ment with two lay lords.* The impression created by the fact of judges devoid of legal knowledge having to attend the public hearings where they are allowed consultative votes, but dare not give utterance to their opinion, who while away the time with reading pamphlets and papers, is but little calculated to inspire respect or awe.† It may readily be imagined that during Lord Eldon's time, appeal from the Chancery Court-that is, from Lord Eldon himself-did not often take place. In 1812 the lords had still lying before them matters relating back to 1793.§ The Upper House, in pleno, "the Court of our Lady the Queen in Parliament," is furthermore a court of first and final appeal whenever a peer of the realm, the wife of a peer, or peeresses "in their own right," the queen-consort, king-consort, or prince-consort, are accused of treason or felony. It is necessary to distinguish as to whether parliament is assembled or not; in the former case, the Lord High Steward, who sits under the royal canopy with the honorary rank of duke, and robed in ermine, assumes the presidency; such is also the case when the Lower House impeaches a peer or commoner before this highest court of judicature. The Lord High Steward, whose office was formerly hereditary or held at least during lifetime (dum bene se gesserit), but who is now especially nominated for each case, is, during such proceedings, only provisional prolocutor. In the affair of Warren Hastings the House of Lords declared itself bound by the ordinary rules of evidence. Questions of fact and questions of law are not, however, separated in this court. Every peer gives his opinion upon his honour-the majority determining the case in point. It has been a matter of some controversy, whether bishops have a right to sit in the court to try indictments of treason and misprision. The canons of the Council of Toledo enjoined that bishops were not to concur in any capital sentence, and such has been unquestionably the valid observance in England from that period. A bill of attainder has always been regarded in the light of a law; and bishops have, in the event of such a case arising, recorded their votes when it did not extend to a capital sentence. It is assumed, however, that they are excluded from sitting and voting in trials, on the ground that a peer can only be tried by peers, * Brougham, Const., 323. Royer Collard, Lettres sur la cour de la Chancellerie, 136. Brougham, Const., 360. § Ruttimann, Engl. Civil Process, 226. and that bishops, although lords of parliament, are not peers of the realm,* and are not themselves tried by the House of Lords.† On trials for capital offences they withdraw voluntarily from the court, but enter a formal protest declaring their right to stay.‡ Should parliament not be sitting, peers or peeresses would be tried for treason or felony by the court of the Lord High Steward. The state functionary appointed is actually the judge, and delivers his sentence after a jury, composed at least of twenty-three peers, have, by a bare majority, given in their verdict upon the question of fact. Formerly the Lord High Steward might summon this jury when he pleased; since 7 Will. III. c. 3, all the temporal peers are to be invited to act as jurors. Against its sentences no legal remedy exists. By a standing order of the House of Lords, "Bishops are only Lords of Parliament but not peers, for they are not of tryal by nobility." + Bl. iv. 264. INTRODUCTION. Self-government System.-Honorary Offices.-Local Rating.-Compass of English Self-government.-Local Magistrates.-Right of Nomination and Election.Justices of Peace.-Lord Lieutenant.-Sheriff.-Coroner.-Home Secretary's Ultimate Jurisdiction.-Centralization and Self-government not Opposed.-No Recognised Distinction between Town and Country.-" Village," "Town," "City." -Corporations.-Towns without Corporate Rights.-Size of Parishes.-No "Peasant Villages."-No "Patrimonial Rights."-Aristocratic Nature of the Older Self-government.-Modern Self-government.- Elected Bureaucracy.— Parishes. Increasing Bureaucratic Control.-Old and New Self-government. THE English self-government system possesses two striking features; all offices not purely subordinate are, as a rule, merely honorary, and are furthermore discharged by the gentry and the chief members of the middle classes. The powers of such selfgovernment are almost restricted to the levying of the local rates, which the gentry themselves bear in great measure, the Home Secretary merely affording assistance to the Local Police Fund. As compared with the great expenditure of the local administration, the outlay of the home department is of a very limited kind. The local government is made over mainly to officials, who within the compass of their functions possess full judicial authority, and determine according to fixed principles of law and procedure after due summary proceedings held in open court and under survey of the superior courts. As all justice emanates from the sovereign, these functionaries, likewise, are generally appointed by the Crown; the principle of election having, in the lapse of centuries, become the merest exception from this rule. Popular election is still allowed, however, in the case of coroners, conformably with the common law, and with statute law in the case of town-councillors; formerly also with respect to these latter, on the ground of "prescription." The principle of nomination by the sovereign is only restricted in relation to institutions of common law origin, and to those which existed prior to the Municipal Corporation Act. By the introduction of this latter measure, the principle of election in the construction of the new local boards has obtained the ascendancy. U |