men-at-arms and one hundred archers, whereof the third part were to be footmen, and to take shipping at Southampton on the 10th of May next following In the 12th of Henry VII., John Grey was retained to serve the king in his wars in Scotland, under the command of Giles, Lord Daubeney, captain-general of the king's army for that expedition; with one lance, four demi-lances, and fifty bows and bills, for two hundred and ninety miles; with one lance, four demilances, and fifty bows and bills, for two hundred and sixty-six miles; and with two lances, eight demi-lances, and two hundred bows and bills, for two hundred miles. These were nearly half what is now the usual complement of a regiment. Troops thus levied, together with foreign mercenaries, make the nearest approach that can be discovered in English history to a permanent, or, as it is technically called, a standing army. The king might, to the extent of his revenue, form an army of this description: but as to the other means of military defence or offence put into his hands, the persons engaged were only called into military service on temporary occasions, and soon fell back again into the condition of the citizen or agriculturist. But the king's power was necessarily limited by his revenue, and the maintenance of a permanent force appears to have been little regarded by our early kings, since, before the reign of King Henry VII. it does not appear that the kings had even a bodyguard, much less any considerable number of troops accoutred and ready for immediate action at the call of the king. In modern times, Charles VII. of France (1423-1461) first introduced standing armies in Europe: this policy was gradually imitated by the other European states, and is now a matter of necessity and of self-defence. In England, probably in a great degree owing to her insular situation, this took place later than in most continental countries. Still the example of the continental states, a sense of the great convenience of having always a body of troops at 'command, and the change in the mode of warfare effected by the introduction of artillery, which brought military operations within

the range of science, and made them more than before matters which required much time and study in those who had to undertake the direction of any large body of men, led to the establishment of a permanent army, varying in numbers with the dangers and necessities of the time.

The few troops who formed the royal guard were the only permanent soldiers in England before the civil wars. The dispute between Charles I. and his parliament was about the command of the militia. Charles II. kept up about 5000 regular troops as guards, and to serve in the garrisons which then were established in England. These were paid out of the king's own revenue. James II. increased them to 30,000; but the measure was looked on with great jealousy, and the object was supposed to be the destruction of the liberties of Englishmen, In the Bill of Rights (1689) it was declared that the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom, in time of peace, unless it be with consent of parliament, is against law. An army varying in its numbers has ever since been maintained, and is now looked on without apprehension. It is raised by the authority of the king and paid by him: but there is an important constitutional check on this part of the royal prerogative in the necessity for acts of parliament to be passed yearly, in order to provide the pay and to maintain the discipline. [MUTINY ACT.]

ARMIES. MILITARY FORCE.]

ARRAIGNMENT. This word is derived by Sir Matthew Hale from arraisoner, ad rationem ponere, to call to account or answer, which, in ancient law French, would be ad-resoner, or, abbreviated, aresner. Conformably to this etymology, arraignment means nothing more than calling a person accused to the bar of a court of criminal judicature to answer formally to a charge made against him. The whole proceeding at present consists in calling upon the prisoner by his name, reading over to him the indictment upon which he is charged, and demanding of him whether he is guilty or not guilty. Until very lately, if the person accused pleaded that he was not guilty, he was asked how he would be tried; to which

question the usual answer was, "By God and my country." But by a late statute (7 & 8 Geo. IV. c. 28, sec. 1) this form was abolished; and it was enacted, that "if any person, not having privilege of peerage, being arraigned upon an indictment for treason, felony, or piracy, shall plead Not guilty,' he shall, without any further form, be deemed to have put himself upon the country for trial, and the court shall, in the usual manner, order a jury for the trial of such person accordingly."

The arraignment of a prisoner is founded upon the plain principle of justice, that an accused person should be called upon for his answer to a charge before he is tried or punished for it. That this was a necessary form in English criminal law at a very early period appears from the reversal in parliament of the judgment given against the Mortimers in the reign of Edward II., which Sir Matthew Hale calls an "excellent record." One of the errors assigned in that judgment, and upon which its reversal was founded, was as follows:-"That if in this realm any subject of the king hath offended against the king or any other person, by reason of which offence he may lose life or limb, and be thereupon brought before the justices for judgment, he ought to be called to account (poni rationi), and his answers to the charge to be heard before proceeding to judgment against him; whereas in this record and proceedings it is contained that the prisoners were adjudged to be drawn and hanged, without having been arraigned (arrenati) thereupon, or having an opportunity of answering to the charges made against them, contrary to the law and custom of this realm." (Hale's Pleas of the Crown, book ii. c. 28.)

The ceremony of the prisoner holding up his hand upon arraignment is merely adopted for the purpose of pointing out to the court the person who is called upon to plead. As it is usual to place several prisoners at the bar at the same time, it is obviously a convenient mode of directing the eyes of the court to the individual who is addressed by the officer. In the case of Lord Stafford, who was tried for high treason in 1680, on the charge of

being concerned in the Popish plot, the prisoner objected, in arrest of judgment, that he had not been called on to hold up his hand on his arraignment; but the judges declared the omission of this form to be no objection to the validity of the trial. (Howell's State Trials, vol. vii. p. 1555.)

ARREST, PERSONAL. [DEBT.]

ARRESTMENT in the law of Scotland is a process by which a creditor may attach money or moveable property which a third party holds for behoof of his debtor. It bears a general resemblance to foreign attachment by the custom of London. [ATTACHMENT.] The person who uses it is called the arrestor; he in whose hands it is used is called the arrestee, and the debtor is called the common debtor. It is of two kinds, arrestment in execution and arrestment in security. The former can proceed only on the decree of a court, on a deed which contains a clause of registration for execution, or on one of those documents, such as bills of exchange and promissory notes, which by the practice of Scotland are placed in the same position as deeds having a clause of registration. Arrestment in security is generally an incidental procedure in an action for the constitution of a debt; but it may be obtained from the Bill Chamber of the Court of Session on cause shown, as a method of constituting a security for a debt not yet due. This latter class of arrestments is under the equitable control of the judge who issues it; and it is a general principle that it cannot be obtained unless the claimant show that circumstances have occurred which have a tendency to make his chance of payment less than it was at the time when he entered into the engagement with his debtor. An arrestment may be recalled on it being shown that it should not have been issued, and an arrestment in security may be “loosed" on the debtor finding security for the payment of his debt. An arrestment in execution expires on the lapse of three years from the date of its execution, and an arrestment in security, on the lapse of three years from the day when the debt becomes due. In the meantime, the person in whose hands the process is used, is liable in damages if he part with the property

arrested, but it cannot be attached after he has parted with it, in the hands of a bona-fide holder. The arrestment is made effectual for the payment of the debt by an action of Forthcoming, in which the common debtor is cited. It concludes for payment of the money if the arrestment be laid on money, or for their sale for behoof of the creditor if it be laid on other moveable goods. The arrestee may plead against the arrestor whatever defence he might have had against the common debtor. The authority of the local courts was enlarged in regard to arrestments, and the process was generally regulated, by the 1 & 2 Vict. c. 114. The practice on this subject will be found in Darling's 'Powers and Duties of Messengers-atArms.'

ARSON. [MALICIOUS INJURIES.] ARTICLES OF WAR. [MUTINY Аст.]

ASSENT, ROYAL. When a bill has passed through all its stages in both houses of parliament, if it is a money bill, it is sent back to the charge of the officers of the House of Commons, in which it had of course originated; but if not a bill of supply, it remains in the custody of the clerk of the enrolments in the House of Lords. The royal assent is always given in the House of Lords, the Commons, however, being also present at the bar, to which they are summoned by the Black Rod. The king may either be present in person, or may signify his assent by letters patent under the great seal, signed with his hand, and communicated to the two houses by commissioners. Power to do this is given by 33 Henry VIII. chap. 21. The commissioners are usually three or four of the great officers of state. They take their seats, attired in a peculiar costume, on a bench placed between the woolsack and the throne. When the king comes in person, the clerk assistant of the parliament waits upon his Majesty in the robing-room before he enters the house, reads a list of the bills, and receives his commands upon them. During the progress of a session, the royal assent is usually given by a commission under the great seal issued for that purpose. In strict compliance with 33 Henry VIII.

c. 21, the commission is "by the king himself signed with his own hand," and attested by the clerk of the crown in Chancery. During the last illness of George IV. an act was passed to appoint one or more person or persons, or any one of them, to affix in the king's presence, and by his Majesty's command given by word of mouth, his Majesty's signature by means of a stamp. When the king comes down in person, he is seated on the throne, robed and crowned. The royal assent is rarely given in person, except at the end of a session; but bills for making provision for the honour and dignity of the crown, such as settling the bills for the civil lists, have generally been assented to by the king in person immediately after they have passed both houses. When the bill for supporting the dignity of Queen Adelaide received the royal assent in the usual form, in August, 1836, she was present, attended by one of the ladies of the bed-chamber and her maids of honour, and sat in a chair placed on a platform raised for that purpose. After the royal assent was pronounced, the queen stood up and made three curtesies, one to the king, one to the lords, and one to the commons. The bills that have been left in the House of Lords lie on the table; the bills of supply are brought up from the Commons by the Speaker, who, in presenting them, especially at the end of a session, is accustomed to accompany the act with a short speech. In these addresses it is usual to recommend that the money which has been so liberally supplied by his Majesty's faithful Commons should be judiciously and economically expended; and a considerable sensation has been sometimes made by the emphasis and solemnity with which this advice has been enforced upon the royal ear. The royal assent to each bill is announced by the clerk of the parliaments. "When her Majesty gives her assent to bills in person, the clerk of the crown reads the titles, and the clerk of the parliament makes an obeisance to the throne, and then signifies her Majesty's assent. A gentle inclination, indicative of assent, is given by her Majesty, who has already given her commands to the clerk assistant." (May's Law, &c. of Parliament.)

After the title of the bills is read by the clerk of the crown, the clerk of the parliament says, if it is a bill of supply, which receives the royal assent before all other bills, "Le roi (or la reyne) remercie ses bons sujets, accepte leur benevolence, et ainsi le veult" if any other public bill," Le roi le veult;" if a private bill," Soit fait comme il est desirée." In an act of grace or pardon, which has the royal assent before it is laid before parliament, where it is only read once in each house, and where, although it may be rejected, it cannot be amended, there is no further expression of the royal assent, but, having read its title, the clerk of the parliament says, "Les Prelats, Seigneurs, et Communes, en ce present parliament assemblées, au nom de touts vos autres sujets, remercient très humblement vostre majesté, et prient à Dieu vous donner en santé bonne vie et longue."

When the royal assent is refused to a bill, the form of announcement is Le roi s'avisera. It is probable that in former times these words were intended to mean what they express, namely, that the king would take the matter into consideration, and merely postponed his decision for the present; but the necessity of refusing a bill is removed by the constitutional principle that the crown has no will except that of its ministers, who only retain their situations so long as they enjoy the confidence of parliament. There has been no instance of the rejection by the crown of any bill, certainly not of any public bill, which had passed through parliament, for many years. It is commonly stated, even in books of good authority (for instance, in Chitty's edition of Blackstone), that the last instance was the rejection of the bill for triennial parliaments by William III. in 1693. Tindal, in his continuation of Rapin, says, "The king let the bill lie on the table for some time, so that men's eyes and expectations were much fixed on the issue of it; but in conclusion he refused to pass it, so the session ended in an ill humour. The rejecting a bill, though an unquestionable right of the crown, has been so seldom practised, that the two houses are apt to think it a

hardship when there is a bill denied." But another instance occurred towards the close of the same year, which was more remarkable, in consequence of its being followed by certain proceedings in parliament, which was sitting at the time. This was the rejection of the bill commonly called the Place Bill, the object of which was to exclude all holders of offices of trust and profit under the crown from the House of Commons. It was presented to the king along with the Land-tax Bill; and the day after he had assented to the one and rejected the other, the House of Commons, having resolved itself into a grand committee on the state of the nation, passed the following resolution:-"That whoever advised the king not to give the royal assent to the act which was to redress a grievance, and take off a scandal upon the proceedings of the Commons in parliament, is an enemy to their majesties and the kingdom; and that a representation be made to the king, to lay before him how few instances have been in former reigns of denying the royal assent to bills for redress of grievances; and the grief of the Commons for his not having given the royal assent to several public bills, and in particular to this bill, which tends so much to the clearing the reputation of this house, after their having so freely voted to supply the public occasions." An address conformable to the resolution was accordingly presented to his Majesty by the whole house. The king returned a polite answer to so much of the address as referred to the confidence that ought to be preserved between himself and the parliament, but took no notice of what was said about the rejection of the bill. When the Commons returned from the royal presence, it was moved in the house

66

That application be made to his Majesty for a further answer;" but the motion was negatived by a majority of 229 to 28.

Mr. Hatsell, in the second volume of his Precedents (edition of 1818), quotes other instances of subsequent date to this. The latest which he discovered was the rejection of a Scotch militia bill by Queen Anne in 1707; and this is also the latest mentioned in Mr. May's recent work. In former times the refusal of the royal

assent was a common occurrence. Queen Elizabeth once at the end of a session, out of ninety-one bills which were presented to her, rejected forty-eight.

It is the royal assent which makes a bill an act of parliament, and gives it the force of a law. As by a legal fiction the laws passed throughout a whole session of parliament are considered as forming properly only one statute (of which what are popularly called the separate acts are only so many chapters), it used to be a matter of doubt whether the royal assent, at whatever period of the session it might be given, did not make the act operative from the beginning of the session, when no day was particularly mentioned in the body of it as that on which it should come into effect. In order to settle this point, it was ordered by 33 George III. c. 13, that the clerk of parliament should for the future endorse on every bill the day on which it received the royal assent, and that from that day, if there was not in it any specification to the contrary, its operation should com

mence.

It appears that the several forms of words now in use are not, as has been sometimes stated, exactly the same that have been employed in this ceremony from the first institution of parliaments. For instance, it is recorded that Henry VII. gave his assent to the bill of attainder passed in the first year of his reign (1485) against the partisans of Richard III. in the more emphatic terms, Le

roy le voet, en toutz pointz. On some occasions, of earlier date, the assent is stated to have been given in English. Thus, to a bill of attainder passed against Sir William Oldhall in 1453 (the 31st of Henry VI.), the clerk is recorded in the Rolls of Parliament to have announced his Majesty's assent as follows: "The king volle that it be hadde and doon in maner and forme as it is desired." And in 1459, in the case of an act of attainder against the Duke of York, the Earls of Salisbury, Warwick, and others, the same king gave his assent in the following form:"The king agreeth to this act, so that by virtue thereof he be not put from his prerogative to show such mercy and grace as shall please his highness, accord

ing to his regalie and dignitie, to any person or persons whose names be expressed in this act, or to any other that might be hurt by the same."

In the time of the Commonwealth, an English form was substituted for those in Norman-French, which had been previously and are now in use. On the 1st of October, 1656, the House of Commons resolved "that when the Lord Protector shall pass a bill, the form of words to be used shall be these, The Lord Protector doth consent." In 1706, also, a bill passed the House of Lords, and was read a second time in the House of Commons, for abolishing the use of the French tongue in all proceedings in parliament and courts of justice, in which it was directed, "that instead of Le roy le veult, these words be used, The king answers Be it so; instead of Soit fait comme il est desirée, these words be substituted, Be it as is prayed; where these words, Le roi remercie ses bons sujets, accepte leur benevolence, et ainsi le veult, have been used, it shall hereafter be, The king thanks his good subjects, accepts their benevolence, and answers Be it so; instead of Le roi s'avisera, these words, The king will consider of it, be used." "Why this bill was rejected by the Commons," says Hatsell, "or why its provisions with respect to proceedings in parliament were adopted in an act which afterwards passed in the year 1731, 'That all proceedings in courts of justice should be in English,' I never heard any reason assigned." For further information on this subject, see Hatsell's Precedents, especially vol. ii. pp. 338-351 (edition of 1818); also May's Treatise upon the Law, Privileges, Proceedings, and Usage of Parliament, 1844.

not

ASSEMBLY, GENERAL, OF SCOTLAND. [GENERAL ASSEMBLY.] ASSEMBLY, NATIONAL. [STATESGENERAL.]

ASSEMBLY OF DIVINES. [WESTMINSTER ASSEMBLY.]

ASSESSED TAXES. [TAXES.] ASSESSOR. The word assessor is Latin (ad-sessor), and signifies one who sits by the side of another. An assessor was one who was learned in the law, and sat by a magistrate or other functionary,