crees, without any power of revision. The house of lords, also, exercises a very important original criminal jurisdiction, in respect to the person; for all peers, including all the Scotch nobility, whether of the 16 who are members of the house or not, and the queen, duchesses, countesses and baronesses, are exempt from a trial by jury, for treason or felony, being liable to be tried for those crimes only by the house of lords; and they are not only entitled to this mode of trial for these crimes, but are bound to it, and cannot waive it, and put themselves upon trial by jury. In case a peer marries a woman not of noble blood, she is to be tried only by the lords for the above offences; but if she afterwards lose her rank by marrying a commoner, she ceases to be entitled to this mode of trial. The question does not seem to be fully settled, whether bishops, who have a seat in the house of lords, must be tried by that body, or are subject to be tried for treason or felony by jury. It has always been customary, in all capital trials, in the house of lords, for the bishops to withdraw before the taking of the vote of guilty or not guilty; and it is made a question whether they have a right to vote upon that question; and Mr. Wooddeson seems to be of opinion that they have not this right. The reason for this distinction between them and the temporal peers is, that the character of their profession ought to exclude, as well as excuse, them from taking a part in the final decision of a question of life and death. The proceeding of which we have been speaking is by indictment before this tribunal as a court of judicature, during the session of parliament; and, during the recess of parliament, such trials take place before a court of peers, summoned by the lord high steward, consisting of not less than 35 peers, who formerly might be summoned at the discretion of that officer; but, to avoid the abuses to which such a power might be liable, the statute of 7 and 8 William III, chap. 3, provides that all the peers shall be summoned to attend. A majority of 12 is necessary in order to a conviction in this court. The last trial before this court, up to the present time (1830), was that of lord Delamere, in the reign of James II. There is still another form of proceeding before this tribunal, as a court of judicature, namely, that by impeachment by the house of commons, which suggested the trial before the senate of the U. States, on impeachment by the house of representatives, and similar trials by the senates in the separate states. Im

peachments may be made, in Great Britain, against any person and for any misdemeanor, though it is a mode of accusation ordinarily adopted only against public officers in relation to some abuse of their trusts; as the trial of Warren Hastings, for alleged maladministration as governor of India, which lasted for seven years. As all these judicial proceedings, both civil and criminal, are analogous to those of other courts, they are not dissolved by the prorogation or dissolution of the parliament; and though, in the ordinary business of legislation, any peer may vote by proxy, he cannot so vote in his judicial capacity. At the first view, it would seem to admit of a question whether a body constituted like that of the house of lords would be the best calculated to act as the judicial tribunal of ultimate jurisdiction; but it is to be considered, that the chancellor, who is necessarily one of the ablest law officers of the kingdom, presides in all the civil trials, and in those and all other cases, the judges of the superior courts and the attorney-general are present, and their opinions are taken on all difficult questions. The court, therefore, combines the collected wisdom, talent, learning and dignity of the kingdom. Bills of attainder, and of pains and penalties, an anomalous kind of jurisdiction, is also exercised by parliament, as constituted for the ordinary purposes of legislation, consisting of the king, lords and commons, who, by their concurrent voices, have occasionally acted as judges, in particular cases, at the same time making the law, if they choose, and punishing the offence (already committed) for which the law is made. This is one kind of ex post facto law prohibited to congress by the constitution of the U. States; the abuses to which this power has been subject, having impressed upon the framers of that instrument the strong necessity of guarding against its exercise. When a bill of this description was introduced into the house of lords, in 1820, against the queen, Mr. Brougham commenced the defence by urging objections to this mode of proceeding in any case. Though such a bill is passed like any other in parliament, yet witnesses may be examined, and the party heard by counsel, as in any trial before a judicial tribunal.

Admiralty Courts. The admiralty court, ' in England, is coëval at least, perhaps anterior, to the others in its origin, as we meet with it in the most remote periods of the judicial history of the country. This court formerly maintained a long

and arduous, and, in some respects, an unsuccessful struggle for jurisdiction against the common law courts, in which strife it was encumbered with the disadvantage of being allied, in its forms of proceeding, to the ecclesiastical courts; since both these descriptions of judicial tribunals, as well as the chancery, borrow their forms of process from the civil law; and they, therefore, had formerly to encounter the prejudices of the nation, which set very strongly against the civil law, as associated with the papal usurpations. By a comparison with the French courts, we shall see how much the jurisdiction of the British admiralty has been curtailed. The French code assigns the jurisdiction of prize questions to a distinct court. The tribunals of commerce have jurisdiction of all disputes relative to engagements and transactions between merchants, traders and bankers, and all commercial contracts or affairs, viz., purchases of goods for the purpose of selling them, either in the same state or after labor done upon them, and agreements for hiring the use of chattels; all undertakings in manufactures for commissions, or for transportation by land or water; all agreements for supplying provisions, and for agencies; all those relating to sale by auction; all operations of banking, exchange and brokerage; all those of the public banking companies; all obligations between merchants, traders and bankers; all bills of exchange, or remittances of money between whatever persons; all agreements for the purchase, building, sale or resale of vessels, used either in foreign or domestic trade; all maritime undertakings; every purchase or sale of rigging, apparel or provisions for vessels; agreements for freight or charter-party; loans on bottomry, or respondentia; contracts of insurance, or other contracts respecting marine commerce; every contract with seamen in regard to their services on board of merchant vessels. The boundaries of the jurisdiction of the corresponding courts in England and the U. States are much narrower, and the reasons and principles on which its extent has been settled, are, as stated in the reports, involved in the greatest confusion, obscurity and contradiction, as is fully shown in the learned and profound investigation of the subject by judge Story, in the case of De Lovio against Boit, in the 1st volume of Gallison's Reports. The judge of the high court of admiralty in England holds his office by two commissions. (See the article Admiralty Courts.) It does not appear that the Eng

lish admiralty ever had a jurisdiction commensurate with that of the present French tribunals of commerce; but it does appear that a part of that which it formerly enjoyed has been extorted from it by the common law courts. In a great part of what now remains to it, the common law courts have a concurrent jurisdiction. As a prize court, the admiralty has retained its jurisdiction unimpaired; and it is in the administration of this branch of the jurisdiction, for the most part, that sir William Scott (since lord Stowell), has shed so much splendor upon his court, and given so many profound and luminous expositions of the law of nations and of commerce. In regard to the other branches of its jurisdiction, all piracies, robberies and felonies committed on the high seas, are exclusively within its cognizance, and they are tried, not according to the forms of the civil law, but, by the statute of the 28th year of Henry VIII, in the same manner as similar offences committed on land are tried by the courts of common law. In respect to minor offences, it has a concurrent jurisdiction with the common law courts. In matters of commerce, these latter courts have, in the most important subjects, a jurisdiction exclusive of the admiralty; as, for example, over bills of exchange, promissory notes, charter-parties, bills of lading, and policies of insurance. In others, the jurisdiction is again concurrent, as in respect to victualling and repairing ships, mariners' wages, hypothecation of the ship or goods by instruments of bottomry, or respondentia. In matters of salvage, or the recovery, at sea, of lost goods, the jurisdiction is in the admiralty; and so are also questions of seamen's wages; and it is resorted to for the purpose of enforcing liens against the ship, as in bottomry or suits for mariners' wages. It has also jurisdiction of all stipulations made by the parties to a suit in reference to the subject of dispute in a case pending in the court; as, for example, where the goods, which are the subject of controversy, are delivered to one party on his agreement, in the nature of a recognizance, to answer for their value in case the opposite party prevails; in which case execution is forthwith issued on the stipulation. The admiralty jurisdiction of the courts of the U. States is adopted into the American from the English laws.

Court of Chancery. (See Equity).

Ecclesiastical Courts. There are still subsisting in England divers ecclesiastical courts, of which the most important jurisdiction remaining is that relating to the

goods of persons deceased, which belongs to the prerogative courts of the archbishops of Canterbury and York, if the deceased leaves goods to the amount of £5 (bona notabilia) in two different dioceses; otherwise it belongs to the court of the bishop of the diocese. But much of the business of administering upon and determining the distribution of the estates of persons deceased passes into the court of chancery, under its jurisdiction of trusts; a large amount of property in Great Britain being put in trust under grants and wills.

COURTS OF THE U.STATES. By the constitution of the U. States, which went into operation in the year 1789, a limited extent of judicial power was confided to the government of the union, the nature of which will be best explained by quoting the very words in which it is given. The third article of the constitution declares, 1. that "The judicial power of the U. States shall be vested in one supreme court, and in such inferior courts as the congress may, from time to time, ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office." 2. "The judicial power shall extend to all cases in law and equity arising under this constitution, the laws of the U. States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;-to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction ;—to controversies to which the U. States shall be a party;-to controversies between two or more states; between a state and citizens of another state; between citizens of different states; between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states; and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects." 3. "In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party, the supreme court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the supreme court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations, as the congress shall make." It is observable, that this enumeration of the various classes of cases to which the judicial power may extend, does not make it imperative upon congress to vest the whole jurisdiction in courts created by the general government; but leaves much to the discretion of congress, as to the establishment

of courts, and the jurisdiction with which they shall be clothed. In point of fact, congress has never legislated to the extent of the judicial power authorized by the constitution. Some branches of it remain undisposed of; and the courts of the several states are left to act upon them as matters not exclusively confided to the courts of the U. States. At the first session of congress, under the constitution, the organization of the judicial establishment was made, which has substantially remained in force ever since. By a statute passed Sept. 24, 1789, a supreme court was created, consisting of a chief justice and five associate justices, since increased to six; and two classes of inferior courts, viz., circuit courts and district courts, were also created. All the judges of the courts of the U. States are appointed by the president, by and with the consent of the senate of the U. States, and cannot otherwise be appointed.-We will now proceed to give a summary view of each of these courts, beginning with those which are the lowest in point of rank, and of the first instance.

1. The District Courts. Each state in the confederacy constitutes at least one judicial district, and the states of New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia are divided into two districts by certain local limits. In each district, a court is appointed to hold sessions, consisting of a single judge. The district courts possess criminal jurisdiction, exclusively of the state courts, of all crimes and offences against the U. States, where the punishment of whipping, not exceeding 30 stripes (which is now generally abolished), or a fine not exceeding $100, or a term of imprisonment not exceeding 6 months, is to be inflicted. It also possesses civil jurisdiction of all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; that is, of suits upon maritime contracts and maritime torts; of seizures in rem, and of suits in personam for penalties and forfeitures incurred under the laws of the U. States; of all causes where an alien sues for a tort only, in violation of the law of nations, or a treaty of the U. States; of all suits at common law, where the government of the U. States sue, or any officer thereof sues, under the authority of any act of congress, whatever may be the matter in dispute; and of all suits against consuls and viceconsuls. The district courts also possess the jurisdiction of circuit courts in those districts where no circuit courts are held, and also certain limited authorities under special laws.

2. The Circuit Courts. The U. States are now divided into seven circuits, in each of which a court is held, called a circuit court. It consists of two judges, one of whom is a justice of the supreme court of the U. States, and the other is the district judge of the particular district in which the court sits. The court may be held by either judge in the absence of the other; but the district judge cannot try causes brought by appeal from his own decisions. Each circuit consists of at least two states, and some of three states, and one of four states. There are six states in which no circuit court sits; and there the like duties are performed by the district judges. The circuit courts possess original jurisdiction in all civil suits at common law, or in equity, where the matter in dispute is of the sum or value of $500, or upwards, and the U. States are plaintiffs; or where an alien is a party; or where the suit is between a citizen of the state where the suit is brought, and a citizen of another state. They also possess jurisdiction in cases of patents for useful inventions, and of copyrights for books, &c. They have also exclusive jurisdiction of all crimes and offences against the U. States, not cognizable in the district courts; and concurrent jurisdiction with those courts of all crimes and offences cognizable therein. They have appellate jurisdiction of all final judgments and decrees of the district courts, in all cases where the matter in dispute exceeds $50. Civil suits can be brought in the circuit and district courts, by original process, against an inhabitant of the U. States, only in the district whereof he is an inhabitant, or in which, at the time of serving the process, he may be found; and, in cases of negotiable securities for money, except foreign bills, these courts cannot, by any transfer or assignment of such securities, maintain jurisdiction, unless their jurisdiction could have attached independent of such transfer or assignment. If a suit is commenced in a state court against an alien or citizen of another state, and the matter in dispute exceed $500, it may be removed into the circuit court, which sits in the same state, and tried there according to certain regulations prescribed by law; and a like removal may take place where, in a suit in the state court, the parties claim title to lands under a grant thereof from different states, that is, where one party claims title under the state in which the suit is brought, and the other under another state.

3. The Supreme Court consists of seven

judges, as above stated. It sits annually at the seat of government, on the 2d Monday of January. It possesses exclusive original jurisdiction of all controversies of a civil nature, where a state is a party, except between a state and its citizens, and except, also, between a state and citizens of other states and aliens, in which latter case it has original but not exclusive jurisdiction. It possesses also, exclusively, all such jurisdiction of suits and proceedings against ambassadors, and other public ministers, or their domestics, or domestic servants, as a court of law can have or exercise consistently with the law of nations; and original, but not exclusive jurisdiction of all suits brought by ambassadors, or other public ministers, or in which a consul or vice-consul is a party. It possesses, also, appellate jurisdiction from the final judgments and decrees of the circuit courts, and of the district courts exercising circuit court powers, in all civil cases where the matter in dispute exceeds $2000 in value or amount, and the causes were originally brought in or removed into such circuit or district courts. It has also jurisdiction in cases brought by way of appeal into the circuit court from the district courts (which word appeal has here a technical and somewhat peculiar sense), but not in cases brought by writs of error from the district courts into the circuit courts. This difference is more accidental than intentional, and proceeds from the different modes of process by which suits are brought into the appellate courts according to the course of the common law. The terms of the statute conferring the jurisdiction are supposed to limit the appellate jurisdiction to cases which did not get into the circuit courts by the process of a writ of error, in its technical sense. It is difficult to make the distinction clear to lawyers bred in the civil law; it is obvious to those bred in the common law. The supreme court also possesses appellate jurisdiction from the final decisions of the state courts, in cases in which there is drawn in question the validity of a treaty or statute of, or an authority exercised under, the U. States, and the state court decides against its validity; or where is drawn in question the validity of a statute of, or an authority exercised under, any state, on the ground of its being repugnant to the constitution, treaties or laws of the U. States, and the decision is in favor of its validity; or where is drawn in question the construction of any clause of the constitution, or of a treaty or statute of, or commission

held under, the U. States, and the decision is against the title, right, privilege or exemption specially set up or claimed by either party, under such clause of the constitution, treaty, statute or commission. The appellate jurisdiction, however, so exercised in these cases, coming from the state courts, is confined to the points above-mentioned, and does not extend to the other merits of the case, not connected therewith, nor flowing therefrom. From this sketch, it will be perceived that the supreme court exercises, or may exercise, jurisdiction in the following classes of cases:-1. In cases where the construction of the constitution, treaties and statutes of the U. States is involved; 2. in cases where the state laws are supposed to be inconsistent with the constitution, treaties or laws of the U. States; 3. in cases of rights derived under the constitution, treaties or laws of the U. States; 4. in cases where a state is a party to the suit, or a foreign ambassador, or minister, or consul, or vice-consul; 5. in cases of controversies of a civil nature between aliens and citizens, or between citizens of one state and citizens of another state; 6. in cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. As a general description, this is sufficiently precise for the common reader. The supreme court has authority, also, in various other modes, to exercise a supervision over the acts of inferior tribunals; as, by granting writs of mandamus, to direct them to do their duty in certain cases; by granting writs of prohibition, where they exceed their authority; by granting writs of habeas corpus, to relieve parties from unjust imprisonment, &c. &c. In cases also where no appeal lies to the supreme court, the judges of the circuit courts are allowed to obtain the opinion of the supreme court, by certifying cases to that court, in which they are divided in opinion. This course is often pursued in important and difficult questions, both of civil and criminal law, and in the latter especially, because, in criminal cases, the supreme court has no direct appellate jurisdiction. The general mass of business, which employs the supreme court, consists of private controversies respecting property, or personal rights and contracts. In times of war, it also exercises a final appellate jurisdiction in prize causes, and other causes in which belligerent and neutral rights and duties are involved. For the most part, questions of national and public law are there finally discussed and settled. Its most important function, however, in a practical view, is the decision

of the great constitutional questions, which, from time to time, arise in the different parts of the Union. These questions are not brought forward, in a formal manner, by the government itself, to be adjudged upon a mere reference of them to the court. The court cannot take cognizance of them in such a shape, but only in a suit regularly brought before it, in which the point arises, and is essential to the rights of one of the parties. Hence it happens that a private person may litigate any question respecting the constitutionality of a law of the national or state government, whenever it is connected with his own rights, which are in controversy in a suit. Such a person may not only litigate the constitutionality of such laws, independently of the government, but even against the will of the government; and it not unfrequently happens that such questions are discussed and decided without the government having any opportunity of interposing itself in the discussion. The constitution is deemed the supreme law of the land, which rulers, and magistrates, and legislatures are bound to obey; and if, unintentionally or otherwise, they overleap the proper boundary, and the supreme court so decide, the act of the legislatures or rulers becomes a mere nullity, and receives no sanction or support whatsoever. It may naturally be supposed, that, in many instances, such questions must involve interests of a public nature to a vast extent, as well as contests respecting the just exercise of political power, and thus give rise to very heated discussions, and sometimes to violent political struggles, which might threaten the very existence of the national government. But hitherto, however warm have been the preliminary controversies, and however important the rights to state sovereignty or state pride, the decisions of the supreme court have been universally respected. Indeed, the people are so well satisfied, that the great security of their civil and political liberties essentially depends upon the independent exercise of this great function, and the supreme court is accustomed to expound its opinion with so much fulness and moderation, that no instance has occurred, in which a great majority of the nation has not hitherto rested satisfied with the decision. Such is the supremacy of law in the U. States. If it be asked, in what respects the supreme court of the U. States differs, in its functions and organization, from the highest courts of England, the following will be found the most important particulars :—