314 //. FROM THE llOO'S TO THE 1800'S we have seen, the aid of the legislature had even been invoked on behalf of the Admiralty.^ The Admiralty, also, had some- times assumed the offensive, by means of a process of con- tempt, taken against those who brought proceedings upon maritime causes in another court. ^ It would appear that when the Common Law Courts resumed their efforts against the Admiralty, they at first had recourse to writs of super- sedeas and certiorari issuing from the Chancery. But such applications to the Chancellor often left the Admiralty with the disputed jurisdiction. It was seen that writs of prohibi- tion were the most effective instrument of attack or defence which the Common Law Courts possessed.^ In 1575 a provisional agreement was arrived at. But, after 1606, when Coke was raised to the Bench, the agreement was repudiated.^ Coke, as Buller, J., once said, "seems to have entertained not only a jealousy of, but an enmity against, that jurisdiction." ^ He denied that the court was a court of record. He denied it the necessary power to take stipula- tions for appearance, and performance of the acts and judg- ments of the court. He denied that it had any jurisdiction over contracts made on land, either in this country, or abroad, whether or no they were to be performed upon the sea; and similarly he denied its jurisdiction over offences committed on land, either in this country, or abroad.^ In support of his position he did not hesitate to cite precedents which were far from deciding what he stated that they did decide.^ It is fairly certain that the earlier prohibitions were all founded upon the exercise by the Admiralty of ^ 32 Henry VIII. c. 14 gave the court a certain jurisdiction in cases concerning charter parties and freight. « Select Pleas of the Admiralty (S. S.) 1. Ixviii, 78. On proof of the facts the party in contempt was arrested. » Select Pleas of the Admiralty (S. S.) ii xli. For a list of Prohibi- tions, see ibid i Ixxiii-lxxviii ; ii xli-lvii; 4th Instit. 137-142; Prynne, Animadversions, 75-77. For a specimen of the writ, see App. XII. A 2.
- Select Pleas of the Admiralty (S. S.) ii. xiv; Coke, 4th Instit. 136;
Zouch, Jurisdiction of the Admiralty Asserted, Assertion v. » Smart v. Wolff (1789) 3 T. R. 348. Lord Holt said (1 Ld. Raym. 398) that, *' heretofore the common law was too severe against the Ad- miral." Prynne 103. »4th Instit. 136-138; Thomlinson's case (1605) 12 Co. Rep. 104; 2 Brownlow 16, 17 (1611). ' Prynne, Animadversions, 75-77; De Lovio v. Boit (1815) 2 Gall 407- 418 (Story, J.).
