The lord chief justice of England or of the Queen’s Bench .traces his descent from the justiciar of the Norman kings. This officer appears first as the lieutenant or deputy of the king, exercising all the functions of the regal office in the .absence of the sovereign. “In this capacity William Fitz-Osbern, the steward of Normandy, and Odo of Bayeux, acted during the Conqueror’s visit to the Continent in 1067; they were left, according to William of Poitiers, the former to govern the north of England, the latter to hold rule in Kent, vice sua ∙, Florence of Worcester describes them as “custodes Angliae,” and Ordericus Vitalis gives to their office the name of “praefectura.” It would seem most probable that William Fitz-Osbern at least was left in his character of steward, and that the Norman seneschalship was thus the origin of the English justiciarship,” Stubbs’s Constitutional History, vol. i. p. 346. The same authority observes that William of Warenne and Richard of Bien-faite, who were left in charge of England in 1074, are named by a writer in the next generation “praecipui Angliae justitiarii”; but he considers the name to have not yet been definitely attached to any particular office, and that there is no evidence to show that officers appointed to this trust exercised any functions at all when the king was at home, or in his absence exercised supreme judicial authority to the exclusion of other high officers of the court. The office became permanent in the reign of William Rufus, .and in the hands of Ranulf Flambard it became coextensive with the supreme powers of government. For some time, however, the title of justiciar seems not to have been •definitely appropriated to this high minister. Judges of the curia regis were occasionally so named, and it was not till the reign of Henry II. that the chief officer of the crown acquired the exclusive right to the title of capitalis or totins Angliae, justitiarûis. Canon Stubbs considers that the English form of the office is to be accounted for by the king’s desire to prevent the administration falling into the hands of an hereditary noble. The early justiciars were •clerics, in whom the possession of power could not become hereditary. The justiciar continued to be the chief officer of state, next to the king, until the fall of Hubert de Burgh (in the reign of King John), described by Mr Stubbs as the last of the great justiciars. Henceforward, according to Mr Stubbs, the office may be regarded as virtually extinct, or it may be said to have survived only in the judicial functions, which were merely part of the official character I of the chief justiciar. He was at the head of the curia i regis, which was separating itself into the three historical ∣courts of common law about the time when the justiciarship I was falling from the supreme place. The chancellor took I the place of the justiciar in council, the treasurer in the ιexchequer, while the two offshots from the curia regis, the [Common Pleas and the Exchequer, received chiefs of their I own. The Queen’s Bench represented the original stock of [the curia regis, and its chief justice the great justiciar. The justiciar may, therefore, be said to have become from a political a purely judicial officer. A similar development ,awaited his successful rival the chancellor.

I The lord chief justice is, next to the lord chancellor, the highest judicial dignitary in the kingdom. The office is .generally the prize of the chief law officer of the Government, and political considerations, therefore, enter largely into the appointment. But the chief justices have been generally worthy of their great position. The list of them contains the names of some of the greatest masters of the common law, among whom pre-eminent rank must be assigned to Hale, Coke, Holt, Mansfield, and Cockburn. Lord Campbell has written the Lives of the Chief Justices, in 3 vols. A list of the lords chief justices will be found in Haydn’s Book of Dignities, 1851. Robert de Brus, said by Fox to be the first judge who took the distinctive title of lord chief justice of the King’s Bench (1268), was the grandfather of Robert the Bruce, king of Scotland.

In the United States the supreme court consists of a chief justice and eight associate justices, any five of whom make a quorum. The salary of the chief justice is $10,500, and that of the associates $10,000.

ADMINISTRATION OF. According to the Mosaic law, there were to be judges in all the cities, whose duty it was likewise to exercise judicial authority in the neighbouring villages; but weighty causes and appeals went up to the supreme judge or ruler of the commonwealth, and, in case of a failure here, to the high priest, Deut. xvii, 8, 9. In the time of the monarchy, weighty causes and appeals went up, of course, to the king, who, in very difficult cases, seems to have consulted the high priest, as is customary at the present day among the Persians and Ottomans. The judicial establishment was reorganized after the captivity, and two classes of judges, the inferior and superior, were appointed, Ezra vii, 25. The more difficult cases, nevertheless, and appeals, were either brought before the ruler of the state, called פחה, or before the high priest; until, in the age of the Maccabees, a supreme, judicial tribunal was instituted, which is first mentioned under Hyrcanus II. This tribunal is not to be confounded with the seventy-two counsellors, who were appointed to assist Moses in the civil administration of the government, but who never filled the office of judges. See SANHEDRIM. Josephus states, that in every city there was a tribunal of seven judges, with two Levites as apparitors, and that it was a Mosaic institution. That there existed such an institution in his time, there is no reason to doubt, but he probably erred in referring its origin to so early a period as the days of Moses. (See _Judges_.) This tribunal, which decided causes of less moment, is denominated in the New Testament κρίσις, or _the judgment_, Matt. v, 22. The Talmudists mention a tribunal of twenty-three judges, and another of three judges; but Josephus is silent in respect to them. The courts of twenty-three judges were the same with the synagogue tribunals, mentioned in John xvi, 2; which merely tried questions of a religious nature, and sentenced to no other punishment than “forty stripes save one,” 2 Cor. xi, 24. The court of three judges was merely a session of referees, which was allowed to the Jews by the Roman laws; for the Talmudists themselves, in describing this court, go on to observe, that one judge was chosen by the accuser, another by the accused, and a third by the two parties conjunctly; which shows at once the nature of the tribunal. The time at which courts were held, and causes were brought before them for trial, was in the morning, Jer. xxi, 12; Psalm ci, 8. According to the Talmudists, it was not lawful to try causes of a capital nature in the night; and it was equally unlawful to examine a cause, pass sentence, and put it in execution on the same day. The last particular was very strenuously insisted on. It is worthy of remark, that all of these practices, which were observed in other trials, were neglected in the tumultuous trial of Jesus, Matt. xxvi, 57; John xviii, 13–18. The places for judicial trials were in very ancient times the gates of cities, which were well adapted to this purpose. (See _Gates_.) Originally, trials were every where very summary, excepting in Egypt; where the accuser committed the charge to writing, the accused replied in writing, the accuser repeated the charge, and the accused answered again, &c, Job xiv, 17. It was customary in Egypt for the judge to have the code of laws placed before him, a practice which still prevails in the east. Moses interdicted, in the most express and decided manner, gifts or bribes, which were intended to corrupt the judges, Exod. xxii, 20, 21; xxiii, 1–9; Lev. xix, 15; Deut. xxiv, 14, 15. Moses also, by legal precautions, prevented capital punishments, and corporal punishments which were not capital, from being extended, as was done in other nations, both to parents and their children, and thus involving the innocent and the guilty in that misery which was justly due only to the latter, Exod. xxiii, 7; Deut. xxiv, 16; Dan. vi, 24. The ceremonies which were observed in conducting a judicial trial, were as follows: 1. The accuser and the accused both made their appearance before the judge or judges, Deut. xxv, 1, who sat with legs crossed upon the floor, which was furnished for their accommodation with carpet and cushions. A secretary was present, at least in more modern times, who wrote down the sentence, and, indeed, every thing in relation to the trial; for instance, the articles of agreement that might be entered into previous to the commencement of the judicial proceedings, Isaiah x, 1, 2; Jer. xxxii, 1–14. The Jews assert that there were two secretaries, the one being seated to the right of the judge, who wrote the sentence of not guilty, the other to the left, who wrote the sentence of condemnation, Matt. xxv, 33–46. That an apparitor or beadle was present, is apparent from other sources. 2. The accuser was denominated in Hebrew שטן, or _the adversary_, Zech. iii, 1–3; Psalm cix, 6. The judge or judges were seated, but both of the parties implicated stood up, the accuser standing to the right hand of the accused: the latter, at least after the captivity, when the cause was one of great consequence, appeared with hair dishevelled, and in a garment of mourning. 3. The witnesses were sworn, and, in capital cases, the parties concerned, 1 Sam. xiv, 37–40; Matt. xxvi, 63. In order to establish the charges alleged, two witnesses were necessary, and, including the accuser, three. The witnesses were examined separately, but the person accused had the liberty to be present when their testimony was given in, Num. xxxv, 30; Deut. xvii, 1–15; Matt. xxvi, 59. Proofs might be brought from other sources; for instance, from written contracts, or from papers in evidence of any thing purchased or sold, of which there were commonly taken two copies, the one to be sealed, the other to be left open, as was customary in the time of Jerom, Jer. xxxii, 10–13. 4. The parties sometimes, as may be inferred from Prov. xviii, 18, made use of the lot in determining the points of difficulty between them, but not without a mutual agreement. The sacred lot of Urim and Thummim was anciently resorted to, in order to detect the guilty, Joshua vii, 14–24; 1 Sam. xiv; but the determination of a case of right or wrong in this way was not commanded by Moses. 5. The sentence, very soon after the completion of the examination, was pronounced; and the criminal, without any delay, even if the offence were a capital one, was hastened away to the place of punishment, Joshua vii, 22, &c; 1 Sam. xxii, 18; 1 Kings ii, 23.

The commission of the peace is addressed to all the justices of the county, and assigns to them the duty of keeping and causing to be kept all ordinances and statutes for the good of the peace and for preservation of the same, and for the quiet rule and government of the people, and further assigns “to you and every two or more of you (of whom any one of the aforesaid A, B, C, D, &c., we will, shall be one) to inquire the truth more fully by the oath of good and lawful men of the county of all and all manner of felonies, poisonings, enchantments, sorceries, arts, magic, trespasses, forestallings, regratings, engrossings, and extortions whatever.” This part of the commission is the authority for the jurisdiction of the justices in sessions. Justices named specially in the parenthetical clause are said to be on the quorum. Justices cannot act beyond the limits of the county for which they are appointed, and the warrant of a justice cannot be executed out of his county unless it be backed, that is, endorsed by a justice of the county in which it is to be carried into execution. A justice improperly refusing to act on his office, or acting partially and corruptly, may be proceeded against by a criminal information, and a justice refusing to act may be compelled to do so by the High Court of Justice. An action will lie against a justice for any act done by him in excess of his jurisdiction, and for any act within his jurisdiction which has been done wrongfully and with malice, and without reasonable or probable cause. But no action can be brought against a justice for a wrongful conviction until it has been quashed. By 18 Geo. II. c. 20 every justice for a county must have an estate of freehold, copyhold, or customary tenure in fee, for life or a given term, of the yearly value of £100. The vast and multifarious duties of the justices cover some portion of every important head of the criminal law, and extend to a considerable number of matters relating to the civil law. A complete guide thereto is Burn’s Justice of the Peace, in 5 large volumes, the thirtieth edition of which was published in 1869.

In the United States these officers are sometimes appointed by the executive, sometimes elected. “In some, perhaps all, of the United States, justices of the peace have jurisdiction in civil cases given to them by local regulations” (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary).