The English Law Courts. subject to removal on an address by both Houses of Parliament. The number of these judicial officers is limited to four. The qual ification is fifteen years' practice at the bar, or two years' tenure of " high judicial office," a term which means " the office of Lord Chancellor of Great Britain or Ireland," of a paid judge of the judicial committee, or of judge of Her Majesty's Superior Court
THE HOUSE OF for Great Britain and Ireland. In spite of the statutory basis given to the jurisdiction of the House of Lords by this act, the sittings of the House in its judicial, re semble those of the House in its legislative capacity. Provided that the necessary quorum of lawyers is present, other peers may in theory (although they do not now in general practice) take part in the delib erations and the judgment of the House. In 1783 peers not being law lords voted with out question in the case of the Bishop of Lon don v. Fytche (1 East. 487).
33 1
In Greville's Journal ( 1838/Vol. 1, p. 8 1, n. ) it is stated that in the case of Small v. Altwood the fifth vote on the hearing in the House of Lord's was given to Lord Orvan, who had never held judicial office. The last occasion on which a non-legal peer voted on an appeal was Bradlaugh v. Clarke (8 App. Cas. 354), where Lord Denman took part in a hearing and voted with the minority. More-
 | An image should appear at this position in the text. To use the entire page scan as a placeholder, edit this page and replace "{{missing image}}" with "{{raw image|The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 07.pdf/364}}". Otherwise, if you are able to provide the image then please do so. For guidance, see Wikisource:Image guidelines and Help:Adding images. |  |
RDS. INTERIOR. over the form of judgments delivered in the House of Lords is that of a motion, as in ordinary debates; and the result is recorded in the journals of the House. It is probably the legislative character of judicial pro ceedings in the House of Lords, as opposed to the advisory character of legal proceed ings in the Privy Council, that accounts for the fact that dissentient judges deliver sepa rate judgments in the former case, but not in the latter. In addition to this point of dif ference between the two tribunals, Sir William Anson notes (1) that, whereas the
