of a district, to be composed of counties and parts of counties. For the purposes of criminal justice, the district was to be regarded as one county, though it embraced London and Middlesex, and parts of Kent and Surrey. Juries may be taken wholly from one county, or from the several counties, indiscriminately.

This is a high court of original jurisdiction, composed of the Lord Mayor of London, the Lord Chancellor, the common-law judges, the aldermen, recorder, and others named in the act. Any two or more may hold the court. This tribunal includes the court of general gaol delivery for London and Middlesex.

The quarter sessions are restrained within the district from trying certain aggravated crimes. Indictments found at the sessions may be removed into this court by certiorari. It has jurisdiction over offences committed on the high seas. Its sessions are held in London or its suburbs, twelve times a year.

The court may be organized in parts or branches, presided over by particular members, and designated as "Old Court," "Second Court," "Third Court," &c.

VII. THE STRICTLY APPELLATE COURTS.

1. The Court of Exchequer Chamber.

This is a court consisting of the common-law judges who are not members of the court in which the action was originally tried. Thus, if the action is brought in the Common Pleas, the appellate court consists of the judges of the Queen's Bench and Exchequer. The same remark applies to the other courts. Briefly, it may be said that the system provides an appeal from six common-law judges to twelve.

2. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

This is now the ultimate Court of Appeal in cases of admiralty, cases from the colonial courts and India, and ecclesiastical cases, and has jurisdiction over the extension of patents. It was organized by 2 & 3 Wm. IV., c. 92, 3 & 4 Wm. IV., c. 41, and 6 & 7 Vict., c. 38. It took the place of the Court of Delegates, established 25 Hen. VIII., c. 19. It is a court of record, having power to punish for contempt, &c. It is composed of the President of the Council, the Lord Chancellor, the Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench, the Master of the Rolls, the Lords Justices of the Court of Appeal in Chancery, the Vice-Chancellors,

Chief Judge of the Court of Bankruptcy, the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, the Lord Chief Baron, Judges and ex-Judges of the Court of Probate and the Court of Admiralty, two members who have beer judges in India or the Colonies, and two persons specially designated by the Crown. The archbishops and bishops, who are privy councillors, are members of this committee only in cases of criminal proceedings in ecclesiastical courts against clerks in holy orders: Martin v. Mackonochie, 2 Law Rep. (Adm. & Ecc.) 125. This court comprises, at the very least, from twenty to twenty-four individuals, while a quorum consists of four persons, although appeals may be heard under special order by three persons: 2 Macq. 575. The peculiarities of this court are that it has no chief, as the Lord President is not a legal functionary; its members hold office during the pleasure of the Crown, as members of the Privy Council, instead of during good behavior, which is the usual tenure: 2 Macq. 612. "Its members sit at a table, and are less like a court than any other judicial body in the world." There is an objection to the organization of this tribunal, growing out of the fact that it is impossible to tell in advance who will hold the court.

On the other hand, it is advantageous to be able to select as members of the court persons who have made the topic in question a special and particular study. Thus, in the decision of cases coming from India, members of the Privy Council will be selected who have had judicial experience in the law of that country. It is, however, said that this supposed advantage amounts to little in practice, for there are no colonial judges now members of the court, and but two judges from India who are retired Chief Justices of the Supreme Court of Calcutta. The committee does not sit regularly, and there is no "Privy Council Bar:" 25 London Law Magazine, &c., 296 (A. D. 1868). This court proceeds, in certain cases, according to the course of the civil law; may order witnesses to be examined on appeal; may direct issues at common law, and remit a cause to the court below for a rehearing.

The cardinal objection to the scheme is that there are two coordinate courts of final appeal: the House of Lords and this judicial committee. There is thus danger of a conflict of decision and of precedent. A certain class of cases reaches final adjudication in the one court, and a certain class in the other. It can

not be denied that the decisions of this committee have been highly satisfactory, owing to the eminent ability of the men who have participated in them. It has been recently recommended by eminent gentlemen that instead of a double appellate court, there should be something resembling a judicial committee of the House of Lords, upon which leading lawyers might be placed who are not members of the House of Peers. They might report to the House of Lords, which would rarely, if ever, differ from the report. The judicial committee of the Privy Council might thus be abrogated. The present organization is due to the recommendation and exertions of Lord BROUGHAM; but his scheme has recently been pronounced a substantial failure: 25 London Law Magazine, supra.

3. The House of Lords, acting Judicially.

Theoretically, this court consists of the entire number of the House of Lords; practically, none participate in decisions except those who are known as "law lords," being persons who are peers, and are acting judicially, or who have theretofore held judicial positions. The House may call in the common-law judges to advise and assist them, but the latter cannot give a decision, nor even ask a question, and their advice may be overruled: 2 Macq. 582, 599. The equity judges cannot be summoned unless they are Privy Councillors.

The difference between the theoretical and practical organization of the House of Lords leads to results sufficiently curious. As a matter of theory, "there is nothing in the resolution of the House, nor in law or anything except the general understanding and practice of the House, which would debar any half-dozen of the House coming down, and sitting upon appeals and overruling the Law Lords." In practice, the only use of the lay lords is to constitute a quorum. As the rules require that three should constitute a quorum, when only one or two "law lords" are present, one or two lay peers must be called in simply to form a quorum. They are termed in ridicule, "lay figures," take no part in the decision, and do not feel bound to pay any attention to the proceedings.

He

On a recent occasion, the Lord Chancellor alone constituted the "House of Lords" with two lay peers to form a quorum. may thus sit on appeal from his own decision, and his vote alone

will sometimes affirm his own decision: 2 Macq. 584, note. Ordinarily the court consists of from three to five "law lords." Of the present "law lords" not one has ever been a judge in the common-law courts, though several of them have had great experience in the equity tribunals.

The leading objections to this court are: (1.) That its members are not bound to attend. As the attendance of members is gratuitous and voluntary, they are frequently absent. (2.) It holds its sessions only during the sitting of Parliament, so that there is much delay in the disposition of causes. (3.) It has lost much of its hold upon the public esteem by the spectacle of single judges sitting in review of their own decisions. Mr. Lewis says: "The paucity of legal members, the absence of any constitutional obligation upon legal members (except the Chancellor) to attend the transaction of judicial business, the irregularity of attendance which the engrossing avocations of those who hold judicial office elsewhere renders in their case unavoidable, the advanced years to which most have in general attained, who, by success in forensic life, reach the peerage-these circumstances have led to a want of confidence in the constitution of this high court, and a feeling of uncertainty in its administration of justice, which has occasionally been justified by the spectacle of one peer sitting in error from the judgment of a court composed of a plurality of judges; or again, the decision of judges specially versed and accomplished in the branch of jurisprudence involved, reviewed by a peer or peers having no such experience, and endowed with. no such special knowledge; or again, two peers only attending and differing; or lastly, a single peer sitting alone in one character to adjudicate upon a complaint against the decisions already pronounced by him in another:" Papers of Juridical Society, Vol. 1, 142.

In order to relieve some of the difficulties of the case, a "deputy-speaker," who is a member of the bar, is sometimes appointed. He is not permitted to deliver his opinion in the House, but must retire to an adjoining room, where he can speak. After thus delivering his opinion, he returns to his seat, and remains silent. Then a layman, who is a peer, may move for judgment in accordance with his opinion.

It would seem that the whole of this awkward and complicated machinery might be avoided, if the simple method aiready alluded

to was adopted. A judicial committee of the House of Lords might be constituted, which should report its decisions to the House, where they might be formally affirmed.

There is a subordinate committee in the House of Lords which attends to much of the formal business connected with appeals, disposing of points of practice.

4. Court of Criminal Appeal.

This court is established by 11 & 12 Vict. c. 78. This statute provides that when a person has been convicted before a court of oyer and terminer, gaol delivery, or quarter sessions, the judges before whom the cause was tried may reserve the questions of law arising on the trial for the consideration of the common-law judges. A quorum consists of five members, of whom one shall be chief justice, or chief baron of one of the superior courts. The questions are presented upon "a case," and are argued as before a court in full bench and judgment delivered. The court may make such order in the matter as justice may require, and on reversal may pronounce the proper judgment, or remit the record to the court below for the proper judgment. See 3 Cox's Criminal Cases, Appendix, 3.

VIII. COURTS NOT DESCRibed.

There is a considerable number of courts which are here mentioned simply for the sake of completeness. They are the courts of law and chancery in the counties palatine of Lancaster and Durham, the Court of Bankruptcy, the Consistory Courts, the Court of Arches, Courts Martial, Court of Chivalry, Courts Baron, Court of the two Universities, Court for the trial of Impeachments, and of the Lord High Steward. These courts are not described at length, as they are either local in their character, or their nature is such as to attract but little attention from the profession in this country.

T. W. D.