Behind the Scenes: Prize-of-War in Historical Context

David W. Trenholm
04 December 2008
HIST 3663 X1
Dr. Stephen Henderson
 There was a great deal of power within the Vice-Admiralty courts of the New World,

power that extended to the maritime affairs of the people who called the Americas home. As the

only route to the Americas lay across the Atlantic, Vice-Admiralty courts had an enormous

responsibility when seeing to the legal issues that accompanied any serious volume of maritime

traffic. The screenplay Prize-of-War focuses on the Vice-Admiralty court at Halifax, which was

unique in its disposition over the colonies of British North America. The court at Halifax, on its

creation, enjoyed unique powers that no other court in the New World could match; Halifax had

an effective jurisdiction from Canada to Florida, and any enterprising mariner could petition the

court for assistance, and would receive it in some manner or another. Prize-of-War revolves

around the case of a seized British vessel, a prize, that was captured by a Royal Navy captain.

While the characters within Prize-of-War are fictitious, they are based off of a real event in

history with a relatively accurate legal approximation. The screenplay also touches on the

inherent problem with Admiralty courts of any stature throughout history—the distribution of

profits from a seized and auctioned vessel. This manner of incentive engendered a great deal of

bitterness from respondents within the system, as any judge would undoubtedly find himself

considerably richer if he ruled in the “correct” manner. Vice-Admiralty courts represent an era

that is still remembered vividly in literature to this day—the age of fighting-sail—and vestiges of

its authority still remain in the maritime law of many Western nations.

Most of the history behind Prize-of-War comes from the court of Vice-Admiralty at

Virginia and Halifax, where there exists a good source of detailed knowledge, not only on the

procedural traditions and conventions of an Admiralty court, but also on specific cases and trials

that took place in both courts. The difference between a court of Vice-Admiralty, and a court of

Admiralty lay in the distance between the two. Vice-Admiralty courts were located in colonies
and possessions abroad, away from the imperial home of Great Britain.1 The High Court of

Admiralty was located in London, and was often the final stop for any litigator concerning

appeals and petitions. Notwithstanding the High Court of Admiralty, Vice-Admiralty courts

wielded a considerable degree of power before civil bodies began to grow in prominence, which

slowly deprived Admiralty courts of any practical application.2 Courts of Admiralty followed

certain procedure, laid out quite plainly by George Reese, a scholar who has had a particular

strong grasp on the niceties and traditions that were found within these courts. Just like modern

courts have a certain procedure, such as the laying of a charge, the calling of witnesses, and the

final statement by an attorney, so did Admiralty courts, and many traditions that are followed

today can be recognized within the conventions of these courts. The plaintiff was instead a

libellant, who rather issued a libel than a complaint. This was usually answered by the defendant,

usually represented in the form of a proctor or attorney (as it is done today). The judge, generally

a civilly appointed member of the community or jurist sent from Great Britain, issued a

proclamation and decree in favour of one of the parties.3 These cases ordinarily lasted a few

days, and a judge would often convene a court on his own whim, up until such time courts of

Vice-Admiralty became a regularly scheduled affair.4 While certainly these procedures seem

simple in such a modest presentation, in all actuality they may have appeared quite inaccessible

and complicated if observed by anyone in modern times. Prize-of-War illustrates the procedure

of a court of Vice-Admiralty quite simply, but it is important that its potential for complexity is

not underestimated.

1
Donald Fyson, The Court Structure of Quebec and Lower Canada, 1764 to 1860 [record on-line] (Montreal:
Université Laval 2004, accessed 17th November 2008); available from
http://www.hst.ulaval.ca/profs/dfyson/courtstr/V_adm.htm; Internet.
2
Albert Gray, “Admiralty Jurisdiction in Inland Waters,” Journal of the Society of Comparative Legislation 12, no. 1
(1911): 33
3
George Reese, "The Court of Vice-Admiralty in Virginia and Some Case of 1770-1775," The Virginia Magazine of
History and Biography 88, no. 12 (July 1980): 303.
4
Fyson, The Court Structure of Quebec and Lower Canada, 1764 to 1860.
 The plot in Prize-of-War is inspired by a Virginian case that went to trial in 1758,

involving the seizure of the Prudent Hannah, a brigantine bound for Port-au-Prince with French

prisoners-of-war onboard. Captain Legge, of the H.M.S Chesterfield, was the Royal Navy officer

responsible for the seizure. Much like Captain Marinus in Prize-of-War, Legge went on a short

cruise while awaiting a fleet of trade ships to arrive for escort duty, and happened upon the

Prudent Hannah on its way to Port-au-Prince.5 In addition to a French vessel also seized, the

Hannah was brought back to port and Legge began the process of issuing a libel within the court

of Vice-Admiralty. In the screenplay, the captain of the brigantine, Master John Hevely, claims to

have received a writ of certification legalizing the quantity of goods stored on his vessel the Dart;

it was a very similar situation with Legge and the captured Prudent Hannah. The captain of the

brig, a Paul Tew, had his cargo appraised and certified—that writ, however, was maintained, and

presented in court.6 Such evidence did not save nor help Mister Tew, and his ship, much like the

Dart in Prize-of-War, was seized and sold at auction. Although not blatantly illustrated in the

screenplay, Judge William Spry would have profited considerably from the sale of the Dart, just

as the Judge in the Tew had. Indeed, the profits to be made by Judges and Lieutenants Governor

became a serious problem in the colonies, as more defendants became upset with the seizure of

their property for what appeared to be unscrupulous reasons.

One text, dated 1814, outlines the concerns that had been raised regarding courts of

Admiralty and the conflict of interest that existed within them. It called into question a judge’s

judicial independence, and whether or not a decision was prompted by a desire to see justice

done, or to line one’s pockets.7 James Stewart, the reporter for the Court, details the legislation

5
George Reese, "A Case of 1758 in the Vice-Admiralty Court of Virginia," The Virginia Magazine of History and
Biography 89, no. 4 (October 1981): 406.
6
Reese, “A Case of 1758 in the Vice-Admiralty Court of Virginia,” 414.
7
James Stewart, Reports of Cases, Argued and Determined in the Court of Vice-Admiralty, at Halifax, in Nova
Scotia, from the Commencement of the War, in 1803, to the end of the year 1813, in the time of Alexander Croke,
LL.D. Judge of that Court (London: J. Butterworth and son, Fleet-Street, 1814) vii.
that had been put into place, including limits on salaries for judges, and the amount of possible

profits gleaned from the seizure and auction of prize-vessels. This extra revenue was made not to

exceed the certain total salary for a Admiralty court judge—provisions that were broadly

welcomed in the colonies. 8 Before such a reform, Admiralty judges had sweeping, unchecked

powers in the matter of prizes seized lawfully, powers that they enjoyed exclusively within the

legal community.9This is even more of an improvement from earlier maritime law, when if such

a case was brought to court, there was very little in the way of convention or written law that

could deprive the captor of a prize once seized.10 In Prize-of-War, the pretentious William Spry

would have had good reason to rule in favour of Captain Marinus—indeed, his cut would have

exceeded four hundred pounds, which would have accounted for nearly a quarter of a judge’s

annual salary if Stewart’s records are to be believed.11

It is worth pointing out that many of the characters in Prize-of-War are entirely fictitious

—save the actual Judge, which certainly may have presided over the Vice-Admiralty courts at

Halifax in 1764. Much of the procedure and process was derived from George Reese’s article,

which did not make clear the role of the admiral, if any (though there is some mention, though

dubious, of a vice-admiral in attendance in some courts).12 Any format or formula the court

followed was not described in any great detail, notwithstanding the issuance of a libel from the

libellant, and the response that normally followed. The screenplay, however, accurately

demonstrates the authority a court of Vice-Admiralty had over maritime affairs, and the

helplessness many defendants were at the hands of an overbearing justice system that, until a

later period, were vulnerable to unscrupulous motivators; motivators such as the amount of
8
Stewart, vii.
9
George F. Steckley, “Litigious Mariners: Wage Cases in the Seventeenth-Century Admiralty Court.” The Historical
Journal 42, no. 2 (1999): 317.
10
R.G. Marsden, “The High Court of Admiralty in Relation to National, Commerce and the Colonization of America.
A.D. 1550-1650.” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 16, no. 0 (1902): 73.
11
Reese, “A Case of 1758 in the Vice-Admiralty Court of Virginia,” 420.
12
Virtual Museum of History, “William Spry, Famous Americans.” (Virtualology.com: Appletons Encyclopedia
2001, accessed 03 December 2008); available from http://famousamericans.net/williamspry; Internet.
money to be made in the seizure and sale of otherwise honest and lawful vessels and

merchantmen.

David Trenholm

Bibliography
Fyson, Donald. "The Court Structure of Quebec and Lower Canada, 1764 to 1860." Montreal:
Université Laval 2004, accessed 17th November 2008; available from
http://www.hst.ulaval.ca/profs/dfyson/courtstr/V_adm.htm

George Reese, "The Court of Vice-Admiralty in Virginia and Some Case of 1770-1775," The
Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 88, no. 12 (July 1980) 301-337.

George Reese, "A Case of 1758 in the Vice-Admiralty Court of Virginia," The Virginia Magazine
of History and Biography 89, no. 4 (October 1981) 405-424.

Gray, Albert. "Admiralty Jurisdiction in Inland Waters." Journal of the Society of Comparative
Legislation 12, no. 1 (1911): pp 33-43.

Marsden, R.G. "The High Court of Admiralty in Relation to National History, Commerce and the
Colonisation of America. A.D. 1550-1650." Transactions of the Royal Historical Society
16.0 (1902) 69-96.

Steckley, George F. "Litigious Mariners: Wage Cases in the Seventeenth-Century Admiralty

Court." The Historical Journal 42.2 (1999) 315-345.

Stewart, James. Reports of Cases, Argued and Determined in the Court of Vice-Admiralty, at
Halifax, in Nova Scotia, from the Commencement of the War, in 1803, to the end of the
year 1813, in the time of Alexander Croke, LL.D. Judge of that Court. London: J.
Butterworth and Son, Fleet-Street, 1814.

Virtual Museum of History. “William Spry, Famous Americans.” Virtualology.com: Appletons

Encyclopedia 2001, accessed 03 December 2008; available from
http://famousamericans.net/williamspry; Internet.