of 2 Rich. 2. which affirms that the Irish were subject to the Admiral of England for a thing done on the Sea mentions not for what kinde of thing and happily it might be for some offence against the Crown or against the Peace in offering violence to the Kings Subjects or the subjects of his Allies and in such Cases it might be understood that he had Jurisdiction over the Irish as over the Subjects of England and other Nations onely extending to the high Sea but it cannot from thence be argued but that if it were a business concerning Navigation or Negotiation by Sea he might also have had Jurisdiction over the Irish as well as over other persons not onely super alto mari but also in other places elsewhere 2 The Plea to the Action of Trespass in the 7 Rich. the 2. might be good and allowed in two respects First In regard the thing was done where the Country could take no notice and therefore no Jury by twelve men could be had Secondly In regard the Ship and goods were taken from the Kings Enemies against whom no â—respass could be committed because that to offend them any wayes was lawfull and in that respect the Plea might have been allowed although the Ship and Merchandise had been taken in a Port or Navigable River 3. Whereas Fortescue sayes that things done upon the high Sea prosecuted before the Admiral ought to be determined according to the Proofs made by Witnesses and no more Sir Edward Cook affirms That it proves by express words that the Admiralty is confined to the high Sea Fortescue having given reason for Trials by Jury when the Neighbourhood of the Country could take notice of the business Grants that for things done in other places the Law of the Kingdome doth allow of proofs by Witnesses as in Causes commenced before the Admiral for things done on the high Sea and likewise before the Constable for things done beyond the Sea so that it is evident he doth no more expresly confine the Admirals Jurisdiction to the high Sea than he doth the Constables to places beyond the Sea it being notorious that his Jurisdiction extends to Deeds of War and Arms within the Land as it will be proved that the Admirals Jurisdiction likewise to matters of Navigation and Negotiation by Sea 4 Touching the Authority of Dyer that by Libel in the Admiralty Court the Case is surmised to commence Sur la haut mer c. It may be answered that the Libels in the Admiralty sometimes as the business falls out declare Super alto mari infra jurisdictionem Curiae but ordinarily Causes are laid onely intra fluxum refluxum Maris Iurisdictionem Curiae and generally the Causes are no otherwise described but A contra B. in causa civili Maritima That the Admiral of England may hold Conusance of Contracts and Writings made at Land touching business of Navigation and Trade by Sea BY an ancient Record in the Black book of the Admiralty of which Mr. Selden takes notice it appears that it was ordained by King Edward the first and his Lords at Hastings Que comment divâ—rs Seigneurs avoient francheses c. That although diâ—ers Lords had â—ivers Franchises to try Pleas in Ports yet that neither their Steward nor Bayliffs should hold any Plea if it concerned Mercâ—ant or Mariner as well for matter of Fact as of Ships Obligations and other Dâ—edâ— which although it extends onely to inferiour Lords yet it may be said that it was done in favour of the Admirals Jurisdiction in such matters Secondly by Commissions from time to time Granted by the Kings of England to the Admirals power is given Ad cognoscendum c. to hold the Conusance of Charter-parties Policies of Assurance Bills of Bottomry Bills of Lading and of Sale of Ships Thirdly The Causes and Sutes arising by occasion of businesses contained in such Writings have in all observable times and places been held to be Maritime and the Conusance of them hath been allowed to Martim Courts as it hath been before fully shewed and it may be further considered that such Contracts and Writings have their Original from ancient Maritim Laws are both in names and nature things forein to the Laws of this Realm And so much may be gathered from the order which Wesâ— observeth in his Book of Presidents where after the form of Deeds and Contracts proper to the Common Law he handles those which concern Merchandizing and Trade by Sea as things of a distinct and several nature Touching the particulars First Charter-parties seem to have been derived from the Rhodian Laws by which it was provided Si quis naâ—em conduxerit instrumenta consignata sunto If any man shall hire a ship let there be Writings drawn and sealed thereupon There is likewise mention of Charter-parties in the Role of Oleron and in the French later Ordinances made for the reglement of the Admiralty of France and it is supposed that no mention of them can be found in any Law or Statute of this Realm until the 32 of King Henry the 8. cap. 14. where the Conusance of them is referred to the Admiralty as it shall be hereafter shewed Moreover Malines confirms that anciently in Charter-parties it was exprest That the Contents thereof should be understood according to the Law of Oleron and at this time there are Clauses usually inserted into them enjoyning That the Merchants besides the payment of Freight shall make allowance for Primage Average and Pettelodmenage things no where occurring in the Books of Common Law and anciently determinable by the Law of Oleron Secondly Policies of Assurance are grounded upon the Civil Law which alloweth an Action for the undertaking a hazard which is doubtfull for reward or consideration first given which is commonly called a Praemio they are of later Civillians called Sponsiones Mercatoriae and Assecurationes which Malines affirms were taken up in this Kingdome from the Laws of Oleron practised on the Sea coasts of France but it is manifest that now they are likewise in use in Venice Naples Genua Ancona Spain and Portugal and in other places where the affairs of the Sea are regulated by the Civil Law the Consolato and Laws of Oleron Thirdly Bills of Bottomry when an Owner or Master of a Ship to furnish his Voyage takes up money upon extraordinary interest to be paid when the Ship arrives at the Port appointed and thereby engages his Ship for the performance of the same are grounded on the ancient Grecian and Roman Laws Iulius Pollux a learned Expositor of tearms or words used amongst
THE JURISDICTION OF THE ADMIRALTY Of England Asserted AGAINST Sr. EDWARD COKE'S Articuli Admiralitatis In XXII Chapter of his Jurisdiction Of COURTS By RICHARD ZOUCH Doctor of the Civil Law and late Judge of the High Court of ADMIRALTY LONDON Printed for Francis Tyton and Thomas Dring and are to be sold at their Shops in Fleetstreet 1663. Thomas Foley of Great Witley Court in the County of Worcester Esqr. TO THE READER I Do certifie and attest that the Treatise Entituled The Jurisdiction of the High Court of Admiralty asserted c. by Dr. ZOUCH was delivered into my hands by the Author himself to be Printed and which he intended to have Dedicated to his Royal Highness JAMES Duke of YORK Lord High Admiral of England Drs Commons Febr. 25. 1663. Tim. Baldwyn ASSERTIONS Concerning the JURISDICTION of the ADMIRALTY OF ENGLAND 1. THat in all places where Navigation and Trade by Sea have been in Use and Esteem and particularly in England Special Laws have been provided for regulating the same 2. That in all places where Laws have been provided for businesses concerning the Sea as also in England special Judges have been appointed to determine differences and to redresse offences concerning the same 3. That in all places where special Judges have been appointed for Sea affairs as also in England certain Causes viz. all such as have relation to Navigation and Negotiation by Sea have been held proper for their Conusance 4. That the Jurisdiction of the Lord High Admiral of England as it is granted by the King and usually exercised in the Court of Admiralty may consist with the Laws and Statutes of the Realm 5. That the Lord Admiral of England may hold Conusance of Contracts and Writings made at Land touching businesses of Navigation and Trade by Sea 6. That the Admiral of England may hold Conusance of things done in Ports and Navigable Rivers as touching damage done to Persons Ships and Goods Annoyances of free Passage and unlawfull Fishing 7. That the Lord Admiral of England may hold Pleas of Contracts and other things done beyond the Sea relating to Navigation and Trade by Sea 8. That the Courts and Judges of the Common-Law do intermeddle with and interrupt the Court of Admiralty in Causes properly belonging to that Court 9. That the Tryal of Causes concerning Navigation and Trade in the Court of Admiralty is more commodious for the Kingdome and the Subjects thereof than in the Courts of Common-Law Sir EDWARD COKE'S Jurisdiction of COURTS CAP. XXII The Court of the Admiralty proceeding According to the Civil LAW THe Complaint of the Lord Admiral of England to the Kings most Excellent Maiesty against the Iudges of the Realm concerning Prohibitions granted to the Court of the Admiralty 11 Febr. penultimo die Termini Hillarii Anno 8. Jac. Regis the Effect of which complaint was after by his Majesties Commandment set down in Articles by Dr. Dun Iudge of the Admiralty which are as followeth with answers to the same by the Iudges of the Realm which they afterwards confirmed by three kinds of authorities in Law 1. by Acts of Parliament 2. by Iudgements and Iudicial proceedings and lastly by Book cases Certain grievances whereof the Lord Admiral and his Officers of the Admiralty do especially complain and desire redresse THat whereas the Conusance of all Contracts and other things done upon the Sea belongeth to the Admiral Jurisdiction the same are made tryable at the Common-Law by supposing the same to have been done in Cheapside or such places By the Laws of this Realm the Court of the Admiral hath no Conusance power or Iurisdiction of any manner of Contract Plea or Querele within any County of the Realm either upon the Land or Water but every such Contract Plea or Querele and all other things rising within any County of the Realm either upon the Land or Water and also Wreck of the Sea ought to be tryed determined discussed and remedied by the Laws of the Land and not before or by the Admiral or his Lieutenant in any manner So as it is not material whether the place be upon the water infra fluxum refluxum aquae but whether it be upon any water within any County Wherefore we acknowledge that of Contracts Pleas and Quereles made upon the Sea or any part thereof which is not within any County from whence no tryal can be had by Twelve men the Admiral hath and ought to have Iurisdiction And no President can be shewed that any Prohibition hath been granted for any Contract Plea or Querele concerning any marine cause made or done upon the Sea taking that only to be the Sea wherein the Admiral hath Iurisdiction which is before by Law described to be out of any County See more of this matter in the answer to the sixth Article When Actions are brought in the Admiralty upon Bargains or Contracts made beyond the Seas wherein the Commom-Law cannot administer Justice yet in these causes Prohibitions are awarded against the Admiral Court Bargains or Contracts made beyond the Seas wherein the Common-Law cannot administer Iustice which is the effect of this Article do belong to the Constable and Marshal for the Iurisdiction of the Admiral is wholly consined to the Sea which is out of any County But if any Indenture Bond or other Specialty or any Contract be made beyond Sea for doing of any Act or Payment of any money within this Realm or otherwise wherein the Common-Law can administer justice and give ordinary remedy in these cases neither the Constable and Marshal nor the Court of the Admiralty hath any Iurisdiction And therefore when this Court of the Admiralty hath dealt therewith in derogation of the Common-Law we find that Prohibitions have been granted as by Law they ought Whereas time out of mind the Admiral Court hath used to take Stipulation for appearance and performance of the Acts and Judgments of the same Court It is now affirmed by the Judges of the Common-Law that the Admiral Court is no Court of Record and therefore not able to take such Stipulations and hereupon Prohibitions are granted to the utter over-throw of that Jurisdiction The Court of the Admiralty proceeding by the Civil Law is no Court of Record and therefore cannot take any such Recognisance as a Court of Record may do And for taking of Recognisances against the Laws of the Realm we find that Prohibitions have been granted as by Law they ought and if an Erroneous sentence be given in that Court no Writ of Error but an Appeal to certain Delegates does lye as it appeareth by the Statute of 8 Eliz. Reginae Cap. 5. which proveth that it is no Court of Record That Charter-parties made only to be performed upon the Seas are daily withdrawn from that Court by Prohibitions If the Charter-party be made within any City Port Town or County of this Realm although it be
of Common Law by witnesses which saith he cometh to pass because in those parts there be no neighbours by whose oaths Juries of twelve men may be made as in Contracts and other cases arising within the Realm is accustomed to be done To avoid the Admirals Jurisdiction in holding Pleas of Contracts or things done beyond the Sea Sir Ed. Cook affirms that Bargains and Contracts so made wherein the Courts of Common Law cannot administer Justice did belong to the Constable and Marshal for the Jurisdiction of the Admiral is wholy confined to the Sea which is out of any County whence it may be gathered that as to this point he intends for Authorities the Statutes of the 13 of Richard 2. which sets forth the Jurisdiction both of the Constables and Marshals Court as also of the Court of the Admiralty That concerning the Constable and Marshal is as far from the purpose as it was from Sir Edward Cooks thought to give any addition of power to that Court The Act declares That to the Constable and Marshal it belongs to have Conusance of Contracts and Deeds of Arms out of the Realm whence it is inferred that therefore out of the Realm the Admiral shall have no Conusance of Contracts or matters concerning Navigation and Trade It may be better argued from that Act That as the Parliament allowed to the Constable and Marshal Jurisdiction in Causes of Arms and Warr arising both within and without the Realm which cannot be determined by the Common Law so it did intend Causes of Navigation and Trade arising either within or beyond the Seas to be tried by the Admiral The nature and the Quality of the business more Conducing to the point of Jurisdiction than the Circumstances of the place where it happens The Statute which allows the Admiral to meddle with things done upon the Sea by Sir Edward Cooks leave doth not confine his Jurisdiction to the Sea in respect of â—ny place beyond the Sea It is rather â—retended to debarr him from medling with things done within the Realm which notwithstanding it being formerly shewed that the Admiral may â—old plea of Maritime Causes arising â—rom Contracts made within the Land 〈◊〉 may be less needfull to labour to prove â—hat it doth not hinder him from taking Conusance of Sutes concerning Navigation and Trade arising from Contracts made and businesses done beyond the Sea The other Authorities which may be collected to prove how the Admiral hath no Jurisdiction of things done beyond the Sea are a writ in the Register and Fitz Herbert and a number of Prohibitions That of the Register is If goods be taken from an English-man in Spain or beyond the Sea and the party cannot obtain Justice there he shall have a writ of the Sheriff to arest the Bodies of the offenders and to seize their goods to the value which proveth saith Sir Edwarâ— Cook that the Admiralty cannot hold plea thereof for that the party hath remedy at the Common Law That Argument is as good as if he had said There lies a writ of Withernam at the Common Law therefore no Letters oâ— Reprisalls can be granted in the Admiralty It stands with great reason that iâ— a Subject be spoiled of his goods in anoâ—ther Realm and can have no remedy there that the party or the goods belonâ—ging to him being found within the Juâ—isdiction of the Common Law they â—hould be made lyable to satisfaction And why should it be thought unreasoâ—able that upon the like occasion if the â—arty or his goods be found within the â—urisdiction of the Admiralty the Subâ—ect should have remedy there But this Authority concerns not Contract or barâ—ains made beyond the Sea Besides how far this writ agrees with â—he Common Law it may be consideâ—ed in regard Mr. Selden writes in Triâ—unalibus nostri Iuris Municipalis c. in â—ur Courts of Common Law the Juâ—â—sdiction hath been ever held to be such â—â—at according to the strict Laws antiâ—â—tly practis'd an Action could not be â—ought upon a business hapning elseâ—here than within the Kingdome as for â—any Ages since it hath been held that â—â—e Action ought to be rejected unless â—â—e ground of it be arising from someâ—â—ing done within the Body of a Counâ—â— And Sir Edward Cook recites divers â—â—thorities by which the same is mainâ—â—in'd as agreeable to the Common Law â—â—t this Law he allows where the â—â—ings were totally done out of the â—â—alm and Implies that it is otherwise where the Contract is made in oâ— Realm and the performance ought to bâ— in another for then sayes he as to thâ— present purpose of necessity the Conuâ—sance must be where the Contract waâ— made for otherwise there can be no triâ—al had at the Common Law and that iâ— is most reasonable that it should be so because the Contract is the ground anâ— foundation of the debt But now in casâ— a Contract be made in partibus exteris transmarinis whereby payment or perâ—formance is to be made within thâ— Realm notwithstanding the Contract bâ— the ground and foundation yet the Juâ—risdiction follows the place of paymenâ— and performance and no doubt for thâ— same reason because otherwise theâ— could be no pretence for a trial at thâ— Common Law so that the Rule is fraâ—med to the building and not the buildinâ— to the Rule The last Argument is that divers Proâ—hibitions have been granted upon sutâ— brought in the Admiralty for thinâ— done in partibus exteris transmarinâ—â— and the first is as ancient as the 36. Hen. 8. But upon what Contracts buâ—â—â—nesses or occasions those sutes weâ— grounded and Commenced it is not â—pecified and to conclude this point as the former First the third request of the Judge of the Admiralty in the year 1575. viz. That the Judge of the Admiralty according to such ancient order made by King Edw. 1. and his Councel and according to the Letters patents of the Lord Admiral for the time being and allowed of other Kings of this Land ever since and by Custom time our of memory of man may have Cognition of all contracts and other things arising as well beyond as upon the Sea without â—et or prohibition The answer is that it â—s agreed upon by the Lord Chief Iustice and â—is Collegues Secondly All the Judges before the King and his Councel Octavo Caroli aâ—reed That if sutes shall be commenced â—n the Court of Admiraly for Contracts â—ade or other things done beyond the â—ea or upon the Sea no Prohibition is â—o be awarded Concerning the Concessions of the â—udges of the Kings Bench and the Reâ—olutions of all the Judges alleged for â—â—e Confirmation of the precedent Asâ—ertions it may be noted That touching the former by them are intended certain Answers of the Chief Justice and other Judges of that Bench to the Requests of the Judge of the Admiralty in the year 1575. of which mention is made in the complaint of the Admiral 7. Object wherein it is set
forth That the Agreement made in anno Domini 1575. between the Judges of the Kings Bench and the Court of Admiralty for the more quiet and certain Execution of Admiral Jurisdiction was not observed to which Sir Edward Cook answers that that supposed agreement had not been delivered unto them but having heard the same read before his Majesty out of a Paper not subscribed with the hand of any Judge they answer that for so much thereof as differs from their present Answers it was against the Laws and Statutes of the Realm and therefore the Judges of the Kings Bench never assented thereunto as it is pretended neither doth the phrase thereof agree with the Terms of the Laws of the Realm It is not probable that Dr. Dunn then Judge of the Admiralty would have produced such an Agreement to the Judges before the King but that he had some ground for the same which being supposed it may as well inferr that those Concessions were agreeable to the Laws and Statutes of the Realm because those Judges did assent unto them as that they did not assent because they were not agreeable to the same And it may as well be doubted whether those things wherein those Answers at that time did differ from the Resolutions of all the Judges in the 8. of King Charls were agreeable to the Laws and Statutes of the Realm as it is confidently affirm'd that wherein those Concessions did differ from those Answers were against the same wherein the phrase of the Requests and Answers is not agreeable to the terms of the Common Law is not so much considerable as how the matters therein contained may consist both with Law and Equity and to that end it may not be amiss to recite them as they are extant in several Manuscripts in which are collected things of those times remarkable both concerning the Ecclesiastical Courts and the Court of Admiralty as followeth 12. Of May 1575. The Requests of the Judge of the Admiralty to the Lord chief Justice of her Majesties Bench and his Collegues with their Answers to the same That after Judgement or Sentence given in the Court of Admiralty in any cause or Appeal made from the same to the high Court of Chancery it may please them to forbear the granting of any Writ of Prohibition either to the Judge of the said Court or to her Majesties Delegates at the sute of him by whom such Appeal shall be made seeing by choice of Remedy in that way in reason he ought to be contented therewith and not to be relieved any other way It is agreed by the Lord chief Justice and his Collegues that after Sentence given in the Delegates no Prohibition shall be granted And if there be no Sentence if a Prohibition be not sued for within the next term following Sentence in the Admiralty Court or within two terms after at the farthest no Prohibition shall pass to the Delegates That Prohibitions hereafter be not granted upon bare Suggestions or Surmises without summary Examination and Proof made thereof wherein it may be lawfull to the Judge of the Admiralty and the party defendant to have Counsel and to plead for the stay thereof if there shall appear cause They have agreed that the Judge of the Admiralty and the party defendant shall have Counsel in Court and to plead to stay if there may appear evident cause That the Judge of the Admiralty according to such an antient Order as hath been taken by King Edward the first and his Councel and according to the Letters Patents of the Lord Admiral for the time being and allowed by other Kings of the Land ever since and by custom time out of Memory of man may have and enjoy cognition of all Contracts and other things rising as well beyond as upon the Sea without let or Prohibition This is agreed upon by the said Lord Chief Justice and his Collegues That the said Judges may have and enjoy the knowledge of the breach of Charter-parties made betwixt Masters of Ships and Merchants for Voyages to be made to the parts beyond the Sea and to be performed upon and beyond the Sea according as it hath been accustomed time out of mind and according to the goodâ— meaning of the Statute of 32. of Henry 8. chap. 14. though the same Charter-parties be made within the Realm This is likewise agreed upon for things to be performed either upon or beyond the Sea though the Charter-party be made upon the Land by the Statute of 32. Hen. 8. cap. 14. That Writs of Corpus cum Causa be not directed to the said Judge in causes of the nature afore-said and if any happen to be directed that it may please them to accept of the Return thereof with the Cause and not the Body as it hath alwayes been accustomed If any Writ of this nature be directed in the causes before specified they are content to return the Bodies again to the Lord Admirals Gaol upon Certificate of the cause to be such or if it be for contempt or disobedience to the Court in any such cause Touching the Resolutions of all the Judges 8. Caroli it may be considered That in the presence of the Kings Majesty and twenty three Lords and others of his Majesties Councel they were subscribed unto by all the Judges viz. Thomas Richardson Robert Heath Humphrey Dawenport Iohn Denham Richard Hutton William Iones George Crook Thomas Trevor Iames Weston Robert Barkley Francis Crawly and also by Henry Martin Judge of the Admiralty and William Noy the Attorney general and the Transcript thereof was ordered to be Entred in the Register of the Councel causes and the original to remain in the Councel chest 18. Feb. 1632. Sir Edward Cook concerning the answers and resolutions of the Judges to those things which he calls Articuli Cleri 3 Iacob saith That although they were not enacted by the authority of Parliament as the â—tatute of Articuli Cleri in the 9. of Edwaâ—â— 2. was yet being resolved unanimously by all the Judges of England and the Barons of the Exchequer they are for matters of Law of highest authority next unto the Court of Parliament And it may be thought that these resolutions of all the Judges touching the Jurisdiction of the Admiralty ought to be of no lower esteem the rather for that the unanimity of all the Judges to the former must be taken upon the credit alone of Sir Edward Cook but as to the latter the Evidence thereof doth appear by the joynt subscriptions of all before named which is likewise attested by Sir George Crook who was one of them who in his reports of Hillary term 8 Caroli under the title of Resolutions upon causes of Admiral Jurisdiction writes that it was agreed as followeth First if sute should be commenced in the Court of Admiralty for Contracts or other things personally done beyond the Sea no Prohibition is to be