The usual times of their going was once in seven years. However, they were not stated certainly; for sometimes, if there was a more than ordinary complaint of want of justice, they went every three or four years, and sometimes, if there was no complaint, they were intermitted beyond seven. Neither was the number of judges sent on the circuits fixed, but alterable at the king’s pleasure.
The determinations in these circuits, being under the inspection of men of integrity and skill, were in high estimation, and accordingly are several times quoted by Bracton, as being of as great authority as the decisions in the curia regis; and in consequence thereof, the business in the county courts continually declined; justice was every day administered worse in them, and at length they were confined, except in some cases, to pleas under forty shillings. Nay even these were, upon application, easily removeable by a writ called a pone, into the king’s courts[359].
But as the hopes of obtaining justice in the inferior courts waxed every day more faint, it was found necessary, during the intervals of the eyres, to substitute other courts in their place. Hence the invention of justices of assizes, of oyer and terminer, of goal delivery; and the necessity of affairs afterwards obliging these to be sent very frequently, it was thought fit, about the end of Edward the Third’s reign, to lay aside the justices in eyre, as superfluous, since these other did their business, except as to pleas of the king’s forests, where the eyres were continued. And, in process of time, to prevent the enormous expence of bringing juries up to the king’s courts, the justices of the nisi prius were instituted, to try issues joined in the king’s courts, and, the verdicts so found to return to the court from whence the record was brought; which court, on the record so found, proceeds to judgment. These are the judges who now transact the county business in their circuits, under the several commissions before-mentioned; and going regularly twice every year for that purpose, the whole business they transact is, in common speech, called Assizes; that being, in the antient times of their institution, the principal part of their employment, though now such actions are scarce ever brought; personal actions, which may repeatedly be tried, having superseded them[360].
About this time, also, it seems that the curia regis, the business there increasing, was divided, for the more convenient dispatch thereof, into four courts; and to each its separate jurisdiction allotted. The exchequer, indeed, was in some sort a separate court before, and had its distinct business of the province; and in it the treasurer, not the Justiciarius Angliæ, presided, as he did in the other courts. It is not impossible that, before this time, they had, in the curia regis, set apart different days for different kinds of causes. But they were all, in one respect, the same court; because they had the same judges, namely, all such nobles as attended the court. But this being found inconvenient, as these great men were generally ignorant in law, and business began to encrease, it was found proper to appoint settled skilful judges, and to divide the court, and appoint each part its separate jurisdiction. However, those limits were not exactly settled, or, at least, not exactly observed, for some time after: For we find in John’s reign, that common pleas, that is, civil suits between party and party, and particularly fines of lands, which are of the same nature, were held in the King’s Bench; though, on the contrary, we find no pleas of the crown tried in the court of Common Pleas. I suppose the reason was, that the latter being derived out of the former, the king’s bench had a concurrent jurisdiction with it, until restrained by that branch of Magna Charta, Communia placita non sequantur curiam nostram. The first of those courts in dignity and power, especially while the Justiciarius Angliæ remained, was the King’s Bench, though of late days the Chancery hath over-topped it. Here, as the king used frequently, in the antient times, to sit in person, the king is supposed always present; which is the reason why a blow given in this court, upon any provocation whatsoever, is punished with the loss of the hand, as it is done in the presence of the king. The proper jurisdiction of this court is causes where the king is either directly or indirectly concerned, except as to his revenue[361].
In all pleas of the crown therefore, that is, suits of the king to punish offences, as indictment of treason, felony, breach of the peace, are proper subjects for this court. He is indirectly concerned in this, that all erroneous judgments, given in the Common Pleas, or other inferior courts, are here reformed; for the king is concerned to see justice done to his subjects.
Secondly, for the same reason, this is a proper court to grant prohibitions to courts that exceed their jurisdiction, though this is not particular to the King’s Bench, but common to all the four courts.
Thirdly, it hath cognizance of all privileges and franchises, claimed by any private persons or corporations; and if any usurped upon the king in this respect, they are called in, by a quo warranto, to shew by what title they claim such privileges. Likewise where any member of a corporation is disfranchised, or removed from, or disturbed in his office, here shall he be remedied. For when a king has given a franchise, he is concerned, in honour and interest, to see that every man entitled, shall enjoy the benefit of it.
Fourthly, the king is interested in the life, limbs, and liberty of every subject. Therefore this is the court wherein appeals, brought by private persons, of murder, felony, and maim, should be tried; and if any man complains of wrongful imprisonment, this court shall, by writ of habeas corpus, have him brought into court, with the cause of his imprisonment returned; and if the cause is insufficient to discharge him, or if the offence he is charged with be bailable, to bail him. Nay, this court, in favour of liberty, hath a power, in all cases; they may, if they see proper, bail a man for crimes that are not ordinarily bailable by common law.
Fifthly, they have a right to hold plea of all the trespasses done vi & armis, though brought principally for a private reparation to the party; for this action favours of a criminal nature, and the king is entitled to a fine for the breach of the peace.