be made beyond sea, and to institute proceedings in rem at the suit of material men.

Owing to the disordered state into which the country was thrown soon after this time, it is difficult to ascertain whether this extra-judicial opinion of the judges was in any way acted upon by them (a). The resolutions appear inserted in the first edition of Croke's reports, but in the second edition they are omitted, and a note is added under the head of "Mantissa," which states "that the resolutions were not judicial resolutions, and therefore not authentique (b)." In the time of the Commonwealth, the importance of placing the Admiralty jurisdiction upon a satisfactory basis was urged upon Parliament. The numerous entries in the journals of the

(a) But see the case of Tasker v. Gale, Rolle's Ab. 533.

(b) The following observations of the Hon. Judge Bee (Clinton v. Brig Hannah, Bee, 419) are worthy of atten tion "In the first edition of Cro. Car. 296, we find resolutions upon cases of Admiralty jurisdiction, subscribed by all the judges of both benches in April, 1632; wherein, amongst other things, it was resolved that a shipwright may sue in the Admiralty, provided his suit be against the ship. Rolle, as a faithful abridger, gives the law as it then stood under the authority of these resolutions. In Article 19, he mentions the doctrine respecting shipwrights, and cites the case of Tasker v. Gale. And in Article 21, he gives the law respecting charter-parties, adding these remarkable words, 'As it was declared by the Court to have been lately resolved by all the judges of England.' So that those resolutions seem to be the only foundation upon which these doctrines rest. And it is very observable that although Croke records the resolutions as they were subscribed in Hilary Term, the 8th of Charles, yet he does not report the case of Tasker v. Gale, although adjudged (according to Rolle) in the 9th of Charles, which must have

been but a few months after. Neither bath any other reporter of that period noticed this case. From which it seems probable that those resolutions, and the judgment in the case of Tasker v. Gale, were not admitted as good law, even in that day. But it is further observable, that when Sir Harbottle Grimstone published Croke's Reports in the year 1657, he prefixed even to the first edition a declaration, under the title 'Mantissa,' that the resolutions of the judges were not of authority; and for this reason (according to Comyns) those resolutions were totally omitted in the subsequent editions of the work. Since that time no instance can be found in the books where either these resolutions or the case of Tasker v. Gale adjudged thereupon, have been referred to, either by the Court or in the pleadings in any adjudged case, except in the case of Woodward v. Bonithan, Sir T. Raymond, 3; and there the court declared that those resolutions had been denied by several judges, and renounced even by some of those who had subscribed them. And of this Danvers also takes particular notice, p. 271. Therefore the authority of these resolutions seems to have been abolished by general consent." See also 12 Wheaton, 623.

House of Commons show that the question attracted great attention (c). Three Admiralty judges were appointed; it was declared that their commissions should run according to the form of the other judges' commissions (d), and that they should all join in giving final judgment, and each give reasons for his judgment. An ordinance passed on the 12th April, 1648, contains the following provisions: "That the Court of Admiralty shall have cognisance and jurisdiction against the ship in all causes which concern the repairing, victualling, and furnishing provisions for the setting of such ships to sea; and in all cases of bottomry, and likewise in contracts made beyond the seas concerning shipping, or navigation, or damages happening thereon, or arising at sea in any voyage; and likewise in all cases of charter-parties or contracts for freight, bills of lading, mariners' wages, or damages to goods laden on board ships, or other damages done by one ship or vessel to another, or by anchors or want of laying of buoys" (e).

At the Restoration this ordinance was set aside, as of no validity, but a bill was introduced into Parliament to carry out in legal form the same provisions. The bill, however, was thrown out by the Parliament in spite of a very elaborate argument in support of it by Sir Leoline Jenkins, who was heard at the bar of the House of Lords.

After this the Court seems to have fallen into a feeble and neglected condition (ƒ), and for long its proceedings excited

(c) "The House being informed that divers merchants of the City of London were at the door desirous to prefer a petition to the House, they were called in, and Alderman Fowke did present a petition, intitled, "The Honourable Petition of the Merchants of London subscribed.' The which was read, and was to desire that some speedy remedy may be provided for the hearing of suits for mariners' wages and freight together in an Admiralty way, and in foreign contracts. Upon the reading of this petition Mr. Greene reported to the Committee, to which the divers pe

titions for a like purpose were formerly referred, an ordinance for settling a jurisdiction in the Admiralty Court for the hearing and determining of all cases for mariners' wages and freight together in an Admiralty way, and all other cases concerning foreign contracts." Commons' Journal, 12 Nov., 1646. See numerous other entries in the Journals about the same date.

(d) See Commons' Journal, 10 Feb., 1648.

(e) Scobbell's Acts and Ordinances, p. 147.

(f) "To St. Margaret's Hill, in

no attention. But when in the reign of George III. this country was engaged in great maritime wars, constant appeal was made to the jurisdiction which the Court exercised in prize causes, and the learning and eloquence of Lord Stowell raised it to a position of the highest importance. But still the jurisdiction of the Court in instance causes was suffered to languish, and at that time no attempt was made to act in matters of civil jurisdiction beyond the narrow limits prescribed by the common law decisions.

At length, in the year 1833, a select committee of the House of Commons, appointed to consider the question, presented a report recommending the extension of the jurisdiction of the Court (g). The recommendation of the committee was not acted upon until the year 1840, when an Act of Parliament (h) was passed to improve the practice and extend the jurisdiction of the Court. In 1854 another Act was passed to improve the practice of the Court, entitled the "Admiralty Court Act, 1854" (i). In the year 1859 an Act was passed to enable barristers and attorneys to practise in

Southwark, where the Judge of the
Admiralty come, and the rest of the
Doctors of the Civil Law, and some
other Commissioners, whose commission
of Oyer and Terminer was read, and
then the Charge, given by Dr. Exton,
which methought was somewhat dull,
though he would seem to intend it to
be very rhetorical, saying that Justice
had two wings, one of which spread
itself over the land, and the other over
the water, which was this Admiralty
Court. I perceive that this Court is
yet but in its infancy (as to its rising
again), and their design and consulta-
tion was,
I could overhear them, how
to proceed with the most solemnity,
and spend time, there being only two
businesses to do, which of themselves
could not spend much time."-Pepys'
Diary, 17 March, 1663.

(g) "Your committee recommend that the jurisdiction of the High Court of Admiralty be enlarged so as to enable

the court to take cognisance of seamen's
wages under special contracts, and of
title to vessels arising incidentally in
cases of possession, and also of the
demands of nautical men and of mort-
gagees when the vessel has been arrested
or the proceeds are in the registry of
that Court; and it may also be expe-
dient to consider whether great advan-
tages would not result to the commer-
cial interests of the country if the said
Court were permitted to exercise con-
current jurisdiction with other courts
in questions of title to ships generally,
and of freight, and possibly of some
other mercantile matters, with a power
of impanelling a jury of merchants, if
the judge think fit or either of the
parties require it."-Report of Select
Committee of House of Commons, Aug.,
1833.

(h) 3 & 4 Vict. c. 15.
(i) 17 & 18 Vict. c. 78.

the Court (). In 1861 another Act was passed, entitled "The Admiralty Court Act, 1861" (7), which conferred still more extended powers upon the Court. The effect of the provisions of these later statutes are fully discussed in the chapters which follow.

(k) 22 & 23 Vict. c. 6.

(7) 24 Vict. c. 10.

PART I.

THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT.

CHAPTER I.

POSSESSION.

On entering upon an inquiry concerning the jurisdiction of the Court of Admiralty, attention is naturally directed in the first instance to the jurisdiction which it exercises respecting the possession of ships. In nearly all commercial countries the employment of ships has been favoured as being not only of advantage to the individual owners but of public benefit to the State; and the law of England, in accordance with this principle, has made special provisions to protect the possession of the owners of ships, and to secure to them the advantageous enjoyment of their property. It is the peculiar province of the Court of Admiralty to carry out these provisions.

a person

Under ordinary circumstances, when the owner of a Suit against personal chattel is wrongfully deprived of it, his only remedy wrongfully is a personal action against the wrongdoer (a), but where in possesa ship is wrongfully detained, the ship itself, by process in the Admiralty Court, may be at once arrested and proceeded against, and a specific decree obtained, restoring it to the

(a) It is only by a recent statute that provision has been made to enable the plaintiff in an action at common law for the detention of any chattel to obtain execution for the return of the

chattel, without giving the defendant
the option of retaining such chattel
upon paying its value. The Common
Law Procedure Act, 1854, s. 78.

sion.

C