318 //. FROM THE llOO'S TO THE 1800'S few years. Prynne cites a case in which the House of Lords upheld the jurisdiction of the Admiralty in 1645;* and an ordinance passed in the time of the Commonwealth conceded to the court a jurisdiction similar to that which was conceded to it by the agreement of 1632.^ But, as we have seen, the Great Rebellion ensured the vic- tory of the common law over jurisdictions which threatened to be its rivals. Although the merchants of London peti- tioned Parliament to give to the court of Admiralty a juris- diction similar to that which had been given to it in the time of the Commonwealth, they petitioned in vain.^ The civil jurisdiction of the Court was reduced to a very low ebb. Torts committed on the high seas; contracts made on the high seas to be there executed; proceedings in rem on bot- tomry bonds executed in foreign parts ; the enforcement of the judgments of foreign Admiralty courts; suits for the wages of mariners,^ were almost the only pieces of jurisdic- tion which it was allowed to exercise. Pepys ^ tells us that he went to St. Margaret's Hill in Southwark, " where the judges of the Admiralty come, and the rest of the Doctors of Civill law." He remarks, " I perceive that this court is yet but in its infancy (as to its rising again) : and their design and consultation was, I could overhear them, how to proceed with the most solemnity, and spend time, there being only two businesses to do, which of themselves could not spend much time."
- Animadversions 123-125.
■Williams and Bruce, Admiralty Practice, 12. •Sir Leoline Jenkins' argument in favour of the bill is printed by Wynne i Ixxvi-lxxxv.
- Contracts made at sea, not maritime in their nature, were claimed
by the Common Law Courts as not proper for the Admiral. Contracts, marine in their nature, but made on land, were claimed by reason of their locality. Convenience of process gave the Admiralty jurisdiction over seamen's wages after a struggle, cp. Winch 8 (1622) ; T. Raym, 3 (1660); 1 Keb. 712 (1664); 2 Ld. Raym. 1247 (1707). The courts were very puzzled to find some principle on which they could justify their exception, cp. 4 Burr. 1944; 2 Ld. Raym. 1452. In Clay v. Sud- grave (1700) Salk. 33, it was stated that, though against the statute, it was allowed for the sake of convenience, and, " communis error facit jus." The exception was narrowly construed. Though the mariners could sue in the Admiralty the master could not.
- Pepys' Diary, March 17, 1662-63. Jenkins said in his argument be-
fore the House of Lords, " I may truly say that every place in Europe intrusts the Admiral with more ample jurisdiction than England does."
