These words, which are still printed in modern editions of the commentaries, might give a false impression of the historical and legal relations of the courts and the Crown, if it is not remembered that they are nothing more than the expression of a venerable fiction. The administration of justice was, indeed, one of the functions of the king in early times; the king himself sat on circuit so late ascthe reign of Edward IV.,and even after regular tribunals were established, a reserve of judicial power still remained in the king and his council, in the exercise of which it was possible for the king to participate personally. The last judicial act of an English king, if such it can be called, was that by which James I. settled the dispute between the Court of Chancery and Courts of Common Law, Since the establishment of Parliamentary government the courts take their law directly from the legislature, and the king is only connected with them indirectly as a member of the legislative body. The king’s name, however, is still used in this as in other departments of state action. The courts exercising jurisdiction in England are divided by certain features which may here be briefly indicated.

1. We may distinguish between courts exercising general and those exercising special jurisdiction. The latter are the Admiralty, Ecclesiastical, and University Courts, the limits of which are sufficiently indicated by their names. These administer principles of justice founded on the canon and civil law, but the extent of their jurisdiction is ascertained by the Common Law Courts. 2. Superior and inferior courts. The former are the Courts of Common Law at Westminster, and the Court of Chancery, now High Court of Justice. The latter are the local or district courts, County Courts, &c. 3, Courts of record and courts not of record. “A court of record is one whereof the Acts and judicial proceedings are enrolled for a perpetual memory and testimony, which rolls are called the records of the court, and are of such high and supereminent authority, that their truth is not to be called in question. For it is a settled rule and maxim that nothing shall be averred against a record, nor shall any plea or even proof be admitted to the contrary. And if the existence of the record shall be denied it shall be tried by nothing but itself; that is, upon bare inspection whether there be any such record or no; else there would be no end of disputes. All courts of record are the courts of the sovereign in right of the Crown and royal dignity, and therefore any court of record has authority to fine and imprison for contempt of its authority” (Stephen’s Blackstone). 4. Courts may also be distinguished as civil or criminal. 5. A further distinction is to bo made between courts of first instance and courts of appeal. In the former the first hearing in any judicial proceeding takes place; in the latter, the judgment of the first court is brought under review, Of the superior courts, the High Court of Justice in its various divisions is a court of first instance. Over it is the Court of Appeal, and over that again the House of Lords. The High Court of Justice is (through divisional courts) a court of appeal for inferior courts. 6. There is a special class of local courts, which do not appear to fall within either the first or second of the classes above-mentioned. Some, while administering the ordinary municipal law, have or had jurisdiction exclusive of their superior courts; such were the Common Pleas of Durham and Lancaster (now transferred to the High Court of Justice), and such still is the Chancery Court of the duchy of Lancaster. Others have concurrent jurisdiction with the superior courts; such are the Lord Mayor’s Court of London, the Passage Court of Liverpool, &c.

The distribution of judicial business among the various courts may be exhibited as follows.

Criminal Courts;— 1. The lowest is that of the justice of the peace, sitting singly, but more usuallyin petty sessions of two or more, tode∙ termine in a summary way certain specified minor offences. In populous districts, such as London, Manchester, &c., stipendiary magistrates are appointed, generally with enlarged powers. Besides punishing by summary conviction, justices may commit prisoners for trial at the assizes. 2. The justices in Quarter Sessions are commissioned to determine felonies and other offences. The 5 and 6 Viet c. 38 contains a list of offences not triable at Quarter Sessions —treason, murder, forgery, bigamy, &c., (see Quarter Sessions). The corresponding court in boroughs is presided over by the recorder. 3. The more serious offences are reserved for the judges of the superior courts sitting under a commission of oyer and terminer or gaol delivery for each county. The Assize Courts, as they are called, sit in general in each county twice a year, following the division of circuits; but winter assizes are now held under 39 and 40 Vict. c. 57, which permits several counties to be united together for that purpose. London, which occupies an exceptional position in all matters of judicature, has a high criminal court of its own, established by 4 and 5 Will. IV. c. 36, under the name of tho Central Criminal Court. Its judges usually present are a rota selected from the superior judges of common law, the recorder, common sergeant, and the judge of the City of London Court. The Court of Queen’s Bench (now Queen's Bench Division) has a general superintendence over all other courts of criminal jurisdiction, and criminal cases may be moved into the Queen’s Bench by the writ of certiorari. By 11 and 12 Vict. c. 78, the Court for Crown Cases Reserved was established, to which any question of law arising on the trial of a prisoner may after conviction be remitted by the judge in his discretion.

Civil Courts.— In certain special cases, civil claims of small importance may be brought before justices or stipendiaries. Otherwise, and excepting the special and peculiar jurisdictions above mentioned, the civil business of the country may be said to be divided between the County Courts (taking small cases) and the High Court of Justice (taking all others). Before the constitution of the High Court of Justice the judges of the common law courts sat separately with a jury to try cases at Nisi Prius, the sittings being at Westminster for Middlesex, at Guildhall for the City of London, and according to circuits for the rest of the country; and this arrangement is still followed by the divisions corresponding to the common law courts.

The effect of the recent Judicature Acts on the constitution of the superior courts may be briefly stated. There is now one Supreme Court of Judicature, consisting of two permanent divisions called the High Court of Justice and the Court of Appeal. The former takes the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery, the three Common Law Courts, the Courts of Admiralty, Probate, and Divorce, the Courts of Pleas at Lancaster and Durham, and the courts created by commissions of assize, oyer and teιminer, and gaol delivery. The latter takes the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal in Chancery (including Chancery of Lancaster), the Court of the Lord Warden of the Stannaries, and of the Exchequer Chamber, and the appellate jurisdiction in admiralty and heresy-matters of the judicial committee; and power is given to the Queen to transfer the remaining jurisdiction of that court to the Court of Appeal. By the appellate Jurisdiction Act of 1876, the House of Lords is now enabled to sit for the hearing of appeals from the English Court of Appeal and the Scotch and Irish courts during the prorogation and dissolution of Parliament. The lords of appeal, of whom three must he present, are the lord chancellor, the lords of appeal in ordinary, and peers who have held “high judicial office” in Great Britain or Ireland. The lords in ordinary are an innovation in the constitution of the House. They hold the rank of baron for life only, have a right to sit and vote in the House during tenure of office only, and a salary of £6000 per annum.

Among obsolete or decayed courts, besides those incidentally mentioned above, the following are the most noticeable :—-

The Court Leet, an old local court described as the most ancient known to the law. It was a court of record, and exercised civil as well as criminal jurisdiction. Its origin and nature are fully discussed in Seri ven On Copyhold. Court Baron, the court of a manor, presided over by the lord, and of which the free tenants of the manor are suitors.

Court of Pié Poudre (pedis pulverisati), having jurisdiction in fairs and markets.

Court of Chivalry, or Knights’ Court, held by the lord high constable, in matters relating to jousts and tournaments.

The Court of the Marshalsea of the Household of the Kings of England, and the Court of our Lady the Queen, of the Palace of the Queen at Westminster, and Her Majesty’s Court of Record for the Honour of Peveril are abolished by the 12 and 13 Viet, c. 101.

The history of English courts affords a remarkable illustration of the continuity that characterizes our institutions. It would hardly be too much to say that all the courts now sitting in England may be traced back to a common origin, and at any rate the higher courts are all offshoots from the same original judicature. Leaving out of account the local courts, we find the higher jurisdiction after the Conquest concentrated along with all other public functions in the king and council. The first sign of a separation of the judicial from the other powers of this body is found in the recognition of a Curia Regis, which may be described as the king’s council, or a portion of it, charged specially with the management of judicial and revenue business. In relation to the revenue it became the Exchequer, under which name a separate court grew up whose special field was the judicial business arising out of revenue cases. By the Great Charter, the inconvenience caused by the curia following the king’s person was remedied, in so far as private litigation was concerned, by the order that common pleas (Communia Placita) should be held at some fixed place; and hence arose the Court of Common Pleas. The Curia Regis, after having thrown off these branches, is represented by the Queen’s Bench, so that from the same stock we have now three courts, differing at first in functions, but through competition for business, and the ingenious use of fictions, becoming finally the coordinate Courts of Common Law of our later history. Tn one line of development the council becomes, by the addition of representatives from counties and boroughs, the Parliament in its two Houses of Lords and Commons. But an inner circle of counsellors still surrounded the king, and in his name claimed to exercise judicial as well as other power; hence the chancellor’s jurisdiction, wshich became, partly in harmony with the supra-legal power claimed from which it sprang, and partly through the influence of the ecclesiastical chancellors by whom it was first administered, the Equity of English law. Similar developments of the same authority were the Court of Requests (which was destroyed by a decision of the Common Pleas) and the Court of Star Chamber,—a Court of Criminal Equity, as it has been called, which, having been made the instrument of tyranny, was abolished in 1641. Even then the productive power of the council was not exhausted; the judicial committee of the Privy Council, established by 2 and 3 Will. IV. c. 92, superseding tho previous Court of Delegates, exercises the jurisdiction in appeal belonging to the king in cou::cil.

The appellate jurisdiction of the Lords rests on their claim to be the representatives of the ancient great council of the realm. (e. r. )

COURT, ANTOINE (1696-1760), who has been designated the ,t Restorer of Protestantism in France,” was born at the village of Villeneuve-de-Berg, in the province of the Vivarais, in 1696. His parents were poor, belonging to the peasant class, and were unable to give him what was considered a good education. But they were pious folk, adherents of the Reformed Church, against which the most ruthlessly cruel persecution was so Jong directed by the French Government. Brought up in the fear of God, and early acquainted with the Holy Scriptures, he began to show in his boyhood the signs of a high calling. He was eight years old when the Camisard revolt was finally suppressed, and nineteen when the infamous decree of Louis XIV. was published, declaring that all who professed the Reformed faith should be punished as relapsed heretics. Antoine, taken to the secret meetings of the persecuted Calvinists, held “in dens and caves of the earth,” often in darkness, no pastor nor “prophet” present to teach or console, began, when only seventeen, to speak and exhort in these congregations of “the desert.” The desire naturally arose in him to deliver the people, and to build up on solid foundations the church which was threatened with extinction. For this purpose he proposed four things as essential :— regular religious meetings for teaching and worship; suppression of the fanaticism of the “inspired,” and of the disorders to which it gave rise; restoration of discipline by the establishment of consistories, conferences, and synods; and the careful training of a body of pastors. To the execution of this vast undertaking he devoted his life. The scene of his labours for fifteen years was Languedoc, the Vivarais, and Dauphiny. His beginnings were very small prayer-meetings in “the desert,” attended by some half dozen or dozen persons only. But the work progressed under his wise direction, and after forty years’ labour he addressed on one occasion a meeting of 10,000 on the spot where at first he could scarcely gather fifty. In 1724 another heavy blow was struck at Protestantism in the edict of Louis XV., wshich again assuming that there were no Protestants in France, prohibited the most secret exercise of the Reformed religion, and imposed monstrous penalties. It was impossible fully to carry out its menaces. But persecution raged, especially against the pastors. Many of them were executed, and many fled. A price was set on the life of Antoine Court; and in 1730 he quitted France and took up his abode at Lausanne. He had seen that it was necessary to have a theological college, and Lausanne appeared to be a fitting place for it. He therefore, with the aid of some of the Protestant princes, established the college, and during the remaining thirty years of his life he filled the post of director. He had the title of deputy-general of the churches, and was really the pillar of their hope. He carried on a very extensive correspondence; and, through the often repeated persecutions of his fellow-religionists, fought their battle manfully. The college of Lausanne sent forth all the pastors of the Reformed Church of France till the days of the first French empire. Court formed the design of writing a history of Protestantism, and made large collections for the purpose; but this he did not live to carry out. His character has been thus drawn by Μ. de Végobre :—he possessed sound straightforward sense, wonderful facility of expression, intrepid courage joined with consummate prudence, astonishing vigour to support the greatest fatigues of body and mind, purity and integrity ever beyond suspicion, and unshaken devotion to the holy cause to wshich he had consecrated himself. Antoine Court died at Lausanne in 1760. He was the father of the more generally known Court de Gebelin. He hardly finds a place in biographical dictionaries; indeed, for a long time his name and work were almost ignored even by French writers on the history of the Reformed Church.

For details of his life see Peyrat's Histoire des Pasteurs du Désert, CoquereΓs work bearing the same title, and De Felicé’s Histoire des Protestants de France. The first special biography of Court appears to be that by Μ. Edmond Hugues, entitled Antoine Court, Histoire de la Restauration du Protestantisme en France au X VIII. Siècle, published in 1872.

The old form of field or drum-head court-martial (in which no notice was given, no oath administered, and no written record kept) being now happily extinct, there remain three forms—(1) general and detachment general courts-martial, (2) district and garrison courts-martial, and (3) regimental and detachment courts-martial, which are distinguished by their powers of awarding punishment, and by the dress of the Officers attending them—viz., review order, marching order, drill order. The two latter are called minor courts, and commissioned officers are not amenable to their jurisdiction. A great many offences are, by the Articles of War, made appropriate to the different courts, the general rule being that the general court is not to be resorted to except in aggravated cases, punishable by penal servitude or death. By permission of a general officer the regimental court may try an offence expressly assigned to a higher court, but in no case may it try desertion. To a certain extent these rules are set aside on the line of march or on board ship, but there is always a maximum of punishment which each court is bound to observe. In 1868 the number of members required for a general court at home was reduced from thirteen to nine, a judge-advocate being in attendance. The general court can try all military offences in whatever regiment under the command committed, and it is the only martial court which takes cognizance of civil offences; it also hears appeals from regimental courts. The detachment general court which is since 1860 only competent “beyond seas,” where it is impracticable to hold a general court, was introduced by Wellington, “to repress the spirit of plunder and outrage which had broken out in the army after the battle of Vitoria” (Supp. Desp. viii. 104). It consists of three commissioned officers, summoned without royal warrant, to investigate any offence against the person or property of an inhabitant of the country where the detachment is. The sentence must be confirmed by the general officer. The district or garrison court, which superseded in 1829 the older general regimental court, consists of seven members, the president doing the work of a judge-advocate in summoning witnesses, administering oaths, and transmitting the proceedings to the judgeadvocate-general in London. The power of this court to imprison non-commissioned officers and privates was in 1864 extended from six months to two years; and in 1869 it received additional power to impose forfeitures and to discharge with ignominy. Another form of district court was that formerly called detachment court for the trial of warrant officers (f.e., officers appointed by warrant under the signature of colonels or commandants of corps). The regimental court, summoned by the colonel, consists of five or three members, with power to inflict limited sentences of imprisonment, corporal punishment, solitary confinement, and also fines, stoppages, and other punishments not peculiar to this court. There are also courts or boards of inquiry, called by an exercise of the royal prerogative to inquire into such questions as the failure of an expedition, or the necessity for an armistice or convention, often in order to determine whether or not a court-martial should be held. It was found in the well-known cases of Lord Bentinck (1820) and Lieutenant-Colonel Dawkins (1873) that the Crown may withhold the proceedings of these courts from the courts of law, and that military witnesses are protected from actions of damage in respect of their evidence before such a court. Where an officer is called before the court of inquiry he is not put on oath, or even bound to answer questions which he thinks may be prejudicial to him; and in connection with the celebrated Simla court-martial (1867) this rule was extended to the production of documents. The Articles of War of 1860 introduced a regimental court of inquiry for the purpose of hearing the complaints and redressing wrongs of non-commissioned officers “and soldiers in any matter respecting their pay or clothing.” This court, which is generally held by the captain, also inquires into cases of maiming and mutilation, and all its judgments may be appealed against to a general court. Smaller courts of inquiry examine cases of illegal absence, loss of medals, and the return of officers who may have been taken prisoner by the enemy by their own neglect.

All members of a court-martial take an oath not only to try according to the evidence, but to keep the sentence of the court secret until approved, and to keep secret the votes and opinions of particular members. Even a peer, if serving on a court-martial, cannot use his privilege of giving judgment on honour. As might be expected, the army has a very varied experience in the forms of swearing witnesses. Besides the ordinary Protestant mode of kissing the Bible or Testament, and the ordinary Catholic mode of marking a cross on the closed book, Mahometans are sworn by kissing or placing on their head the Koran, Sikhs upon the Grinth, Hindus upon the Vedas, or by touching the Brahman’s foot; and, according to caste custom, Indian witnesses sometimes insist on the oath being administered by a Brahman. But in India affirmations are now generally taken. While a Jew insists on wearing his hat, as in the synagogue, all soldiers, though bound to remain covered before the court, remove their caps in swearing, just as a Protestant witness ungloves his hand. Kaffir witnesses before a court-martial have sworn by their own chief, and a Kaffir chief by the king of England. The colonial legislatures, however, have generally made provision for receiving unsworn evidence tf barbarous and uncivilized people who have no religious belief. The judge-advocate is a legal assessor and clerk, but in no sense the prosecutor, although the judge-advocate-general still frames and sanctions the formal charger in the indictment. The latter is a Parliamentary officer appointed on change of ministry, and a member of the Privy Council. He advises the Crown as to the legality of courts-martial, reviews proceedings brought under his notice, confidentially advises the commander-in-chief, and is the custodier of the court records. The prosecutor is a staff officer, or the prisoner’s commanding officer, or a field-officer of the regiment, or an adjutant. The prisoner is generally entitled to have legal assistance, and also a private interpreter as a check on the translation of the interpreter for the prosecution. He has no peremptory challenges; but he may challenge on the grounds cf defect of rank, inexperience, prejudice, ob malice. Formerly, if the prisoner “stood mute,” tne court-martial entered a verdict of guilty, but this is now altered in conformity with common sense. Where ħe does not adduce evidence in defence, the prisoner (contrary to the rule uuder Denman’s Act in criminal courts) has a right to the last word. The judgment of the court is by simple majority, except in capital charges, which require the concurrence of two-thirds. The same distinction holds iu the subsequent voting on the sentence. Since 1868 the word “honourably” has disappeared from verdicts of acquittal; and the finding “that the charge has not been proved" has been discontinued. Capital punishment awarded for military offences is generally carried out by shooting, but hanging is also competent. In trifling cases between officers the court frequently dictate the terms of a written or verbal apology; and in separate remarks they often observe on the conduct of the prosecutor, ou the frivolous or groundless nature of the charges, or the intemperate defence of a prisoner whom they acquit. Such remarks are acted on at headquarters. As a general rule the sovereigri’s confirmation is required to the decision of a general court. Officers commanding abroad (except in India) have a limited power of confirmation depending on the nature of the sentence. The commander-in-chief in India may confirm all sentences; and this absolute power was also given to Lord Baglan in the Crimea. Even in India, however, a capital sentence by court-martial for a civil offence requires the approval of the governor-general. When a decision, not of acquittal, comes up for approval, it is indispensable that the judge-ad vocate-general should have a personal audience with the queen. Her Majesty may not only disapprove, but may also order revision of the proceedings; and where the conviction is sustained, the sentence may be remitted or mitigated, but the professional penalties which martial law attaches to conviction cannot be remitted. The members of courts-martial and those who carryout their sentences are of course liable for illegal sentences or irregularities. Thus in 1861, owing to a defect in the Acts regulating the transfer of colonial prisoners, Lieutenant Allen recovered £200 from H.R.H. the duke of Cambridge for false imprisonment.

In conclusion, it may be stated that treason and other nonmilitary offences, which, if committed in England, would be punishable in the ordinary criminal courts, are tried by a general court-martial, if committed on service at Gibraltar, or in India, 120 miles distant from any cf the three presidencies; or elsewhere in the queen’s dominions, where there is no competent civil court, or out of the queen’s iominions.

Naval Courts Martial.— The administration of the barbarous naval law of England was long entrusted to the discretion of commanders acting under instructions from the lord high admiral, who was supreme over both the royal and merchant navy. It was the leaders of the Long Parliament who first secured something like a regular tribunal by passing in 1615 an Ordinance and Articles concerning Martial Law for the Government of the Navy. Under this ordinance Blake, Monk, and Penn issued instructions for the holding general and ship courts-martial with written records, the one for captains and commanders, the other for subordinate officers and men. Of the latter the mate, gunner, and boatswain were members, but the admirals reserved a control over the more serious sentences. Under the Act 13 Car. II. c. 9, the high admiral again received power to issue commissions for holding courts martial—a power which continues to be exercised by the Board of Admiralty. During the 18th century, under the auspices of Anson, the jurisdiction was greatly extended, and the Consolidation Act of 1749 was passed in which the penalty of death occurs as frequently as the curses in the commination service. The Naval Articles of War have always been statutory, and the whole system may now be said to rest on the Naval Discipline Acts of 1860 and 1866. The navy has its courts of inquiry for the confidential investigation of charges “derogatory to the character of an officer and a gentleman.” Under the Act of 1866 a court martial must consist of from five to nine officers of a certain rank, and must be held publicly on board of one of H.M. ships of war, and where three such ships are together. The rank of the president depends on that of the prisoner. A judge-advocate attends, and the procedure resembles that in military courts, except that the prisoner is not asked to plead, and the sentence, if not one of death, does not require the confirmation of the commander-in-chief abroad or of the Admiralty at home. The court has a large and useful power of finding the prisoner guilty of a less serious offence than that charged, which might well be imitated in the ordinary criminal courts. The death sentence is always carried out by hanging at the yard-arm; Admiral Byng, however, was shot in 1757. The Board of Admiralty have, under the Naval Discipline Acts, a general power of suspending, annulling, and modifying sentences which are not capital. The jurisdiction extends to all persons belonging to the navy, to land forces and other passengers on board, shipwrecked crews, spies, persons borne on the books of H.M. ships in commission, and civilians on board who endeavour to seduce others from allegiance. The definition of the jurisdiction by locality includes harbours, havens, or creeks, lakes or rivers, in or out of the United Kingdom; all places within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty; all places on shore out of the United Kingdom; the dockyards, barracks, hospitals, &c , of the service wherever situated; all places on shore in or out of the United Kingdom for all offences punishable under the Articles of War except those specified in section 38 of the Naval Discipline Act, 1860. Under the Marine ^Iutiny Acts the royal marine forces are, while on board, or borne on the books of H.M. ships, subject to naval courts martial. In other circumstances the Articles of War made by the Lord High Admiral for the government of the royal marines are carried out by general courts-martial, district or garrison courts-martial, divisional and detachment courts-martial, courts-martial on the line of march or in transport ships, all held under the authority, mediate or immediate, of the lord high admiral. The regulations of these different courts in the Marine Mutiny Act are very much the same as in the case of courts martial for the land forces. Officers of both services often sit together.

See Simmons On the Constitution and Practice, of Courts-Martial, 7th ed. 1875; Clode, Military and Martial Law, 1872; and Thring’s Treatise, on the Criminal Law of the Navy, 1861. The earlier writers on courts-martial are Adye (1796), Μ‘Arthur (1813), Maltby (1813, Boston), James (1820), D’Aguilar (1843), and Hough, Precedents in Military Law (1855). See also the annual Mutiny Acts and the Articles of War, and the articles Military Law and Navy.