Page:Select Essays in Anglo-American Legal History, Volume 1.djvu/771

 W. VEEDER: A CENTURY OF JUDICATURE 757 bunal for the determination of cases where, from the great- ness of the offender, or the magnitude of the issue, the ordinary courts were inadequate to do justice. The King in Chancery (by the Lord Chancellor) acquired exclusive jurisdiction in all cases where the rigor of the common law had to be relaxed by supplemental rules, and the appellate jurisdiction in case of error passed into the hands of the House of Lords. The extent of the jurisdiction of the House was long a matter of controversy. Its common law jurisdiction in error, which was settled in the first year of Henry VII, was decisively vindicated in the case of Ashby v. White, 14. St. Tr. 695. Its appellate jurisdiction in equity was clearly recognized by the statute of 27 Elizabeth, c. 28, and has been unquestioned since the case of Shirley v. Fagg, 6 St. Tr. 1121. In early times the House claimed and occa- sionally exercised an original jurisdiction between party and party; but this claim was finally abandoned after the con- flict over the case of Skinner v. East India Co., 6 St. Tr. 709, in 1688. Jurisdiction over Scotch appeals dates from the Act of Union of 1707. Irish appeals have long been heard in the House. In 1696, and again in 1719, the Irish House of Lords claimed jurisdiction ; this claim was allowed in 1783, but in 1800 it was finally taken away by the Act of Union. Yet, even late in the eighteenth century the House was only beginning to be regarded as a regular court of justice. Its composition remained uncertain until it was finally settled by statute under the Judicature Act. The original con- ception doubtless implied the judgment of the whole House assisted by the advice of the assembled judges. Of course the lord chancellor presided, and there were generally eminent lawyers among the peers who would presumably lead in the discussion. The reports of the judicial proceedings of the House prior to the nineteenth century are so meagre that it is impossible to ascertain the character of their discussions. The earliest report of their judicial proceedings by Shower (1694-1733)- — a brief report of about fifty cases confined mainly to a statement of the issues and the actual judgment of the House — was considered by the House an infringe-