The Archives

The ArchivesThemesThe Admiralty Courts

The Admiralty Courts

English maritime jurisdiction over things done upon the sea, exercised between about 1690 and 1725 through several tribunals under three procedures. From 29 September 1700 it included a juryless commission court that could sit on shipboard or ashore anywhere in the King's dominions.

Also writtenAdmiralty justice; Court of Admiralty; Admiralty sessions; Admiralty jurisdiction; Commission courts for the trial of piracy; Courts of oyer and terminer for the Admiralty of England

Admiralty justice was one jurisdiction served by several tribunals, and "the Admiralty court" could mean at least five things under at least three procedures. Captures belong to prize law and condemnation, the conduct of a trial to trials, evidence and defence rights.

The test of jurisdiction

The test was geographical and old. The Admiralty's reach ran to acts done upon the high seas and, in the 1700 statute's own words, "in or upon the Sea, or in any Haven River Creeke or Place where the Admirall or Admiralls have Power Authority or Jurisdiction". Piracy was committed outside the body of any county, beyond the reach of a commission of oyer and terminer directed to one, which is why a separate machinery had to exist.1

Three procedures, and where the juries sat

"The admiralty courts had no juries" is half true, and misleads both ways. The instance side, hearing wages, collisions and salvage, was civilian in procedure, written and juryless, and the prize side, separated from it at about 1660 under the same judge, had no jury either. The criminal side in England had a grand jury and a trial jury from 1536. The commission courts of 1700 had none. Naval courts martial belong outside altogether: they tried the King's own seamen under the Navy Act 1661, and merchant crews, whose risings were therefore tried as piracy, stood outside that code.2

Why the criminal side alone took a jury has a usual explanation: civil law could not condemn without a confession or witnesses, and in piracy cases the witnesses were commonly dead, drowned or far off, so the statute of 1536 imported common law procedure to get death sentences without a confession. That explanation is probable rather than certain, since the accounts that give it are not independent of one another.

The portable court of 1700

The Act for the more effectuall Suppressions of Piracy, cited as 11 Will. 3 c. 7 and catalogued as the Piracy Act of 1698, 1699 and 1700, operated from 29 September 1700. Commissions to admirals, judges of vice admiralties and commanders of the King's ships authorised a court to be assembled "on Shipboard or upon the Land", to "consist of Seaven Persons at the least". Only "knowne Merchants Factors or Planters" and sea officers could sit and vote: the bench was the trade and the navy. The president, sworn to have no interest in the ship or goods, collected the votes "begining at the junior first and ending with himselfe".3

The Act provides no jury there, no appeal and no counsel, the relief left being mercy or pardon, so far as the cases show. It does provide for paper: a public notary, sworn as the court's recording officer, minuted the proceedings and transmitted them with all articles and judgments to the High Court of Admiralty of England. The printed trials that survive may descend from that duty.

What the statutes reached

Sections XIV and XV gave the commissioners sole power to try these offences in the proprietary and charter colonies, notwithstanding "Any Letters Patents Grants or Charters of Government", and declared a governor's refusal to obey the Act a forfeiture of the charter itself.4

Read so, the Act made piracy suppression one instrument among others for disciplining colonial autonomy. That is an interpretation, not a provision.

The Piracy Act 1721, 8 Geo. I c. 24, turned the same jurisdiction on the shore. Trading with or supplying pirates was made piracy, accessories were declared principals, and ships fitted out to supply them were forfeited, half to the Crown and half to the first discoverer, who might recover the vessel "in the high court of admiralty". It extended to the dominions in Asia, Africa and America. By 1722 the criminal limb hanged the companies and the civil limb stripped their suppliers.5

The check the common law could apply

Common law courts policed the jurisdiction from outside, issuing writs of prohibition against admiralty proceedings they held to belong to themselves. A study of London collision litigation measures the effect: most such suits before 1663 arose in the crowded river, and after the prohibition in Martin v. Green few if any did, the deeper loss lying in causes never brought. No case has been found of a prohibition stopping a piracy trial.6

These courts acquitted. At Boston in July 1726, after the Fly mutiny, twelve of the sixteen tried were acquitted. The printing of the Charles Town trials of 1718 names four men acquitted beside thirty condemned, and a modern study puts the five weeks' acquittals at nine. The Jamaica commission that condemned Rackham's company in 1720 acquitted two men later. At the Old Bailey in 1696 a jury acquitted Every's men, and a second jury convicted them on a fresh indictment.7

Calling every colonial piracy trial a vice admiralty trial is loose: the capital trials sat under special commissions, whatever other bench the same men filled. Two things stay open. The beginning of colonial vice admiralty jurisdiction is dated variously from the 1620s to 1698, and the latest of those cannot stand against a statute addressing judges of vice admiralties as already in place. And whether Charles Town in 1718 sat under the machinery of 1536 or a commission of 1700 is unsettled: its printing styles the tribunal Admiralty Sessions, while a modern account describes a grand jury and petit juries there.

No quantitative series has been assembled: the number of criminal trials held between 1690 and 1725, and the volume of the commission courts against the sessions at home, remain uncounted. No original commission for the trial of piracy has been read; what such commissions contained is taken from the statute that authorised them and from the recitals in the printed trials.

What the evidence does not settle

Admiralty trial statistics

  • Trial, defendant and commission court counts for 1690 to 1725 are unknown
  • The overall proportion of acquittals to convictions is unknownConfirmed

Charles Town 1718 trials' legal basis

  • Charles Town's 1718 trials may have used Henry the Eighth's jury act
  • Or they may have sat under a 1700 commission

Writs of prohibition

  • Whether a writ of prohibition survives against the criminal side of Admiralty jurisdictionUnverified

Each line is one question with its own grade, taken from the register where a claim carries it. Nothing here is graded as a whole.

Sources for this record

Every statement above that rests on a checked claim carries a small number; the numbers lead here. Each entry gives what is claimed, how far the record supports it, and where it comes from.

  1. The Admiralty's jurisdiction was geographical, running to acts done upon the high seas and, in the words the statute of 1700 took from its predecessors, in or upon the sea or in any haven, river, creek or place where the admirals have power, authority or jurisdiction, so that piracy was an offence committed outside the body of any county and beyond the reach of an ordinary commission of oyer and terminer directed to a county. Confirmed Directly supported by the record. Primary statute text: An Act for the more effectuall Suppressions of Piracy, 11 Will. 3 c. 7, Statutes of the Realm vol. 7, pp. 590 to 594; the commissions of oyer and terminer for the Admiralty sessions at the Old Bailey
  2. Juries sat on one side of admiralty justice only: the instance and prize courts were civilian, written and juryless at all times, the criminal side in England had both a grand jury and a trial jury from the Offences at Sea Act of 1536, and the commission courts created in 1700 had no jury at all, while the naval courts martial with which all of them are confused sat under the Navy Act 1661 and were not admiralty courts. Unverified Reported, not yet checked against the record. Primary statute text, repository research guide and scholarly reference: 11 Will. 3 c. 7, Statutes of the Realm vol. 7; The National Archives research guide, High Court of Admiralty records; MarineLives, Introduction to the High Court of Admiralty; the Navy Act 1661, 13 Cha. 2 st. 1 c. 9
  3. The Act for the more effectuall Suppressions of Piracy, cited as 11 Will. 3 c. 7 and catalogued variously as the Piracy Act of 1698, 1699 and 1700, operated from 29 September 1700 and authorised commissions to admirals, judges of vice admiralties and commanders of the King's ships to assemble a court of admiralty on shipboard or upon the land consisting of seven persons at the least, in which only known merchants, factors or planters and sea officers of the King's ships or of English merchant ships could sit and vote, the president swearing that he had no interest in the ship or goods concerned and collecting the votes beginning at the junior first and ending with himself. Confirmed Directly supported by the record. Primary statute text: An Act for the more effectuall Suppressions of Piracy, 11 Will. 3 c. 7, Statutes of the Realm vol. 7, pp. 590 to 594; legislation.gov.uk record of the Piracy Act 1698
  4. Sections XIV and XV of the Act of 1700 gave the commissioners the sole power of trying these offences within the proprietary and charter colonies notwithstanding any letters patent, grants or charters of government, and declared that a refusal by a governor or person in authority to obey the Act was a forfeiture of the charters granted for the government or propriety of that plantation. Confirmed Directly supported by the record. Primary statute text: An Act for the more effectuall Suppressions of Piracy, 11 Will. 3 c. 7, sections XIV and XV, Statutes of the Realm vol. 7
  5. The Piracy Act 1721, 8 Geo. I c. 24, made trading with, supplying or corresponding with pirates itself piracy, declared accessories under the Act of 1700 to be principals, forfeited ships and goods fitted out to supply pirates in two moieties, one to the Crown and one to the first discoverer, who might sue for and recover the ship or vessel in the High Court of Admiralty, and extended itself to all his Majesty's dominions in Asia, Africa and America. Confirmed Directly supported by the record. Primary statute text: The Piracy Act, 8 Geo. I c. 24, sections I to X, transcribed from Pickering, Statutes at Large, vol. 14
  6. The common law courts curtailed admiralty business from outside by writs of prohibition, the measured effect in London collision litigation being that roughly two thirds of collision disputes resolved at Admiralty before 1663 had originated in the crowded river and that after the prohibition of the following year in Martin v. Green few if any did, with the deeper effect lying in the causes never brought at all. Unverified Reported, not yet checked against the record. Scholarly article, online edition: George F. Steckley, Collisions, Prohibitions, and the Admiralty Court in Seventeenth-Century London, History Cooperative online edition
  7. Courts of this system demonstrably acquitted: twelve of the sixteen persons tried at Boston on 4 and 5 July 1726 were acquitted and discharged without fees, the London printing of the Charles Town trials names four men acquitted beside Bonnet and twenty-nine others condemned, the Jamaica commission that condemned Rackham's company acquitted William Mething and Robert Sparkes at a later session, and at the Old Bailey in October 1696 a jury acquitted Every's men before a second jury convicted them on a fresh indictment. Confirmed Directly supported by the record. Printed trial pamphlets: The printed trial of William Fly and others before the Special Court of Admiralty at Boston, 4 and 5 July 1726; The tryals of Major Stede Bonnet and other pirates, London, 1719; the printed trial of Rackam's company at St Jago de la Vega, Jamaica, November 1720; the printed Admiralty sessions at the Old Bailey of October and November 1696