IV.

The Board of Trade not having considered it advisable to lay before Parliament my observations on the Acts here referred to, it will not occasion surprise that I have here reprinted them; especially when the different Bills laid before the House of Commons since have proved that the Board of Trade only approved my suggestion respecting the abolition of compulsory Pilotage, and left many other subjects with which I had dealt -not merely from the Underwriters' point of view, but in an entirely bonâ fide spirit-altogether out of consideration.

That the Merchant Shipping Bill and the Merchant Shipping Code of 1870 and 1871, Mr. Farrer's two Memorandums on them, Sir William Mitchell's Review, Mr. H. C. Chapman's brief Review, the Report published by the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce, as well as Mr. Augustus Smith's notes, have had my serious attention, will readily be believed; and I may be permitted to say, that from all I have seen and heard, I am confirmed in the conviction that if Her Majesty's Government is really desirous of accomplishing Maritime Legislation, such as is to command not only the respect but the adhesion of the great Trading Community of the whole World, this can only be accomplished by appointing a Royal Commission to enquire into and report on the state of and the desired improvements in the whole of our Maritime Law, as well as to specify the subjects which ought to be more or less brought into harmony with the laws and customs of the other principal nations.

The task of such a Royal Commission will not be an easy one, nor do I expect that its labours can be quickly accomplished; but if the members of the Commission really understand their duty-I mean if they are sufficiently versed in all the matters at issue their Report or Reports are certain to enable the Legislature to amend the present law to the general satisfaction.

Mr. Farrer states that the suggestions and criticisms made by the members for the seaports, who assisted the Board of Trade at the conferences held at their office upon the Bill of 1870, have caused the Code now before the public to be improved. Now, there is an undoubted impression upon the public mind in general, that many more improvements would have been accomplished, if not only the Law Officers of the Crown had discussed the principles of the Code, but if the public in general had been officially heard in the only possible way, i.e. by a Royal Commission.

The delay thereby occasioned is sure not only not to be detrimental, but to lead to a great general benefit.

V.

The subject of Admiralty Jurisdiction will naturally require a more than cursory remark; and the reason why I have not likewise reprinted the clauses of the Bill brought in during the session of 1867 is, because it was withdrawn altogether, and, as far as my observations can be still of interest, they are certain to be readily understood, even without the text of the Bill.

I will at once admit that there was no part of the

Report of the Judicature Commission, dated March 25, 1869, for which I was less prepared, and the wisdom of which I must more doubt, than their recommendation to abolish the Admiralty Jurisdiction, because the decisions of no Courts in the British Empire have commanded such universal respect as those of the High Court of Admiralty, and I heartily concur in the Protest with which the Judge of that Court as a member of the Judicature Commission recorded his dissent from that recommendation, and which is in the following terms, viz.:

(1.) I think it is not expedient to destroy the special jurisdiction of the High Court of Admiralty. That Court has always administered, in peace and war, maritime international law. To no other Court has the Crown ever granted a commission of prize; and even before the issue of such Commisson, it has, in the opinion of Lord Stowell, an inherent jurisdiction in these matters. I may observe that the forms of pleading now in use in the High Court of Admiralty, are as nearly as possible those which this report recommends to be generally adopted by all Courts.

In my Introduction I stated why, according to my views, this jurisdiction should be increased, and I can therefore have no reason for entering on that subject again; suffice it to say, that from my own experience I would consider it a calamity if Sir Robert Phillimore's Protest remained unheeded, and the Legislature should decree the abolition of this most renowned jurisdiction.

Attention has recently been called by a memorial from the Associated Chambers of Commerce to the Judicature Commissioners to the present administration of this jurisdiction, which memorial was replied to

by the Registrar of the High Court of Admiralty, and is likely to give rise to further discussion. Although, undoubtedly, some matters connected with the working of the Admiralty Court are open to improvementand here I may refer to the very able letter which my friend, Mr. W. T. Pritchard, addressed to the Judge of the Court at the commencement of 1868, and which appeared in print-I am rather inclined to think that if the complaints of the memorialists are carefully sifted, it will be found that they might with equal or even greater justice be brought against any other Court in the United Kingdom.

The County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, 1868' (31 & 32 Vict. c. 71), the County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Amendment Act, 1869 (32 & 33 Vict. c. 51), and the Liverpool Admiralty District Registrars' Act, 1870 (33 & 34 Vict., c. 45) have, I am sorry to state, not been able to give that satisfaction -if any-which the general public anticipated, because there are few County Court Judges who can readily comprehend the subject-matters brought before them under these Acts, and, if they can, their time is so fully occupied with the multifarious duties devolving upon them in the different towns of their district that one of the principal objects to be attained, viz., a quick dispatch, is out of question altogether; and finally, the expenses are beyond everything anticipated.

The very fact that, since the first of these County Court Acts became law, every session has produced an Amendment or additional Act, has in itself been sufficient to prevent the Judges, Registrars, &c., of these

Courts from becoming conversant with their duties, and it will hardly be believed that in spite of all this piecemeal legislation the cardinal necessity has been overlooked of making the Courts accessible to the owners of property salved as well as to the salvors, as was the case under the 460th section of the Merchant Shipping Act.

That under these circumstances attempts should have been made still further to extend the Admiralty Jurisdiction of the County Courts, and to establish Admiralty Registries with the same official duties as the Registry of the High Court, has taken me and many others by surprise.

What the general public really want are Admiralty Courts sitting as in olden times de die in diem (or from tide to tide, as expressed elsewhere), so that the hearing and determining of any cause can be proceeded with as soon as both parties have been able to collect their evidence, and to comply with such simple forms as are absolutely necessary in order to obtain complete justice; because it ought not to be overlooked that at present the preparatory proceedings for the hearing and determination of any cause require several weeks, unless both parties are equally anxious to push matters forward, and only too often delay is one of the weapons made use of for purposes of extortion. I imagine it would be considerably more conducive to the general interest, if, bearing in mind the suggestion as to the improvement in the dispatch of the Admiralty business, in lieu of the County Courts with Admiralty Jurisdiction, a certain number of Vice-Admiralty Courts, say