Visit to Parliament
To start our last week in London, Rebecca and I went with a group of eight English law students to tour the Houses of Parliament and observe proceedings of the Law Lords and the Privy Council. Our tour was led by a Door Keeper of the House of Commons named Clive. We were led through the St. Stephen's entrance to Parliament and followed the path that Queen Elizabeth II takes when she opens Parliament every Fall.
Clive stopped us first in the robing room where the Queen gets into her official garments. The room has very little furniture, but includes a large clock that was thought to have once been owned by Marie Antoinette. At the head of the room is a Chair of State, used by Queen Victoria. A look at the chair gives you an idea of the former Queen's height and girth, neither of which would be shared by your average supermodel.
We passed through several other grand rooms before arriving in the chamber of the House of Lords. The benches there are covered in red leather. You don't notice them at first, though, because your eyes are drawn to the gold-covered area where the Queen sits. Clive explained that the large red cushion in the center of the chamber, where the Law Lords sit ("the bigwigs"), is filled with wool from around the British Commonwealth.
We next walked to an antechamber outside of the House of Commons. Clive showed us the shelves of Hansard's -- the equivalent to the Congressional Record -- and explained that even heckles and laughter can be recorded in the transcriptions of debates. He then explained the procedure by which the House of Commons (a chamber with over 600 members!) votes, and then led us through the area where members would register an 'aye' vote for a particular measure.
The chamber of the House of Commons seems smaller than it appears from the overhead view you get from C-Span. It was exciting to be able to walk behind the area where the Prime Minister stands to address the house at question time. If I have the opportunity to return to England, I will make a point of petitioning the American embassy to secure a ticket to sit in the Stranger's Gallery (a balcony above the chamber) and watch a question period.
Following the tour, our group quietly filed into the gallery of an ongoing argument before a panel of five Law Lords. The lords were hearing the first submissions on a longstanding case related to corporate tax. (The entire argument was slated to last four days.)
At 1 p.m., the lords suspended argument to break for an hour. During this break, our group attended lunch in the chambers of Lord Walker.
Following lunch and a great question-and-answer session with Lord Walker, our group exited the halls of Parliament and walked to 9 Downing Street to observe arguments before the Privy Council. Argument before the Council that day related to a new rule of evidence promulgated in Scotland that affected rape cases.
This argument was suspended at 4 p.m. I had figured out that two of the lords' judicial assistants were attending the hearing, and got the attention of one of them, Sasha, after the hearing finished. Sasha kindly led us back to a chambers library after the hearing where we discussed how judicial assistants' work for the law lords compared to the work of U.S. judicial law clerks.
Evening in Westminster
On Monday evening, Rebecca and I finally got to meet Heather MacMahon, a former UK Pegasus Scholar who had spent time in my new hometown of Richmond, Virginia, in 2004. We met up in a unique and historic wine bar by Charing Cross station called Gordon's, and went from there to an Indian restaurant near Parliament. At the restaurant, located in a former library (with messanine bookshelves still intact), we were introduced to Heather's boyfriend David. Heather is originally from Scotland, and David is originally from Wales, so Rebecca and I took the opportunity to ask the couple about differences between their countries and England. Good-natured humor about the national character of the Scots, English, and Welsh ensued.
Return to Brick Court
Tuesday I returned to chambers and caught up with Martin. During my last four days in 
chambers, I was able to do more practically useful research and writing than I had done up to that point. This was largely because two cases on Martin's schedule for the week raised immigration and asylum issues sufficiently similar to U.S. immigration practice for me to usefully review English caselaw.
On Friday I attended a hearing before the Court of Appeal where Martin was representing the Home Secretary in an immigration-related matter. Unlike previous hearings I had observed, Martin spoke for only about twenty minutes. This was a sharp judgment call, however, because it was made clear in the questioning of the opposing advocate that the panel was very likely to favor the Home Secretary's position in the case.
