The term magistrate in England represents both an official position and a political system,
Its predecessor was the Vigilante of the Late 12th Century, a position originally responsible for helping the magistrate maintain law and order in the area, and was mainly held by knights in the county.
In 1361, Edward III issued a decree and the magistrate was officially born.
Since then, the powers and functions of this position have continued to expand, gradually penetrating into almost all levels of politics, economy, justice, culture, religion and other aspects of local society, especially rural society, and the main body of its candidates has gradually transitioned from knights to local squires with solid families and high prestige.
This political system with British characteristics has been highly praised by later generations of scholars.
The famous British legal historian of the 19th century, Maitland, said of the magistrate: "It is so purely Anglitic, perhaps the most uniquely Anglicanized in our governing organization." ”
Magistrates in the United Kingdom have been inextricably linked to the judiciary since their inception.
Judiciary refers to the "application of law" in a narrow sense, which refers to the activities of state organs with judicial power to apply legal norms to handle cases in accordance with litigation procedures.
Justice has a long history in Britain, with written codes and judicial activity beginning as early as the Anglo-Saxon period(1).
With the passage of time, the United Kingdom has gradually emerged the characteristics of "administrative judicialization", and judicial governance occupies a core position in the social governance system.
As an important part of the British local governance system since the late Middle Ages, judicial governance activities have always been a core element of their daily functions.
Due to its age and poor preservation, a large number of archival materials of the English District Court were lost in the late Middle Ages, and the materials that were fortunate to be preserved also showed relatively fragmented characteristics, which brought great difficulties to the study of English magistrates in the late Middle Ages.
Nevertheless, some scholars have used surviving literature to conduct the judicial governance activities of English magistrates in the late Middle Ages.
The official birth of the Magistrate was marked by the decree of Edward III in 1361, which clearly provided that the magistrate had the power to "hear and adjudicate in accordance with the laws and customs mentioned above all kinds of felonies and crimes and crimes occurring in the county within the scope of the King's Suit", which shows that the magistrate was given the most central judicial power at the beginning of its existence.
In addition, the Act gives magistrates a series of auxiliary judicial powers such as investigative powers and arrest powers, whereby magistrates can take coercive measures against the subjects they suspect.
When magistrates were entrusted with important responsibilities at the beginning of their birth, pressure came with them.
In the years after 1361, the magistrates were not only hostile to the lower classes for their local law enforcement activities, but their judicial powers were also questioned by some aristocrats and ecclesiastical figures, with the result that only three years later, in 1364, the powers of the magistrates were severely weakened, and the Senate and the Court of Chancery deprived the magistrates of the power to enforce labor laws and adjudicate felonies.
Although supporters of the Magistrate at the time objected in the House of Commons , it was clear that the power of the local knights and squires was at a disadvantage at this time.
However, they did not give up, but used their dominant position in the lower house of Parliament to repeatedly petition for the restoration of the judicial power of magistrates.
Their efforts paid off four years later, and in May 1368 Edward III issued another decree restoring the power of the Magistrate to hear and adjudicate on matters relating to labour law, and providing the Magistrate with the power to determine damages in an action for infringement.
The peasant revolt at the turn of the spring and summer of 1381 plunged English society into serious turmoil for a short time, and the magistrates of the knights and squires, although tasked with maintaining law and order and punishing crime, were powerless to stop the violent activities of the agitated rebels.
At a critical moment, the central government appointed some great nobles to go to the areas where the uprising broke out to lead local officials such as county governors and mayors of municipalities to suppress the uprising, and they led armed forces loyal to the government to extinguish the uprising in a short period of time.
It can be seen from this that although magistrates, mainly knights and squires, held considerable judicial power at the local level during this period, they could not use their power to maintain social order when society fell into serious turmoil.
Scholars generally agree that the power of the Magistrate to rule on a variety of crimes, including felonies and assault proceedings, was fully restored in 1389, but this claim is not substantiated in the records of the central government.
In 1390, the central government explicitly granted them the power of a criminal hearing when appointing the Magistrate, so it is likely that the judicial power of the Magistrate was not formally restored until this time.
From this period until the outbreak of the Wars of the Roses in the mid-15th century, the judicial power of magistrates, supported and assisted by the local knight-squire class, was constantly extended by the fact that, in addition to their original judicial powers for criminal offences, magistrates continued to bring matters involving economic, religious and social activities into their jurisdiction, and they had the power to hear cases of violation of the relevant laws and to punish violators.
In 1461, Edward IV, who had just ascended the throne, issued a decree requiring the county governor and his subordinate officials to transfer all the lawsuits received to the magistrate, which meant that the judicial power of the county magistrate was basically transferred to the magistrate, and the magistrate officially became the ruler of local judicial governance.
After more than a century of unremitting efforts, magistrates have finally absorbed the vast majority of local judicial powers, and their judicial governance covers almost all aspects of social life.
Magistrates have taken a central place in the UK's local governance system.
The practice of judicial governance in late medieval England magistrates
The main venue for judicial practice of magistrates is the court of first instance.
In 1362 Edward III decreed that the Council of Peace should meet four times a year, in the first week after the Epiphany, the second week after the middle of Lent, between Pentecost and St. John the Baptist, and within eight days after St. Michael's Day.
Because the court is held at a time that roughly coincides with the alternation of the four seasons of spring, summer, autumn and winter, it is called a quarterly court or a four-season court.
Quarterly courts are usually held in easily accessible, densely populated towns within the county, which are also the political, economic, or religious centers of the county.
The participants in a formal quarterly court include magistrates and their entourage or staff, jury members, local officials, prison inmates, litigants and witnesses they bring with them, etc., so large castles are the preferred location for quarterly courts, and if there is no such building, the larger tavern or inn will serve as a temporary court.
The Quarterly Court of Trial is convened by the County Governor who reads the newly promulgated decree of the Central Government in public and takes the oath of the Magistrate.
In the late Middle Ages, English magistrates heard mainly in quarterly courts related to criminal offences and some economic offences, namely felonies and assaults.
Felonies mainly include arson, robbery, rape, murder, forcible intrusion into another person's home, etc.; Infringement proceedings mainly include assault, extortion, false lawsuits, and economic violations such as hoarding and violation of the Labour Code.
It is important to note that magistrates do not hear the relevant cases immediately after receiving them in the Quarter Court, but rather refer the cases to a grand jury, which decides whether to formally bring the proceedings to court.
When magistrates hear cases in the Quarterly Court, they first summon suspects to the Quarterly Court, where they are then questioned.
Magistrates usually ask suspects directly about their criminal pleas and confess to the facts of their crimes, and most of those accused of assault will plead guilty, because they will usually only be fined and will not be punished very harshly; Most felons will firmly deny their guilt, and there are three main ways to deal with these suspects who refuse to plead guilty: the first is to transfer the suspects to a small jury to continue the trial.
The second option is to temporarily imprison these suspects who refuse to plead guilty, pending the organization of a special arraignment appointment judge or to continue the trial until the next quarterly trial court session.
The last option is to refer difficult cases to the Court of Queen's Bench.
The Court of the Bench is one of the important judicial bodies of the central government, and difficult cases that are difficult to decide by the Court of Quarter Instance can be referred to the Court of Queen's Card, and suspects who are dissatisfied with the judgment of the Court of Quarter Instance can also appeal to the Court of Queen's Hospital.
The Quarter Trial Court was closed after determining the manner in which all proceedings received had been disposed of.
The impact of the judicial governance of English magistrates in the late Middle Ages
As an important part of the local governance system, magistrates played a considerable role in maintaining the stability of grassroots society in England in the late Middle Ages and reducing the occurrence of various criminal offenses by using their powers.
From the perspective of judicial governance, on the one hand, magistrates have protected the lives and property of some people by directly intervening, stopping ongoing criminal acts, arresting criminal suspects, and leading militias to suppress riots and riots; On the other hand, magistrates have tried and adjudicated a large number of lawsuits by convening quarterly trial courts, punished many criminals, enabled victims of criminal acts to obtain justice through judicial means, and also provided a rational solution to disputes between neighbors.
Although the judicial governance of magistrates played some role in maintaining the local social order in Britain in the late Middle Ages, objectively speaking, this governance was far from reaching the level of scientific efficiency, fairness and justice, and various internal and external unfavorable factors jointly restricted magistrates, making their effect on local governance greatly reduced.
Some knights and squires who served as magistrates knew the law and violated the law, and while acting as law enforcers, they openly participated in various illegal and criminal activities, which made the already unpeaceful situation more volatile.
All these disadvantages cast a shadow over the local judicial governance by magistrates and create many obstacles.
The local administration of justice by English magistrates in the late Middle Ages also had a profound impact on the English legal system.
Although there are some provisions or jurisprudence on how criminal offences are dealt with in the traditional English common law and central government statutes, these regulations are often neither precise nor rigorous, and have a tendency to be overly strict.
Although professional lawyers have served as statutory magistrates to provide legal guidance since the late 14th century, both large and small juries and ordinary magistrates are more inclined to initiate or adjudicate proceedings of their own will, and their trial results may not strictly comply with the provisions of common law and statutory law, but they can be more flexible and close to social reality, and to a certain extent reduce the occurrence of unjust, false and wrong cases.
Through local judicial governance, magistrates have made unique and indelible contributions to the development of the rule of law in the United Kingdom by giving full play to their subjective initiative and initiative.
The judicial governance of English magistrates in the late Middle Ages also had a great influence on the magistrates themselves and the main groups holding the office——— the local knights and squire classes.
At that time, many squires racked their brains to find a place for themselves or other members of the family in the security committee, and their most common method was to join or coerce a powerful nobleman, and through these dignitary influences, enter the magistrate of a certain place as a magistrate and become the representative of the noble's local interests.
In addition to some individual squires who were determined to join the local sheriff's council, other prosperous and prestigious squire families also held the office of magistrate for a long time in the location of the family's main estate, such as the Paston family in Norfolk, the Brockett family in Hartfordshire, and the Wick family in Northamptonshire.
Local knights and squires can also expand their contacts and social circles and increase their understanding of the law by serving as magistrates, which is of great benefit to them to better shape their social image and improve their social status.
To sum up, the judicial governance of English magistrates in the late Middle Ages was under the authority of the central government, and the magistrates with local knights and squires as the main body ruled and administered the local areas with the quarterly court as the main platform and the trial and adjudication of criminal cases in the region as the core work.
As the main platform for magistrates to conduct judicial governance, quarterly trial courts provide a relatively fixed place and place for magistrates to hear and adjudicate cases at a relatively fixed time, effectively enhancing the authority of magistrates and quarterly trial courts.
Magistrates have conducted relatively full judicial practice through quarterly trial courts, safeguarding social fairness and justice to a certain extent.
Not only that, magistrates have also carried out bold experiments and innovations in the process of judicial practice, breaking through some unreasonable frameworks in traditional legal provisions or precedents, and contributing to the continuous improvement of English law.
It must be noted, however, that the judicial governance of magistrates is far from being impeccable, that there are many obvious deficiencies in the judicial procedures of the courts of first instance, and that the quality and conduct of individual magistrates often adversely affect their normal performance of their duties.
Of course, these weaknesses and defects are also related to the conditions of the times, and the improvement of many problems depends on the overall development and progress of the times.
The deepening integration of magistrates and the local middle class will burst into greater power in the next period, and they will also become the object of local governance that the central government has to rely on.