salary; as the Matrimonial Act provides that, if he should be also appointed Judge of the Admiralty Court, he should have no increase of salary.

If the two new puisne judges, as suggested, are to go Circuit as Judges of Assize, they will be absent in the country the greater part of the legal year. The consequence will be that the suitors in the Admiralty Court will not have their business so well expedited as at present, in fact the suitors will so far be prejudiced by the Bill without deriving any compensating advantage.

At present the Judge of the Admiralty Court has 4,000l. a-year. It is proposed that the two new puisne Judges shall have 5,000l. each, and the Chief Judge shall have an increase of 1,000l.; there is also to be an additional Admiralty Registrar at 1,000l. and an additional Probate Registrar at 1,000l., besides other Officers with salaries amounting in the aggregate to between 1,000l. and 2,000l., so that the additional expense will be considerable.

At present the Admiralty Court supports itself by the Fees received in the Admiralty business. Why should the Fees of the Admiralty suitors be applied to support Judges to go Circuit and transact Common Law business?

If the two puisne Judges are to go Circuit they ought to be selected for their knowledge of the Municipal Law, but the Admiralty Judge has been hitherto selected as the great authority in questions of International Law. He is a Privy Councillor for the purpose of advising Her Majesty on International questions, he sits in the Judicial Committee as especially acquainted with Foreign and Colonial Law. The Commission of Prize is issued to him as conversant with Prize Law.

If a new Judge of Admiralty should be appointed as heretofore, he will not have too much business to occupy his time, even if the jurisdiction of the Court should be enlarged; and whilst British subjects may still, if they think fit, settle their disputes with one another in a Municipal Law Court with the aid of a jury, foreigners ought not to be deprived of the advantage of suing in a Court in which justice will be administered by a Judge conversant as heretofore with the principles of the General Maritime Law, and both competent and ready to apply them with discrimination to questions which should be regulated by it when they arise between British subjects and foreigners.

This General Maritime Law, based upon the principles of the Roman Civil Law, requires very considerable study, and if the House of Commons does not take care to reserve for civilians the Judgeship of the High Court of Admiralty—almost the only prize to which they have hitherto been able to aspire-I am at a loss to see how the necessary offices of Queen's Advocate and of Admiralty Advocate, or those who are required to advise Her Majesty's Government for the time being on matters of International Law, can be filled up.

15 Fenchurch Buildings:

June 19, 1867.

THE

VII.

BARRISTERS' PETITION AGAINST EXTENSION OF ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION, AND REMARKS THEREON.

TO THE HONOURABLE THE COMMONS HOUSE OF PARLIAMENT OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND ASSEMBLED.

The Humble Petition of the undersigned Members of the English Bar and Special Pleaders

Sheweth,

That your Petitioners are informed that there is now before your Honourable House a Bill having for its object the extension of the Jurisdiction of the High Court of Admiralty to all matters relating to Marine Insurance, and to all contracts and affairs connected with Shipping generally.

That your Petitioners believe that it is highly inexpedient to deal with the subject of the jurisdiction and procedure of the Superior Courts by piecemeal,

That there has been for some years a growing feeling, on the part of the Public and the Legal Profession, in favour of a general reform of the jurisdiction and procedure of all the Superior Courts, which should confer upon all a general and uniform jurisdiction in the administration of the Laws of the Realm, furnishing them at the same time with various kinds of machinery applicable to the details of the various subject-matters coming before them.

That, in our opinion, the more general the jurisdiction of the Superior Courts is, and the less it is confined to special subjects and limited modes of procedure, the more philosophically will the law be administered.

That the existence of special jurisdictions, with their own peculiar procedure and technical rules and doctrines, whilst it probably tends to the cultivation of greater skill and dexterity in some points, undoubtedly tends at the same time to the creation of narrowness, uncertainty, and confusion in the Law taken as a whole, and obstructs all progress towards a philosophical jurisprudence.

That, in order to deal in a satisfactory and permanent manner with the whole subject, it is desirable to have a full investigation before a Royal Commission.

That the High Court of Admiralty is governed by principles and doctrines of Law and by a mode of procedure and precedents entirely different from those of the Superior Courts of Law, and has also a different Court of ultimate appeal.

That the present tribunals in which the Law relating to mercantile affairs is administered by juries of experienced commercial men, presided over by Judges of the Superior Courts, have gained the entire confidence of the mercantile community and the respect of foreign jurists, as well for the soundness and uniformity of the legal decisions as for the ease and elasticity with which they adapt themselves to the gradually changing usages and exigencies of mercantile affairs.

That it is highly undesirable and retrograde to adopt any reform tending to perpetuate the special jurisdiction and doctrines and procedure of the High Court of Admiralty.

That assuming the desirability of a further subdivision of the Circuits, and of conferring upon local tribunals in seaport towns a more extensive jurisdiction in matters relating to shipping, assuming also the necessity for strengthening as well as economising the power of the

judicial Bench, a preferable course with a view to future reform would be to abolish the High Court of Admiralty, and to transfer its jurisdiction and all its powers to the existing Courts of Law, and to appoint additional Judges to the Superior Courts of Law at Westminster. We, therefore, humbly petition your Honourable House not to pass the said Bill.

And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.

REMARKS ON THE ABOVE.

1. If all the Superior Courts are to be furnished at the same time with various kinds of machinery applicable to every kind of subject-matter, they will be much more costly, and there will be a great waste of power, as there will not be a constant demand for each kind of machinery; for instance, if each Court is to have a Marshal to arrest ships and goods, and a Registrar conversant with Admiralty matters who is to take security, and to whom all ministerial matters are to be referred, &c., &c., the expense of each Court will be enhanced, and the new officers will not have full employment. None of the Chancery or Common Law Courts have at present any machinery for the conduct of proceedings in rem.

2. A philosophical administration of the law may be more agreeable to the practitioner, but will be less acceptable to the suitor, whose object is the practical application of sound principles of law to his special

case.

3. There are no technical rules and doctrines in the Admiralty Court distinct from those which exist in any of the other Superior Courts, excepting as regards the

L