Page images
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

stones set round the edge. The governor, a person at the head of a party of egg collectors, having died, was buried there. The ship did not anchor, but soundings were carried out from the hut one cable's length, and were at that distance, 3, 5, 5, 6, 7, (which was half a mile from the shore, the hut then bearing north, where there is good anchorage, being protected by the reefs from the east and west.) Then standing S.E. by E., 7, 8, 8, 83, three casts with 9, thirteen casts with 10, 11, all fine sand, then no bottom with fifteen fathoms.

It would be a great advantage if a double row, or more, of cocoa nuts were planted or sown along the north side of the Island; they would not in any way interfere with the birds, whose eggs are an article of trade to the Danish colonists, and would render the situation of the Island visible to a far greater distance than is the case at present.

Having found several intelligent officers unacquainted with the method of measuring differences of meridians by chronometers, independent of the time at Greenwich, I add an example

Feb. 28, 1835, at noon, a chronometer of Arnold's, was + on mean time, Port Royal................................ Rate, gains per day, 2,5s. + six days, the interval

to March 6.

Error of chronometer on Port Royal, time carried
to time of sights at Alta Vela
Error of chronometer as found by sights on mean
time at Alta Vela, March 6. ...

[blocks in formation]

...

[blocks in formation]

Difference of meridian from Fort Charles, Port Royal, where the first error was taken, to the Island of Alta Vela, where the other set of sights were taken.

E. H.

ACTEON ISLANDS,-Pacific Ocean.

HER Majesty's ship Actæon, under the command of Captain Lord Edward Russell, left Tahiti on the 20th December last, for Pitcairn's Island and Valparaiso. The following is an extract from the remarks of Mr. Biddlecombe, the master of that ship.

"On the 3rd of January, when standing to the N.E., we discovered land, and at 3 P.M. made out three islands; the N.W. point of the westernmost N.N.E. three miles. These islands not being laid down

in any charts, or mentioned in any publications, named them Acteon's Group, and the easternmost island, (its southern point in lat. 21° 28′ 30" S., and long. 136° 26′ 46′′ W.,) Melbourne Island *** the centre island in lat. 21° 23′ S., and long. 136° 32′ W. Minto Island *** and the westernmost island the N.W. point in lat. 21° 18' 30'' S., long. 136° 37′ 46" W. Bedford Island, ***. These islands are very low, with trees, and a heavy surf on the beach; no appearance of anchorage. The westernmost island appeared to be a lagoon island, with a reef about three quarters of a mile off its N.W. and N.E. extremes."

Mr. Biddlecombe in his laudable zeal to improve our charts, has added this group to them, and it is to be regretted that he had not an opportunity of giving a fuller account of the Acteon's discovery. There are many islands we believe well known to the local traders in the Pacific, which have not yet found their places on the charts, and Mr. Biddlecombe informs us that this group is among the number, an account of which he received from Mr. Thomas Ebrill, master of the Tahitian merchant ship Amphitrite of twenty-three years' experience in the low or dangerous Archipelago.

FRENCH AND ENGLISH MARITIME LAWs.

In the year 1835, M. Marec,* a French gentleman, visited this country on a mission from his government, with the object of inquiring into the nature of the laws by which our mercantile marine is regulated.

Having collected much information from Mr. Charles Jones, the Admiralty solicitor, and Mr. Charles Boyd, collector of the customs in the port of London, to whom, with Mr. Enderby, he acknowledges himself under great obligations for their attentions to him, M. Marec forwarded his report to Admiral Duperre, the Secretary of State for the marine and colonies, a considerable portion of which has appeared in that useful work the Annales Maritimes. As we consider that much of M. Marec's report on this important subject will interest our own readers, both from the comparison made between the English and French laws, as well as the information it affords respecting the latter, we have prepared the following, and shall complete it in some of our future numbers.

QUESTION.

1. In what court of England are captains, officers, and seamen of merchant vessels, tried for such misdemeanours and crimes as they may have committed on board?

The French law classes the pun

ANSWER.

Formerly all crimes committed beyond the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts of justice on shore, that is to say, the crimes committed within the flow of the tide and the mouths of great rivers, were

* Chef du bureau de la police, de la navigation commerciale et des peehes maritimes.

[blocks in formation]

An offence punished by peines affiictives, or ignominious alone (such as death, hard labour for life, transportation, hard labour for a certain time, imprisonment, solitary confinement, banishment, civil degradation) is a crime.

Does there exist in England any analogous classification to this?

ANSWER.

cognizable by the court of Admiralty proceeding without jury. But in the reign of Henry VIII. (in the 16th century) parliament passed a law, declaring, that certain heavy crimes committea within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty court, should be tried according to the rules of common right; that is to say, by a jury sitting in a court constituted by virtue of royal commission: the said court being presided over by a judge of the Admiralty court, with the assistance of two of the common law judges.

The English law, does not admit of so minute a classification of punishable offences, as that which the French law does. Nevertheless, under the denomination of transgression, which corresponds to the French word infraction, are included those of misdemeanour and felony, the first of which signifies un delit, and the second un crime.

Subsequently, all misdemeanours and crimes committed at sea, could not be judged but in London, either by a special commission, of which a judge of the court of Admiralty was the chief, and which is called in practice the Admiralty court, or by the ordinary criminal court in London. This last privilege is derived from an act of parliament of the 25th July, 1834, (4th and 5th of William IV. chap. 36. sec. 2. authorizing the central criminal court to try offences committed on the high seas:) it has been conferred on the criminal court of London, with the view of obtaining a more expeditious termination of business, this court sitting every month; while the commission or Admiralty holds its sittings only every six months. Thus the criminal maritime causes are very seldom brought before the Admiralty court, the intervention of which entails much delay and trouble. A judge of the Admiralty court is always appointed in the royal commission for the institution of a criminal tribunal; but he does not sit unless a maritime crime is to be judged.

It is to be observed that an act of parliament lately passed, that is, the act of 30th of July, 1835, relating to merchant seamen, art. 38, has brought certain offences committed on board merchant vessels, such as common assault and battery, within the provision of an act of the 9th year of the reign of George IV., which invests two justices of the peace with the power of judging offences of the same nature on shore. The punishment which the justice may inflict in this case consists in a fine of 51., and imprisonment in fault of payment.

If, for the assault and battery on shore, has been admitted the propriety of avoiding the form of judgment by jury, how much more was it not necessary to subject offences of this kind committed on

[blocks in formation]

board merchant vessels, to the mode of summary judgment instituted by the act of the ninth year of the reign of George IV. This want has been felt, and is here provided for.

2. Has the court of Admiralty which sits in London, jurisdiction in other courts in other parts of England?

Or rather, do there exist other Admiralty courts independent of the court established in London, and in what ports?

Do the colonies of England possess tribunals of this kind?

the governor when it is necessary. colony, the circumstance is sufficient power over her as if all the elements What is the rule by which any particular Admiralty court is authorised to take cognizance of an affair in preference to any other?

3. Formerly in France, independent of civil causes belonging to commerce and navigation, the Admiralty (according to the law of 1681) took cognizance of piracies, roberries, and desertions of the crews, and generally of all crimes and offences committed at sea, in ports, harbours, and rivers. The Admiralty court in France took cognizance also of the transgression of the regulations of the maritime fishery. Is it so with the jurisdiction of the Admiralty in England?

Has the Admiralty court jurisdiction over an offence committed on board a ship, in port, equally as if it had been committed in a ship either at sea, or at a roadstead?

No; all come to the court in London. Nevertheless there exist in what are called the Cinque Ports, Admiralty courts, which on principle only, have the right of jurisdiction for the judgment of offences and crimes, but this right is not exercised.

Yes; there are Vice-Admiralty courts which proceed with a jury and are convened by the order of The moment that a ship reaches a to give the Vice-Admiralty court of instruction existed at the place. See former answer, from which it appears that all cases are tried in London, either by the Admiralty court or by the ordinary criminal court, excepting those which are of a nature to be judged in the colonies.

The jurisdiction of the Admiralty embraces all civil or criminal causes which originated on the high seas, in merchant vessels, on the coasts of the kingdom, or those of the colonies. It recognizes also, decisions of prizes, and questions of salvage, (on appeal,) and concurringly with ordinary justice, the discussions relating to the engagements of seamen. It judges also the transgressions of the regulations of the maritime fishery.

If the affair have happened in port, there is generally an agreement; that is to say, the jurisdiction of the shore may be adopted as well as of the sea; but if it happen at sea or at a roadstead, it always falls under the jurisdiction of the Admiralty. The power of the Admiralty only extends to high water, and to the part of the shore actually covered by the sea water, so that the same part of the shore which may be under its jurisdiction at high water, ceases to be so at low water.

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »