9. HOLDSWORTH: THE LAW MERCHANT 317 notary who will not part with it. The Spaniard loses his case for want of evidence.^ Another compromise was attempted in 1632. Charles I. issued a commission to the Privy Council, empowering it to reconcile the differences between the Common Law Courts and the Admiralty. Sir Leoline Jenkins said that the agreement arrived at was " the result of many solemn debates, and not of artifice or surprise." ^ We can well believe this, if we con- sider the ill results which followed from the assumption of jurisdiction by the Courts of Common Law. The agreement conceded to the Admiralty a jurisdiction in the following cases : — (1) In the case of contracts made, or wrongs committed, beyond the sea, or upon the sea. (2) In suits for freight or mariners* wages, or for the breach of charter parties for voyages to be made beyond the sea, though the charter parties are made within the realm, and the money is payable within the realm. But if the pro- ceeding is for a penalty, or the question is whether the charter party was made or not, or, if made, has been released, the Common Law Courts have jurisdiction. (3) In suits for building, amending, saving or necessary victualling of a ship, brought against the ship itself, though the cause of action arose within the realm. (4) The court is allowed a jurisdiction to enquire of, and to redress, all annoyances and obstructions in all navigable rivers beneath the first bridges, and also to try personal con- tracts and injuries done there which concern navigation upon the sea. (5) It is provided that if any be imprisoned, and, upon a writ of Habeas Corpus being obtained, the exercise of juris- diction by the Admiralty in any of these points be certified as the cause of the imprisonment, the parties shall be re- manded. It is probable that this agreement was acted upon for a
- Life of Jenkins i Ixxxi, Ixxxii.
- i Ixxxi. It is printed by Prynne 101, and in the first edition of
Croke's reports. In the later editions of these reports it is stated not to be law. It is only mentioned in two cases, RoUe, Abridgment 533 and T. Raym. 3.
