recognised by the statutes of this century which deal with prize jurisdiction.[1] By reason of its international character, the prize jurisdiction of the Admiralty, resembles, more closely than the ordinary jurisdiction of the court, the maritime law of the Middle Ages.
(iii) The decay of the special courts administering the commercial part of the Law Merchant, and its absorption into the common law system.
With the increase in commerce in the 14th and 15th centuries, a division and specialization of trades and industries begins to take place. The large trader or the merchant becomes entirely distinct from the small trader or the craftsman. The old Guild Merchant, which embraced all the traders in a town, gives place to separate companies of merchants on the one side, and to separate craft guilds on the other.[2]
The Internal trade of the country continued to be largely regulated by the companies of merchants, or the craft guilds, which usually possessed large powers over trade, and sometimes a monopoly of trade in their own town.[3] It was strongly felt that "a general liberty of trade without a regulation doth more hurt than good;"[4] and throughout the 18th century there are cases in which the courts upheld these powers.[5] They were finally abolished by the Municipal Corporations Act of 1835.[6]
Though the old organization of trade lingered on till the
- ↑ 27, 28 Vict. c. 25 §§ 37 and 55.
- ↑ In Edward II.'s reign the crafts in London were divided into the two classes of officia mercatoria and officia manuoperalia, Munimenta Gildhallæ i 495; but the trade of London was so extensive that it was in advance of other towns, Gross, Gild Merchant, i 129.
- ↑ Gross, Gild Merchant, i chaps, vii and viii; Newcastle Merchant Adventurers (Surtees Soc.) i xxxiii, xxxiv, xxxiv-xl.
- ↑ Mayor and Commonalty of Colchester v. Goodwin (1666) Carter's Rep. 114, 120.
- ↑ Mayor of Winton v. Wilks (1705) 2 Ld. Raym. 1129, Holt considered that a power to restrain persons from exercising their trade was bad. Such powers were upheld in Bodwic v. Fennell (1748) 1 Wils. 233, and Wooley v. Idle (1766) 4 Burr. 1951.
- ↑ 5, 6 Will. IV. c. 76 § 14. "Whereas in divers cities, towns, and boroughs a certain custom has prevailed, and certain bye-laws have been made, that no person not being free of a city, town, or borough, or of certain guilds, mysteries, or trading companies within the same … shall keep any shop or place for putting to show or sale any or
