No. II. Extract from the Irish Act 1782. WHEREAS it is expedient to regulate the high court of admiralty in this kingdom, and the mode of appealing therefrom: Be it enacted, by the king's most excellent majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal, and commons, in this present parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, that his majesty, his heirs and successors, shall and may from time to time nominate, constitute and appoint, under the great seal of this kingdom, one fit and discreet person to be judge of the high court of admiralty in this kingdom, to have and hold said office so long as he shall behave himself well therein; and that the person so to be nominated, constituted and appointed, shall have full power and authority to hear and determine all, and all manner of civil, maritime and other causes to the jurisdiction of the said court belonging, or which of right belong thereto, according to the laws and statutes of this realm. Provided always, that it shall and may be lawful to and for his majesty, his heirs and successors, to remove such judge, upon the address of both houses of parliament, any thing herein to the contrary thereof in any wise notwithstanding. And be it further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, that it shall and may be lawful for any person or persons, who shall be aggrieved by any sentence, order, or adjudication of the said court, to appeal to the king, or to his lieutenant, or other chief governor or governors of this kingdom, in the high court of chancery in this kingdom, and that upon every such appeal, the chancellor, keeper or keepers of the great seal, shall grant a commission or delegacy to some discreet and well learned persons of this kingdom, un der the great seal thereof, which commissioners or delegates, so to be appointed, and none others, shall have full power and authority finally to hear and determine all causes and grievances contained in such appeals, as well in the principal matter as all circumstances and dependants thereon. Extract from the Act of Union between England and Ireland, 40 George III. It is enacted, that it be the eighth article of union, that all laws in force at the time of the union, and all the courts of civil and ecclesiastical jurisdiction within the respective kingdoms, shall remain as now by law established within the same, subject only to such alterations and regulations from time to time as circumstances may appear to the parliament of the united kingdom to require. Provided, that all writs of error and appeals depending at the time of the union, or hereafter to be brought, and which might now be finally decided by the house of lords of either kingdom, shall from and after the union be finally decided by the house of lords of the united kingdom. And provided, that from and after the union there shall remain in Ireland an instance court of admiralty, for the determination of causes, civil and maritime only, and that the appeal from sentences of the said court shall be to his majesty's delegates in his court of chancery, in united kingdom called Ireland; and that all that part of the laws at present in force in either kingdom, which shall be contrary to any of the provisions which may be enacted by any act for carrying these articles into effect, be from and after the union repealed. No. III. Extracts from Opinions relative to the Power of the Admiralty to try Misdemeanors. THE Espiegle sloop of war having, in 1796, sent a boat to seize a smuggler, several shots were fired at the boat by the crew of the smuggler. The persons who fired were put into confinement. With respect to the persons under confinement, we think it extremely doubtful, whether any criminal proceedings could be instituted against them under the statute of Hen. VIII. no proceedings of that nature against persons charged with misdemeanors appearing to have been instituted with effect for the last hundred years. Though we are aware of great difficulties attending a resort to the common law jurisdiction of the admiralty, arising from its having gone into great disuse, we think upon the whole it is fit to be attempted in this case. If on a full affidavit of the facts, the judge decline to issue his warrant against the persons, it may be matter of proper consideration, whether an indictment against them for a confederacy should not be preferred under the admiralty commission usually sitting at the Old Bailey. W. SCOTT. J. SCOTT. In 1796, the Unicorn frigate having taken a smuggler, the sailors put on board her from the frigate were assaulted and beaten by the smugglers. This offence is only a misdemeanor, and I am not aware of any instance of a prosecution for a misdemeanor under the statute of 28 Hen. VIII. ch. 15. That statute gives no jurisdiction over misdemeanors in general, but confines it to treasons, felonies, robberies, murthers, and confede racies. It may be a point worth trying, whether this offence may not come under confederacies*; if the case be not comprehended under the statute, it seems dispunishable, without a new law, for I believe the criminal jurisdiction of the admiralty, except as exercised under the above statute, is obsolete. SPENCER PERCIVAL. Though indictments were anciently preferred for confederacies where no capital offence had been committed, yet for a century, or thereabouts, no such proceeding has been had under the commission at the Old Bailey. There seems to be some difficulty also in ascertaining, whether the proceedings in the ancient cases were under such part of the commission as was founded on the statute, or such part as was founded in the original jurisdiction of the admiralty; and it appeared to me that if the proceeding was to be upon the latter, it was understood to be materially different (if the nature of it at this day can be accurately ascertained) from the proceedings to be had under the statute. If I recollect rightly, Sir George Paul, and the other law officers of his time, felt the difficulty of proceeding under the statute so much, as to advise, in case of misdemeanors, the proceeding in the admiralty court acting upon its original primitive jurisdiction, though I do not recollect that misdemeanors, except some few of a particular class, have been so prosecuted, notwithstanding the difficulty of prosecuting misdemeanors committed at sea has been felt as a grievance. J. SCOTT. Two sailors had, in the year 1793, behaved mutinously and insolently on board a vessel whose letters of marque were irregular and void. We are of opinion, that these sailors are not amenable to a court martial; and their offence being simply that of a misdemeanor committed at sea, we are of opinion that they can The objection to this depends upon a quere, whether the word means only such confederacies and conspiracies as have for their object the perpetration of some one of the offences before specified, viz. treason, &c. or has a more extensive sense, and comprehends all conspiracies. not be tried at all, as there is no court in existence before which, according to modern practice, such misdemeanors can JOHN MILFORD. be tried. SPENCER PERCIVAL. All these eminent council united in what must be the wish of every man, for an act of parliament to remedy this evil. No. IV. Notes of some adjudged Points of Maritime Law, illustrative of the foregoing Treatise. crew. 1743. A merchantman had been taken and rescued by the The owner of the ship rescued, refused to deliver the prisoners, i. e. the persons put on board the ship rescued by the enemy, and thus captured, to the commissary of prisoners, without being paid five pounds a man and subsistence. He had no claim to bounty money under 13 George II. the action in which the prisoners were taken not having been an engagement in his majesty's service, and for annoying the enemy, but for the private interest of the owner. 1743-4. The governor and company of Rhode Island obstructed Mr. Lockman, appointed by the lords of the admiralty judge of the admiralty there, in the execution of his office. He refused to swear the deputy judge appointed by him, and undertook to appoint a deputy themselves. They afterwards submitted. 1744. A sailor belonging to one of his majesty's hired tenders was wounded by the mate of the tender, then lying in the river Thames, of which wound he died. Dr. Strahan was of opinion, that the fact having been committed in the VOL. II. 66 |