Admiralty of England, dated 18th May, 1776, appointing Warden Flood, Esq., Judge of the Court of Admiralty in Ireland by the style of his Majesty's Commissary, Deputy, and Surrogate in and throughout the kingdom of Ireland, which is the last commission of that office to be found recorded in the High Court of Admiralty of England.

There are no means of immediately obtaining a copy of any subsequent appointment of that office, which can only be procured from Dublin, but measures have been taken for obtaining it from thence forthwith.

The commissions to the Vice-Admiral of an Irish province and to Mr. Flood will show the nature of the authorities of those respective officers prior to 1782, and it will thereby be perceived that the right of appeal to the Court of Admiralty of England was saved, as well as the prerogative of that Court, "in all things concerning the premises and other affairs whatsoever." And upon this point some light may be thrown by a reference to "Sir Leoline Jenkyns's Life," vol. ii. pp. 675 and 787, where Sir Leoline, who was then Judge of the High Court of Admiralty of England, in a letter dated 23rd June, 1670, and addressed to his Royal Highness James, Duke of York, then Lord High Admiral, speaking of a Court of Appeal then in question to be erected in Dublin from the Vice-Admiralty Courts in Ireland, with resort to the Admiralty in London, says that people from the remote provinces must run through four several instances-viz., Connaught to Dublin, Dublin to London, and thence to the delegates-whereas, by the then constitution, suit could not be prolonged beyond the third instance. And he observes that it is not suggested that the Court of Appeals in Dublin is of longer standing than the time of two Judges successively, the last of whom died about 1640; and that there was not any constat of that among his Royal Highness' records, especially not any precedent of such a commission, nor any process from that court, as a Court of Appeal, to this Admiralty (meaning Sir Leoline's own court); and that he does not hear of any acts or records of that court, then to be seen in Dublin, whereby it might appear how far that jurisdiction had been exercised. And in a letter, dated 27th December, 1678 (page 787), he mentions an instance in which an appeal from a

BRARY

decision of the Court of Admiralty at Dublin was carried to the Court of Admiralty in England, and an inhibition was granted.

In the year 1782 an Act passed in the Parliament of Ireland for establishing a High Court of Admiralty in that kingdom (a copy of which Act is left herewith); and subsequently to the passing of that statute, and under its authority, a Court of Admiralty has been held at Dublin, in which suits of the following description have been entertained: viz., suits of seamen against ship master and owner for wages; by seamen against master for ill-usage; upon respondentia and bottomry bonds; for salvage; for collision and damage to ships; for possession of ships; to compel security to be given by one owner to the other for the safe return of the vessel when one dissents from the voyage; and suits for the condemnation of goods found derelict, &c., as droits to the King in his office of Admiralty.

The Court is held before Sir Henry Meredith, Bart., Doctor of the Civil Law, who acts under some species of deputation from Sir Jonah Barrington, who is the Judge of the Court, but who has been resident in France for many years. It is understood that Sir Jonah's patent recognizes the principle of his acting by deputy.

The Court is held at the Four Courts in Dublin, in an apartment provided for the purpose; and the Judge sits twice a week during term, and for some weeks after each term, and occasionally when business requires; and the Court has the following officers, viz., two surrogates, a registrar, and marshal, with advocates and proctors.

There is also, under the authority of the before-mentioned Act, a Court held as occasion requires for the trial of offences committed on sea, as described in a statute (11, 12, & 13 James 1, c. 2) passed in Ireland; and it is understood that the sitting of this court is not confined to Dublin, but when occasion calls for holding such a court, a commission under the Great Seal of Ireland issues for the purpose, in which the Judges of assize for the circuit wherein the trial is to take place are named as commissioners, and the grand and petty juries at the assizes at which the prisoner is to be tried are sworn in under that as well as the ordinary commission of the circuit.

Under the appointment of the Judge of the High Court of

Admiralty of England he holds an Instance Court, in which suits, civil and maritime, of the following nature are entertained: viz., for seamen's wages against ship master or owner, or either of them; suits by seamen against masters for ill-usage; suits upon respondentia and bottomry bonds; suits for salvage; suits for collision and damage to ships; suits for possession of ships; suits to compel security to be given by one owner to the other for the safe return of the vessel when one dissents from the voyage; suits for the condemnation of goods found derelict, &c., as droits to the King in his office of Admiralty; suits for the condemnation (as droit) of the goods of pirates and convicts. And besides these the Court entertains suit against masters or others in the command of vessels for wearing illegal colours. The same Judge, in virtue of the King's commission and a warrant from the Lord High Admiral, holds a court for the adjudication of ships and goods taken as prize of war. The same Judge likewise presides in a court for the trial of offences committed within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty of England, which court is held under a commission issued pursuant to the statute 28 Hen. 8, c. 15, which is extended by various statutes, and inter alia by the statute 39 Geo. 3, c. 37, and 1 Geo. 4, c. 90. His patent as Judge of the Court of Admiralty, before referred to, purports to give him jurisdiction as follows:

"Within the ebbing and flowing of the sea and high-water mark, or upon any of the shores or banks to them or any of them adjacent, from any of the first bridges towards the sea through England and Ireland and the dominions thereof, or elsewhere, beyond the seas." Also, "all complaints of all and singular contracts, conventions, causes, civil and maritime, contracted beyond seas and within England and Ireland, or in any part of our dominions."

"Also to arrest, and cause and command to be arrested, according to the civil laws and ancient customs of our High Court of Admiralty aforesaid, all ships, persons, things, goods, wares, and merchandizes for the premises, and every of them, and for other causes whatsoever concerning the same, wheresoever they shall be met with or found through the kingdom or dominions aforesaid."

The proceeding for wearing illegal colours seems to have been (until the passing of the Act 3 Geo. 4, c. 110) peculiar to the

Court of Admiralty of England, and founded upon the maritime law and ancient constitutions, and was made the subject of charge by Sir Leoline Jenkyns to the Grand Jury at a session of Oyer and Terminer for the jurisdiction of the Admiralty of England, as appears by Sir Christopher Robinson's Reports, vol. iii. p. 33, and Appendix thereto.

At the Union of Great Britain and Ireland a proclamation pursuant to the Act of Union was made by his late Majesty, declaring what ensign or colours should be borne at sea by merchant vessels belonging to any of his Majesty's subjects, and forbidding the use of any other ensign or colours, and expressly forbidding the use of his Majesty's jack, or any pendant or colours usually worn by his Majesty's ships, without particular warrant. And the Act 3 Geo. 4, c. 110, s. 2, enacts that it should not be lawful for any subject to wear, on board any ship, vessel, or boat whatever, the said prohibited colours under a penalty of £500, to be recovered either in the High Court of Admiralty, or in the Court of King's Bench or Exchequer at Westminster or Dublin, or in the Courts of Session or Exchequer in Scotland.

Information having been transmitted to the Admiralty by the collector of the customs at Whitehaven that Alexander Miller, master of the British merchant ship Jamaica, had persisted, after remonstrance, in wearing a pendant contrary to the proclamation and statute before mentioned, together with an affidavit of the fact by two witnesses, and of the seizure of the pendant by the collector, directions were given by the proctor for the Admiralty to prosecute Miller for that offence; and thereupon, in Michaelmas Term last, the affidavit being brought into the High Court of Admiralty of England, and read, the Judge directed the usual warrant under seal of the Court to issue for arresting the party in order to compel his appearance to answer for the offence.

A copy of the warrant is as follows:

"George IV., by the grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith: To all and singular our vice-admirals, justices of the peace, mayors, sheriffs, bailiffs, marshals, constables, and to all other our officers, ministers, and others, as well within liberties and franchises as without, greeting: We do hereby empower and strictly charge and

command you, jointly and severally, that you omit not by reason of any liberty or franchise, but that you arrest, or cause to be arrested, Alexander Miller, now or late master, captain, or commander of the brigantine or vessel called the Jamaica, of the port of Whitehaven, in the county of Cumberland, wheresoever you shall find him, and him so arrested you keep under safe and secure arrest, so that his body may be forthcoming before us or our Judge of the High Court of our Admiralty of England, or his surrogate, in the Common Hall of Doctors' Commons, situate in the parish of Saint Benedict, near Paul's Wharf, London, on the fifteenth day after the arrest if it be a court-day, otherwise on the court-day then next following, between the usual hours for hearing of causes, to answer to such matters and articles as shall be objected against him on our behalf in our office of Admiralty for a contempt in hoisting, carrying, or wearing illegal colours, and that you duly certify us, or our said Judge or his surrogate, what you shall do in the premises, together with these presents.

"Given at London in our aforesaid Court under the great seal thereof the 18th day of November, in the year of Our Lord 1823, and of our reign the 4th.

"W. Townsend."

(L.S.)

"(Signed) ARDEN,
"Registrar."

66

This species of process would have been styled in the courts of common law a "non omittas writ of capias ad respondendum," and

not a warrant.

By the practice of the Court this warrant is bailable. Miller having, prior to the warrant issuing, sailed on his voyage, and put into the port of Dublin in distress, where it was expected he would be detained a considerable time to repair his ship, the process was forwarded to Mr. Craig, the Admiralty agent at Dublin, and the defendant was accordingly arrested upon it, and delivered into the custody of the keeper of the gaol of Newgate in Dublin. He immediately obtained from his Majesty's Court of King's Bench there a writ of habeas corpus, under which he was brought before that Court, which, upon argument, decided that the warrant was not sufficient to authorize his detention, inasmuch as it did not appear on the face of it to have been issued on oath. But although