than a boat sufficient to carry his own corn and fruits." The navigation which the Romans cultivated, was for the purposes of war, and not of commerce, except so far as was requisite for the supply of the Roman market with provisions." This is the reason, that amidst such a vast collection of wise regulations as are embodied in the fabric of the Roman law, affecting almost every interest and relation in human life, we meet with only a few brief and borrowed details on the interesting subject of maritime affairs. But those titles atone for

a Livy, lib. 21. ch. 63. Dig. 50. 5. 3. lib. 5. s. 18.

Cicero, Orat. in Verrem,

b Huet, Histoire du Com. et de la Navig. des ancients, p. 278, 279. Polybius in his General History, b. 3. c. 3, gives the substance of a very remarkable commercial treaty, between Rome and Carthage, made the very first year after the banishment of the Tarquins. It goes to prove that the Romans were then a great commercial people. Polybius says he translated it from the original brazen tables existing in the capitol in the apartment of the Ediles, and in a language so very obsolete as to be difficult of interpretation. By that treaty, neither the Romans nor their allies were to sail beyond the fair promontory which forms the eastern boundary of the Gulf of Carthage. If forced beyond it, they were not allowed to take or purchase any thing, except necessaries for refiting their vessels, and for sacrifice, and they were to depart within five days. The object of this provision, was to exclude the Romans and their allies from trading with Egypt and the countries on the lesser Syrtis. But the Roman merchants were to have free access to Sardinia, Sicily, Carthage, and the western coast of Africa, and to pay no customs, but only the usual fees to the scribe and cryer. The sale of their cargoes was to be effected by public auction, and the public faith of Carthage was pledged to the foreign merchant for his payment of the amount of such sales. The Carthaginians engage, on their part, not to offer any injury to the Roman allies in Italy, nor build any fortresses in the Latin territory. This treaty, as Niebuhr sagaciously observes, (History of Rome, vol. 1. 468,) divulges the fact of the commercial greatness of Rome before the expulsion of Tarquin; but the liberal and enlarged spirit of commerce which inspired the Romans under their kings, was soon after lost in the passion for war and conquest.

their brevity, by their excellent sense and practical wisdom. They contain the elements of those very rules which have received the greatest expansion and improvement in the maritime codes of modern nations. Whatever came from the pens of such sages as Papinian, Paul, Julian, Labeo, Ulpian, and Scævola, carried with it demonstrative proofs of the wisdom of their philosophy, and the elegance of their taste."

a It may be useful to cast the eye for a moment over the most material principles and provisions in the Roman law, relative to maritime rights.

The title Nauta, Caupones, Stabularii, ut recepta restituant, (Dig. 4.9.) related to the responsibility of mariners, inn, and stable keepers; and we meet here with the principle which pervades the maritime law of all modern nations, for it has been as generally adopted, and as widely diffused, as the Roman law. Masters of vessels were held responsible, as common carriers, for every loss happening to property confided to them, though the loss happened without their fault, unless it proceeded from some peril of the sea, or inevitable accident; nisi si quid damno fatali contingit, vel vis major contigerit. Ulpian placed the rule on the ground of public policy, as it was necessary to confide largely in the honesty of such people, who have uncommon opportunity to commit secret and impenetrable frauds. The master was responsible for the acts of his seamen, and each joint owner of the vessel was answerable in proportion to his interest.

The title Furti adversus Nautas, Caupones, Stabularios, (Dig. 47. 5.) related to the same subject, and the owner and master were therein held answerable for thefts committed by any person employed under them in the ship. But the law distinguished between thefts by mariners and by passengers, and the master was not liable for thefts by the latter.

The title De Exercitoria actione (Dig. 14. 1.) treated of the responsibility of ship owners for the acts of the master. This, said Ulpian, was a very reasonable and useful provision, for as the shipper was obliged to deal with masters of vessels, it was right that the owner, who appointed the master, and held him out to the world as an agent worthy of confidence, should be bound by his acts. This responsibility extended to every thing that the master did in pursuance of his power and duty as master. It extended to his contracts for wages, provisions, and repairs for the ship, and for the loan of money for the use of the ship. The

(2.) Of the maritime legislation of the middle ages. Upon the revival of commerce, after the destruction of the Western empire of the Romans, maritime rules became necessary. The earliest code of modern sea laws was compiled

owner was not responsible, except for acts done by the master in his character of master; but if he took up money for the use of the ship, and afterwards converted it to his own use, the owner was bound to respond, for he first gave credit to the master. A case of necessity for the money must have existed; and in that case only, the power to borrow came within the master's general authority. The lender was obliged to make out, at his peril, the existence of such necessity; and then he was entitled to recover of the owner, without being obliged to prove the actual application of the money to the purposes of the voyage. So, if the master went beyond his ordinary powers, as for instance, if he was appointed to a vessel employed to carry goods of a particular description, as hemp or vegetables, and he took on board shafts of granite or marble, the owner was not answerable for his acts; for there were vessels destined on purpose to carry such articles, and others to carry passengers, and some to navigate on rivers, and others to go to sea. If several owners were concerned in the appointment of the master, they were each responsible in solido for his contracts.

The title De Lege Rhodia de Jactu (Dig. 14. 2.) is the celebrated fragment of the Rhodian law on the subject of jettison.

It was ordained, that if goods were thrown overboard, or a mast cut away in a storm, or other common danger, to lighten and save the vcssel, and the vessel be saved by reason of the sacrifice, all concerned must contribute to bear the loss, as it was incurred voluntarily for the good of all, and it was extremely equitable that all should rateably bear the burden according to the value of their property. There were some reasonable limitations to the rule. It did not apply to the persons of the free passengers on board, for the body of a freeman was said not to be susceptible of valuation; and it did not apply to the provisions which were used in common. The goods sacrificed were to be estimated at their actual value, and not at the anticipated profit; but the goods saved were to be estimated for the sake of contribution, not at the price for which they were bought, but at that for which they might sell.

The title De Nautico Fœnore, (Dig. 22. 2. Code 4. 33.) regulated maritime loans. The lender was allowed to take extraordinary interest, because he staked his principal on the success of the voyage and

for the free and trading republic of Amalphi, in Italy, abcut the time of the first crusade, towards the end of the eleventh century. This compilation, which has been known by the name of the Amalphitan Table, superseded the ancient laws; and its authority and equity were acknowledged by all the states of Italy, though the whole work has now passed into irretrievable oblivion." Other states and cities began to form

the safety of the vessel, and took as his security a pledge of the ship or cargo. The maritime interest ceased upon the arrival of the vessel; and if she was lost by reason of seizure, for having contraband goods of the debtor on board, the lender was still entitled to his principal and interest, because the loss arose from the fault of the debtor.

The title De Incendio, Ruina, naufragio, Rate, nave expugnata, (Dig. 47. 9.) related to the plunder of vessels in distress; and it did great honour to the justice and humanity of the Roman law. The edict of the prætor gave fourfold damages to the owner, against any person who, by force or fraud, plundered a ship in distress. The guilty persons were liable not only to be punished criminally on behalf of the government, but to make just retribution to the aggrieved party; and the severity of the rule, said Ulpian, was just and necessary, in order to prevent such abuses in cases of such calamity. The same provision was extended to losses by those means during a calamity by fire. The law applied equally to the fraudulent receiver and original taker of the shipwrecked articles, and he was held to be equally guilty.

This cursory view of the leading doctrines of the Roman maritime law, (for I have not thought it necessary to take notice of all the refined and intelligent distinctions,) is sufficient to show how greatly the maritime codes of the moderns are indebted to the enlightened policy and cultivated science of the Roman lawyers. The spirit of equity, in all its parity and simplicity, seems to have pervaded those ancient institutions, a Azuni's Maritime Law, vol. 1. 376. Mr. Swinburne, who visited Amalphi on his excursion to the ruins of Pestum, in 1779, found the city in great decay, with only the wrecks of its former grandeur. Its trade withered with the loss of its liberty, and passed to Pisa, Genoa, and Venice. It was conquered by the Normans, and plundered by the Pisans, who carried away a copy of the Pandects found there, and we hear no more of the Amalphitan Table, or of the high reputation of the maritime tribunals of Amalphi.-Swinburne's Travels in the two Sici lies, vol. 2. 138-150.

collections of maritime law; and a compilation of the usages and laws of the Mediterranean powers was made and published, under the title of the Consolato del mare. This commercial code is said to have been digested at Barcelona, in the Catalan tongue, during the middle ages, by order of the kings of Arragon. The Spaniards vindicate the claim of their country to the honour of this compilation; and the opinion of Casaregis, who published an Italian edition of it at Venice, in 1737, with an excellent commentary, and of Boucher, who, in 1808, translated the Consolato into French, from an edition printed at Barcelona in 1494, are in favour of the Spanish claim." But the origin of the work is so far involved in the darkness of those ages, as to render the source of it very doubtful; and Azuni, in a laboured article, endeavours to prove that the Consolato was compiled by the Pisans, in Italy, during the period of their maritime prosperity. Grotius, on the other hand, and Marquardus, in his work De Jure Mercatorum, hold it to be a collection made in the time. of the crusades, from the maritime ordinances of the Greek emperors, of the emperors of Germany, the kings of France, Spain, Syria, Cyprus, the Baleares, and from those of the republics of Venice and Genoa. It was probably a compilation made by private persons.;. but whoever may have been the authors of it, and at whatever precise point of time the Consolato may have been compiled, it is certain that it became the common law of all the commercial powers of Eu

a Hallam, in his View of Europe during the Middle Ages, vol. 2. 278. thinks the reasoning of Boucher, in his Consulat de la Mer, tom.. 1. 70-76. to be inconclusive, and that Pisa first practised those usages, which a century or two afterwards were formally digested and promul gated at Barcelona.

b Maritime Law, vol. 1. 326–372.

c Lib. 3. ch. 1. s. 5. note.

d Boulay Paty, in his Cours de Droit Commercial Maritime, tom. 1. 60. insists, that Azuni has refuted Grotius and the other publicists on this point in a triumphant manner.