In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

CHAPTER 10 PARLIAMENT AND THE PRIVY COUNCIL SUMMARY From tbe Restora#oll to tbe Reform Act The jurisdktion rif Parliammt Scotland and Ireland Appealsfrom the COllrls ofEquil)'The Position oftbe Common! Error in the COU/1CiI The Authority ofHOUle ofLords Decisions Criminal jurisdiction over Peers The Lords and Impeachmmt Appeals of Treason Bills ofAttainder The jnri!diction rif the Privy Council PAGE 199 200 201 201 202 202 202 203 204 204 205 205 The seventeenth and eighteenth centuries saw little change in the judicial system after the Restoration. The year 1660 was reckoned the twelfth year of the reign of Charles II. which theoretically began with the execution of Charles I. The stormy period of the Interregnum was erased as far as possible from legal memory. Its clumsy efforts at reform, the institutions which it created and the legislation it passed were swept away, and the strand of legal history was joined up again at the place where it had been broken. The authentic line of statutes came to an end even earlier, for after 16 Charles I, c. 37 (1642) no further acts were passed in the legitimate fashion by King, Lords and Commons . All editions of the statutes contain a gap between that date and the Restoration, and the legislation of the Interregnum must be sought in many scattered places. Not until 1911 were these relics collected into one single work.1 So too with reports; the meagre pages of Style, Hardres and Siderfin are only just enough to show that the common law courts struggled on under the able leadership of Chief Justice Rolle and Sir Matthew Hale. FROM THE RESTORATION TO THE REFORM ACT The century and three-quarters which followed 1660 are a period of rising prosperity, at least for the governing class, ending in a serious decline after the Napoleonic wars. Only the pinch of adversity was needed to destroy the contentment of the eighteenth century with its 1 A~/s and Ordimmcet ofthe Interregnum, 1642-1660 (ed. Firth and Rait, 3 vols., 1911). P.c.L.-8 199 200 'l'HE COURTS AND THE PROFESSION institutions. Its legislation is voluminous, but largely devoted to matters of detail which only acquire significance as precursors of the more sweeping reforms of the nineteenth century. Their importance is, however, none the less for that. There was in fact a slow, steady trend towards amelioration where practicable, but the limits of practicability were unhappily narrow, and the inertia of vested interests was immense. The fate of Lord Mansfield's efforts admirably illustrates the difficulty of reform when all the forces of traditional learning were arrayed against it. Some progress was made, however, by the efforts of those country gentry who bore the burden of local adjudication and administration as justices of the peace. Their labours have been well described in words which deserve quotation:1 "Parliament lacked the guidance of a central authority with broad and bold vision. On the other hand it was composed of those who were wresdiog witb the immediate problems and who could suggest workable expedients for tackling preseot difficulties. The result was a flood of statutes carrying out minor amendments in the old law and. io the second half of our period, establishing new ad hoe bodies to deal with special problems in particular areas. These policies of piecemeal amendment and sectional reconstruction went some way towards meeting the more pressing needs of the moment by adapting the law to changing circumstances and grafting modern devices on to the main stock of mediaeval institutions. In the process, however, confusion beeame more confounded...•" These words are as true of general legal history during this period as they are of local government. They are significant for their confirmation of the view that the eighteenth century ought not to be dismissed (as too often it is) as a period of complete stagnation, and also for their indication of the class from which the larger reforms were to come in the fullness of time-from the middle class which required sound institutions in tune with its moderate liberalism, and satisfying its sense of the practical. A small and very powerful legal profession guarded the central courts against any such meddling, and so these efforts were confined to local jurisdictions and minor criminal and administrative matters. THE JURISDICTION OF PARUAMENT At the other end of the scale, however. slow changes were taking place whose effects ate still with us. The earliest description of the judicial powers...

Share