Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 19.djvu/790

Rh 766 P li I P in council. In 1833 the judicial committee of the privy council was established as a permanent court by 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 41. Under this and later Acts the judicial committee now consists of the lord president, the lord chancellor, and other persons who fill or have filled high judicial offices (all unpaid), of two retired Indian or colonial judges who receive an allowance for attending the sittings of the committee, and of paid members, now two in number, appointed under 34 & 35 Viet. c. 91. The Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1876, provides for what is in effect the union of the House of Lords and of the privy council in their judicial capacities by the lords of appeal in ordinary gradually becoming judges of both courts. After the death or resignation of the present paid members these two high judicial bodies will be practically combined, and a near approach will be made to the medieval maynum concilium in an ultimate court of appeal from the whole of the British dominions. In proceedings under the Church Discipline Act archbishops and bishops who are members of the privy council are members of the judicial committee, 3 & 4 Viet. c. 86. In proceedings under the Public Worship Act, 1874, archbishops and bishops attend as assessors according to rules made by order in council, 39 & 40 Viet. c. 59, 14. The jurisdiction of the judicial committee is either original or appellate. The original jurisdiction is the less important, and consists of certain powers conferred by the Copy right, Patent, Endowed Schools, and other Acts. The power most frequently exercised is that of extending the term of patents. The appellate jurisdiction is entirely regulated by statute, with the exception of the rarely occurring appeal from orders made by the lord chancellor of Great Britain or of Ireland in exercise of powers conft-rred by royal sign manual for the custody of idiots and lunatics. Appeals lie from the Arches Court of Canterbury, from a vice-admiralty court abroad, and from the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man, India, and the colonies. Appeals are either of right or by leave. Appeals lie as of right when the value of the matter at issue is of a certain amount (the amount varying according to the appeal rules of the different foreign possessions), and in a few other cases. Appeals lie at the discretion of the judicial committee, on leave being obtained by petition for special leave to appeal. The proceedings in all cases alike, whether original or appellate, are by petition (see PETITION). The petition is addressed to the crown in council in the first instance. See, in addition to the writers on constitutional history, Sir Harris Nicolas, Proceedings and Ordinances of the Privy Council of Eimlaml ; Dicey, The Privy Council ; Macpherson, Practice of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. (J. Wt.) PRIZE, or PRIZE OF WAR, denotes the ship or goods of an enemy, or in transitu to an enemy, captured at sea. Goods captured on land are not prize, but booty of war. To be good prize the capture must be on the high seas or in the territorial waters of one of the belligerents, and must be by an armed vessel duly commissioned by the sovereign of the captor. A capture made in neutral waters is a violation of neutrality, and may be restored at the discretion of the neutral power. Most nations have municipal regulations upon the subject. Thus prize cap tured in breach of the neutrality of Great Britain may be restored by the High Court of Justice (Admiralty Division) under the powers of the Foreign Enlistment Act, 1870, 33 &. 34 Viet. c. 90, li. Capture may be actual or constructive. Constructive or joint captors are those who have assisted the actual captors by conveying encourage ment to them or intimidation to the enemy. All public ships of war within signalling distance are usually held entitled to share in the proceeds of the capture. This rule is incorporated in the United States code of prize 1-uv, the Act of Congress of June 30, 1864. It is not all memy s property that is good prize. The conflicting interests of neutrals have led to modifications of the general belligerent right of seizing enemy s property wherever found, a right which had become established as part of the general maritime law as early as the Consolato del Mare (see vol. vi. p. 317, and SEA LAWS). By the rules laid down in the Consolato neutral vessels or neutral goods were to be restored to the owners without com pensation for the loss of time and other inconveniences attending capture. This may be said to have been the general law of the sea down to 1856. At the same time it is to be noticed that two doctrines inconsistent with the original rule had met with the sanction of certain nations, viz., (1) the French doctrine of hostile infection, by which neutral property on an enemy s ship or a neutral ship carrying enemy s property was good prize ; (2) the Dutch doctrine, by which the character of the ship alone was regarded free ship made free goods, enemy ship enemy goods (see Twiss, Law of Nations, vol. ii. ch. v.). In 1856 the Declaration of Paris adopted an intermediate system. To this Declaration most nations have acceded (see PRIVATEER). By article 2 of the Declaration, &quot; the neutral flag covers enemy s goods, with the exception of contraband of war.&quot; By article 3, &quot;neutral goods, with the exception of contraband of war, are not liable to capture under an enemy s flag.&quot; Contraband of war, speaking generally, includes all articles, such as provisions and munitions of war, likely to add to the military or naval resources of the enemy (see CONTRABAND). After the capture has been made, the next proceeding is the determination of its legality. It is now an understood rule of international law that the question of prize or no prize must be determined by a qualified prize court (see below). Captors should send their capture to a conveni ent port, if possible a port of their own nation or an allied power, for adjudication. They may forfeit their rights by misconduct in this respect. The property in the prize vests in the sovereign, in accordance with the old maxim of law Parta lello cedunt reipublicse. This right attaches both in cases of capture and recapture, subject in the latter case to what is called the jus postliminii, that is, the right of the owner of property recaptured from the enemy to have it returned formerly if the recapture has taken place before the property had been taken within the enemy s territory (infra prsesidia), at present if less than txventy-four hours has elapsed between the capture and recapture. The right of the recaptors to salvage on recap ture is regulated by the municipal law of different nations. By English law one-eighth of the value is the sum usually awarded, but this may be increased to one-fourth under special circumstances. The right does not exist at all if the vessel has been fitted out as a vessel of war by the enemy, 27 & 28 Viet. c. 25, 40. One-eighth is awarded for recapture from pirates, 13 & 14 Viet. c. 26, 5. In the United States, by the Prize Act of June 30, 1864, salvage on recapture is allowed according to the circum stances of the case. There is no sum fixed as in England. Although the prize vests in the sovereign, it has been held in England that the captors have an insurable interest in the prize immediately after capture and before condemna tion on the ground that under the Prize Act the captors have a certain expectation of profit upon the safe arrival of the prize in port, and that they are liable to condemna tion in damages and costs if the capture be unjustifiable. By the general maritime law a prize may be released upon ransom ; but it has been the general policy of European nations to discountenance ransom as less beneficial to the state than the detention of a prize. Thus an Act of 1782, and subsequent Acts, avoided ransom bills given by British subjects, and subjected a commander giving one to an enemy to penalties, unless in either case the circum stances were such as to justify the giving or taking of the bill. The Naval Prize Act, 1864, is less strict in its terms. It enacts that the queen in council may from time to time in relation to any war make such orders as are expedient as to contracts for the ransoming of a ship or goods ; contravention of the orders makes the contract void and renders the offender liable to a penalty not exceeding 500, 27 & 28 Viet. c. 25, 45. By the Naval Discipline Act, 1866, a commanding officer making an unlawful agreement for ransom is liable to be dismissed from the service, 29 & 30 Viet. c. 109, 41. The