Opening Address to the Third International General Average Congress at York (September 26, 1864), and the Result of the Deliberations. 1 Correspondence with the Board of Trade relating to the Infringement of the International Law by the Judicial Committee of H.M. Privy Observations, dated December, 1866, on 17 & 18 Vict. cap. 104, The Merchant Shipping Act, 1854; 17 & 18 Vict. cap. 120, The Merchant Shipping Repeal Act, 1854; 18 & 19 Vict. cap. 91, The Merchant Shipping Act Amendment Act, 1855; 25 & 26 Vict. cap. 63, The Reasons why the making away with, or aiding and abetting in Scuttling or otherwise destroying a vessel for the purpose of defrauding its Underwriters, or those who have an interest therein, or in the Cargo or Freight, should, by agreement between the principal maritime Letter handed to His Grace the Duke of Richmond, President of the Board of Trade, dated June 4th, 1867, with Memorials from Amster- INTRODUCTION. It ought never to be overlooked, that there is as much a Law of the Sea as there is a Law of the Land, and that just as the Courts of Common Law and Equity have been established for the purpose of deciding differences arising within the territorial limits of the Realm, the Court of Admiralty was, at a period beyond legal memory, established expressly to take cognizance of all maritime contracts or torts, and all injuries or offences committed upon the high seas, in ports and havens, as far as the ebb and flow of the tide, in great rivers, beneath the first bridges thereof, and in all foreign parts, and based its decisions, as did the other European Admiralty Courts, on the Law Maritime and on the Roman Civil Law. But attention should be paid to another difference between the Admiralty and the Municipal Courts, namely, that whereas in the latter, matters of fact are to be decided by a jury, the judge of the former assisted by nautical assessors, decides alike matters of fact and questions of law. The consequence is, that the decisions in the Admiralty Court-in spite of the great expenses, and some other evils, which, however, may be easily rectified-have been much more approved by the mercantile communities here and abroad, than the decisions in the Common Law Courts, where juries are frequently called upon to pronounce an opinion upon intricate commercial matters which they are incompetent to comprehend, and sometimes return verdicts utterly at variance with common sense. Our North American cousins have, in their wisdom, left the Admiralty jurisdiction entirely intact as they received it from the British Crown, and anybody aiming at a Judgeship in their courts clothed with Admiralty jurisdiction, has to pass through a course of study of the Civil Law, which very few members of the English Bar have thought it necessary to master. The great importance of this point ought not to be lost sight of, as in case that by certain positive enactments the Judgeship in the Admiralty Court, and a seat in the Appeal Court, should not be reserved for learned civilians, it is difficult to see, not only how these Courts can be efficiently administered, but where the Foreign Office and the Lords of the Admiralty, as well as the general public, are in future to choose their advisers in matters of international and general Maritime Law, whom, for centuries, they have been accustomed to look for amongst the civilians. I ought here to mention that, according to an official memorandum recently circulated, the present jurisdiction of the High Court of Admiralty of England embraces the following subjects: (Partly under Old Law, partly under recent Statutes, 3 & 4 Vict. c. €5, and 24 Vict. c. 10.) A. Collision, including all damage done by a ship. B. Towage. C. Pilotage. D. Salvage, including Life Salvage. E. Wages. F. Bottomry and Respondentia Bonds. G. Master's accounts. H. Personal actions for damage between crew or passengers and owners. I. Mortgages of ships. J. Transfers of ships. K. Right to possession of ships. L. Questions between co-owners of ships. M. Damage to, or detention of, imported cargo, where owner is not domiciled in England. N. Necessaries when owner is not domiciled in England. O. Building, equipping, or repairing a ship when under arrest. P. Settlement of liability for personal and other injury in case of several claims against ship, and distribution of amount found due when ship is under arrest, Part IX. Merchant Shipping Act, s. 514, extended by 24 Vict. c. 10, s. 13. Q. In addition, the Court has found it absolutely necessary to deal with other questions, such as freight and average, when those questions have arisen with respect to property in the hands of the Court. See 2 Moore's Privy Council Cases,' New Series, pp. 215, 235, 240, Place v. Potts, 5 'House of Lords,' 383, and that it has been proposed to add the following subjects, viz. : A. Freight, and questions arising between Shipowner and Merchant on Charter-parties and Bills of Lading. B. Demurrage. C. Average. |