Chapter XXXVIII: Act 1806: , and the Admiralty Offences (Colonial) Act 1849 (1)

Prize.

The Admiralty Court had jurisdiction in matters of prize from very early times; and although since the middle of the 17th century the instance, or ordinary civil jurisdiction of the court, has been kept distinct from the prize jurisdiction, they were originally both administered and regarded as being within the ordinary jurisdiction of the lord high admiral. The early records of the admiralty show that the origin of the prize jurisdiction is to be traced to the power given to the court of the admiral to try cases of piracy and ``spoil,'' i.e. captures of foreign ships by English ships. The earliest recorded case of spoil tried before the admiral is in 1357, when the goods of a Portuguese subject, taken at sea by Englishmen from a French ship which had previously spoiled a Portuguese, were awarded by the admiral as good prize to the English captors; and Edward III. in a letter to the king of Portugal answering a complaint on the subject gives the admiral's decision as a reason for refusing their restoration. During the 16th century a very large part of the business of the Admiralty Court related to spoil and piracy, and the privy council often directed the judge of the court how to deal with the spoil cases, with regard to which foreigners who had suffered from attacks by English ships made petition for redress to the admiral or the council. The spoil suit at this time (causa spolii) was a civil proceeding resulting in a decree absolutoria, dismissing the defendant, or condemnatoria, ordering restoration to be made by him. In 1585 the patent of Howard, the lord high admiral, authorized him to issue letters of reprisal against Spain; and an order in council regulating the conduct of those to whom such letters were issued provided by an additional article (1859) that all prizes were to be brought in without breaking of bulk for adjudication by the Admiralty Court. The court was also resorted to at this time by captors, sailing under commissions granted by the allies of England, such as the king of France and the Dutch. About the middle of the 17th century separate sittings of the court for instance and prize business began, perhaps because of the conflicting claims to droits of Charles II. and the duke of York as lord high admiral; and privateering under royal commission took the place of the former irregular ``spoiling.'' The account which Lord Mansfield gave of the records of the Admiralty Court, that there were no prize act books earlier than 1641, or prize sentences earlier than 1648, and that before 1690 the records were in confusion, must be qualified by the correction that there are in existence prize sentences (on paper, not parchment) as early as 1589.

Although the courts of common law hardly ever seem to have interfered with or disputed the admiralty prize jurisdiction, its exclusive nature was not finally admitted till 1782; but long previously royal ordinances (1512, 1602) and statutes (1661, giving an alternative of commissioners, 1670, 1706) had given the Admiralty Court the only express jurisdiction over prize. The same statute of Anne and acts of 1739 and 1744 give prize jurisdiction to any court of admiralty, and the courts of admiralty for the colonies and plantations in North America.

It has been a disputed question whether the prize jurisdiction of the court was inherent, i.e. coming within the powers given by the general patent of the judge, in which no express mention of it is made, or whether it required a special commission. Upon this subject the judgment of Lord Mansfield in Lindo v. Rodney (1782, Dougl. 612), the judgment of Mr Justice Story in De Lovio v. Boit (1815, 2 Gallison, 398), and Marsden's Select Pleas of the Court of Admiralty (introduction), may be consulted. But the settled practice now and for a long time past has been for a special commission and warrant to be issued for this purpose. In connexion with this it is observable that in 1793 the Admiralty Court of Ireland claimed to exercise prize jurisdiction under its general patent; and it is said to have been the opinion of Sir W. Wynne that the Admiralty Court of Scotland had a similar right (Brown, Civil Law of Admiralty, vol. ii. 211, 212). Any jurisdiction of the Scottish court over prize of war was transferred to the English court by the Court of Session Act 1825, sec. 57. As to the Irish court, by the Act of Union it was provided that there should remain in Ireland an instance court of admiralty for the determination of causes civil and maritime only.

In 1864 the constitution and procedure of prize courts, which had until then been prescribed by occasional acts passed for each war as it arose, were for the first time made permanent by the Naval Prize Act, by which the High Court of Admiralty and every admiralty or vice-admiralty court, or any other court exercising admiralty jurisdiction in British dominions, if for the time being authorized to exercise prize jurisdiction, were made prize courts. The High Court of Admiralty was given jurisdiction throughout British dominions as a prize court, and, as such, power to enforce any order of a vice-admiralty prize court and the judicial committee of the privy council in prize appeals-- this power mutatis mutandis being also given to vice-admiralty prize courts. An appeal was given from any prize court to the sovereign in council. Prize courts were given jurisdiction in cases of captures made in a land expedition or an expedition made conjointly with allied forces, and power to give prize salvage on recaptured ships and prize bounty; and a form of procedure was prescribed. The High Court was also given exclusive jurisdiction as a prize court over questions of ransom and petitions of right in prize cases, and power to punish masters of ships under convoy disobeying orders or deserting convoy. By the Naval Discipline Act 1866, power to award damages to convoyed ships exposed to danger by the fault of the officer in charge of the convoy was also given to the High Court. Under other statutes it had power to try questions of booty of war when referred to it by the crown, in the same way as prize causes, and claims of king's ships for salvage on recaptures from pirates, which could be condemned as droits of admiralty, subject to the owner's right to receive them on paying one-eighth of the value, and also power to seize and restore prizes captured by belligerents in violation of British neutrality, or by a ship equipped in British ports contrary to British obligations of neutrality.

All jurisdiction of the High Court of Admiralty has since passed to the High Court of Justice, which is made a prize court under the Naval Prize Act, with all the powers of the Admiralty Court in that respect; and all prize causes and matters within the jurisdiction of that court as a prize court are assigned to the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division; and an appeal from it as a prize court lies only to the king in council (Judicature Acts 1873 and 1891).

By an act of 1894 further provision is made for the constitution of prize courts in British possessions. A commission, warrant or instruction from the crown or the admiralty may be issued at any time, even in peace; and upon such issue, subject to instructions from the crown, the vice-admiral of the possessions on being satisfied by information from a secretary of state that war has broken out between Great Britain and a foreign state, may make proclamation to that effect, and the commission or warrant comes into effect. The commission or warrant may authorize a vice-admiralty court or colonial court of admiralty to act as a prize court, or establish a vice-admiralty court for that purpose, and may be revoked or altered at any time. The court is authorized to act as a prize court during the war, and shall after its conclusion continue to act as such, and finally dispose of all matters and things arising during the war, including all penalties and forfeitures incurred therein. Rules of court may also be made by order in council for regulating, subject to the Naval Prize Act, the procedure and practice of prize courts under that act, the duties and conduct of their officers and practitioners, and the fees and costs therein (Prize Courts Act 1894, sec. sec. 2, 3). This latter power has been exercised; and prize rules for the High Court of Justice and the vice- admiralty prize courts were framed in 1898 (Statutory Rules and Orders, 1898).

AUTHORITIES.--Marsden, Select Pleas of the Court of Admiralty, Selden Society, London, 1892 and 1897; Zouch, Jurisdiction of the Admiralty of England asserted; Robinson, Collectanea Maritima; Brown, Admiralty; Edwardes, Admiralty; Phillimore, International Law, vol. i., vol. iii. part xi.; Pritchard, Admiralty Digest, tit. Jurisdiction. (W. G. F. P.)

UNITED STATES The source of admiralty jurisdiction in the United States is Article 3, sec. 2 of the United States Constitution:--``The judicial power shall extend to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction.'' The United States Supreme Court has declared that by virtue of these words the admiralty jurisdiction extends not only to the high seas but to the great lakes and the rivers connecting them, and to all public navigable waters in the United States (the ``Genesee Chief'' v. Fitz Hugh, 12 Howards U.S. Rep. 443), including even interstate canals (Ex. p. Boyer, 109 U.S. Rep. 629, the ``Robert W. Parsons,'' [1903] 191 U.S. 17), and is not confined to tide waters. The American colonies had vice-admiralty courts with an admiralty jurisdiction equal to the largest claimed by the English admiralty courts even under Edward III. When they became states they delegated to the federal government their several ``admiralty and maritime jurisdiction,'' using these words in the sense understood in every country in Europe, England excepted, and in the sense in which they had then been used in the colonies for a long time, and without reference to the very narrow jurisdiction of the English admiralty courts then existing (Waring v. Clark, 5 Howards U.S. Rep. 441).

It is settled as to the United States admiralty jurisdiction not that it is ``co-equal with that of the original English, or that of continental European admiralty, but is rather that defined by the statutes of Richard II., under the construction given to them by contemporary or immediately subsequent courts of admiralty'' (2 Parsons Adm. 176), and that it embraced all maritime contracts, torts, injuries or offences (De Lovio v. Boit, 2 Gallisons Rep. 398; Waring v. Clark, 5 Howards U.S. Rep. 441), and that it has never been restricted by the action of the common law courts as in England under Lord Coke (2 Parsons Adm. 166 n.; Waring v. Clark; De Lovio v. Bolt.)

Original admiralty jurisdiction was by the Judiciary Act of 1789 (U.S. Rev. Stats. sec. 563) granted to the United States district courts exclusively, except that concurrent original jurisdiction was given to United States circuit courts over seizures for slave trading, and condemnations of property used by persons in insurrection (sec. 629; sec. 5309), and in the coolie trade (sec. 2159), and by the act of the 3rd of March 1901; the supreme court of the District of Columbia is given the same jurisdiction as the district and circuit courts. The Supreme Court of the United States has no original jurisdiction in admiralty. All suits are brought in the first instance in the district court. Appeals lie, both on the law and on the facts, from a final decree of that court to the circuit court of appeals only, except in cases involving the jurisdiction of the court, the constitutionality of a law of any state or of the United States, or the validity or construction of any treaty of the United States, and except cases of prize and capital or infamous crime, in which cases of appeal lies directly to the supreme court. In cases of gravity and importance the Supreme Court may by certiorari review the judgment of the circuit court of appeals, but such cases are rare (re Lau Ow Bew, 141 U.S. Rep 587; Benedict's The American Admiralty, sec. 607). Formerly the Judiciary Act authorized an appeal from the district court to the circuit court, and thence to the Supreme Court. But the act of the 3rd of March 1891 (Ch. 517) abolished this and created the circuit court of appeals, making it the final appellate court in admiralty, except as above stated. In any case where the district judge is unable to perform his duties or is disqualified by reason of interest or of relationship, or has acted as counsel for one of the parties to the action, it may be removed to the circuit court in that district (U.S. Rev. Stats. sec. sec. 587, 589 and 601). These are now the only cases in which admiralty suits can come before the circuit court (Benedict's Adm. sec. 321).

The subject matter in cases of contract determines the jurisdiction (the ``General Smith,'' 4 Wheaton U.S. Rep. 438), and not the presence or absence of tide, salt water, current, nor that the water be an inland basin or land-locked, or a river, nor by its being a harbour, or a port within the body of the county, nor that a remedy exists at common law. The admiralty courts have jurisdiction over all matters that concern owners and proprietors of ships as such; possessory actions and petitory actions to try title of a ship; cases of mariners' wages, wharfage, dockage, lighterage, stevedores, contracts of affreightment, charter parties, rights of passengers as such (the ``Moses Taylor,'' 71 U.S. Rep. 411), pilotage, towage, maritime liens and loans, bottomry, respondentia and hypothecation of ship and cargo, marine insurance, average, jettison, demurrage, collisions, consortship, bounties, survey and sale of vessel, salvage; seizures under the laws of impost navigation or trade, cases of prize, ransom, condemnation, restitution and damages; assaults, batteries, damages and trespasses on the high seas and navigable waters of the United States; but not suits in rem for duties (Benedict's Adm. sec. 303a).

The U.S. Supreme Court has held in Peoples Ferry Co. v. Beers, 20 Howards U.S. Rep. 393, and in a series of subsequent cases that a contract to build a vessel is not a maritime contract (the ``Robert W. Parsons''). Contracts to furnish cargo for ships and to furnish ships to carry the cargoes are maritime contracts (Graham v. Oregon R. & N. Co., [1905] 135 Fed. Rep. 608).

Whenever there is a maritime lien, even though created by state statute as to a ship in her home port, it may be enforced by suit in rem in admiralty in the federal courts (the `` General . Smith''; the ``Lottawanna,'' 21 Wallace Rep. 558, Benedict's Adm. sec. 270). In all suits by material men for supplies and repairs or other necessaries for a foreign ship, the libellant may proceed against the ship and freight in rem or against the master or owner in personam (12th Admiralty Rule; Benedict's Adm. sec. 268; the ``General Smith''). Actions in rem and in personam may be joined in the same libel (Newell v. Norton, 3 Wallace 257; the ``Normandie,'' 40 Fed. Rep. 590). But a contract to furnish fishermen with clothing, tobacco and other personal effects for use on a voyage is not a maritime contract, and a court of admiralty has no jurisdiction to enforce it in rem (the ``May F. Chisholm,'' 1904; 129 Fed. Rep. 814). The state courts have no jurisdiction in rem over any maritime contract or tort (the ``Lottawanna,'' the ``Belfast,'' 7 Wallace Rep. 624). Admiralty jurisdiction in tort depends on locality; it must have occurred on the high seas or other navigable waters within admiralty cognizance (2 Farsons Adm. 347; the ``Plymouth,'' 3 Wallace Rep. 20; the ``Genesee Chief'' v. Fitz-Hugh, the ``Blackheath,'' [1903] 122 Fed. Rep. 112).

The U.S. Supreme Court in the ``Harrisburg'' (119 U.S. 199) and the ``Alaska'' (130 U.S. 207), after some conflict of opinion, held that the admiralty courts have no jurisdiction under the general admiralty law to try an action for damages for negligence on the high seas, causing death of a human being, while there was no act of Congress and no statute of the state to which the vessel belonged giving such right of action (Benedict's Adm. sec. sec. 275-309a), nor where such statute is that of a foreign country (Rundell v. Compagnie Generale, [1899] 94 Fed. Rep. 366).

Admiralty has jurisdiction in cases of spoliation and piracy, collision and proceedings by owners to limit their liability under U.S. Rev. Stats. sec. sec. 4281-9.

The United States admiralty courts have always had jurisdiction in matters of prize (The Prize Cases, 2 Black U.S. Rep. 635). The district courts have exclusive original jurisdiction (except that circuit courts also have jurisdiction when prize is taken from persons in insurrection), and the supreme court of the District of Columbia now has concurrent jurisdiction (U.S. v. Sampson, 1902, 187 U.S. 436) and appeals are direct to the Supreme Court. Special commissioners are appointed on the breaking out of hostilities to act under the orders of the district courts (U.S. Rev. Stats. sec. 4621, Prize Rule 9; Benedict's Adm. sec. 509; 680 Pieces Merchandise, 2 Sprague 233). These commissioners take the depositions of witnesses and report to the court the evidence upon which it adjudicates. Proceedings in prize cases must be in conformity with admiralty proceedings, where the seizure is on land (Union Insurance Co. v. U.S., 6 Wallace 759; 2 Parsons Adm. 174). The district courts have all the powers of a court of admiralty whether as instance or prize courts (Glass v. sloop ``Betsy,'' 3 Dallas 6). To adjudicate in matters of prize is one of the ordinary functions of that court (Benedict's Adm. sec. 509).

The admiralty courts have jurisdiction over crimes and offences committed upon vessels belonging to citizens of the United States on the high seas or any arm of the sea or any waters within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States (U.S. Rev. Stats. sec. 5339). High seas include the great lakes ( U.S. v. Rogers, 150 U.S. 249). (J. A. BA.)

OTHER COUNTRIES

France, and countries following France.

In France, and in Belgium, Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece --countries which have adopted codes based on the Code Napoleon--the civil, or, as it would have been formerly called in England, the ``instance,'' jurisdiction of the admiralty is exercised by the ordinary tribunals, and there are no separate courts of admiralty for this purpose. France and some other countries have special commercial tribunals, which deal with shipping matters, but also with ordinary commercial cases. France has also tribunaux maritimes commerciaux (Code disciplinaire et penal de la marine marchande du 24 mars 1852, loi du 11 mars 1891) to deal with maritime offences. Austria adopts the French law in commercial matters. Italy had tribunals of commerce, but has given them up. She has, however, by Art. 14 of her Merchant Shipping Code, given jurisdiction to captains of ports to decide collision cases when the sum in dispute does not exceed 200 lire.

Germany.

In Germany there are no special tribunals for admiralty matters. Kammern fur Handelssachen, commercial courts, have been established in Berlin and some of the principal seaports. These deal with shipping matters, but also with all other commercial suits.

Scandinavian nations.

In Denmark, Sweden and Norway there is a maritime code which came into force in Sweden in 1891, in Denmark in 1892, and in Norway in 1893. This was intended to be one code for the three countries; but each country as it finally adopted the code made some modifications of its own. Under this code there are in Norway permanent maritime courts for each town presided over by the judge of the inferior local civil court (civile underdommer), or if there be more than one such judge then by the president, with two assessors chosen out of a list. Temporary local courts, consisting of the same judge with two other members of nautical skill and knowledge, can be constituted in districts where there are no permanent courts. Appeals lie to the supreme court (Hoiesterei.) In Denmark maritime cases are brought before the local courts constituted for maritime and commercial causes (So-og-Handelsret.) In Sweden maritime cases are brought before local courts of first instance consisting of a judge and assessors. There is an intermediate appeal to courts of second instance, and then to the supreme court, which finally decides upon all causes civil and commercial.

Maritime cases in Holland are tried by the ordinary civil tribunals, with the same right of appeal.

Prize jurisdiction.

``By the maritime law of nations universally and immemorially received there is an established method of determination whether the capture be or be not lawful prize. Before the ship or goods can be disposed of by the captor there must be a regular judicial proceeding wherein both parties may be heard and condemnation thereupon as prize in a court of admiralty judging by the law of nations and treaties. . . . If the sentence of the court of admiralty is thought to be erroneous, there is in every maritime country a superior court of review. . . .'' (duke of Newcastle's letter to M. Michell, secretary to the embassy of the king of Prussia, 1753). ``So far as belligerent states do not make a practice of giving up the taking of booty at sea . . . they are required by international law to establish prize tribunals and thus give to their proceedings in the matter of prize a judicial character'' (v . Holtzendorff, Rechtslexikon, tit. ``Prisengerichte'').

In France till the death of the duke of Montmorency in 1632 prize matters were adjudicated upon by the admiral. The duke had sold the office of admiral some years before his death to Cardinal Richelieu; but about the period of the duke's death the office of admiral appears to have been abolished, and one of grand master of navigation established in lieu. This new office was first held by Cardinal Richelieu and continued till 1695. The grand master took the admiral's place in matters of prize; but in 1659 a commission of councillors of state and masters of requests was appointed to assist the grand master and form a Conseil des Prises. From this conseil there was an appeal to the Conseil d'Etat. When the office of admiral was restored in 1695 he exercised his jurisdiction in prize matters with the assistance of the Conseil des Prises. The appeal was then given to the Conseil Royal des Finances. The Ordonnance sur la marine of August 1681 regulated the procedure. This system continued till the Revolution. The last Conseil des Prises was appointed in 1778. A law of the 14th of February 1793 abolished the Conseil des Prises and gave cognizance of prize matters ``provisionally'' to the tribunals of commerce. On the 8th of November 1793 (18 Brumaire, an II.) this jurisdiction was taken from the tribunals of commerce and given to the Conseil Executif. Later it was given to the Comite de Salut Public. On the 25th of October 1795 (3 Brumaire, an IV.) the jurisdiction was restored to the tribunals of commerce. This was again altered on the 27th of March 1800 (6 Germinal, an VIII.), when a Conseil des Prises was established, consisting of nine councillors of state, a commissary of the government and a secretary, all nominated by the First Consul.

On the 11th of June 1806 an appeal was given to the Conseil d'Etat. It was disputed among French jurists whether the Conseil des Prises was to be considered as a body actuated only by political considerations or one exercising what the French term an ``administrative jurisdiction''; which is, as nearly as a parallel to it can be found in England, administration of justice between individuals and the state.

As most of the cases arising out of the great wars had been dealt with, an ordinance of the 9th of January 1815 suppressed the Conseil des Prises and directed the Comite du contentieux of the Conseil d'Etat to prepare the remaining prize matters for decision by the Conseil d'Etat. Such prize matters (probably including captures for trading in slaves) as required to be dealt with till 1854, appear to have been dealt with by this body; an ordinance of the 9th of September 1831 directing that the proceedings before the Conseil d'Etat should be private, was held to show that the jurisdiction was not political but administrative.

An Imperial decree, however, of the 18th of July 1854 restored the Conseil des Prises, with appeal to the Conseil d'Etat. This was for the war with Russia. A similar decree was published on the 9th of May 1859 for the war with Austria in Italy.

On the 28th of November 1861 a further decree ordered that the Conseil instituted in 1859 should so long as it was kept in being decide all prize matters; and this Conseil has decided on prizes taken in the wars with Mexico and Germany and in Cochin China. It consists of seven judges and a commissary of the government. An appeal to the government in the Conseil d'Etat can be brought within three months. It is then decided by l'Assemblee du Conseil d'Etat.

Under the First Empire there were commissions des ports, commissions colonials and commissions consulaires, established mainly to collect materials for the Conseil des Prises, but sometimes, when the ship and cargo were clearly those of the enemy, proceeding to actual condemnation.

In Prussia Regulations of the 20th of June 1864 established a prize council consisting of a president and six associates with a law officer. An appeal was given to an upper prize council (v. Holtzendorff, Rechtslexikon, tit. ``Prisengerichte'').

By a law of the German empire of the 3rd of May 1884 the legality of prizes made during war has to be decided by prize courts, and the imperial government is authorized to determine the particulars as to the seat of such courts, their members and their proceedings (Reichsgesetzblatt of 1884, p. 49). Prize courts were established under this law on the occasion of the East African blockade in 1889 (Reichsgesetzblatt of 1889, pp. 5 sqq.).

In Italy Art. 14 of the Merchant Shipping Code provides that prize matters shall be tried by a special commission established by royal decree. On the occasion of the war with Austria such a special commission was established by royal decree of the 20th of June 1866. For the war with Abyssinia a fresh commission was established by royal decree of the 16th of August 1896. The composition of this commission, which was slightly different in character from that established in 1866, was as follows: (a) a first president of a court of appeal or a retired one, or a president of a section of the council of state or of cassation; (b) two general officers of the navy; (c) a member of the ``contentious part'' of the diplomatic service; (d) two councillors of a court of appeal; (e) a captain of a port, with a commissary of the government and a secretary; five to be a quorum. There was no appeal; but the ordinary right to have recourse to the Court of Cassation at Rome, if the prize commission proceeded without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction, was preserved.

By an ordinance of the 27th of March 1895 regulating the whole matter of prize in Russia, two sorts of prize tribunals of first instance were contemplated--port tribunals and fleet tribunals. The latter are for captures made by ships of the fleet, and are to be composed of some of the principal officers of the fleet. The former are to have presidents named by the emperor from among those ``qui font partie de l'administration maritime judiciaire''; the other members are to be appointed by the ministers of the navy, justice and foreign affairs. The court of appeal is formed by the council of the admiralty with the addition of two members of the senate and a nominee of the minister of foreign affairs (Clunet, 1904, p. 271).

On the occasion of the Russo-Japanese war, port tribunals were established under the authority of this ordinance by the lord high admiral, the Grand Duke Alexis, on the 13th of March 1904, at Sebastopol--Port Alexander III., Port Arthur and Vladivostock (Clunet, 1904, p. 479; London Gazette, 22nd March 1904). Many cases were heard before these tribunals and on appeal.

The procedure in prize cases under the old law of Spain is described in Abreu (Felix Joseph de Abreu y Bertodano), Tratado juridico Politico sobre Presas de Mar (Cadiz, 1746). On the occasion of the war with the United States the Spanish government published a proclamation stating the circumstances in which captures were to be made and prizes taken; but information is lacking as to the particular constitution of the prize court or courts.

In Greece prize questions are apparently left to be tried by the ordinary tribunals. See decision of Civil Tribunal of Athens, 1898, No. 3385 (reported Clunet, 1900, p. 826).

Turkey during her war of 1877 with Russia established a prize court and a court of appeal. The ordinance establishing these courts is set out in the London Gazette of the 6th of July 1877.

Japan established, in the war (1904-5) with Russia, prize courts at Sasebo and Yokosco with a court of appeal at Tokyo. Advocates were heard before these courts, and the procedure seems generally to have been modelled upon European patterns.

AUTHORITIES.--Clunet, Journal du droit international prive, cited shortly as Clunet; v. Holzendorff, Rechtslexikon, Leipzig, 1881; De Pistoye et Duverdy, Traite des prises maritimes, Paris, 1855, vol. ii., tit. viii.; Phillimore, International Law, vol. i., vol. iii. part xi.; Autran, Code international de l'abordage, de l'assistance, et du sauvetage maritimes, Paris, 1902; Raikes, The Maritime Codes of Spain and Portugal (1896), of Holland and Belgium (1898), of Italy (1900), London. (W. G. F. P.)

ADMISSION, in law, a statement made out of the witness-box by a party to legal proceedings, whether civil or criminal, or by some person whose statements are binding on that party against the interest of that party. (See EVIDENCE.)

ADO (d. 874), archbishop of Vienne in Lotharingia, belonged to a famous Frankish house, and spent much of his middle life in Italy. He held his archiepiscopal see from 850 till his death on the 16th of December 874. Several of his letters are extant and reveal their writer as an energetic man of wide sympathies and considerable influence. Ado's principal works are a Martyrologium (printed inter al. in Migne, Patrolog. lat. cxxiii. pp. 181-420; append. pp. 419-436), and chronicle, Chronicon sive Breviarium chronicorum de sex mundi aetalibus de Adamo usque ad ann. 869 (in Migne, cxxiii. pp. 20-138, and Pertzn Monumenta Germ. ii. pp. 315-323, &c.). Ado's chronicle is based on that of Bede, with which he combines extracts from the ordinary sources, forming the whole into a consecutive narrative founded on the conception of the unity of the Roman empire, which he traces in the succession of the emperors, Charlemagne and his heirs following immediately after Constantine and Irene. ``It is,'' says Wattenbach, ``history from the point of view of authority and preconceived opinion, which exclude any independent judgment of events.'' Ado wrote also a book on the miracles (Miracula) of St Bernard, archbishop of Vienne (9th century), published in the Bollandist Acta Sanctorum; a life or Martyrium of St Desiderius, bishop of Vienne (d. 608), written about 870 and published in Migne, cxxiii. pp. 435-442; and a life of St Theudericus, abbot of Vienne (563), published in Mabillon, Acta Sanct. i. pp. 678-681, Migne, cxxiii. pp. 443-450, and revised in Bollandist Acta Sanct. 29th Oct. xii. pp. 840-843.

See W. Wattenbach, Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen, vol. i. (Stuttgart and Berlin, 1904).

ADOBE (pronounced a-do-be; also corrupted to dobie; from the Span. adobar, to plaster, traceable through Arabic to an Egyptian hieroglyph meaning ``brick''), a Spanish-American word for the sun-dried clay used by the Indians for building in some of the south-western states of the American Union, this method having been imported in the 16th century by Spaniards from Mexico, Peru, &c. A distinction is made between the smaller ``adobes,'' which are about the size of ordinary baked bricks, and the larger ``adobines,'' some of which are as much as from one to two yards long.

ADOLESCENCE (Lat. adolescentia, from adolescere, to grow up, past part. adultus, grown up, Eng. ``adult''), the term now commonly adopted for the period between childhood and maturity, during which the characteristics--mental, physical and moral--that are to make or mar the individual disclose themselves, and then mature, in some cases by leaps and bounds, in others by more gradual evolution. The annual rate of growth, in height, weight and strength, increases to a marked extent and may even be doubled. The development in the man takes place in the direction of a greater strength, in the woman towards a fitter form for maternity. The sex sense develops, the love of nature and religion, and an overmastering curiosity both individual and general. This period of life, so fraught with its power for good and ill, is accordingly the most important and by far the most difficult for parents and educationists to deal with efficiently. The chief points for attention may be briefly indicated. Health depends mainly on two factors, heredity, or the sum total of physical and mental leanings of the individual, and environment. In an ideal system of training these two factors will be so fitted in and adapted to one another, that what is weak or unprovided for in the first will be amply compensated for in the second.

In an ideal condition children should be brought up in the country as much as possible rather than in the town. Though adults may live where they like within very wide limits and take no harm, children, even of healthy stock, living in towns, are continually subject to many minor ills, such as chronic catarrh, tonsillitis, bronchitis,and even the far graver pneumonia. Removed to healthier conditions in the country their ailments tend to disappear, and normal physical development supervenes. The residence should be on a well-drained soil, preferably near the sea in the case of a delicate child, on higher ground for those of more robust constitution. The child should be lightly clad in woollen garments all the year round, their thickness being slightly greater in winter than in summer. An abundance of simple well-cooked food in sufficient variety, ample time at table, where an atmosphere of light gaiety should be cultivated, and a period free from restraint both before and after meals, should be considered fundamental essentials. As regards the most suitable kinds of food--milk and fruit should be given in abundance, fresh meat once a day, and fish or eggs once a day. Bread had better be three days old, and baked in the form of small rolls to increase the ratio of crust to crumb. Both butter and sugar are good foods, and should be freely allowed in many forms. The exercise of the body must be duly attended to. Nowadays this is provided for in the shape of games, some being optional, others prescribed, and such sports as boating, swimming, fencing, &c. But severe exercise should only be allowed under adequate medical control, and should be increased very gradually. In the case of girls, let them run, leap and climb with their brothers for the first twelve years or so of life. But as puberty approaches, with all the change, stress and strain dependent thereon, their lives should be appropriately modified. Rest should be enforced during the menstrual periods of these earlier years, and milder, more graduated exercise taken at other times. In the same way all mental strain should be diminished. Instead of pressure being put on a girl's intellectual education at about this time, as is too often the case, the time devoted to school and books should be diminished. Education should be on broader, more fundamental lines, and much time should be passed in the open air. With regard to the mental training of both sexes two points must be borne in mind. First, that an ample number of hours should be set on one side for sleep, up to ten years of age not less than eleven, and up to twenty years not less than nine. Secondly, that the time devoted to ``bookwork'' should be broken up into a number of short periods, very carefully graduated to the individual child.

In every case where there is a family tendency towards any certain disease or weakness, that tendency must determine the whole circumstances of the child's life. That diathesis which is most serious and usually least regarded, the nervous excitable one, is by far the most important and the most difficult to deal with. Every effort should be made to avoid the conditions in which the hereditary predisposition would be aroused into mischievous action, and to encourage development on simple unexciting lines. The child should be confined to the schoolroom but little and receive most of his training in wood and field. Other diatheses--the tuberculous, rheumatic, &c.---must be dealt with in appropriate ways.

The adolescent is prone to special weaknesses and moral perversions. The emotions are extremely unstable, and any stress put on them may lead to undesirable results. Warm climates, tight-fitting clothes, corsets, rich foods, soft mattresses, or indulgences of any kind, and also mental over-stimulation, are especially to be guarded against. The day should be filled with interests of an objective--in contradistinction to subjective--kind, and the child should retire to bed at night healthily fatigued in mind and body. Let there be confidence between mother and daughter, father and son, and, as the years bring the bodily changes, those in whom the children trust can choose the fitting moments for explaining their meaning and effect, and warning against abuses of the natural functions. For bibliography see CHILD.

ADOLPH OF NASSAU (c. 1255-.1298), German king, son of Walram, count of Nassau. He appears to have received a good education, and inherited his father's lands around Wiesbaden in 1276. He won considerable fame as a mercenary in many of the feuds of the time, and on the 5th of May 1292 was chosen German king, in succession to Rudolph I., an election due rather to the political conditions of the time than to his personal abilities. He made large promises to his supporters, and was crowned on the 1st of July at Aix-la-Chapelle. Princes and towns did homage to him, but his position was unstable, and the allegiance of many of the princes, among them Albert I., duke of Austria, son of the late king Rudolph, was merely nominal. Seeking at once to strengthen the royal position, he claimed Meissen as a vacant fief of the Empire, and in 1294 allied himself with Edward I., king of England, against France. Edward granted him a subsidy, but owing to a variety of reasons Adolph did not take the field against France, but turned his arms against Thuringia, which he had purchased from the landgrave Albert II. This bargain was resisted by the sons of Albert, and from 1294 to 1296 Adolph was campaigning in Meissen and Thuringia. Meissen was conquered, but he was not equally successful in Thuringia, and his relations with Albert of Austria were becoming more strained. He had been unable to fulfil the promises made at his election, and the princes began to look with suspicion upon his designs. Wenceslaus II., king of Bohemia, fell away from his allegiance, and his deposition was decided on, and was carried out at Mainz, on the 23rd of May 1298, when Albert of Austria was elected his successor. The forces of the rival kings met at Gollheim on the 2nd of July 1298, where Adolph was killed, it is said by the hand of Albert. He was buried at Rosenthal, and in 1309 his remains were removed to Spires.

See F. W. E. Roth, Geschichte des Romischen Konigs Adolf I. von Nassau (Wiesbaden, 1879); V. Domeier, Die Absetzung Adolf von Nassau (Berlin, 1889); L. Ennen, Die Wahl des Konigs Adolf von Nassau (Cologne, 1866); L. Schmid, Die Wahl des Grossen Adolf von Nassau zum Romischen Konig; B. Gebhardt, Handbuch der deutschen Geschichte, Band i. (Berlin, 1901).

ADOLPHUS, JOHN LEYCESTER (1795-1862), English lawyer and author, was the son of John Adolphus (1768--1845), a well-known London barrister who wrote a History of England to 1783 (1802), a History of France from 1790 (1803) and other works. He was educated at Merchant Taylors' School and at St. John's College, Oxford. In 1821 he published Letters to Richard Heber, Esq., in which he discussed the authorship of the then anonymous Waverley novels, and fixed it upon Sir Walter Scott. This conclusion was based on the resemblance of the novels in general style and method to the poems acknowledged by Scott. Scott thought at first that the letters were written by Reginald Heber, afterwards bishop of Calcutta, and the discovery of J. L. Adolphus's identity led to a warm friendship. Adolphus was called to the bar in 1822, and his Circuiteers, an Eclogue, is a parody of the style of two of his colleagues on the northern circuit. He became judge of the Marylebone County Court in 1852, and was a bencher of the Inner Temple. He was the author of Letters from Spain in 1816 and 1817 (1858), and was completing his father's History of England at the time of his death on the 24th of December 1862.

ADOLPHUS FREDERICK (1710-1771), king of Sweden, was born at Gottorp on the 14th of May 1710. His father was Christian Augustus (1673--1726), duke of Schleswig-Holstein-Gottorp, bishop of Lubeck, and administrator, during the war of 1700--1721, of the duchies of Holstein-Gottorp for his nephew Charles Frederick; his mother was Albertina Frederica of Baden-Durlach. From 1727 to 1750 he was bishop of Lubeck, and administrator of Holstein-Kiel during the minority of Duke Charles Peter Ulrich, afterwards Peter III. of Russia. In 1743 he was elected heir to the throne of Sweden by the ``Hat'' faction in order that they might obtain better conditions of peace from the empress Elizabeth, whose fondness for the house of Holstein was notorious (see SWEDEN, History). During his whole reign (1751-1771) Adolphus Frederick was little more than a state decoration, the real power being lodged in the hands of an omnipotent riksdag, distracted by fierce party strife. Twice he endeavoured to free himself from the intolerable tutelage of the estates. The first occasion was in 1755 when, stimulated by his imperious consort Louisa Ulrica, sister of Frederick the Great, he tried to regain a portion of the attenuated prerogative, and nearly lost his throne in consequence. On the second occasion, under the guidance of his eldest son, the crown prince Gustavus, afterwards Gustavus III., he succeeded in overthrowing the tyrannous ``Cap'' senate, but was unable to make any use of his victory. He died of surfeit at Stockholm on the 12th of February 1771. See R. Nisbet Bain, Gustavus III. and his Contemporaries, vol. i. (London, 1895). (R. N. B.)

ADONI, a town of British India, in the Bellary district of Madras, 307 m. from Madras by rail. It has manufactures of carpets, silk and cotton goods, and several factories for ginning and pressing cotton. The hill-fort above, now in ruins, was an important seat of government in Mahommedan times and is frequently mentioned in the wars of the 18th century. Pop. (1901) 30,416.

ADONIJAH (Heb. Adoniyyah or Adoniyyahu, ``Yah is Lord''), a name borne by several persons in the Old Testament, the most noteworthy of whom was the fourth son of David. He was born to Haggith at Hebron (2 Sam. iii. 4; 1 Ch. iii. 2). The natural heir to the throne, on the death of Absalom, he sought with the help of Joab and Abiathar to seize his birthright, and made arrangements for his coronation (1 Kings i. 5 ff.). Hearing, however, that Solomon, with the help of Nathan the prophet and Bathsheba, and apparently with the consent of David, had ascended the throne, he fled for safety to the horns of the altar. Solomon spared him on this occasion (1 Kings i. 50 ff.), but later commanded Benaiah to slay him (ii. 13 ff.), because with the approval of Bathsheba he wished to marry Abishag, formerly David's concubine, and thus seemed to have designs on the throne.

ADONIS, in classical mythology, a youth of remarkable beauty, the favourite of Aphrodite. According to the story in Apollodorus (iii. 14. 4), he was the son of the Syrian king Theias by his daughter Smyrna (Myrrha), who had been inspired by Aphrodite with unnatural love. When Theias discovered the truth he would have slain his daughter, but the gods in pity changed her into a tree of the same name. After ten months the tree burst asunder and from it came forth Adonis. Aphrodite, charmed by his beauty, hid the infant in a box and handed him over to the care of Persephone, who afterwards refused to give him up. On an appeal being made to Zeus, he decided that Adonis should spend a third of the year with Persephone and a third with Aphrodite, the remaining third being at his own disposal. Adonis was afterwards killed by a boar sent by Artemis. There are many variations in the later forms of the story (notably in Ovid, Metam. x. 298). The name is generally supposed to be of Phoenician origin (from adon--``lord''), Adonis himself being identified with Tammuz (but see F. Dummler in Pauly-Wissowa's Realencyklopadie, who does not admit a Semitic origin for either name or cult). The name Abobas, by which he was known at Perga in Pamphyha, certainly seems connected with abub (a Semitic word for ``flute''; cf. ``ambubaiarum collegia'' in Horace, Satires, i. 2. 1). (See also ATTIS.) Annual festivals, called Adonia, were held in his honour at Byblus, Alexandria, Athens and other places. Although there were variations in the ceremony itself and in its date, the central idea was the death and resurrection of Adonis. A vivid description of the festival at Alexandria (for which Bion probably wrote his Dirge cf. Adonis) is given by Theocritus in his fifteenth idyll, the Adoniazusae. On the first day, which celebrated the union of Adonis and Aphrodite, their images were placed side by side on a silver couch, around them all the fruits of the season, ``Adonis gardens'' in silver baskets, golden boxes of myrrh, cakes of meal, honey and oil, made in the likeness of things that creep and things that fly. On the day following the image of Adonis was carried down to the shore and cast into the sea by women with dishevelled hair and bared breasts. At the same time a song was sung, in which the god was entreated to be propitious in the coming year. This festival, like that at Athens, was held late in summer; at Byblus, where the mourning . ceremony preceded, it took place in spring.

It is now generally agreed that Adonis is a vegetation spirit, whose death and return to life represent the decay of nature in winter and its revival in spring. He is born from the myrrh-tree, the oil of which is used at his festival; he is connected with Aphrodite in her character of vegetation-goddess. A special feature of the Athenian festival was the ``Adonis gardens,'' small pots of flowers forced to grow artificially, which rapidly faded (hence the expression was used to denote any transitory pleasure). The dispute between Aphrodite and Persephone for the possession of Adonis, settled by the agreement that he is to spend a third (or half) of the year in the lower-world (the seed at first underground and then reappearing above it), finds a parallel in the story of Tammuz and Ishtar (see APHRODITE) The ceremony of the Adonia was intended as a charm to promote the growth of vegetation, the throwing of the gardens and images into the water being supposed to procure a supply of rain (for European parallels see Mannhardt). It is suggested (Frazer) that Adonis is not a god of vegetation generally, but specially a corn-spirit, and that the lamentation is not for the decay of vegetation in winter, but for the cruel treatment of the corn by the reaper and miller (cf. Robert Burns's John Barleycorn.)

All important element in the story is the connexion of Adonis with the boar, which (according to one version) brings him into the world by splitting with his tusk the bark of the tree into which Smyrna was changed, and finally kills him. It is probable that Adonis himself was looked upon as incarnate in the swine, so that the sacrifice to him by way of expiation on special occasions of an animal which otherwise was specially sacred, and its consumption by its worshippers, was a sacramental act. Other instances of a god being sacrificed to himself as his own enemy are the sacrifice of the goat and bull to Dionysus and of the bear to Artemis. The swine would be sacrificed as having caused the death of Adonis, which explains the dislike of Aphrodite for that animal. It has been observed that whenever swine sacrifices occur in the ritual of Aphrodite there is reference to Adonis. In any vase, the conception of Adonis as a swine-god does not contradict the idea of him as a vegetation or corn spirit, which in many parts of Europe appears in the form of a boar or sow.

AUTHORITIES.--H. Brugsch, Die Adonisklage und das Linoslied (Berlin, 1852); Grove, De Adonide (Leipzig, 1877); W. H. Engel, Kypros, ii. (1841), still valuable; W. Mannhardt, Wald- und Feldkulte, ii. (1905); M. P. Nilsson, Griechische Feste (Leipzig, 1906); articles in Roscher's Lexikon and Pauly-Wissowa's Encyklopadie J. G. Frazer, The Golden Bough, ii. (2nd ed.), p. 113, and Adonis, Attis and Osiris (1906); L. R. Farnell, Cults of the Greek States, ii. p. 646; W. Robertson Smith (Religion of the Semites, new ed., 1894, pp. 191, 290, 411), who, regarding Adonis as the swine-god, characterizes the Adonia as an annual piacular sacrifice (of swine), ``in which the sacrifice has come to be overshadowed by its popular and dramatic accompaniments, to which the Greek celebration, not forming part of the state religion, was limited.''

ADONIS, a genus of plants belonging to the natural order Ranunculaceae, known commonly by the nomes of pheasant's eye and Flos Adonis. They are annual or perennial herbs with much divided leaves and yellow or red flowers. Adonis autumnalis has become naturalized in some parts of England; the petals are scarlet with a dark spot at the base. An early flowering species, Adonis vernalis, with large bright yellow flowers, is well worthy of cultivation. It prefers a deep light soil. The name is also given to the butterfly, Mazarine or Clifton Blue (Polyomreatus Adonis).