Page:Select Essays in Anglo-American Legal History, Volume 1.djvu/774

 760 V. BENCH AND BAR of the Islington Market Bill, 3 CI. & F. 512, the judges gave their opinion on a bill pending in Parliament ; and it will be remembered that the judges were called upon for their opin- ions on the law of libel when Fox's bill on that subject was pending in Parliament. The judges are called upon simply to advise; the decision rests with the House alone. Lord Campbell expressed the accepted doctrine in Burdett v. Spilsbury, 10 CI. & F. 413 : " When your lordships consult the Queen's judges I do not at all consider that you are bound by the opinion of the majority, or even by their unanimous opinion, unless you are perfectly satisfied with the reasons which they assign for the opinion they give." Individual lords have taken a different view of their duty, noticeably Lord Wynford.^ Still, there are only five in- stances in modern times in which the House has rendered judgment contrary to the opinion of a majority of the judges.^ The House of Lords reports from 1827 to 1900 contain one hundred and twenty-five cases in which the judges have been called upon for advice. Of this number not more than a score are in any sense landmarks in legal history. Indeed, aside from the relative unimportance of most of these cases, it is difficult to understand upon what principle the House acted in determining when the judges should be assembled. For in twenty-four cases there was no difference of opinion from the beginning of the case in the trial court to its final conclusion in the House of Lords ; and in fifty-eight cases the asembled judges were unanimous in opinion. The form of judgment in the House is that of a motion, as in ordinary debates, recorded in the journal of the House. The House, unlike the Privy Council,^ holds itself bound by its own judgments. It also differs from the Privy Council in its privilege of summoning the judges. ^Atty. Gen. v. Winstanley, 5 Bligh (N. S.) 14.4. eral judgment when some of the counts in an indictment are bad; Jeffreys v. Boosey, 4 H. L. 815, on copyright; Unwin v. Heath, 5 H. L. recover for damage necessarily resulting from the exercise of powers conferred by Parliament; and Allen v. Flood, (1898) A. C. 1. 'Gushing v. Dupuy, 5 App, Cas. 409.
 * 0'Connell v. The Queen, 11 CI. & F. 232, on the validity of a gen-