effect of taking almost every maritime cause into a County Court as a tribunal of first instance, and by the consequent necessity of appeal to a really competent tribunal do away with the advantages for which a local tribunal is principally insisted upon.

It must be remembered that almost all questions of insurance are tried upon single underwriters' lines which seldom exceed 100l. to 2007., while a claim for demurrage or general average exceeding 500l. will very rarely occur. It is certain that very few of the County Courts --they being originated only for the purpose of recovering small debts-can possibly have judges competent to deal with questions of such intricacy and importance, nor can such judges be sufficiently versed in foreign law to decide upon matters connected therewith, as under the provisions of Clause 5 they would undoubtedly be called upon to do. It will, I think, be unwise to confer upon County Courts a jurisdiction over all claims even under the amount of fifty pounds, as it should not be overlooked that single underwriters' lines on a Lloyd's policy of insurance are not unfrequently taken at and even below this amount; now if a dispute arises under such a policy, it can only be on a matter of principle, which (as I entirely concur with the Deputation from the Committee of Lloyd's met by me at the Board of Trade) could never be satisfactorily decided by a County Court Judge.

The same objection must arise on all matters where foreign law or foreign custom has to be known and understood in order to cause a decision to be—what our old Admiralty decisions used to be-an authority to which every foreign jurisconsult would bow; and although I would not object to conferring on certain County Courts -but expressly to be named in the Act-a jurisdiction

below fifty pounds over claims of material men for repairs, seamen's wages, disputes between part owners themselves and with their masters, I do not think that on a careful consideration of all the bearings of this question the legislature ought to go further, except in salvage cases, in which a prompt and inexpensive mode of settlement is, from the nature of the circumstances, of the utmost importance; but although I would in such cases, out of deference for the opinion expressed by the Deputation of the Committee of Lloyd's above referred to, not oppose a larger jurisdiction than the Merchant Shipping Act Amendment Act already conferred upon the County Courts, it appears to me of the greatest importance, nay, of the utmost necessity, to enact that, in order to discourage the practice of appealing, an award not exceeding 2007. could never carry costs under any circumstances whatsoever.

The localities in which these salvage questions most frequently arise are undoubtedly the Cinque Ports and the Norfolk coasts; how far it would be judicious to make a provision for a special salvage jurisdiction in these districts quite separate from the County Courts, as Lloyd's Deputation urged, I am not prepared to state at present; the matter is full of difficulty, and I would rather postpone legislation in this Bill on matters of salvage than do it without more previous consideration. It might be desirable to obtain a return from the County Courts of the number of salvage cases decided by them since they obtained authority to do so in 1862.

Clauses 10 and 11 are incomprehensible in regard to their operation.

Clause 12, No. 3, is objectionable as likely to lead to disputes.

Clause 13 not objected to.

Clause 14. Either party should have absolute power to transfer the cause to the High Court of Admiraltythere will be otherwise an appeal and more expense.

Clause 15. The power given to one County Court to transfer business to another County Court might give rise to abuses and ought never to be conceded.

Clause 16 is highly objectionable in regard to the new business proposed to be given by Clause 5 and by Clause 9.

Clause 17 is objectionable as giving too much power to County Court Judges.

Clauses 18 to 21 not objected to.

Clause 22. In case County Courts should have any Admiralty Jurisdiction, their Decrees and Orders should be sent to the Admiralty Registry.

Clause 23 will conflict with Clause 12.

Clause 24. No qualification of the Deputy Judges is sufficiently defined.

Clauses 25 and 26. With reference to these clauses I beg to annex hereto a copy of my translation of a portion of the German General Mercantile Law; in the note to pages 15 and 16* will be found the regulations laid down for the stating and settling of averages, and it could not but be generally advantageous to have a similar course of procedure introduced into this country under the authority of the present Bill; the Registrar (or Deputy Registrars) of the High Court of Admiralty should be appointed to act as Deputy of the Court within the meaning of the law to which I refer.

Clause 27. This would undoubtedly be a move in the right direction, but the principle upon which the assessors are to be appointed and required to give attendance and to be paid should be defined.

* Vide Appendix, note to Article 731.

S

Clauses 28 to 34 not objected to.

Clause 35. My remarks, sub. 9, apply here also. Clause 36. I must strongly disapprove of and object to this clause. Registrars being ministerial officers should not be allowed to exercise any judicial functions; their duties are to examine accounts and make reports to the judge, and how can they act in this new capacity as proposed?

And further, the effect would be to establish in London several inferior tribunals not accessible to the leading members of the Bar, which would nevertheless, if this Bill in its entirety became law, undertake to decide mercantile questions of paramount importance.

The extension of this jurisdiction will furnish ample work for the proper business of the Registrar in taking accounts, making reports, &c.

As long as the Registrars are kept within their present functions their usefulness cannot be overrated, but anything like conferring upon them a judicial capacity would take them so entirely out of their sphere that the most serious inconveniences must arise to all practitioners and the public in general.

Clauses 37 and 38 not objected to.

15 Fenchurch Buildings:

April 16, 1867.

VI.

OFFICE OF JUDGE IN THE ADMIRALTY, DIVORCE, AND PROBATE COURTS BILL.

IN

In my observations on the Admiralty Jurisdiction Bill, I have pointed out that the principal objection I had against the County Court Judges being empowered to exercise even a limited jurisdiction in Admiralty matters, was their want of knowledge of the civil law. The Bill now under consideration apparently contemplates encroaching still further upon that system which has hitherto been so much revered not only in our own country, but in the United States of America and on the Continent, and for the following reasons:

The High Court of Admiralty of England has hitherto been regarded by foreign merchants as a Court of the Law of Nations, to which foreigners may resort as a court whose duty it is to administer that law; and the judge having hitherto been a civilian, has been competent and ready always to administer the law of nations in questions between British subjects and foreigners. There is no necessity to alter the constitution of the court as regards the appointment of the Admiralty Judge, as the Act of Parliament does not oblige Her Majesty, but only empowers her, to appoint the Judge of the Probate Court to be also Judge of the Admiralty Court, with an increase of 1,000l. to his salary. It is open, however, to doubt, whether the union of the two offices, as contemplated in the Probate Act, has not been entirely superseded by the Matrimonial Act, which made the Probate Judge also the Judge Ordinary in the Matrimonial Court, and gave him 1,000l. increase of