Imágenes de páginas

which is promised to them by the present deed, they may demand the difference from Artemon, and from Apollodorus, either from one of the two, or from both together; and may seize their property on land or on sea, in whatever place it may be, as if they had been condemned, and that the execution of a sentence of the tribunals were in question.

If the borrowers do not load on return into the Black Sea; or if remaining in the Hellespont ten days after the [early rising of the] Dog-Star [end of July], they discharge their merchandize in a country where the Athenians cannot carry out the sale of the pledges which have been given them [in some place where the Athenians had no right of reprisals], when they return to Athens, they must pay interest upon their debt, at the rate of the preceding year [22 p.c.]. If any considerable accident occur to the ship whereon the merchandize is loaded, the right of the creditors shall be limited to the goods which have escaped it [to the cargo which had been saved]. With all these stipulations, nothing can invalidate the present deed.

[This bond, or policy, as it is sometimes called, was first translated into French by Pardessus, and thence into English by Mr. Hendriks. We have taken the liberty of interpolating a few explanatory notes where the expression is obscure, or where the force of the orig. had been lost.]

money, within 30 days next after the safe arrival of the said ship at the port of Lond. from the said intended voyage.

And I, the said A. B., do for me, my executors and administrators, covenant and grant to and with the said C. D., his executors and administrators, by these presents, that I, the said A. B., at the time of sealing and delivering of these presents, am a true and lawful part-owner and master of the said ship, and have power and authority to charge and engage the said ship with her freight as aforesaid; and that the said ship with her freight shall, at all times after the said voyage, be liable and chargeable for the payment of the said £1220, according to the true intent and meaning of these presents.

And lastly, it is hereby declared and agreed by and between the said parties to these presents, that in case the said ship shall be lost, miscarry, or be cast away before her arrival at the said port of Lond. from the said intended voyage, that then the payment of the said 1220 shall not be demanded or be recoverable by the said C. D., his executors, administrators, or assigns, but shall cease and determine, and the loss thereby be wholly borne and sustained by the said C. D., his executors and administrators, and that then and from henceforth every act, matter, and thing herein mentioned on the part and behalf of the said A. B., shall be void, and anything herein contained to the contrary notwithstanding.

In witness whereof the parties have interchangeably set their hands and seals to four bonds of this tenor and date, one of which being paid, the others to be null and void. At the Cape of Good Hope, this . . . day of in the year of our Lord A. B. (L.S.) Witness,


[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

We shall have occasion to offer some comments on the similarity of these contracts hereafter. And we may here remark that strictly speaking the Greek instrument is a Respondentia Bond, and not a Bill of Bottomry.

M. Pardessus, in his great work on Maritime Commerce and Ins., after a most painstaking investigation of the subject, says:

Numerous contemporary authors show the existence of Bottomry loans amongst the Greeks. These were arranged sometimes according to time, but generally according to the nature of the navigation. Vessel, apparel, cargo, freight, were among the security given. The essential condition was that the borrower should only be compelled to repay the cap. and int. if the objects affected arrived in port. The lender sometimes took the precaution to cause other goods of the borrower to be mortgaged to him, to ins. prompt payment on the expiration of the risk.

Among the Greeks these loans were not only effected when the vessel found it necessary by stress of circumstances during a voyage; but also before she has left the home port, in order to obtain funds to pay for cargo to lade her with; and in foreign ports, in order to enable her to buy a return cargo, etc. The lender usually stipulated that the value of the article lent on should be twice the amount lent; and the borrower was to declare if he had already obtained an advance on the same goods. The transaction was authenticated by a deed, which was torn up on the completion of the contract on both sides.

The lading was proved by the official regis., or by witnesses, in the presence of whom the borrower declared what objects were placed at the risk of the creditor, without whose consent he was not entitled to borrow further on the same articles, unless he augmented their quantity in proportion to the new loan; or unless the goods mortgaged were sufficient to secure both lenders. There were heavy penalties on the borrower, in case of breach of faith as to destination, amount of goods, etc. There was a law against carrying corn elsewhere than to Athens; and loans were forbidden, under pain of confiscation, on corn carried in opposition to this law. jettison, or otherwise, by force majeure, the goods were diminished, or paid a contribution, the lender When in case of composition with pirates, or supported the loss to the discharge of the borrower. In case of total loss the borrower was discharged and the lender could not prove against any other property of the borrower deposited for security of payment, unless the lading had been evaded. It followed that no punishment was too severe for the borrower, who, having had the bad faith to misapply the goods mortgaged, caused the ship to be lost in order to avoid paying the sum borrowed.

In the Rhodian Law we find direct reference to Bottomry loans. Thus in one section it is said, "That when masters of ships, who are proprietors of one-third of the lading, take up money for the voyage, whether for the outward, or homeward bound, or both; all transactions shall pass according to the writings drawn up between the master and

lender; and the latter shall put a man on board to take care of his loan." Then again, "If masters or merchants borrow money for their voyages, the goods, freight, ship, and money being free, they shall not make use of suretyship, except there be some apparent danger of the sea, or of pirates. And for the money so lent the borrowers shall pay naval interest." Boeckh says the exaction of an exorbitant rate of int. for loans on Bottomry among the Rhodians was declared illegal-"unless the principal was really exposed to the dangers of the sea.'

[ocr errors]

Loans on Bottomry were well understood by the Romans: as it was likely they would be, seeing how largely they had drawn upon the maritime customs and the jurisprudence of the Greeks. When, about A.D. 533, Justinian reduced the rate of interest on ordinary securities to a maximum of 6 p.c., a special exemption was made in favour of Fanus Nauticum, or Bottomry; and upon this ground: that the risk of the money was entirely the lender's. Therefore, while a vessel was at sea, the lender might demand any rate of int. he pleased for a loan; but after she reached harbour, and while she remained there, no more than 12 p.c. could be demanded-which indeed was regarded as the usual rate in such cases. Some writers assert that Justinian made 12 p.c. the rate for Fanus Nauticum under all circumstances; but the best authorities do not bear out this view. Gibbon, indeed, in his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, speaking of the rates of int. which prevailed in or about the year A.D. 533, says: "Twelve was granted to Nautical Insurance, which the wiser ancients had not attempted to define; but except in this perilous adventure, the practice of exorbitant usury was severely restrained.' But the expression "exorbitant usury" can scarcely apply to such a risk. Therefore his testimony rather strengthens the position we have taken. It is important to observe that Gibbon uses the term "Nautical Ins." This may be taken as an indication of the nature of the risk which had become impressed on his mind during the investigation of the subject.

In the Koran of Mohammed, which is believed to date about A.D. 652, we find in Book II., entitled "The Cow," a passage which may fairly be held to have reference to B., although the translation (Sale's) is not very distinctly expressed:

O true believers, when ye bind yourselves one to the other in a debt for a certain time, write it down; and let a writer write between you according to justice.. .. And if ye be on a journey, and find no writer, let pledges be taken; but if one of you trust the other, let him who is trusted return what he is trusted with, and fear God his Lord.

It will be seen that the method here indicated resembles the course of action in relation to B. loans obained both on land and at sea.

In the Basilica, a digest of laws compiled A.D. 867-880, by the Byzantine Emperor Basilius, the provisions regarding loans on Bottomry appear to follow in all respects those of the Roman Digest.

In the Greek compilation, Jus Navale Rhodeorum, the date of which is fixed prior to A.D. 1167, the regulations regarding loans on Bottomry and Respondentia appear also to follow entirely those of the Roman Digest, which had itself been founded on the practices of the Greeks themselves some 1500 years earlier.

It is generally admitted that the CONSOLATO DEL MARE-compiled between the years 1226 and 1270-although full in its account of other maritime customs and usages, is silent on those incident to the practice of Bottomry: although several chapters indicate and presuppose its use. Chap. 106 of the Consolato requires the merchants on board a ship to lend to the master what he may require for the necessities of the ship.

The Roles D' Oleron, the date of which we place at 1266, do not contain anything very explicit on loans on maritime risk, or Bottomry, or Respondentia. It appears by Rule No. 1, that if the captain, being in a foreign country, finds himself in want of money, he must first write home to his owners before he sells the ship, "but if he have nede of money for the expences of the shyp, he may lay to guage some of the takelyng, be [by] the councel of the maryners of the shyp." Rule 23 gives the master permission to sell part of the cargo to supply his store, but is silent on the subject of raising a loan. We quote from the Admiralty Black Book. The maritime regulations of the Hanse Towns were founded on those of Oleron, and they are to the effect following: "A master, being in a strange country, if necessity drive him to it, may take up money on Bottomry, if he cannot get it without, and the owners shall bear the charge."-Art. 60.

Some writers have been of opinion that the Laws of Wisby, which we attribute to the 14th century, are silent upon Bottomry contracts. A reference to the 45th art. will show that the nature as well as the name of Bottomry was fully understood.

We now arrive at another aspect of the case. By the close of the 14th century-prob. earlier the modern system of marine ins.—that is, the guarantee of a fixed sum in case of loss (or corresponding contribution in case of damage) for a fixed prem. paid, or agreed to be paid, by the owner to the insurer: which prem. the insurer is to receive quite irrespective of the fate of the ship or the success of the voyage—had been introduced. Now if the owner of the ship were at liberty to ins. it for its full value, after having borrowed upon it at Bottomry, it is clear that in the event of the loss of the ship he would be a gainer of the sum he had borrowed, less only such portion of the sum so borrowed as he had expended in the preparations for the voyage. It will be seen that most of the early ins. ordin. guard against such an abuse.

The first of the many Ins. Ordinances of Europe of which we have any exact knowledge is that of Barcelona, promulgated 1435. It provides as follows: "If any one has borrowed on Bottomry, these loans must be taken into account in the estimation [of the interest of the owner in the ship], and deducted from the assu, in whole or in part, up to three-fourths of the value of the vessel, or parts thereof according to estimation." Thus the limit of ins. allowed was three-fourths of the value of the ship, from which again must be deducted all loans obtained on Bottomry.

In the Ins. Ordin. of Florence, A.D. 1523, we do not find any mention made of the contract of Bottomry, or any regulations for the government of such contracts.

By the Ins. Ordin. of Spain, made at Valladolid, by King Philip II., in 1566, there occur the following provisions regarding Bottomry:

V. . . . And if any master or owner of a ship takes up money at int., or gives bond for a debt that he owes, the creditor runs the risk on the said body and appurtenances of the ship, and the master or owner ins. so much the less of the hull's value.

VI. If the owner or master of a ship will sail to any part of the Indies or Isles, either with, or without the Flota, he may not take up any sum at int., and consign the payment in the Indies, on the ship, freight, and necessaries, without a previous licence from the Prior and Consuls of Sevil, who shall make examination about the ship, tonnage, and value, and consider what may in reason be taken at int. on the ship, so that it does not exceed one-third part of her worth: And the Consulado [Consular Court] shall keep a book of these licences; and the concerned not observing the form of this law shall incur the loss of their goods.

In the Ins. Ordin. of Antwerp, 1563, there is the following:

Likewise nobody shall take or ask any money upon the bottom of a ship (commonly called Bottomrée, or exchange upon the hull or keel of the ship), for himself or in behalf of another, directly, or indirectly, unless the master of any vessel should, by any misfortune of the sea, enemies, or other unavoidable accident (whereof he shall be obliged to produce proper certificates), stand in want in a foreign country, where he could not dispose of any goods in a regular way; in which case he may take up on the bottom of his ship, by way of Bottomrée or otherwise, the quarter part of the value of such bottom, and no more, unless necessity oblige him to take a larger sum than the aforesaid quarter part of the value, in which case he may take such further sum on Bottomrée as aforesaid, provided he makes the necessity thereof appear as above mentioned. Neither shall he expose to sale or alienate any goods on board of such vessel, as long as he can find bills of exchange or Bottomry upon the bottom of such vessel; and even not finding that, he may not sell more of such merchandize than a quarter part of the value of the said vessel, unless upon the greatest emergency as aforesaid; and then he shall be obliged to pay to the merchant, to whom such goods did belong, the price which they would have fetched at the place for which they were designed and shipped; the said merchandize in that case paying him his full freight; as well for the goods so sold by the way as aforesaid, as for those unsold; on penalty, if the master should act to the contrary, that he shall make good to his owners, fellowowners, and merchants, the damage they shall sustain, and be arbitrarily punished besides.

At a meeting of the Deputies of the Hanse Towns, held at Lubeck in 1591, some sea laws were made, and art. 56 provides, "That if any person concerned in fitting out a ship shall refuse his consent to a voyage agreed on by a majority of her owners, and deny paying for his share of her out-set, the master shall have power to borrow money on such share, and pay the principal and premium out of it."

Now here we see the word "premium" in familiar use-the word which has descended to us. Nor has the sense in which it was, and is, used very much changed. The prem. on a Bottomry loan is the consideration for a sum advanced before the loss of the ship. The prem. on a marine pol. is for a sum to be paid after the loss. That is the only point of difference. A ship of the value of £2000 may be covered in this manner-£1000 on a bottomry loan; 1000 by marine ins. If she be lost these two sums indemnify the owner. The bottomry prem. is higher for several reasons: 1. It has to include int. for the money advanced. 2. It will never be paid at all if the ship be lost. 3. The security may be destroyed by a subsequent loan of the same character. The prem. of marine ins. is lower because the incidents of hazard it covers are less and fewer. In some of the Continental countries-as for instance France-the ordinary prem. of marine ins. is not paid until the termination of the voyage; thus rendering the similarity greater.

The Ins. Ordin. of the City of Middelburg, in Zealand, A. D. 1600, is entirely silent on the subject of Bottomry.

In Civil Statutes of the Republic of Genoa, promulgated 1610, which contain matters of great interest in relation to ins. generally, we do not find any regulations regarding Bottomry.

Straccha, an Italian, who wrote learnedly upon int. during the 17th century, urged that all loans upon Bottomry were based upon an illicit and usurious bargain. A few other Continental writers have supported him; but the large majority are of the contrary opinion.

The first English writer who speaks of B. ["Bottommarie," he calls it] is Gerard Malynes, in his Lex Mercatoria, 1622:

The money so taken up by the master of the ship is commonly done on very great necessitie, when moneyes must be had in forreine countries to perform a voyage; for the use paid for the same is very great, at 30, 40, and 50 pro cent., without consideration of time, but within so many daies after the voiage ended. This money is called Pecunia trajectitia, because that upon the lender's danger or adventure it is carried beyond or over the seas, so that if the ship perish, or that all be spoiled, the lender do lose the mony. But on the contrary, mony letten at interest is delivered on the perill of the borrower; so that the profit of this is merely the price of the simple loan, called Usura; but the profit of the other is a reward for the danger and adventure of the sea, which the lender taketh upon him during the loane, which is to bee understood untill the voyage ended: therefor if the money miscarry either before the voyage begin or after the terme appointed for the full loan, then the price pertaineth

to the borrower thereof, and not to the lender: I meane of perills proceeding by storm, violence, spoil, or such like occasions, which cannot be eschewed by any diligence of the borrower. Therefore if the borrower imploy that money upon commodities, and that the said commodities become forfeited for non-payment of custome, the lender shall be clere of any damage thereby. It is also to be noted that money lent at maritime interest without hasard, but upon securitie, shall pay no profit otherwise than the money lent at interest, because the securitie is given over and above for the lender's assurance, Again: suppose it were money not entered in the purser's book, and yet lent for the need of the company within the ship during the voyage, if before the day appointed for the paiment, shipwrecke or spoile happen, then should the losse come in contribution betwixt them; because if that money had been lying by the lender, still unlente, it had been in common danger with the rest. But if the time appointed were past, with the perils aforesaid, then shall the borrower pay thatt mony so borrowed free from all contribution. Further, in case the borrower detaines any such money lent as aforesaid, beyond the time appointed for the repaying, hee shall at his returne not onely pay the profit agreed upon before the voyage, but also augment the same according to the longer time, and shall pay the profitt of that first condition accordingly.

In the Guidon de la Mer, supposed to date about 1647, it is suggested that the modern contract of Bottomry is not at all that which was known to the ancients. Emerigon seemed to think this might be true as to the form which modern regulations had imparted to the contract; but have we not already shown that both in form and substance the modern contract resembles that in use with the Greeks long before the Christian era?

Cleirac, in his great work, the Usages and Customs of the Sea, pub. 1647, says :"When there is no news of a ship within any certain time, a borrower on Bottomry hath no abandonment to make in order to be quit of his engagement; nor can the lender molest him until he can prove the ship to be arrived."

Loccinius, a Danish writer, who pub. a work on Maritime Customs in 1652, speaking of Bottomry, says :-"And the money so taken up by the master is done upon great extremity, and that for the completing the voyage, when they are in distress and want in some foreign parts; and indeed such taking up is in the nature of mortgaging the ship, for "le Neif oblige al payment de ceo," etc. And in the instrument there is a clause that expresses that the ship is engaged for the performance of the same," The prevailing idea of the contract of Bottomry at this period was that it must only be resorted to in cases of extremity; and this is the proper view.

Roccus, in his famous work, pub. 1655, says :-"In Italy it is permitted to those who advance money on Bottomry to ins. the profit as well as the principal."

In a pamphlet by Francis Cradocke, merchant, entitled, An Expedient for taking away all Impositions; and for Raising a Revenue without Taxes, presented to Charles II. in 1660, among the numerous advantages which were to accrue to the King on the estab. of a bank on the principles set forth by the author, is one which bears on our subject :— "It will bring into His Majesties Revenue all the int. money paid in England, and money paid on Bottomree to Scriveners and others, which at 6 p.c. amounts unto by computation yearly two millions; and when to be had at 4 p.c. will be £1,330,000 p.a.' In the case of Joy v. Kent, which arose in 1665, the facts were as follow: A bond was given by Kent, the defendant, that if a ship named therein returned from Ostend to Lond. within 6 months thereafter, a certain sum of money, which included the principal and int.—the latter being about one-third more than the legal int, of the money--should be paid to Joy. If the ship did not return, the obligation to be void. The defendant on being sued pleaded that there was a corrupt agreement between himself and the plaintiff; and that at the time of making the obligation it was agreed between them that, in the event of the return of the ship, the plaintiff should have no more than legal int. He averred in fact that the obligation was entered into by Covin, to evade the Stat. of Usury, and the penalty thereof. Chief Baron Hale delivered judgment: Clearly this bond is not within the Stat.; for this is the common way of ins., and if this were void by the Stat. of Usury, trade would be destroyed. And it is not like to the case where the condition of a bond is to give so much money, if such or such a person be then alive; for there is a certainty of that at the time. But it is uncertain and a casualty whether such a ship shall ever return or not.

In 1676 Charles Molloy pub. his De Jure Maritimo et Navali, etc., wherein he has a chap. "Of monies advanced by way of Bottomry, or Fanus Nauticum," in which he says: The distinction is great between moneys lent to be used in commerce at land, and that which is advanced to sea. In the first, the laws of the realm have set marks to govern the same, whereby the avaritious mind is limited to a reasonable profit. The reason of that is, because the lender runs none, but the borrower all the hazard, whatever that money brings forth. But money lent to sea, or that which is called Pecunia trajactitia, there the same is advanced on the hazard of the lender, to carry (as is supposed) over sea; so that if the ship perishes, or a spoilation of all happens, the lender shares in the loss, without any hopes of ever receiving his monies; and therefore is sometimes called Usura Marina, as well as Fanus Nauticum-the advantage accruing to the owners from their money, arising not from the loan, but from the hazard which the lender runs; the which is commonly reduced to a time certain, or one or more voyages, according to their several and respective agreements.

If the bonds be sealed, and the money is advanced, if the ship happens to miscarry by storm, fire, enemy, or any otherwise, before the voyage begun, then the borrower runs the risque, unless it be otherwise provided generally; as that if such a ship shall not arrive at such a place at such a time, etc.; there the contract hath its inception from the sealing; but if the condition be, That if such a ship shall sail from Lond. to Amsterdam, and shall not arrive there, etc., then, etc., there the contingency begins not till the departure. Yet it has been conceived, That if the master takes up money accordingly, and buys in a lawful lading, but will happen to endeavour to defraud the Prince or State of their customs, and puts such goods on board, by means whereof he has incurred a forfeiture of his ship; in such case the lender is not obliged to such hazard. . . .

Monies that are advanced are of two securities, the one is on the bare ship, and the other is upon the person of the borrower; sometimes upon both. The first is where a man takes up monies and obliges himself, that if such a ship shall arrive at such a port, then to repay (perhaps) double the sum lent; but if the ship happens to miscarry, then nothing.

So likewise some will take up monies, the condition reciting, Whereas there is such a ship, naming her, bound to Amsterdam, whereof such a man is master (whereas indeed there is no such ship or master in nature), that if that ship shall not arrive at such a place within 12 months, the money agreed on to be paid shall be paid; but if the skip shall arrive, then nothing.

He then reviews these different classes of loans, and offers some instructive obs. thereon, as follows:

The first of these is honorable and just, according to the laudable practice among marine persons, and though the advantage runs high, as 20, 30, nay sometimes 40 p.c. without consideration of timefor the monies are to be paid within so many days after the ship's arrival;-yet in regard the adventure is born by the lender, for (if the ship perishes the advancer loses) the laws and practices of all maritime countries allow of the same. And therefore by the Common Law, if an action of debt be brought on such an instrument, the defendant cannot plead the Stat. of Usury.

The other advance, which is upon a fictitious supposition of a ship and master, wherein indeed there is no such in naturo, is more unconscionable, the same being the common practice that's used amongst the Italians, and now on this side of the water; though the same is as to internal right unjust, yet it is daily practised, and it was not long since adjudged that such contract was good, according to the common law of this realm, and that on a special verdict. Most certain it is, that the greater the danger is, if there be a real adventure, the greater may the profit be of the monies advanced; and so hath the same been the opinion of civilians, and likewise some divines; though some seem to be of opinion that any profit or advantage ought not to be made of monies so lent. . . .

There is likewise a second way of advancing of monies called Usura Marina, joining the advanced monies and the danger of the sea together; and this is obliging sometimes upon the borrower's ship, goods, and person. The product of which by agreement will advance sometimes 20, 30, and sometimes 40p.c.; as for instance, a private gentleman has 1000 ready money lying by him, and he has notice of an ingenious merchant that has good credit beyond seas, and understands his business fully; applies himself to him, and offers him £1000 to be laid out in such commodities as the merchant shall think convenient for that port or country the borrower designs for, and that he will bear the adventure of that money during all that voyage (which he knows may be accomplished within a year); hereupon the contract is agreed upon, 6 p.c. is accounted for the int. and 12 p.c. for the adventure outwards, and 12 p.c. for the goods homewards; so that upon the return the lender receives 30 p.c., which amounts (with the £1000 advanced) to £1300. The lender in this case hath a good bargain, no question. Now let us see what advantage the borrower hath.

1. The borrower prevents the taking up the like sum at int., which comes to 6 p.c. and brokage, which comes now in this age, through the generosity of the merchant, and covetousness of the scrivener, at 1 or 2 p.c. more; and then the same is let out but for 6 months; and then the scrivener inevitably at the six months end sends his note, that his friend expects his monies to be paid in; so that to stop that gap there must be continuation, which is at least 1 p.c. more, besides the obliging of friends in securities. 2. The assu, is prevented, which, perhaps, may come to between 5 and 20 p.c., according as the times are; and common prudence will never suffer a merchant to venture 2 parts of 3 parts of his estate in one bottom without assuring. 3. As he shall not have occasion to ensure, so it may be a great occasion of preventing the common obligation of his ensuring of others; the which in a generous merchant in honour cannot be desired, the prems. running reasonable. 4. It prevents the parties running the risque and danger of the seas, enemies, or any other fatal loss, and hath been a means to introduce a man's credit in a short time at lesser charge, if not to put him in a condition not to be beholden to such a fair though chargeable means. And this cannot be usury by the laws of this realm, for the risque and danger that the lender runs.

Many of the passages in the preceding are by no means clear, and indeed hardly intelligible; yet we could not pass over the remarks of a writer who was regarded of very great authority at this period, and whose works passed through repeated editions.

One of the first questions which must have arisen was whether those who advanced on Bottomry were bound to contribute average as to any of the cargo jettisoned with a view to saving the ship. The Greeks, as we have seen, had provided for this. The first among the moderns who adopted this course were the French.

The famous Marine Ordin. of France, 1681, contains very full provisions regarding Bottomry; and as they have been the subject of much comment, and of general laudation, it seems important not to curtail them :

I. Contracts on B. may be made before a notary, or by private contract.

II. Money on B. may be given on the hull and keel of the ship, tackle, and apparel, fitting out, victualling, jointly or separately, on the whole or on part of her cargo, for the whole voyage, or for a limited time.

III. We declare unlawful the taking money upon B. on the hull, keel, or cargo of a ship beyond the value; under penalty of paying, even in the case of the loss or capture of the vessel, the whole of the sum borrowed.

IV. We prohibit under like penalty the taking money upon B. on the freight the ship is to make, and on the expected profit on goods, even upon the wages or hire of seamen, except in the presence and with the consent of the master, and then it must be for less than half of the wages.

V. We expressly prohibit all persons giving money on B. to seamen, on their wages, or on the voyage, except with the consent and in the presence of the master, under the penalty of the confiscation of the loan and of 50 livres.

VI. The masters shall themselves be answerable for the whole of the sums taken with their consent by the seamen, if those sums exceed the half of their wages, and this notwithstanding the loss or capture of the ship.

VII. The vessel, her tackle, apparel, fitting out, and victualling, even the freight shall be particularly liable to, and answerable for both principal and int. of money on B. given on the hull and keel of the ship, for the prosecuting and furthering of the voyage. The cargo shall on its part be answerable for money borrowed for its benefit.

VIII. Those who shall lend money on B. to a master at a place were his owners reside, without their consent, shall not be privileged, or advantaged for the same, for more than the share of the master of the vessel and freight, though the contracts were made for refitting and victualling the ship. IX. However the shares or parts belonging to the owners who shall have refused to contribute

« AnteriorContinuar »