#THE MUTINY CODE#

As a result, Parliament was asked annually to approve a new Mutiny Act for the coming year. Renewal of the Mutiny Actsīecause the Bill of Rights prohibited the existence of a standing army during peacetime without the consent of Parliament, the each Mutiny Act was expressly limited to one year's duration. This act made desertion, mutiny, and sedition of officers and soldiers crimes which were triable by court-martial and punishable by death. Parliament responded by passing the Mutiny Act of 1689. Therefore no legal action could be taken to stop them. Since these troops were located in England during peacetime the military laws that made these acts illegal could not be enforced against them. A number of Scottish troops refused to obey orders from William III to fight in Holland, believing James II to be the true monarch. King William III replaced King James II in 1688 during the Glorious Revolution. Military law did not apply to anyone in England since only military courts could enforce the Articles of War.

In other words, only common law courts and courts of equity could exercise authority over individuals in peacetime England. This act stated that neither civilians nor soldiers and officers who were in England during peace were subject to military courts or law. This abuse of the crown's prerogative caused Parliament to pass the Petition of Right in 1627. The necessity of order and discipline in an army is the only thing which can give it countenance and therefore it ought not to be permitted in time of peace, when the king’s courts are open for all persons to receive justice according to the laws of the land. William Blackstone complained,įor martial law, which is built upon no settled principles, but is entirely arbitrary in its decisions, is, as Sir Matthew Hale observes, in truth and reality no law, but something indulged rather than allowed as a law. The capricious use of these harsh laws by the crown, especially during the reign of the Tudors and Stuarts, caused an outcry against both military law and martial law which were not yet seen as separate entities. This encroached on the power and jurisdiction of the English courts of common law. However, these articles were used arbitrarily against civilians at various times. Although harsh, the articles were clear in their expectations for military personnel. The Court of Chivalry assisted the crown in preparing these articles and enforcing them. These articles were orders to the army for a specific war or campaign. The crown governed the military by publishing articles of war. Therefore, its governance was the crown's royal prerogative. The army was seen as the crown's personal force. These courts governed civilians.Īlthough common law governed civilians, it did not control military forces as such. Meanwhile, courts of equity, overseen by the chancellor, and courts of common law developed. The Court of Chivalry had authority over cases of military law, chivalry, heraldry, and murder or high treason overseas. King Edward I created a Court of Chivalry headed by the Lord High Constable and the Earl Marshall, two members of the King's Court. Over time, this court divided and developed specialized legal expertise. William the Conqueror was assisted in his legal duties by the Aural Regis or King's Court.

Eventually, civilian codes and courts gained power at the expense of military law and control.

#THE MUTINY CODE#

The first code that specifically regulated military personnel was the French ordonnance of 1378. European rulers began separating the control of the armed forces from the control of the population as the medieval period drew to a close. This was at least in part because the civilian ruler was the military commander. Military law, law governing armed forces, martial law, and military control of society, have not always been independent.

The mutiny