The
Cape of Good Hope Vice-Admiralty Silver Oar
-- symbol of maritime jurisdiction 1806-1890
Mary van Blommestein
The Cape of
Good Hope Vice-Admiralty oar made by William
Frisbee, London, 1806. Length 84cm, weight
1088,50 grams. The blade is engraved with the
Royal Arms, the eagle and thunderbolt of Zeus,
the fouled anchor within a wreath, two dolphins
intertwined on crossed tridents and medallion
head of George 111 within an oak leaf wreath.
Abstract
This article considers
the history of a particular judicial symbol, the Cape
of Good Hope Vice-Admiralty silver oar, examined
specifically in relation to the establishment of the
Vice-Admiralty Court in this country. The silver oar
was acquired by the South African Cultural History
Museum in 1989.
The Author
Mary van Blommenstein
, of Bertram House Museum, (attached to the SA
Cultural History Museum in Cape Town) conducted her
research into the history of the Silver Oar of
Admiralty shortly after it was acquired by the SA
Cultural History Museum. She published this article
in Bulletin 11 of the Museum in 1990. We are most
grateful to her and to the SA Cultural History Museum
her agreeing to us including this fascinating article
on our Website. She may be contacted care of fax +27
(21) 461 9592.
Introduction
The need for maritime
legislation to regulate aspects of maritime commerce
has been recognized by all the great seafaring
nations from the time of recorded history. The Law of
Admiralty 'conjures up visions of piracy wreck and
spoil, of admirals dispensing harsh justice on the
high seas and of seamen holding great ships to ransom
for unpaid wages."1
After almost a century
and a half of Dutch East India Company rule, the Cape
of Good Hope was occupied by the British in 1795.
During the closing years of the eighteenth century
the Company collapsed, Dutch maritime influence waned
and England became the leading maritime nation.2
English Admiralty Law was exercised at the Cape from
the time of the establishment of the first
Vice-Admiralty Court in 1797.3 In
order to understand the use of one of the judicial
emblems of this particular court, known as a silver
oar, it is necessary to consider the history
associated with its origin.
The oar as symbol of
maritime authority The exact origin of Admiralty oars
is uncertain but they are probably the most ancient
of all judicial insignia.4 By 1360 a silver oar
was used as the symbol of authority of the High Court
of Admiralty of England when maritime causes were
judged.5
The silver oar became
the badge of the Admiralty Marshal, an officer of the
Court responsible for the arrest of persons and
vessels in respect of all manner of maritime
disputes. This officer carried the silver oar before
the judge into Court where it was placed on the Bench
when maritime causes were heard.6
A more sombre function
was performed at executions, when the silver oar,
borne by the deputy marshal, preceded the hangman in
the procession, which escorted condemned sailors who
were executed at low watermark; the demarcation of
Admiralty authority.7
The jurisdiction of
the High Court of Admiralty appears to have been
threefold. It regulated civil matters and criminal
matters connected with the sea and the condemnation
of prize,8 prize being a 'ship or property captured at
sea in virtue of rights of war.'9
It was obviously
impractical for Admiralty causes in the British
colonies to be heard in the English Admiralty Court
and from 1660 onwards a number of Vice-Admiralty
Courts were established in major seaports of the
American colonies. Some of these Vice-Admiralty
Courts abroad were permitted the dignity of a silver
oar with the Royal Arms engraved on its blade. These
oars were never the property of the Crown or of the
Lords of Admiralty and therefore the exact number in
existence today is unknown.
Rare known examples
The present silver oar of the Admiralty Court in
London was probably remade in about 1660 and
incorporates devices of design from earlier periods.
The hallmark on the shaft dates from 1;'98,
while the blade bears the coat of arms of James
Stuart, Duke of York, Lord High Admiral from 1660 to
1673. The Tudor period is represented by the arms of
Henry VII and the inscription on the base is from
Elizabethan times and reads Jasper Swift Marshall
of the Admiralty. A carving in Priory Church,
Abergavenny, South Wales, depicts Jasper Swift,
carrying his oar of office on the tomb of David
Lewis, Judge of the High Court of Admiralty from 1559
until 1584.12
There only appear to
be seven Vice-Admiralty oars extant, three of which
were made for the United States. The earliest known
American example is that of 1701 by Anthony Nelme
sent to Bermuda as the mace of the Vice-Admiralty
Court. The oar was used by Governor Bennett, who
arrived on the island to combat lawlessness and
strengthen a weak administration and became the
ceremonial mace of the Island Council.13
The second oldest
known American silver oar, made in about l725 by
Jacob Hurd, a Boston silversmith, is now owned by the
Massachusetts Historical Society. The third example,
the New York oar, also dates from about 1725 and was
made in New York by Charles le Roux. official
silversmith of the City Council. It was last used by
the New York Vice-Admiralty Court in 1775 when the
Court was dissolved by the Crown, but is on exhibit
in the Museum of the City of New York. The other four
Vice-Admiralty oars recorded chronologically are as
follows: Colombo 1801; Cape of Good Hope by William
Frisbee of London, 1806, Calcutta, engraved with the
Royal monogram of Queen Victoria, and Toronto, the
latest example dating from 1962. Of these, it was
only possible to establish the location of the Cape
of Good Hope oar. Acquired in 1989 from the De
Villiers family, it is now on permanent exhibition at
the South African Cultural History Museum (SACHM
89/480).
The Vice-Admiralty
Court at the Cape Within a year of the first British
occupation of the Cape in 1795 the Commander-in-Chief
of the British naval forces, Admiral Sir George Keith
Elphinstone, urged the need for a Vice-Admiralty
Court in a despatch to the Secretary of State for
War, Henry Dundas. He wrote saying:
We are greatly at
a loss for a Court of Admiralty, and I trust you
will see the necessity of establishing here one
soon, as the want of it creates great delay, and
often prevents the seizing of vessels had there
been a Court of Admiralty here. I should have
been enabled to considerably purify the Indian
Commerce, a great portion of which is now carried
on in ships under false Foreign colours, often
commanded by Britons, which are continually
arriving here, daring and defying the vigilance
of Justice.16
Two years later, on 6
January 1797, a Vice-Admiralty Court was established
at the Cape of Good Hope, under the Great Seal of the
High Court of Admiralty. On the second British
occupation in 1806, a Vice-Admiralty Court was again
established by a Royal Commission dated 1 September
of the same year. The Governor was vested with the
office of Vice-Admiral until the Vice-Admiralty
Courts Act of 1863 made further commissions
unnecessary.17 The Vice-Admiralty Court had two branches
known respectively as the Instance Court, which
exercised normal Admiralty jurisdiction, and the
Prize Court. The latter was only empowered to act
following a proclamation of war. The procedure and
practice governing a Prize Court was regulated by
Prize Court Rules which extended to all matters
relating to booty of war, including ships or goods
seized by the naval forces of the Crown. A right of
appeal from Prize Court orders and decrees would
initially have been made to the Lords Commissioners
of Appeals in Prize Causes, superseded by the
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in 1833.18 The
right of appeal from decisions of an Instance Court,
however, was made to the Court of Admiralty and
Delegates .19
In 1797 the
Vice-Admiralty Court was composed of the following
members: the Governor, Lord Macartney; the
Lieutenant-Governor, Major-General Francis Dundas;
the Judge of the Vice-Admiralty Court; the Secretary
of the Colony, Andrew Barnard; the Commander-in-Chief
of the Naval Forces at the Cape Station, Admiral Sir
George Keith Elphinstone; and 'all Admirals,
Vice-Admirals, Rear-Admirals, Captains and Commanders
of our Ships of War for the time being who are or
shall be within the Admiralty jurisdiction of the
Colony of the Cape of Good Hope'.20
King George III of Britain empowered these
commissioners to call and assemble a Court of
Admiralty on ship board or upon the land, provided
the Court consisted of a minimum of three
commissioners, although seven was preferable. The
comrnissioners were authorized to issue warrants to
bring any persons accused of piracy, or felony to
trial and be adjudged according to the rules of
Admiralty.21
By 1822 the
Vice-Admiralty Court at the Cape was reported by
William Bird, Comptroller of Customs for twenty-six
years, to consist of a judge, registrar, marshal,
King's proctor and proctors. The Vice-Admiralty Court
played an important role during wartime, but in peace
this court had little business because the ordinary
Court of Justice claimed concurrent jurisdiction in
all cases of forfeiture, seizure of ships or
merchandise and breaches of custom and navigation
laws. Therefore, there was a race on all such
occasions between the King's proctor and the fiscal,
the representatives from each of these courts, for
the priority of getting the matter into court.22
A conflict of
justice
One of the most
remarkable examples of conflict between the ordinary
Court of Justice and the Vice-Admiralty Court took
place shortly after Du Pre Alexander, second Earl of
Caledon became Governor.
In April 1808 the
fiscal heard, through one of his many spies, that the
Portuguese ship Rosalia, had landed slaves illegally.
He duly informed the deputy marshal of his intention
to arrest the ship. Imagine the sub-sheriff's
surprise, when, acting on the fiscal's command to
seize the Rosalia, he became involved in a race in
Table Bay with another cutter bearing the deputy
marshal of the Vice-Admiralty Court.23 The
Governor's despatch to Viscount Castlereagh, Colonial
Secretary of State for War and Colonies, describes
the subsequent events as follows:
The boats reached the
vessel at nearly the same time, that in which was the
sub-sheriff was first alongside, he had hold of the
rope, his feet on the ladder, and was about to ascend
when the deputy marshal passing from his own boat
into the other, pushed him away, and by that means
was first on deck. Each party claimed and kept
possession, and each assuring the plea of prior
capture, instituted proceedings against her.24
Fortunately, the
Vice-Admiralty Court released the ship, but, the
Court of Justice found the master guilty of
clandestinely landing slaves and sentenced him to a
fine. Castlereagh supported and upheld the
Vice-Admiralty Court's decision that, in cases
involving revenue, the Articles of Capitulation gave
the right of jurisdiction to the Court of Justice.
The fiscal had obviously wanted the fine imposed to
be received into the Colonial treasury rather than
that of Vice-Admiralty. The latter went directly to
the Crown whereas the fiscal received a third of all
fines as part of his emoluments. On this evidence, it
appears, therefore, that the concurrent jurisdiction
of the two courts was only conceded in non-revenue
matters with the conflict in these instances being
resolved by the court in which process had first
begun.25
Vice-Admiralty Court
proceedings appear to have been conducted originally
at Government House with John Holland as judge.26 By
1800 this court had moved to new quarters in the
Castle where it remained until the Supreme Court was
established in 1828.27
The need for more
suitable premises from which to conduct the daily
business of the Vice-Admiralty Registry is evident in
a letter from an actuary at the Castle addressed to
the judge of the Vice-Admiralty Court in September
1800. In this letter, the increase in Vice-Admiralty
business, the crowded offices, continual
interruptions as well as a lack of secrecy required
by the inspection of papers are listed as daily
inconveniences.28
The creation of a
Supreme Court A Supreme Court was established in Cape
Town in 1828 following the issue of a Charter of
Justice in 1827 which abolished the former Court of
Justice. The Charter designated Sir John Wylde as
Chief Justice and appointed William Menzies, William
Westbrooke Burton and George Kekewich as the three
puisne judges.29 The Chief Justice was to take rank next to
the Governor, Lieutenant-Governor and the
Commander-in-Chief of the Military Forces, and the
judges were to take rank next to the Chief Justice.30
Sir John Wylde, as
Chief Justice, was responsible for the entire conduct
of business in the Court of Vice-Admiralty.3l In
accordance with these duties, Wylde wrote to the
Secretary of the Governor in July 1828 to request
that a Registrar's Office and a Record Room be
provided, saying that he 'had understood it to be
arranged that the two offices lately occupied by the
Secretary of the Court of Appeals and immediately
opposite the Vice-Admiralty Court Room should be
appropriated for the purpose'. He concluded this
letter by expressing the evident need of
accommodation by saying that 'since the surrender of
the original public offices in the Castle (work has
been) conducted improperly, as I conceive--at the
private house of the Registrar of the Court'.32
The
administration of maritime justice
The scope of the
administration of justice by the Vice-Admiralty Court
at the Cape is evident when examining extracts from
original documents. Sometimes this jurisdiction
resulted in the death penalty. For example, on 26
June 1798 Vice-Admiralty Court proceedings held at
Government House charged three men with committing
piracy and felony while on board the Princess
Charlotte. Although they were granted counsel to
defend the charges made, the sentence of death was
passed by the judge, who signed the warrant for their
execution.33
Most of the records,
however, deal with matters of prize. Prizes made navy
flag officers and captains rich men: during the
Napoleonic Wars half a dozen saved over £200,000
each, and £50,000 was not uncommon.
It is interesting to
consider the very real promise of prize-money made to
navy recruits, evident in the following excerpts from
a recruiting poster of the 1790s:
Three able bodied
men wanted . . . To serve in His Majesty's Navy .
. . It is hoped that no true-Born BRITISH TAR
will lose so favourable an Opportunity. Such as
make an immediate Application will be preferred,
and over and above a handsome Bounty, will be
entitled to, and receive, Advantages superior to
any other Service, viz. The Families and Friends
of Volunteers will receive Monthly Pay, and the
Volunteers themselves will have a bountiful
Supply of CLOATHING, BEEF, GROG, FLIP, and STRONG
BEER, also a Certainty of PRIZE-MONEY, as the Men
entered for this Service will be sent to Capture
the Rich Spanish Galleons and in Consequence will
return loaded with DOLLARS and HONOURS, to spend
their Days in PEACE and PLENTY.34
Procedure in
cases of prize
The extent of
jurisdiction was local, being confined to the
adjudication of property within the defined limits of
three nautical miles in territorial waters.
Halsbury's Laws of
England describes the procedure in cases of prize as
follows. A cause for the condemnation of a ship as
prize would commence by the service of a writ by a
marshal being affixed to a mast and a copy thereof
being handed to the master or other person in charge
of such ship, once an affidavit had been filed. In
respect of service of a writ on freight being
effected, the writ would be shown to the registrar
and a copy left with him. In a cause against a captor
for restitution, the writ would be served on the
captors except where the ship was brought in for
adjudication.
The release of
property in court custody was effected once an
applicant had lodged a release with the marshal. It
was the marshal's responsibility to ensure that any
conditions imposed by the release were fulfilled and
that any fees due to him were paid, before ordering
the release of property which was then recorded on
the filing of a certificate.
Evidence on which
causes of condemnation of ships was heard depended on
the affidavits as to the ship papers and these, if
any, being exhibited. No ship could be condemned in
the absence of an appearance or claim until six
months had elapsed from the service of a writ, unless
there were papers on the ship and sufficient proof on
the evidence of witnesses from the captured ship that
such ship belonged to the enemy.
The judge would order
the mode of the hearing of the cause, the bringing of
claims and pleadings as well as the discovery and
inspection of documents required in the case. The
registrar would send notice to all the parties of the
day on which the cause would be held. Where the judge
condemned property as prize, the decree of
condemnation would be enforced by the following
methods. Either the property would be sold provided
it was still under arrest, or if sold before
condemnation and the proceeds not paid into court,
the persons holding those proceeds would be ordered
to pay them. Goods condemned as prize would be
arrested until the persons responsible for such
freight made payment into court. In a restitution
case; if the judge decreed that property seized or
taken as prize be restored to the owner, a release
would be ordered.35
The following
selection of extracts from archival documents of the
Vice-Admiralty Court at the Cape, illustrate the
range of causes heard.
In one of the cases
during 1799 Michael Hogan, agent for the captors,
brought in and exhibited an account of sales of the
vessel, La Rosa, her tackle, apparel and furniture,
as well as 48 slaves, together with an affidavit as
to the truth of said account.36
In another cause held
in the Court Room at the Castle during the same year,
the claim of two men of HMS L'Oiseau was
heard in respect of the capture of the Danish ship,
the Angelique, which 'now lies in Table Bay
at great hazard and the cargo laden on board the same
in danger of being spoiled from the leaky state of
the said ship'.37
A request for the
issue of a Decree of Unlivery was granted, whereby
the cargo was safely stored. According to the Prize
Act, the marshal required a person from HM Custom
House to attend at the storehouse where the goods
landed from the Angelique were deposited and seals
and locks duly affixed before the goods were
delivered for sale by public vendue.38
The prize-money
awarded to the captain, officers and seamen of the
sloop HMS Redwing, as a result of the
seizure of the French schooner La Sylphe,
was considerable. The enemy vessel was brought to
Simon's Bay, condemned as prize and sold by public
auction under decree of the Court of Vice-Admiralty
Instance held on 21 September 1819. The money
realised by William Rose, acting as merchant, lawful
attorney and agent for the Redwing amounted to a sum
of 7 293 rix-dollars, 4 shillings and 2
stuivers.39
The problem of
concurrent jurisdiction between the Court of Justice
and the Vice-Admiralty Court remained unresolved and
arose again in a case in March 1821 where the cargoes
of two East India Company ships, the Marchioness
of Ely and the General Hewitt, were
seized by His Majesty's Customs, on account of
defective manifests.40 The agents for
these two ships were instructed by the deputy marshal
to appear before the judge of Vice-Admiralty Instance
Court in the Castle or in his chambers on the third
day after the said arrest to answer before Henry
Ellis, Acting Collector and William Wilberforce Bird,
Comptroller of HM Customs, in cause of Breach of the
Laws of Navigation and Reserve.41
Here follows a
verbatim report of the cargo on board the Marchioness
of Ely laden at the port of Canton, dated 14
Dec. 1820. British built and captained by Brook Kay,
she was bound for the Cape of Good Hope and St.
Helena.:42
- Packages
Eight hundred
boxes Songchi tea
Three hundred and twenty boxes Souchong tea
Nine hundred and eight boxes Congo tea
Five hundred and sixty three chests Congo
tyea
One hundred boxes Pekoe tea
One hundred and twenty five boxes Ginger
Thirty chests Nankeen cloth
One Case Fans & Artificial flowers
One Case Table mats2Silk handkerchiefs
One Case Ivory & tortoiseshell articles
Above goods consigned to company's
agent
One Case Dressing cases
Six Cases Chairs
Two Packages Washhandstands
Nine Cases Silks
One Case Beds of two tables
Two Packages Claws of two tables
Five Packages Five Washhandstands
Two Packages Two toilets
Two Packages Tables
Twenty Four Tubs Sugar candy
Nine Cases Silk goods
One Case Black velvet
One Case Writing desks
One Case Writing desks
Two Cases Painted mats
Three Cases Work tables & mats
One Case Umbrellas
Two Boxes Nankeen
Four Cases Lacquered ware
Seventy six Boxes Sweetmeats
Four Packages Dried oranges
One Package Cittrons
Three Cases Soy
Twenty Boxes Toys
Above goods to Captain Kay
The details of
numerous prize sales decreed by the Vice-Admiralty
Court listed in the Cape Town Gazette
and African Advertiser
provide a valuable record of the cargoes carried.
Apart from goods already listed in the manifest of
the Marchioness of Ely, pounds of ebony,
coffee and pepper as well as boxes of candles and
crockery and bales of cotton were sold.
Slavers also formed
part of prize proceedings as the Navy had the
responsiblity of putting an end to the slave-trade.
Many captured slavers were brought to Simon's Town to
be sold and freed slaves were kept ashore until they
could be indentured to farmers.43
A Portuguese slaver
the Diana brought as prize to Table Bay by
the cruiser, HMS Mutine, was driven ashore
at the Imhoff Battery by a north-westerly gale on 7
January 1846.44 Fortunately, although she carried a cargo
of slaves from Penba, Zanzibar, no lives were lost.45
Most wrecks in Table
Bay occurred during the north-westerly gales when
vessels unable to escape to False Bay were liable to
be blown ashore on Woodstock Beach and at the mouth
of the Salt River.46 For this reason,
vessels were instructed from 1737 not to use Table
Bay between 15 May until 15 August but the safer
anchorage of Simon's Bay.47
From the early 1700s,
strict rules prevented the theft of shipwrecked
cargo. The Court of Justice always ordered soldiers
to the beach to erect a gallows once it was known
that a ship had gone ashore.48
One of the most
exciting and spectacular cases of capture of a vessel
as prize took place just outside Table Bay on 5
August 1863, when the Confederate raider, the Alabama,
succeeded in taking the Federate bark, Sea Bride.
This led to the Captain of the Alabama,
Raphael Semmes, and his crew being greeted with much
excitement by the local population and was probably
the reason for the composition of the well-known
folk-song 'Daar kom die Alabama'.49
However, Mr Graham, the US Consul, protested that the
Sea Bride had been taken within the marine
league. But the evidence of various witnesses,
including the lighthouse keeper at Green Point, the
Collector of Customs and whalermen, together with the
captain of HMS Valorous, who had the final
word on behalf of the neutral power, resulted in
Semmes' capture being judged legal.50
The abolition
of the Vice-Admiralty Court
Admiralty jurisdiction
was vested in the Supreme Court under the Colonial
Courts of Admiralty Act in 1890.51
This was only effected at the Cape in July 1891 when
the Vice-Admiralty Court was abolished.52 The
silver oar would therefore have been used by all the
Chief Justices of the Cape of Good Hope in their
office as judges of the Vice-Admiralty Court from
1806 until this court was abolished. The names of the
Chief Justices are listed as follows:
Sir John Wylde
1828-1855
Vacant 1856-1857
Sir Sydney Smith Bell (Acting) 1857-1858
Sir William Hodges 1858-1868
Sir Sydney Smith Bell 1863-1873
and finally, Sir Johan Hendrik, later Lord De
Villiers, Baron of Wynberg, 1873-1910, who became
the first Chief Justice of the Union.53
The Cape of Good Hope
silver oar passed into the hands of his descendants
from whom it was acquired in 1989. The oar is now on
permanent exhibition in the Old Supreme Court, the
building from which Vice-Admiralty justice was
dispensed in the 19th century.
Conclusion
The history of the
silver oar and the establishment of a Vice-Admiralty
Court at the Cape of Good Hope illustrates the
influence of English Admiralty Law as a result of the
taking of the Cape by the dominant maritime
commercial power in the 19th century.
|