Daily Los Angeles herald., 1883-06-15

The only very important function Of
tho English House OF Lords is exercised
when the Peers act as a supreme tri-
bunal Of appeal. In the olden time,
when the law-making and the law
interpreting powers were not separate,
every Peer who was entitled to seat in
that body, whether clergyman Or lay.
man, voted upon oil questions Of law in
tho way that seemed best to him or to
his property. After q while, however,
II came TO be the custom that no Peer
who was not or who had not been q
Judge should vote upon any question Of
law alone. This custom became so
strong that, during the eighteenth CEN
tury, there were very few instances in
which II did not obtain. Some years
ago there was an appeal to the Lords on
. point Of pure law, on which occasion,
to use the words Of one OF their own
number, the House of Lords made a
very discreditable appearance, attending
in great numbers at the solicitation or by
command of the Prince of Wales. "
Again, In 1874, In the case of Daniel
0'Connell, but for the influence of the
Duke Of Wellington, who was opposed
politically to the appellant, the Lords
would have exercised their privilege in
tho interest Of party. 0'Connell had
been convicted of conspiracy, and ap-
pealed to the Upper House. When the
Lord Chancellor, acting as Speaker,
called upon those Of his fellows who
were in favor Of reversing the judgment
to say content" three law LordS who
were Of o'Conncll's party, responded.
But the Tory majority in the House Of
Lords was large. and Sir Robert Peel's
Tory administration was anxious for
conviction. When, therefore, the op.
posite Of the question was put, several
Lords not lawyers answered mot con.
tent" The Chancellor did not disclose
the vote, but put the question again
Then it was that the great Tory Peer
referred to interposed, and, through the
Tory President of the Council, begged
the lay Lords not to vote, in order that
the House might remain purely a court
Of appeal. The suggestion was adopted
not, however, without the general ad
mission that, II lay Lords did not vote,
II was merely because they chose to re
frain from exercising their undoubted
privilege. And, until the recent appea
OF one of the famous Bradlaugh cases,
no lay Lord everagain attempted to vot,
on question Of law. Indeed it wa,
thought Of late that the Judicature Act
Of 1876 had settled the matter, at leas
implicitly. That Act provided that, a
each appeal, three Lords OF appea
should be present, and declared "Lort
Of Appeal" to be one who held, or on,
who had held, judicial office. In ap
peals quorum consists of three Peers
snd when three law Lords were no
present, the necessary number of lay
Lords, who sat as mere "fiower pot jus
tices, and took no active part in til,
proceedings, sat in judgment. In thii
case of Bradlaugh's three law Lord
voted for reversing the judgment of tn,
Lower House. while one law Lord an,
one lay Lord dissented, 1t is curious
fact that this lay Lord-Lord Denman
himself bred to the bar, is q son of on,
Of the three law Lords who voted for
reversal of the judgment in o'Connell'
case, the very Peer who so deprecate,
what he considered the intrusion of tb,
lay Lords. Although in the British
constitution itself precedent is CROWN,
weak, IL may need an Act of Parliamen
to regulate the matter. In Americ,
traces Of judicial power clung unit
quite recently to the upper houses o
our legislative bodies. In Masaachu
sets, as in the Senate of the Unite,
States, in cases of impeachment, Sena
tors to-day are judges of law as well q
of fact. In New York the Senate forme,
the Supreme Court for the correction o
errors until the adoption of the Consti
tuition of lS46, and, about that time, il
South Carolina the Lieutenant G overno
and the Priyy Council were the Suprcm
Court of Chancery, while almost tn
same thing obtained in New Jersey
Nevertheless, to us the English system
in which tho first Judge goes out o
office with the downfall of the politica
party with which lie is affiliated, seem
strange.