King and Parliament held diametrically opposite views of their relative powers, and both appealed to the past in justification of their opinions. But England's past was a long story, and its successive chapters read very variously. James appealed to the immediate past to justify his possession of the "inseparable rights and prerogatives annexed to our imperial crown, whereof, not only in the times of other our progenitors, but in the blessed reign of our late predecessor, that renowned queen Elizabeth, we found our crown actually possessed."

[Footnote: King's proclamation on dissolving Parliament, January 6,1622.] The leaders of the House of Commons, on the other hand, were looking back to a more remote past, the birth-time and period of acknowledgment by the crown of the parliamentary privileges and English liberties which now seemed to them endangered.

As a matter of fact, Parliament, like all other political inst.i.tutions in England, had grown up around the monarchy. Primarily, the Houses were a body of advisers of the king, summoned by him to give their counsel in matters in which he needed the advice of the various cla.s.ses of his subjects; and to give their consent to taxation, which would require sacrifice on the part of the people. Once organized, however, Parliament gathered into itself all the shadowy survivals of self- government coming down from a still earlier period; it reflected the local independence of the towns and counties which sent members to the House of Commons, and the corporate rights of the church and individual privileges of the n.o.bility, which const.i.tuted its upper house; it served as the instrument by which the nation at various times protected itself against bad government; it embodied the fifteenth-century ideal of a government conjointly by king and estates of the realm.

Moreover, Parliament gained by repeated use and acknowledgment an established procedure and powers, well-understood rights, and precedents frequently invoked. The four fundamental privileges of members of Parliament were: (1) freedom of elections: (2) freedom from arrest during the sessions; (3) freedom of speech in debate; (4) freedom of access to the sovereign for their speaker, if not for all individually. These were frequently acknowledged by the sovereign at the opening of Parliament and enrolled upon its records, and still more frequently a.s.serted in the House. [Footnote: D'Ewes, Journals, 65, 66, 175, 236, 259, 411, 460, etc; Petyt, Jus Parliamentarium, 227-243, quoted in Prothero, Select Statutes, 289; Commons Journals, I., 431, etc.] The powers of Parliament were less clearly defined than its privileges; but its control over taxation and legislation, its right to impeach the king's ministers and to discuss all matters of interest to the nation, were frequently a.s.serted, and usually conceded. [Footnote: Gneist, Hist. of the English Const.i.tution, chaps. v., x.x.xii.] Thus Parliament was much more than a royal council; it was a body with claims to co-ordinate powers of government. How far, at any one time, these privileges and powers were conceded, how far they were denied or encroached upon by the crown, was largely dependent on circ.u.mstances.

These circ.u.mstances during Tudor times had been such as to put the initiative and much of the actual power of government in the hands of the king, and parliamentary powers were largely in abeyance. Parliament during this time was a conservative body; the monarchy was the innovating element of the state.

Circ.u.mstances changed with the closing years of the sixteenth century and favored an increase of parliamentary partic.i.p.ation in government.

With all her prestige the old queen herself had to feel it. [Footnote: D'Ewes, Journals, 602.] With the accession of the half-foreign Stuarts, with the cessation of danger of invasion from abroad, with the increasing weight of exactions of an unwise and unpopular personal government, with the growing interest of the seventeenth century in matters of politics, and, above all, with the development of Puritanism, individualistic and self-a.s.sertive in its very essence, Parliament was sure to rea.s.sert all the powers which it had ever possessed, and likely to seek to extend them. The king was now the conservative element, while Parliament, if recent conditions be taken as the standard, was the innovating party.

It was exactly at this period of contest and of unsettled balance of powers that the early settlements were made in America. The colonists represented almost without exception what might be called the parliamentarian view. It was not the king, the--courtiers, the n.o.bles, the judges, the higher clergy, the official cla.s.ses, and the fellows of the universities that emigrated. Among these the royalist spirit was strong, but they remained in England. It was rather from the middle and lower cla.s.ses, from those who were on poor terms with the king, whatever their position in society, from the persecuted, the dissatisfied, the restless, that the great body of colonists was drawn; and among these cla.s.ses the views upheld by the House of Commons were wide-spread. The same thing was true of those companies which, remaining in England, yet had so much influence over the destinies of the American colonies. The most influential elements in the Virginia Company, the Ma.s.sachusetts Bay Company, and other similar bodies were distinctly opposed to the high claims of the king. Yet unanimity did not exist even among those who, left England; and strong as the predilection was among the founders of America for self-government and representative inst.i.tutions, the Old-World differences of view were transferred to the colonies and played a part in local struggles there.

Much of the disputation between James and the House of Commons concerned the privileges of Parliament, and might be suspected of being largely the natural jealousy of its own rights felt and a.s.serted by an ancient corporation. But Parliament was waging war for larger objects than the rights of its own body; it felt itself to be defending in its own privileges the personal rights of all Englishmen. In the contested election case of 1604 a member declared that "the case of Sir John Fortescue and Sir Francis Goodwin has become the case of the whole kingdom." [Footnote: Commons Journals, I, 159, March 30, 1604] "The rights and liberties of your subjects of England and the privileges of this House," is a formula that appears frequently in the doc.u.ments of the time, and combines the two objects of the contest, in which the latter were upheld largely because they supported and protected the former.

These ancient rights of the people were less definite than either the privileges or the powers of Parliament. They were, perhaps, attractive and valued somewhat in proportion to their vagueness. They certainly included right of freedom from arrest or imprisonment except on a definite charge and by due process of law; they included exemption from taxation except after consent of Parliament, [Footnote: Hakewell's argument in the Bates case of 1610 (State Trials, ed 1779, XI); Pet.i.tion of Right of 1628] they included protection against violence and injustice; they included the right of pet.i.tion to the king against any grievance, [Footnote: c.o.ke's speech on Pet.i.tion of Right (Parliamentary History, VIII., 104). VOL 1--19] and in general a right to have the laws enforced, yet to have nothing done to their disadvantage which was not in the law. It was the spirit rather than the letter of Magna Carta that was valued by the English people. As time pa.s.sed and under Charles I. the conflict between the parliamentary and the royal claims became more intense, the upholders of the former fell back more and more on the ancient rights and liberties of the people, and relatively less is said of parliamentary privileges. In the Pet.i.tion of Right of 1629, Parliament appeals to the Great Charter, to the Confirmation of the Charters, and to other early statements of personal liberties. Pym declared that "the liberties of this House are inferior to the liberties of this kingdom." When the civil war was actually imminent, in December, 1641, the Grand Remonstrance was issued as a statement of the contentions of the leaders in Parliament. In this doc.u.ment "the people," "the liberties of subjects," "rights of the nation," and other popular expressions are constantly used or implied.

[Footnote: Grand Remonstrance, SS 11, 19, 28, 40, 53, 57, 98, 130, etc., in Rushworth, Historical Collections, IV., 438.]

Ultimately, as a result of the struggles of the later years of the seventeenth century, the more important of such rights were formulated in the Bill of Rights of 1689. Thus the heritage of civil freedom which the people of England had traditionally enjoyed was neither taken from them by the strong monarchy of the sixteenth century nor forgotten in the struggle of Parliament for its own privileges in the seventeenth.

It was rea.s.serted with constantly new insistence in England, and was carried to America by the colonists as an acknowledged and valued possession.

CHAPTER XIV

THE ENGLISH COUNTY AND ITS OFFICERS (1600-1650)

The ordinary Englishman in the seventeenth century had much more to do with local than with national government. Only a few score men served the king as ministers, councillors, or judges; only a few hundred attended Parliament; while as lords lieutenant, sheriffs, justices of the peace, constables, church-wardens, mayors, aldermen, and in other capacities of local and limited but real power, many thousands must have taken a part in public affairs. National government was remote from the ordinary man; local government came close to him. The political inst.i.tutions which surrounded him on all sides, insensibly controlling every action and forming the world to which his outward life conformed, were familiar to him and affected his habits and ideas, whether he remained at home or emigrated to the colonies, far more directly than did the political inst.i.tutions of the nation.

The oldest, most stable, and most important unit of local government was the shire, or county. The conspicuous official and historic head of the county was the sheriff. As Camden says, "Every year some one of the gentlemen inhabitants is made ruler of the county wherein he dwelleth."

[Footnote: Camden, Britannia (ed. 1637), 160.] Though no longer relatively so powerful as in the Middle Ages, his position was even yet one of much dignity and importance. On occasions of public ceremony he had an imposing personal retinue, carried a white rod of office, and wore official robes. [Footnote: King, The Vale-Royall, 40; North, Examen, quoted in Dict. Nat. Biog., XII., 121.] Richard Evelyn, when sheriff, "had one hundred and sixteen servants in liverys, every one liveryed in greene sattin doubliets; divers gentlemen and persons of quality waited on him in the same garbe and habit." [Footnote: Evelyn, Diary, 1634.] William Ffarrington, sheriff of Lancashire in 1636, kept up the following household: a steward, a clerk of the kitchen, two yeomen of the plate cupboard, a yeoman of the wine-cellar, two attendants on the sheriff's chamber, an usher of the hall, two chamberlains, four butlers and butler's a.s.sistants, eight cooks, five scullions, a porter, a baker, a caterer, a slaughterman, a poulterer, two watchmen for the horses, two men to attend the docket door each day by turns, twenty men to attend upon the prisoners each day by turns-- altogether a household of fifty-six servants. [Footnote: The Shrievalty of William Ffarrington, 17 (Chetham Society). This reference and a number of those which follow I owe to the industry and good scholarship of Mr. Charles Burrows, a young man of great promise, who, after studying at the universities of Chicago and Pennsylvania, and beginning the preparation of a thesis on the Subject of this chapter, went abroad for further study and died in 1902.] With the need for such official outlays, it is no wonder that a long series of statutes should have provided that the sheriff should be one who had land in the county "sufficient to answer king and people." [Footnote: 9 Ed. II., st. 2; 4 Ed. III., chap, ix.; 5 Ed. III., chaps, iv., xiii., xiv.] In fact, he was usually a knight or a man of such rank as might be made a knight. A list of the sheriffs of the county of Chester during the reigns of James I. and Charles I. shows twenty-three knights and twenty-three without t.i.tle, but presumably of equal rank in society. [Footnote: King, The Vale-Royall, 233.] Many of the best-known men of this period, such as Sir Thomas Wentworth, Sir Ralph Verney, Sir William Selby, and Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper, afterwards earl of Shaftesbury, acted at various times as sheriffs of their respective counties. They were direct successors of Chaucer's Franklyn, of whom we are told, "A schirreeve had he been." With some exceptions, such as those cities which had their own elective sheriffs, and those pairs of counties which were conjoined under one sheriff, each shire had one sheriff, appointed in the following manner: every year, on November 1, a special meeting of the Privy Council was held at the exchequer, a number of the higher government officials being especially required to be present; here a list of three persons of distinction from each county, qualified to fill the office of sheriff, was made up and submitted to the king, who "p.r.i.c.ked" one from each three; the men thus chosen were then bound to seek letters-patent, and take their oaths as sheriffs for the ensuing year in their respective counties. [Footnote: Fortescue, De Laudibus Legum Angliae, chap. xxiv.] By law the same man could not be appointed for two successive years. [Footnote: 14 Ed. III., chap, vii., etc.] This was probably a welcome restriction, as the appointees bore somewhat unwillingly the burdens and expenditures of the office.

[Footnote: Hist. MSS. Commission, Report VII., App., 3-9, 25.] In 1630 we find Sir Francis c.o.ke writing to ask Sir J. c.o.ke "to keep my loving neighbour and friend Edward Revell of Brookhill from being sheriff this year";[Footnote: Ibid., Report XII., App. I., 414. ] and in 1663 Evelyn enters in his diary, "To court to get Sir John Evelyn, of G.o.dstone, off from being sheriff of Surrey." [Footnote: November 6, 1663.] It is true that the office brought with it many small fees. A long list of customary payments for the issue of various writs and the performance of various services by the sheriff is given in the manuals of the time.

[Footnote: Greenwood, The County Court, 183.] On the other hand, the fees payable by the sheriff to the officials of the exchequer on his appointment and discharge, [Footnote: Ibid., 122.] the expenses of his office, and the requirements of his position for social expenditure were very considerable, and the comment of a contemporary law-writer was, no doubt, in most cases, justified: "But the sheriff is at much more charge, which is laid out and is disbursed during his sheriffwick, as experience will inform him."[Footnote: Greenwood, The County Court, 187.] Another burden of the sheriff's office was enforced residence in his own county during his term of service. The records are overspread with fines for the violation of this requirement and with requests for dispensations from conformity to it.[Footnote: Hist. MSS. Commission, Report VII., App., 5; Rushworth, Historical Collections, II., App., 27, Deputy Keeper of the Public Records, Reports, XLIII.,151; Cal. of State Pap., Dom., 1628-1629, pp., 396, 403, etc.] A personage in an old play says of the ladies of his time, "I think they would rather marry a London jailer than a high-sheriff of a county, since neither can stir from his employment." [Footnote: Wycherly, The Country Wife, act iv., sc. 1.] The t.i.tle high-sheriff, frequently used instead of the simple term sheriff, had no especial significance and was probably suggested by a desire to discriminate him from the under-sheriff. The exacting duties of the office led the sheriff very frequently to appoint, at his own cost, such a subordinate and to empower him to perform such services as could be legally transferred to another. He was usually a man of some position, "learned somewhat in the law, especially if the sheriff be not learned himselfe." [Footnote: Smith, Commonwealth of England, book II., chap. xvii.] He was a source of considerable expense to his superior, an estimate of annual cost made in 1628 amounting to 352 Pounds 18s. 6d. He relieved the sheriff, however, of his more onerous and invidious duties. North declared that "Clifford and Shaftesbury looked like high-sheriff and under-sheriff. The former held the white staff and had his name to all returns, but all the business, especially the knavish part, was done by the latter." [Footnote: Examen, 8, quoted in Dict. Nat, Biog., XII., 113.]

The duties of the sheriff were many and varied; some of them old judicial and administrative functions, others new and irregular services demanded of him by the innovating Tudor and Stuart sovereigns.

Every month he must hold a county court, at which were brought suits for debts of less than forty shillings, suits for damages, for breach of contract, for non-payment of wages, for not returning borrowed or pledged articles, and a hundred other petty causes. [Footnote: Fitzherbert, Natura Brevium, 28 d, etc.] In this court also, and at some other times and places, he must proclaim certain ancient statutes and new laws and ordinances for the information and warning of the people.

The county court as a judicial body was, in the seventeenth century, a waning inst.i.tution, its competence and functions becoming rapidly obsolete; but occasionally it awakened suddenly to life, took on a new aspect, and became of unwonted importance. This occurred when a summons was issued for a new parliament, for the county court was the electing body of the knights of the shire, and to the next session after the writs for the parliament had been issued came the gentry and freeholders of the county to elect their representatives. [Footnote: Dalton, Officium Vicecomitum, chap. xcii.] There was often a great concourse and much excitement, and the petty disputes of poor suitors and the labors of obscure officials were for the time completely superseded. The sheriff, as presiding official at this election, as the returning officer of the elected members, and as the official charged with levying money for the payment of their wages and expenses, had an active and influential connection with the choice of members of Parliament. A long series of statutes checked the abuses connected with this influence; but even yet the sheriff exercised some power over the selection made, especially when he was a man of large influence in his county apart from his office.[Footnote: Ibid.]

There was great irregularity in the process of election. Sometimes the members were elected by acclamation, sometimes by show of hands, sometimes by a poll, one voter after another expressing orally his preference. The election should, by law, be held between eight and eleven o'clock in the morning, but a sheriff sometimes postponed the election, or refused to acknowledge the candidate insisted on by the electors, or threw out votes which he claimed were not properly given, or closed the election when his preferred candidate was in an advantageous position. The journals of the House of Commons are filled with reports of contested elections, and sheriffs are repeatedly found kneeling at the bar of the House to receive censure or pardon for such offences.[Footnote: Commons Journals, I., 511, 556, 801, 854, 884, etc.]

A period of scarcely less responsibility for the sheriff was the semi- annual a.s.sizes, when the judges in their robes, on their circuit, with all the dignity of the judicial representatives of the crown, visited the county.[Footnote: Rushworth, Historical Collections, I., 294.] It was the duty of the sheriff to see that grand and petty juries were ready to perform the services required of them by these judges, and to carry out the mandates and judgments of the court. These judgments, which he had to execute either in person or by his under-sheriff or bailiffs, varied in character from the serving of writs or levying upon property for debt to the infliction of the death penalty. [Footnote: Greenwood, 133; Fortescue, De Laudibus Legum Angliae, chap xxiv.] The sheriff had also the supervision of the jail and the appointment of jailers. His presence at the two a.s.sizes of the year was considered one of his most fundamental duties, and heavy fines were imposed when occasionally a sheriff was absent from his post at that time.

[Footnote: Rushworth, Historical Collections, II., App., 27; Cal. of State Pap., Dom, 1628-1629, p. 396.] He not only met the judges with his retinue and furnished them a guard, but feasted them and acted as a sort of local host to the circuit court so long as it was in session in his county.

Closely a.n.a.logous to this duty of the sheriff was the requirement that he should be present, provide jurymen, and carry out the behests of the justices of the peace at their quarter-sessions; but the justices were, like himself, local officers belonging to the county, not visitors from the capital, so that their sessions had little of the ceremony and excitement of the a.s.sizes; and, in fact, the sheriff was usually represented there by the under-sheriff acting as his deputy. [Footnote: Lister, Two Earliest Sessions Rolls of West Riding of Yorkshire, 1597- 1602, III., 28, 44, 64, etc.]

In addition to these and many less conspicuous regular duties the sheriff in the early seventeenth century was utilized from time to time by the central government in irregular and somewhat questionable services. When James revived the distraint of knighthood it was the sheriffs who were required to make out lists of all who had 40 Pounds a year of lands or rents and to order them to appear at court and receive knighthood. When Charles I. revived the imposition of ship-money it was to the sheriff of each county that the writ was sent, stating the amount to be paid by his county and ordering him to arrange with the lower officials for its a.s.sessment and collection.

The patriotic resistance of Hampden found a parallel in the pa.s.sive opposition of some of the sheriffs to this demand upon them. On June 30, 1640, the King's Council wrote to the sheriff of Huntingdonshire: "We have read and considered of your letter of the 24th of the present, wherein we perceive that you have been rather industrious to represent the difficulties which, as you say, you find in the execution of his majesty's writ, than circ.u.mspect or careful, as you ought to have been, in overcoming and removing them,... and we cannot but make this judgment upon your proceedings, that instead of doing your duty in person and compelling others subordinate to you to do theirs, you endeavor to make excuses both for yourself and them." [Footnote: Rushworth, Historical Collections, I, 1203.]

Alongside of the sheriff at the head of the shire was another officer, the lord-lieutenant, whose position, although but recently attained, was in some ways more conspicuous and in certain exigencies more powerful than his. No statute or other formal action provided for the original creation of the lord-lieutenancy, and it is probable that Henry VIII. simply began the habit of delegating his military power in the shires to such officers. Early in the reign of Edward VI., October, 1549, they are mentioned as existing in the counties, and by 1600 their office was fully established.[Footnote: 3 and 4 Ed VI, chap v, in Statutes of the Realm, IV, 107.]This position was usually held by the greatest n.o.bleman with estates in the county, and he appointed as his deputies various knights and gentlemen of high position; as when, in 1626, the duke of Buckingham was lord-lieutenant of Bucks, and Sir Edward Verney and five others were his deputies in that county.

Although purely honorary, the appointment was one of much dignity and responsibility in military matters.

It was the duty of the lord-lieutenant in times of peace to see that the musters of the trained bands were regularly held, that the militia- men had their arms, and that men of higher rank who owed military service to the crown were prepared to perform it; in time of war to levy, muster, and train soldiers, fix the quotas of the hundreds and townships, see to the payment of troops, the collection of horses, and equipment generally, until the recruits were actually handed over to their officers. It was also their duty to see that the beacons were kept in order. The lords-lieutenant must be present, by an order of 1615, nine months in the year [Footnote: Cal. of State Pap., Dom., 1611-1618, p. 337.] in their counties; but there was no such rigorous requirement of constant residence as in the case of the sheriff, nor was the appointment restricted to a single year.

Such an official as the lord-lieutenant was not likely to be left unburdened with other duties when the government was struggling to obtain the enforcement of its laws, and, as a matter of fact, functions quite unmilitary were imposed upon him. In 1637 the council orders the lords-lieutenant of six of the eastern counties to a.s.sist in the better enforcement of the acts for the drainage of the marshes. [Footnote: Cal. of State Pap., Dom., 1637, p. 92.] In 1621 they are to investigate frauds of his majesty's carters. [Footnote: Hist. MSS. Commission, Report VII., App., 670.] They are asked to help collect subsidies and benevolences, to search for popish recusants, to oversee ale-houses, slaughter-houses, and the a.s.size of bread and ale, to a.s.sist in the administration of poor relief and the suppression of vagrancy.

[Footnote: Chetham Society, Lancashire Lieutenancy, I, Int., 19; Camden Society, Verney Papers, 37, 88.] In 1619 the Lords of the Council write to the lieutenant of Surrey asking him to urge co-operation in a lottery for the success of "the English colonies planted in Virginia, to accept the sums adventured, and to report to the treasurer and council of Virginia." [Footnote: Hist. MSS. Commission, Report VII., App., 670.] Much less dignified in position than either the lord- lieutenant or the sheriff, and yet filling an old and important office, was the coroner. He was elected by the freeholders of the county in the county court, and his oath was administered by the county clerk. He was, therefore, more distinctly local and representative than the other county officers, who were appointed by the crown; and as a result he was the only officer whose office did not terminate with the death of the king. Notwithstanding the generality of duties indicated by his name, "custos placitarum coronae," his functions were few beyond the fundamental duty of investigating sudden deaths and binding over for trial such persons as were indicated by the jury through which he made his inquest. [Footnote: Smith, Commonwealth of England, book II., chap.

xxiv.] Under some circ.u.mstances the coroner took the place of the sheriff, and in general his position looked back to a time when it was of greater significance than it had become in the seventeenth century.

[Footnote: Greenwood, The County Court, 258.]

CHAPTER XV

ENGLISH JUSTICES OF THE PEACE (1600-1650)

However extensive the duties of the officers whose functions are described above, the real men-of-all-work in the counties at this time were the justices of the peace. The law required that a justice of the peace must have lands and tenements to the value of L 20 a year, the amount of the legal knight's fee; [Footnote: 18 Henry VI., chap. xi]

but ordinarily he had much greater property. John Evelyn's father, who has been so often referred to as a typical country gentleman of the early seventeenth century, had an estate of L 4000 a year when he was successively sheriff and justice of the peace. [Footnote: Evelyn, Diary, year 1634] The justice of the peace, like the sheriff, the lord- lieutenant, and the coroner, was expected to perform his public services as part of his patriotic duty. It is true that certain statutes provided that part of the fines for any violation should go to the justices before whom the violators were prosecuted; two or three others gave small fees to the justice for affixing his seal or signing a doc.u.ment; but these were apparently casual efforts to secure enforcement, and can have brought no appreciable return to the justices. The law gave each justice 2s. for each day of quarter- sessions up to three days; but this could have produced at most only 6s., and seems to have been usually jointly expended by the magistrates in a dinner.

In an interesting speech by a Mr. Glasc.o.c.k in the House of Commons, December 16, 1601, two equally undesirable justices are described-- first, the one "who from base stock and lineage by his wealth is gotten to be within the commission"; the other "a gentleman born, virtuous, discreet, and wise, yet poor and needy. And so only for his virtues and qualities put into the commission. This man I hold unfit to be a justice, though I think him to be a good member in the commonwealth.

Because I hold this for a ground infallible--that no poor man ought to be in authority. My reason is this: he will so bribe you and extort you that the sweet scent of riches and gain taketh away and confoundeth the true taste of justice and equity." [Footnote: Townshend, Proceedings, 953, 954] But burdensome as the duties of a justice must have been, and almost unpaid as they were, the office does not seem to have been avoided as was that of sheriff. Probably such service was taken as a matter of course by the gentry, and compensation was found in the stamp of social position it placed upon them, and in the sense of power, as well as of a patriotic fulfilment of duty. It was sometimes a matter of complaint that "with us these magistrates have been so unsuitably appointed that a county justice is made a jest in comedies, and his character the subject of buffoonery and laughter." [Footnote: Carey, English Liberties, 275] This is an obvious reference to Justice Shallow and other worthies of the dramatists. It is dangerous to make too serious an inference from contemporary comedies, because certain personages soon became stock characters and ceased to have any very close relation to actual life, and in this particular instance Shakespeare was probably gratifying an old grudge.

Nevertheless, there was evidently some foundation for this picture of the county justice. Dorothy Osborne, in one of her delightful letters to Sir William Temple, in giving her requirements for a husband, pokes fun at such ambitions. "He must not be so much of a country gentleman as to understand nothing but hawks and dogs, and be fonder of either than his wife; nor of the next sort of them whose aim reaches no further than to be Justice of the Peace, and once in his life High Sheriff, who reads no book but statutes, and studies nothing but how to make a speech interlarded with Latin that may amaze his disagreeing poor neighbours, and fright them rather than persuade them into quietness." [Footnote: Letters of Dorothy Osborne to Sir William Temple, letter 36 (ed. by Parry), p 171] With all these criticisms, and in the face of occasional inept.i.tude, the body of justices of the peace included much ability. It was scarcely possible for a justice to act without some knowledge of Latin, as almost all the records and doc.u.ments which he would have to make, read, or sign were in that language. A succession of text-books on the duties of the office, the more important of them appearing in many successive editions, proves an intelligent interest and demand for instruction in their duties.

Moreover, the men who served as justices were often well known in other ways, many of them as sheriffs, as members of Parliament, and in still other capacities. They were of families who provided the active men of enterprise of the period. The list of Devonshire justices in 1592 includes Sir Francis Drake, Sir Ferdinando Gorges, Gilberts, Carews, Seymours, Courtenays, and other names prominent among the men who laid the foundations of the maritime greatness of England and of the existence of America. Of the fifty-five, twenty-eight were at one time or another high-sheriffs of the county, twenty more were then, or became afterwards, knights, six sat in the House of Commons, and three in the House of Lords. [Footnote: Hamilton, Devonshire Quarter- Sessions, 3, 330-348.]

The justices of the peace were fair representatives of that great cla.s.s of rural gentry which exercised so strong an influence over the destinies of England in the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries. From this cla.s.s were drawn all the county officials who have been named, except the lord-lieutenant; from it were chosen the county representatives to Parliament; and in it were found the strength and the weakness of the English political system. James I., in appealing to the country gentry to continue to live on their estates in their counties, said to them, "Gentlemen, at London you are like ships in a sea, which shew like nothing, but in your country villages you are like ships in a river, which look like great things." [Footnote: Bacon, Apothegms, in Works (Spedding and Heath ed), VII., 125.]

Out of this body of rural gentry from twenty to sixty in each county were chosen by the lord-chancellor to serve as justices of the peace.

[Footnote: Lambard, Eirenarcha, book I., chap. v.] The "commission of the peace," by which the justices were appointed and from which they drew their powers, was a formula well known and constantly quoted and commented upon, and added to from time to time until late in the sixteenth century. In was then, in 1590, revised and formulated anew by Sir Christopher May, Chief-Justice, with the advice of all the other judges of the time, and has not been changed from that day to this.

[Footnote: Ibid., book II., chap. vii.]

The justices of the peace performed some of their duties separately, acting individually as circ.u.mstances required, or as proved convenient to themselves. Other powers they could exercise only when two or more acted together and concurrently. Still others, and those far the most important and dignified, they performed in a body at their "quarter- sessions." What things a justice might do singly, what two, three, or four justices might do together, and what they might do only in the formal sessions of the whole body of justices of the peace of the county were defined partly in the statutes, partly in the commission under which they acted.

The regular or quarter-sessions were meetings held four times a year-- in October, midwinter, spring, and midsummer--at which all the justices of the peace of the county were supposed to be present. There were, besides, occasional irregular sessions, or meetings of the regular sessions adjourned from one time to another. In corporate towns the city officers acted as justices of the peace, reinforced usually by some others especially appointed; and each town followed its own customs as to meeting in general sessions.

Although the law contemplated the attendance of all the justices of the county at each quarter-sessions, as a matter of fact the attendance was very irregular and incomplete, few of the records, so far as published, showing an attendance of as many as a dozen out of perhaps forty or fifty. Most of them evidently came riding up to quarter-sessions if it suited their convenience and remained away if it did not, restricting their services to those duties which could be performed in their own neighborhoods, and leaving to a few active, regular, and hardworking magistrates the responsibilities of the higher work. [Footnote: West Riding Sessions Rolls; Manchester Quarter-Sessions, pa.s.sim.]

Of those who made up quarter-sessions one at least must be "of the quorum." This expression is taken from the commission of the justices of the peace, which in the clause giving to the justices the power to inquire and determine by oath of the jurors as to felonies and other offences and to punish them, after naming all those to whom the commission for that county is issued, says, quorum aliquem vestrum, A, B, C, etc., unum esse volumus (of whom we wish you, A, B, C, etc., to be one), naming presumably such as were learned in the law or otherwise especially trustworthy. [Footnote: Lambarde, Eirenarcha, book I., chap.

ix.] As without the presence of one of the "quorum" no quarter-sessions could be held, to be a "justice of the peace and of the quorum" was to be one of a select list of the justices. One-third or one-half of the list of those in the commission were usually named also in the quorum.

In addition to the justices there should, according to law, be present at quarter-sessions, in the first place, the custos rotulorum, or keeper of the rolls of the sessions, the "custalorum" of Justice Shallow. [Footnote: Merry Wives of Windsor, act i., sc. i.] This was always one of the justices of high rank indicated to the lord- chancellor for appointment by the king himself, [Footnote: 37 Henry VIII., chap i.] and was very apt to be the lord-lieutenant of the county. He could be, and probably was, usually represented at the sessions by a deputy, who was a person of considerable importance and influence, upon whom much responsibility was placed by the statutes, and whose abilities must have been constantly relied upon by the magistrates. The t.i.tle of this deputy was "clerk of the peace," the predecessor apparently of the American county clerk. He was usually familiar with the law, and his knowledge of precedents and procedure must often have stood the unlearned justices in good stead, besides the work which he performed in drawing up indictments, writing orders, and keeping records.

Besides the custos and the clerk, the sheriff or his deputy were bound to be present prepared to empanel jurors and execute process; as well as the jailer ready to produce his prisoners; the superintendent of the county house of correction; all jurors who had been summoned by the sheriff; all persons who had been bound over by single justices to appear at quarter-sessions; all high constables and bailiffs of hundreds; and the coroners. [Footnote: Dalton, Officium Vicecomitum, chaps, x.x.xiv., clx.x.xv.] The quarter-sessions should, by law, be kept for three continuous days if there was any need; [Footnote: 12 Richard II, chap. x.] but, as a matter of fact, sessions seldom lasted more than a day, and a contemporary complains that "many doe scantly afford them three whole hours, besides the time which is spent in calling of the county and giving of the charge." [Footnote: Lambarde, Eirenarcha, book IV., chap. xix.]

The powers and duties of the justices of the peace in quarter-sessions and separately were so considerable and varied as to tax the ability of an Elizabethan or Jacobean text-book writer to reduce them to simplicity of statement, or to the compa.s.s of five or six hundred pages of enumeration. Many of these powers were general, arising from the nature of the office for the "conservation of the peace"; but the great ma.s.s of their duties was placed upon them by statutes. Ten early statutes are enumerated in the commission itself, before coming to the inclusive "and cause to be kept all other ordinances and statutes made for the good of our peace and the quiet rule and government of our people." From the middle of the fifteenth century forward, the enforcement of the greater number of new laws was placed primarily in the hands of the justices of the peace.

As time pa.s.sed on legislation became more and more minute and inclusive. Few interests in human life escaped the paternal attention of government under the Tudors and Stuarts, and this great ma.s.s of enactment it became the duty of the groups of country gentry in the counties and of the civic magistrates of the towns to put into force. A writer of the time enumerates two hundred and ninety-three statutes pa.s.sed previous to 1603 in which justices of the peace are mentioned and given some jurisdiction or duties. [Footnote: Lambarde, Eirenarcha, book IV., chap, xix., Table, App.] Under Elizabeth alone there were seventy-eight, ranging from the "preservation of sp.a.w.n and frie of fish" to those "touching bulls from Rome." The infrequent and short- lived parliaments of James I. added thirty-six to the list. [Footnote: Dalton, The Country Justice, Table of Contents.]