rough of any importance a civil and criminal jurisdiction within certain pre scribed limits. These courts were in all cases courts of record, but in other re spects were not modelled on any uniform system. There was the greatest possible variety in their constitution and the ex tent of their powers ; but the mode of proceeding in all of them was founded on the common law and the practice of the superior courts, and a writ of error lay into the King's Bench, except from the courts of London and the Cinque Ports. By far the greater number of these courts have fallen into disuse. One of the causes of their inefficiency, the want of competent judges and juries, has been partially removed by the Municipal Cor porations Act, and a greater uniformity has been introduced by giving to all of them jurisdiction as far as 201. But in order to bring these courts into active operation, it still remains for the legis lature to provide some more simple means for carrying on their ordinary proceed ings; to give them better means of exe cuting process, and of compelling the attendance of witnesses ; to secure the efficiency and responsibility of the inferior ministers, and to restrict the power of removing trifling suits into the superior courts. The general incompetency of inferior courts in carrying on the ordinary proceedings in a cause is attested by a plan which has lately been introduced by the legislature. Any of the courts at Westminster is authorized, when a cause commenced there has been carried through all its preliminary stages, to send it by writ of trial, to be tried before any inferior judge, and, after trial, the cause is returned, and judgment given in the superior court. If the borough courts should ever be brought into zistate of ac tivity, the system of writs of trial, which is merely a substitute for local tribunals, would probably fall to the ground.
Whenever that time shall arrive, it will be a curious thing to trace the his tory of the administration of justice, which, under the Saxons, essentially local, rising from the smaller jurisdiction gra dually to the higher, became, under the Norman dynasty, centered in one point, the king being the fountain of justice.
This system of centralization, connected as it was with the principles of feudalism, which so long prevailed in this island with peculiar force, was elaborated, in the course of centuries, to a high state of perfection ; it absorbed the remains of the ancient local jurisdictions, and stunted all attempts at the establishment of new. But as the artificial systems and feudal associations, which owed their establish ment here to the Normans, gradually wear away, people are prepared to revert to the simpler and more popular institu tions which existed ages ago among our forefathers, and which seem to be pecu liarly adapted to the character of the Germanic nations.
There is a great distinction between Courts of Record and courts not of record : courts of record are the king's courts of common law, and have power to fine and imprison, which is not the case with courts not of record. From the judg
ment of a court of record there lies an appeal to the superior courts by writ of error : in courts not of record this is effected by a writ of false judgment. The county court, court baron, and hundred court, are courts not of record. The other courts of common law which we have mentioned are courts of record.
The great mass of the litigation of the kingdom is carried on by means of the superior courts of Westminster. In each of these courts there is a chief justice and four puisne judges. In the Exchequer these are styled the chief baron and ba rons, a title which points to the time when their office was filled by the lords of parliament. Another remnant of the original constitution of the courts appears in the judges being addressed as "my lord," which is always given to the judges in their official character.
The number of puisne judges has varied at different times. During the reigns of the Stuarts there were frequently four, but after the revolution the number seems to have been constantly three in each court, constituting, together with the two chief justices and the chief baron, the twelve judges of England. By an act of parliament of the year 1830, a fourth puisne judge was added to each court, making the total number of the superior judges of common law fifteen instead of twelve. But the five judges never sit all together, the full court con sisting, as formerly, of four only.
During the terms, which are four pe riods in the year of about three weeks each, the three courts sit at Westminster for the determination of all questions of law ; and twice a year fourteen of the judges make their circuits through Eng land and Wales, to try, with the assistance of juries, all disputed questions of fact that arise in the country. Actions brought in Middlesex or London are tried in the same manner at the sittings which are held on certain days in and immediately after every term.
From each of the three courts there lies an appeal by writ of error to the Court of Exchequer Chamber. This is not a permanent court, consisting always of the same members; but from which ever of the three courts the appeal is made, it is brought before the judges of the other two. From the constitution of this tribunal, it is evident that where any considerable difference of opinion exists among the fifteen judges, it is incapable of effecting one of the chief purposes of a court of appeal—that of producing uni formity of decision ; and, accordingly, a further appeal lies by writ of error to the House of Lords.
For the history of the courts, see Reeve's History of the English Law ; Mad dox's History of the Exchequer ; Pal grave's Progress of the English Common wealth ; Allen's Inquiry into the Prero gative.