As a reward for the service it rendered the Government in the suppression of the Hungarian insurrection in 1848, the Military Frontier was erected in 1849 into a crown-land, with a total area of 15,182 square miles, and a population of 1,220,503. In 1851 the Transylvanian portion (1177 square miles) was incorporated with the rest of Transylvania; and in 1871 effect was given to the imperial decree of 1869 by which the districts of the Warasdin regiments (St George and the Cross) and the towns of Zengg, Belovar, Ivaniδ, &c., were “provincialized” or incorporated with the Croatian-Slavonian crown-land. In 1872 the Banat regiments followed suit; and in 1873 the old military organization was abolished in all the rest of the frontier. Not till 1881, however, were the Croatian-Slavonian march-lands completely merged in the kingdoms to which they naturally belonged.

The social aspect of the military frontier regime is interesting. A communal system of land tenure natural to the old Slavonians was artificially kept in existence. The mark or plot of ground assigned to the original family of settlers remained the property of the family as such, and could not be portioned out among the several members. In this way the house-community, all under the rule of the same house-father and house-mother (who were not necessarily man and wife, nor the oldest members of the community), and all living within the same palisade, sometimes came to number two or three hundred persons. The “family” dined in a common hall, and after dinner discussed and settled matters affecting the common weal. Every man possessing real property in the country, and capable of bearing arms, was liable to military service from his twentieth year. The house-communities are now beginning to avail themselves of the permissive partition laws, and strangers are free to come and acquire property in land. Watchtowers with wooden clappers and the beacons which flashed the alarm along the whole frontier in a few hours are still features in the landscape.

Troops were raised for a particular service, and were disbanded upon the cessation of hostilities. The crown, of its mere prerogative, made laws known as Articles of War, for the government and discipline of the troops while thus embodied and serving. Except for the punishment of desertion, which offence was made a felony by statute in the reign of Henry VI., these ordinances or Articles of War remained almost the sole authority for the enforcement of discipline until 1689, when the first Mutiny Act was passed and the military forces of the crown were brought under the direct control of parliament. Even the Parliamentary forces in the time of Charles I. and Cromwell were governed, not by an Act of the legislature, but by articles of war similar to those issued by the king and authorized by an ordinance of the Lords and Commons, exercising in that respect the sovereign prerogative. This ]>ower of law-making by prerogative was, however, held to be applicable during a state of actual war only, and attempts to exercise it in time of peace were ineffectual. Subject to this limitation it existed for considerably more than a century after the passing of the first Mutiny Act. From 1689 to 1803, although in peace time the Mutiny Act was occasionally suffered to expire, a statutory power was given to the crown to make Articles of War to operate in the colonies and elsewhere beyond the seas in the same manner as those made by prerogative operated in time of war. In 1715, in consequence of the rebellion, this power was created in respect of the forces in the kingdom. But these enactments were apart from and in no respect affected the principle acknowledged all this time that the crown of its mere prerogative could make laws for the government of the army in foreign countries in time of war. The Mutiny Act of 1803 effected a great constitutional change in this respect: the power of the crown to make any Articles of War became altogether statutory, and the prerogative merged in the Act of Parliament. So matters remained till the year 1879, when the last Mutiny Act was passed and the last Articles of War were promulgated. The Mutiny Act legislated for offences in respect of which death or penal servitude could be awarded, and the Articles of War, while repeating those provisions of the Act, constituted the direct authority for dealing with offences for which imprisonment was the maximum punishment as well as with many matters relating to trial and procedure. The Act and the Articles were found not to harmonize in all respects. Their general arrangement was faulty, and their language sometimes obscure. In 1869 a royal commission recommended that both should be recast in a simple and intelligible shape. In 1878 a committee of the House of Commons endorsed this view and made certain recommendations as to the way in which the task should be performed. In 1879 the Government submitted to parliament and passed into law a measure consolidating in one Act both the Mutiny Act and the Articles of War, and amending their provisions in certain important respects. This measure was called the “Army Discipline and Regulation Act, 1879.” After one or two years’ experience of its working it also was found capable of improvement, and was in its turn superseded by the Army Act, 1881, which now forms the foundation and the main portion of the military law of England. It contains a proviso saving the right of the crown to make Articles of War, but in such a manner as to render the power in effect a nullity; for it enacts that no crime made punishable by the Act shall be otherwise punishable by such Articles. As the punishment of every conceivable offence is provided for by the Act, any Articles made thereunder can be no more than an empty formality having no practical effect. Thus the history of English military law up to 1879 may be divided into three periods, each having a distinct constitutional aspect :—(1) that prior to 1689, when the army, being regarded as so many personal retainers of the sovereign rather than servants of the state, was mainly governed by the will of the sovereign; (2) that between 1689 and 1803, when the army, being recognized as a permanent force, was governed within the realm by statute and without it by the prerogative of the crown; and (3) that from 1803 to 1879, when it was governed either directly by statute or by the sovereign under an authority derived from and defined and limited by statute. Although in 1879 the power of making Articles of War became in effect altogether inoperative, the sovereign was empowered to make rules of procedure, having the force of law, which regulate the administration of the Act in many matters formerly dealt with by the Articles of War. These rules, however, must not be inconsistent with the provisions of the Army Act itself, and must be laid before parliament immediately after they are made. Thus in 1879 the government and discipline of the army became for the first time completely subject either to the direct action or the close supervision of parliament.

A further notable change took place at the same time. The Mutiny Act had been brought into force on each occasion for one year only, in compliance with the constitutional theory that the maintenance of a standing army in time of peace, unless with the consent of parliament, is against law. Each session therefore the text of the Act had to be passed through both Houses clause by clause and line by line. The Army Act, on the other hand, is a fixed permanent code. But constitutional traditions are fully respected by the insertion in it of a section providing that it shall come into force only by virtue of an annual Act of Parliament. This annual Act recites the illegality of a standing army in time of peace unless with the consent of parliament, and the necessity nevertheless of maintaining a certain number of land forces (exclusive of those serving in India) and a body of royal marine forces on shore, and of keeping them in exact discipline, and it brings into force the Army Act for one year.

Military law is thus chiefly to be found in the Army Act and the rules of procedure made thereunder, the Militia Act, 1882, the Reserve Forces Act, 1882, and the Volunteer Act, 1863, together with certain Acts relating to the yeomanry, and various royal warrants and regulations. The Army Act itself is, however, the chief authority. Although the complaint has been sometimes made, and not without a certain amount of reason, that it does not accomplish much that it might in point of brevity, simplicity, and clearness of expression, it is a very comprehensive piece of legislation, and shows some distinct improvements upon the old Mutiny Acts and Articles of War.

The persons subject to military law are the officers on the active list and the soldiers of the regular forces (including the royal marines), the permanent staff of the auxiliary (i.e., the militia, volunteer, and yeomanry) forces, and the officers of the militia. The above persons are amenable to its provisions at all times except while embarked on board a commissioned ship of the royal navy, when they become subject to the Naval Discipline Act and certain orders in council made under its authority. Those who are subject to military law in certain circumstances only are—officers and men while serving in a force raised out of the United Kingdom and commanded by an officer of the regular forces; pensioners when employed in military service under the command of a regular officer; the non-commissioned officers and men of the militia, during training, when attached to the regulars or when permanently embodied; the officers of the yeomanry and the volunteers when in command of or attached to a body of men subject to military law, or when their corps is on actual military service, or when ordered on duty with their own consent; the men of the yeomanry when they or their corps are being trained, when they are attached to or acting with the regular forces, when their corps is on actual military service, or when serving in aid of the civil power; the men of the volunteers when they are being trained with or are attached to any body of troops, or when their corps is on actual military service; the men of the army reserve and the militia reserve when called out for training or on duty in aid of the civil power; any person who in an official capacity equivalent to that of an officer accompanies a body of troops on active service beyond the seas; any person accompanying a force on active service holding a pass from the general entitling him to be treated on the footing of an officer. In this last category would of course be included newspaper correspondents, also sutlers and followers. In one or two cases persons are subjected to military law to a limited extent and in respect only of certain offences. Thus a militiaman even when not out for training or not embodied is liable to a military trial and punishment for fraudulent enlistment or making a false answer on attestation. In the same manner an army reserve man may be tried and punished by court martial for neglect to appear at the place where he is bound periodically to report himself, or for insubordination to his superiors on these occasions, or for any fraud in connexion with the receipt of his pay. A man of the army reserve or the militia reserve has the legal status of and in fact becomes a regular soldier when called out on occasions of national danger or emergency under the sovereign’s proclamation.

When a person subject to military law commits an offence he is taken into military custody, which means either arrest in his own quarters or confinement. He must without unnecessary delay be brought before his commanding officer, who upon investigating the case may dismiss the charge if in his discretion he thinks it ought not to be proceeded with, or may take steps to bring the offender before a court martial. Where the offender is not an officer he may dispose of the case summarily, the limit of his power in this respect being seven days’ imprisonment with hard labour, fines not exceeding 10s. for drunkenness, certain deductions from pay, confinement to barracks for twenty-eight days, this involving severe extra drills, deprivations, and other minor punishments. Where the offence is absence without leave for a period exceeding seven days, the commanding officer may award a day’s imprisonment in respect of each day of such absence up to twenty-one. It is only in the case of the imprisonment exceeding seven days that the evidence before the commanding officer is taken on oath, and then only in the event of the accused so desiring it. The commanding officer is enjoined by regulation not to punish summarily the more serious kind of offences, but his legal jurisdiction in this respect is without limit as regards any soldier brought before him, and when he has dealt summarily with a case the accused is free from any other liability in respect of the offence thus disposed of. In any instance where the commanding officer has summarily awarded imprisonment, fine, or deduction from pay, the accused may claim a district court martial instead of submitting to the award.

Ordinary courts martial are of three kinds, viz.:—(1) a regimental court martial, usually convened and confirmed by the commanding officer of the regiment or detachment, presided over by an officer not under the rank of captain, composed of at least three officers of the regiment or detachment with not less than one year’s service, and having a maximum power of punishment of forty-two days’ imprisonment with hard labour; (2) a district court martial, usually convened by the general of the district, consisting in the United Kingdom. India, Malta, and Gibraltar of not less than five and elsewhere of not less than three officers, each with two years’ service or more, and having a maximum power of punishment of two years’ imprisonment with hard labour; (3) a general court martial, the only tribunal having authority to try a commissioned officer, and with a power of punishment extending to death or penal servitude, for offences for which these penalties are authorized by statute; it consists of not less than nine officers in the United Kingdom, India, Malta, and Gibraltar and of five elsewhere, each of whom must have over three years’ service, five being not under the rank of captain. There is another kind of tribunal incidental to service in the field, or where, in the case of an offence against the person or property of an inhabitant, an ordinary court martial cannot be held, namely, a field general court martial. This court may consist of three officers only, and it has the power of sentencing to death. Another kind of court, called a summary court martial, may be held where an offence has been committed upon active service and an ordinary court cannot be conveniently assembled. In the event of three officers not being available it may consist of two. When thus constituted it can award only a “summary punishment” or imprisonment; where it consists of three officers, however, it can sentence to death. In the case of a field general or a summary court martial many forms and precautions prescribed in the case of ordinary courts are not necessarily observed, the whole proceeding being from the necessity of the case a somewhat rough and ready means of dealing promptly with crime.

The Army Act prescribes the maximum punishment which may be inflicted in respect of each offence. That of death is incurred by various acts of treachery or cowardice before the enemy, or by when on active service interfering with or impeding authority, leaving without orders a guard or post, or when sentry sleeping or being drunk on a post, plundering or committing an offence against the person or property of an inhabitant, intentionally causing false alarms, or deserting. Whether upon active service or not, a soldier also becomes liable to the punishment of death who mutinies or incites to or joins in or connives at a mutiny, who uses or offers violence to or defiantly disobeys the lawful command of his superior officer when in the execution of his office. Penal servitude is the maximum punishment for various acts and irregularities upon active service not distinctly of a treacherous or wilfully injurious character, for using or offering violence or insubordinate language to a superior, or disobeying a lawful command when upon active service. The same punishment is applicable when not upon active service to a second offence of desertion or fraudulent enlistment (i.c., enlistment by one who already belongs to the service), certain embezzlements of public property, wilfully releasing without authority a prisoner or wilfully permitting a prisoner to escape, enlisting when previously discharged from the service with disgrace without disclosing the circumstances of such discharge, or any other offence which by the ordinary criminal law of England is punishable with penal servitude. Imprisonment with hard labour for two years is the maximum punishment for minor forms and degrees of those offences which if committed upon active service would involve death or penal servitude, such as using or offering violence or insubordinate language to a superior or disobeying a lawful command, and for the following offences:—resisting an escort, breaking out of barracks, neglect of orders, a first offence of desertion or attempted desertion or aiding or conniving at desertion, or of fraudulent enlistment, absence without leave, failure to appear at parade, going beyond prescribed bounds, absence from school, malingering or producing disease or infirmity, maiming with intent to render a soldier unfit for service, an act of a fraudulent nature, disgraceful conduct of a cruel, indecent, or unnatural kind, drunkenness, releasing a prisoner without proper authority or allowing him to escape, being concerned in the unreasonable detention of a person awaiting trial, escaping or attempting to escape from lawful custody, conniving at exorbitant exactions, making away with, losing by neglect, or wilfully injuring military clothing or equipments, ill-treating a horse used in the service, making false or fraudulent representations in public documents, making a wilfully false accusation against an officer or soldier, making a false confession of desei lion or fraudulent enlistment, or a false statement in respect of the prolongation of furlough, misconduct as a witness before a court martial or contempt of such court, giving false evidence on oath, any offence specified in relation to billeting or the impressment of carriages, making a false answer to a question put upon attestation, being concerned in unlawful enlistment, using traitorous or disloyal words regarding the sovereign, disclosing any circumstance relating to the numbers, position, movements, or other circumstances of any part of her majesty’s forces so as to produce effects injurious to her majesty’s service, fighting or being concerned in or conniving at a duel, attempting suicide, obstructing the civil authorities in the apprehension of any officer or soldier accused of an offence, any conduct, disorder, or neglect to the prejudice of good order and military discipline, any offence which if committed in England would be punishable by the law of England. There is another offence which can be committed by officers only, namely, “scandalous conduct unbecoming the character of an officer and a gentleman.” It necessitates cashiering, a punishment which in the case of an officer may be awarded as an alternative to imprisonment in several other instances. There is also an offence peculiar to officers and non-commissioned officers, that of striking or ill-treating a soldier or unlawfully detaining his pay. A sentence of cashiering as distinguished from that of dismissal in the case of an officer involves an incapacity to serve the crown again. An officer may be also sentenced to forfeiture of seniority of rank and to reprimand or severe reprimand. A non-commissioned officer may be sentenced to be reduced to a lower grade or to the ranks, and where sentenced to penal servitude or imprisonment is deemed to be reduced to the ranks. The commander-in-chief at home or the commander-in-chief in India or in either of the presidencies may also cause a non-commissioned officer to be reduced to a lower grade or to the ranks. An acting noncommissioned officer may be ordered by his commanding officer for an offence or for inefficiency or otherwise to revert to his permanent grade,—in other words, to forfeit his acting rank.

It will have been observed that persons subject to military law are liable to be tried by court martial for offences which if committed in England would be punishable by the ordinary law, and to suffer either the punishment prescribed by the ordinary criminal law or that authorized for soldiers who commit offences to the prejudice of good order and military discipline. The effect of the latter alternative is that for many minor offences for which a civilian is liable to a short term of imprisonment, or perhaps only to a fine, a soldier may be awarded two years’ imprisonment with hard labour. A court martial, however, cannot take cognizance of the crimes of treason, murder, manslaughter, treason-felony, or rape if committed in the United Kingdom. If one of these offences be committed in any place within her majesty’s dominions other than the United Kingdom or Gibraltar, a court martial can deal with it only if it be committed on active service or in a place more than 100 miles from a civil court having jurisdiction to try the offence. With regard to all civil offences the military law, it is to be understood, is subordinate to the ordinary law, and a civilian aggrieved by a soldier in respect of a criminal offence...