Certificates.—In the matter of giving certificates, the architect fills almost a judicial position. The building contract determines the mode of payment of the builder; generally, that as certain stages in the construction have been arrived at, so certain sums, proportionate to the wholepayment, are to be paid to the builder. These sums are only provisional and on account, and are subject to adjustment on completion of the work. They are payable by the principal to the builder only after he has received a certificate from the architect vouching that the requisite progress in con struction has been made. At the completion of the work, the architect settles the account with a final certificate. He is not bound to inform the builder in what mode his calculations have been arrived at. In giving this certificate he must be satisfied that the work is complete, and that any extras were duly authorised and necessary. It is over the extras that are gathered most of the disputes between the principal, architect, and bnilder. If the architect negligently certifies, either in respect to the quality or quantity of the work done, and the money payable, he is liable to compen sate his principal for any loss suffered thereby.
The remuneration of the architect is usually by g percentage of 5 per cent. of the cost of the building. But the law knows nothing of this; and apart froin agreement the architect can only recover a reasonable reward for his trouble and expense, considered relatively to the importance and difficulty of the work. 'Co save misunderstanding, as also to save money, an intending client should be careful to arrange in writing inclusive terms with the architect before his appointment. See SURVEYOR.
the time of our Saxon kings the military forces of this kingdom were in the hands of leaders elected, like the sheriff, by the people in full assembly, or folkmote. The kings were hereditary, but these leaders were elective. It seems universally agreed that King Alfred first settled a national militia in this kingdom, thereby making soldiers of all his subjects. But a large independent power still appears to have been left in the hands of the elected leaders. Upon the Norman Conquest the feudal law was introduced in all its vigour. In consequence thereof all the land in the kingdom held by tenure in chivalry was divided into knights' fees, in number above sixty thousand; and for every knight's fee a knight or soldier was bound to attend the king in his wars for forty days in a year. By this means the king had, without any expense, an army of sixty thousand men always ready at his command. This personal service in process of time degenerated into pecuniary commutations or aids, until at last tenure by chivalry was itself abolished at the restoration of Charles II. In the mean. time other means were adopted for defence in the case of domestic insurrec tions, or of foreign invasion. Thus, under Henry 11. and Edward I., every Inan according to his estate and degree was required to provide a certain quantity of arms wherewith to keep the peace. It was then usual for the kings from time to time to issue to the sheriffs commissions of array, and send officers into every county for the purpose of mustering and setting into military order the inhabitants of every district. But it was provided that no man should be compelled to go out of the kingdom in any case, nor out of his county except in case of urgent necessity. In the reign of Mary lieutenants of counties were introduced and substituted for the sheriffs; and as lord-lieutenants and deputy-lieutenants they exist to the present. The
lieutenants are standing representatives of the Crown to keep the counties in military order. The question how far they derived authority from the Crown independently of the will of the people, and the extent of that authority, became the immediate cause of the rupture between Charles I. and his Parliament. Parliament not only denied the prerogative of the Crown in this respect, but also seized into its own hands the entire control over the militia. At the Restoration the militia was declared, with all the other forces on sea and land, to be under the sole government and com mand of the king, and it was then, and has been several times since, re organised, now forming part of the auxiliary forces of the Crown. At the same time, with parliamentary sanction, regular troops were kept up by the kings, increasing, until in the reign of James II. they numbered, with unauthorised additions, thirty thousand. These troops were supposed to be a personal guard of the sovereign, and were paid out of the king's own civil list. On the Revolution of 1688 it was, however, made an article of the Bill of Rights, that the raising or keeping of a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against the law.
But the keeping of standing armies became in time a universal practice, and even necessity ; and for a long time—since, in fact, 1689, the date of the first Mutiny Act—it has been judged necessary by our Legislature to maintain, even in time of peace, a standing body of troops under the com mand of the Crown. The necessity for this is the safety of the empire, the defence of the realm, and the preservation of the balance of power. There was thus passed in every year, in time of peace or of war, an Act known as the Mutiny Act. By this Act the maintenance of a standing army was authorised during the continuance of the Act, and temporary provision was made for enlistment, discipline, and regulation. In the year 1879 a code of military law of a permanent character was passed, called the Army Discipline and Regulation Act, 1879, which has force during the continuance of an annual Act passed for that purpose, but for no longer period. The Army Discipline, &c., Act is subject, when in force, to any provisions specified in the annual Act, but it contains, generally, provisions as to billeting and enlistment, and regulations for the government of the army and persons subject to military law. 'The sovereign is thereby empowered to make articles of war, erect and convene courts-martial for the trial of offences against the articles of war and the provisions of the Act. But by no means is the jurisdiction of the civil tribunals ousted ; for nothing in the Act prevents a military man exercising his rights and being proceeded against in the ordinary course of law ; but in the case of offences against a subject, he may be delivered over to a civil magistrate. But, on the other hand, a person subject to the regulations of the Act may suffer extreme punishment— in many cases death—at the hands of a military tribunal. Sentences of a court-martial can only be appealed from to the Crown itself; no ordinary court of law having such appellate jurisdiction. But when acting in excess of jurisdiction, they may be restrained by the ordinary courts.