The quorum of the Lords, numbering four hundred and sixty-five, is only three. A spectator at the law sessions of the Upper House is struck by the appearance of the Lord Chancellor on the woolsack, in wig and gown, listening to arguments, with two lay lords, like two lay figures, on the side benches, merely to constitute a quorum so as to legalize the decision of the Chancellor. The origin of this quorum, having the sanction of unbroken usage, is lost in the night of Antiquity. It is probably founded on the ancient maxim of the Roman Law, _Tres faciunt collegium_,--“Three make a _college_,”--the latter word being equivalent, in some respects, to our word _corporation_. Thus, according to Parliamentary Law, two things appear: first, the quorum of each House is within the control of the House; secondly, it is now, and always has been, in each House, much smaller than a majority. With us the quorum, in general terms, is fixed by the Constitution. It is not left to usage, or the control of each House; but it is reasonable to infer that any question on the meaning of the Constitution, arising from generality of language, may be interpreted in the light of Parliamentary Law. Indeed, this is only according to the rule under which all technical words in the Constitution are interpreted. For instance, words known to the Common Law or to the English Chancery are interpreted according to the Common Law or the English Chancery. Mr. Wirt, in his admirable argument on the impeachment of Judge Peck, states the rule in these words:-- “The Constitution secures the _trial by jury_. Where do you get the meaning of a _trial by jury_? Certainly not from the Civil or Canon Law, or the Law of Nations. It is peculiar to the _Common Law_; and to the Common Law, therefore, the Constitution itself refers you for a description and explanation of this high privilege, _the trial by jury_, and the mode of proceeding in those trials.… I insist, that, the moment that _a Court of Common Law_ or _a Court of Equity_ is established under the authority of the Constitution, its modes of proceeding and its powers of self-protection arise with it, and that the _very name_ by which it is called into being authorizes it to look at once to the English archetypes for its government in these particulars.”[99] According to this rule, so clearly enunciated, the words “quorum” and “House,” which are derived from English Parliamentary Law, may be explained by that law; so that, in case of doubt, that law is for this purpose embodied in the Constitution. Now the Constitution declares that _a majority of each House_ shall constitute a quorum to do business. The rule, it will be observed, is the same for each House. But the question arises, What is a majority of each House? or rather, putting aside all question with regard to the House of Representatives, which is perfectly free to determine for itself, What is a majority of the Senate?