Page images
PDF
EPUB

appointed by Letters Patent of the Sovereign, given in the High Court of Admiralty (Admiralty Division) of England, under the Great Seal. The candidate for the office of ViceAdmiral having previously requested the Commissioners for executing the office of Lord High Admiral to permit him to hold the place, the Commissioners if they think fit so to do, direct their warrant to the Judge of the High Court of Admiralty requiring him to cause the said Letters Patent to issue.

It appears that the accustomed place in Southwark, in the beginning of the fifteenth century, to hold the Admiralty or Water Court, was a quay on the Southwark side of the River Thames; unless the Court of the Admiralty was already held in a building forming part of the ancient church of St. Margaret's-on-Hill, which was destroyed as a church in the reign of Henry I., the parish of St. Margaret's being at that time united to the parish of St. Mary Overy. Stow, in his Survey (A.D. 1598), says, "a part of this parish church of St. Margaret is now a Court wherein the assizes and sessions be kept, and the Court of Admiralty is also there kept;" and Pepys, in his Diary (17th March, A.D. 1663), describes the Court of Admiralty as there sitting. In the Rolls of Parliament (11 Henry IV., No. 61), the Commons complain of persons being summoned by the officers of the Admiral à Loundres à la Key de William Horton, Suthwerke. In the reign of Henry VIII., Orton Key, near London Bridge, is mentioned in the Records of the High Court of Admiralty (3rd November, 1541), as its usual place of sitting. The Vice-Admirals held their Courts in the same manner; primarily on the sea shore within the floodmark. Hence by easy digressions on quays, banks of public streams, where the tide ebbed and flowed, and on the coast of arms of the sea. Three Statutes viz.:-13 Ric. II., st. 1, c. 5, 15 Ric. II., c. 3, and 2 Hen. IV., c. 11, were passed to restrict the encroachment of the Admiral's

Courts on the Common Law jurisdiction, by entertaining causes and complaints which did not appertain to the sea or to maritime matters. Although these statutes restrained the Admiralty Courts from holding pleas of things arising in the body of counties, yet, as Sir H. Spelman observes, it did not restrain the Admiralty from making execution upon the land. The body of the realm, and of every county, are places accidentally subject to the Admiralty; therefore the Admiral "may take the body in execution upon the land; and so also may he do the goods by the opinion of the Court" (Brook, Admiral, 19 Henry VI., 7); "and," continues Sir H. Spelman, "it is said that at that time the use was for the Admiral's officers to serve their citations upon the land-and great reason, for otherwise their jurisdiction were to little purpose. Upon this reason, also, is the High Court of Admiralty, by ancient use, holden in the body of the county, and so also may the inferior Courts, though the judges many times used to hold them under the full sea-mark; but discretion requires they should be in maritime towns, for the conveniency of the business and ease of the suitors. This, also, I take to be the cause that the Lord Admirals of England, in the patents to their Vice-Admirals, used to grant them that office as well in upland counties adjoining, as maritime, that they might have power to hold Courts and award process thither if need require. So the Vice-Admiral of Norfolk is usually Vice-Admiral of the city of Norwich, &c." This right mentioned by Sir H. Spelman, of holding Admiral's Courts in maritime towns, does not appear to have passed unchallenged. A petition of the Commons, with its answer, of the fourth year of Henry IV. (1402), directs that "the Admiral and his lieutenants do sit to keep their courts in no liberty or town, but only upon the sea coasts or arms of the sea, and that every plea before them may be determined in one place without adjournment."

From some Admiralty records which we have collected, we are now enabled to give a complete account of a holding of a Vice-Admiralty Court. The Judge of the Vice-Admiralty sits on a chair placed on the sea shore below the flood-mark, or as we have said, on the bank of a navigable river, or on a quay; at other times by custom, as we have shown by Sir H. Spelman, in a church, Court, or other building, inland. The Registrar, generally speaking a notary public, sits near him at a table. The Vice-Admiralty Marshal bearing the Silver Oar, emblematical of the jurisdiction of the Admiralty, stands nigh. About them stand the Serjeants or Under-Marshals having charge of the prisoners. A jury of twenty-three men composed of mariners or fishermen are summoned there to make Presentments. The parties to the Civil suits, the prosecutors, and all witnesses are there collected. The procedure of the Court follows the Civil or Continental-system of the Roman Law, rather than that of the English Common Law; save in the more serious matters when by virtue of the statute 28 Hen. VIII., c. 15, the Common Law must be followed, and then the Judge sits, qua a Commissioner, under that statute. An illustration of the holding of a Water Court is given at the commencement of this Article.*

First, the Vice-Admiralty Judge delivers his charge to the jury. We have a copy of one, found in the British Museum Library, delivered by the Vice-Admiralty Judge of the County of Sussex in 1638. From the internal evidence, it would appear that no Water Court had been held in that county for the preceding twelve years. The charge is a long one. The Judge charges the jury to present all

* Designed and drawn by my daughter, Miss May Sherston Baker, from the descriptions in the Vice-Admiralty Records.

+ The full text of the charge and many other particulars will be found in my "Office of Vice-Admiral of the Coast." London: Privately printed. 1884. Some few copies may still be obtained of Reeves and Turner, 100, Chancery Lane, London.

[ocr errors]

pirates, robbers, murderers, felons and thieves that have committed any piracy, robbery, murder, or felony upon the high seas, or within any fresh-water haven, river, or creek, from all bridges next unto the sea, within full sea-mark, or on the sea sands within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty in the County of Sussex, against any of the King's Majesty's subjects, or any other his friends and allies. He further charges them to make presentment of all riots, unlawful assemblies, contempts, routs, trespasses, frays, outcries, bloodsheds, maims, quarrels, menacings or threatenings, weapons drawing, or any other act, crimes, or trespass done and committed against the King's peace and laws of this realm upon the sea or upon any other haven, port, place, river, fresh-water or creek within the above jurisdiction. He also refers to cutting any buoy whereby any anchor is lost, to unlawful nets, to dragging oysters or mussels at times prohibited by the laws and customs of the Admiralty, to all flotsam found, to any lagon, to royal fish taken and not presented to His Majesty, etc. Having delivered his charge, the work of the Court begins. Let us now peruse some of the Records or Protocols entered in the Book of the Registrar of the Vice-Admiralty Court for the counties Chester and Lancaster in 1635. They are written partly in Latin and partly in English. They begin thus:

"Curia Admiralitatis per comitatus Cestrie et Lancastrie et pertinentium maritimarum earum dominii tenta apud ædes Johannis Tilston scitutas in vico vulgariter nuncupato the Eastgate Street infra civitatem Cestrie, coram venerabili viro Mattheo Anderton in legibus barristerio, Commissario sive Judice Admiralitatis predicte per comitatus predictas, nono die mensis Octobris Anno Domini 1635, presente me Nicholao Ratcliffe notario publico ejusdem curiæ registrario, &c." This shows that a Court of Admiralty or Water Court for the Counties of

Chester and Lancaster, and maritime parts of their domain, was held at the house of John Tilston, situate in the street commonly called Eastgate Street, within the City of Chester, before the Worshipful Mathew Anderton, Barrister-at-law, Commissary or Judge of the Admiralty aforesaid for the said counties on the ninth day of October, A.D. 1635, in the presence of me Nicholas Ratcliffe, Notary Public, Registrar of the said Court. Henry Darwell and John Low, Constables of the Parish of the Blessed Mary on Hill, appeared and produced the Precept or Warrant to them directed, together with a list of persons summoned and presented by them, and were duly sworn. On the same day, John Johnson, Constable of the Parish of the Undivided Trinity of the City of Chester, did not appear nor sent the Precept to him directed, in contempt of this Court. Whereupon the Marshal of the Court being first sworn that he had delivered the Precept to the said John Johnson, and had warned him to execute the same, and to produce the said Precept on this day and place, the said John Johnson was fined in the sum of forty shillings.

"The Protocols continue thus:-" Officium Domini merum contrà Thomam Formeby. Presented by the said jury for cutting Richard Blevin his cable. Quo die Dominus mulctavit eum ad summam 13/4.

"Idem contrà Robertum Melling, Willielmum Rymmer, Rodulphum Hall, Edwardum Martinn, Thomam Plum, Richardum Higginson, et Thomam Parr. Presented by the said jury for driving carts over cables. Quo die Dominus mulctavit quemlibet eorum ad summam 5/

"Idem contrà Richardum Dwarrihouse, water bayliff of Liverpool. Presented for suffering ballast and lime stones to be cast in the port thereof to the annoyance of shipping. Et Dominus mulctavit eum ad summam 20/

"Idem contrà Johannem Smith de Liverpool. Presented for a quarrel. Et Dominus mulctavit eum ad summam 40/

« PreviousContinue »