This number of the CANADIAN LAW TIMES has been delayed in appearing owing to our desire to include in it an account of the proceedings in the matter of the Ship Leonor, which appear to have somewhat excited public opinion in British Columbia, and of the contentions arising therefrom between Mr. Justice Martin, as local judge in Admiralty at Victoria, on the one hand, and the Lords of the Admiralty and Sir Walter Cassels, President of the Dominion Admiralty Court, on the other. We regard the matter as of importance for it is the duty of all of us to study to preserve the relations of complete confidence and respect, and true British heartiness, which at present prevail between the Imperial authorities. and the government and people of this Dominion; and to regard with the utmost jealousy anything said, written, or done especially by those in high position to diminish such a happy condition of things.

We are also able to publish in this number the very able Address delivered by Mr. Z. A. Lash, K.C., on the 20th ult., in the Convocation Hall of the University of Toronto, upon The Working of Federal Institutions in Canada. Of all people in the world Canadians have most reason to say "fair is our lot and goodly is our heritage;" and this Address shews that this is as true of our internal governmental conditions, as it is of

VOL. XXXVII. O.L.T.-17

our external relations. The fact that Mr. Lash held for many years the position of Deputy Minister of Justice, and that he has ever since been mixed up in one way or another with public affairs, enables him to speak with special authority upon such a subject as that which he selected in his Address.

There are two points in the Report of the Speaker's Conference on Electoral on Electoral Reform, just issued in England, two and a half years after the outbreak of war, which are of special interest, and afford food for thought for ourselves. One is the reformation and enlargement of University Representation, instead of its abolition, which some would have expected. It is proposed that Oxford and Cambridge should each retain two members to be elected by the graduates, each graduate to vote only for one candidate, so that different interests and minorities may be represented. Then the Universities of Durham, Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham, Leeds, Sheffield, Bristol and the University of Wales, are to be grouped with London University, in one constituency with three members, to be elected by the single transferable vote, so that diversified or minority representation will be secured. The four Scottish Universities are to be similarly grouped with three members to be similarly elected. Thus four new or additional seats will be allocated to the existing University representation. How valuable might the new blood be, which University representation would introduce into our Dominion and provincial legislatures. And there should be the less objection seeing how thoroughly democratic in character Canadian Universities are. Why will not some Canadian politician qualify as a statesman by bringing in a bill in one of our numerous legislatures to introduce, in some measure, at any rate, the principle of University representation into Canada.

The other recommendation of the Report of the Speaker's Conference on Electoral Reform to which we wish to refer, is that Proportional Representation should be introduced for boroughs entitled by population to three or more members-that is, which have 190,000 inhabitants or more. Where Proportional Representation is thus introduced, the large constituencies are to have not less than three nor more than six members, elected by the single transferable vote. This means that each voter can mark 1, 2, 3, and so on, opposite the name of the candidates in the order of his preference; when the votes are counted, on any candidate receiving more than sufficient to carry his election (that is, than the quota), his surplus votes are transferred to the candidate or candidates indicated as the voter's next choice. As the Contemporary Review for March says, the arguments for Proportional Representation are:

That it gives a fairer reflection of the popular will, and accords to minorities a fair weight rather than all the power to a bare majority; that it gives to candidates of notable ability, past record, and public qualifications a better chance, and less advantage to local or personal popularity or wealth; that it moderates both the abrupt cleavage of party and violent revulsions in popular sentiment; and that it gives adequate opportunities for divergencies within a party.'

Already proportional representation figures in one British constitutional system, to wit, the Union of South Africa in respect to elections to the Senate and to the provincial Councils; while the Home Rule Bill —(will it ever be brought into force?)-proposes to have proportional representations in elections to the Irish House of Commons where a constituency returns three or more members, and, also, in all elections of senators. Proportional representation would be very effective in destroying the predominance of the political machine, and securing the representation of minorities. Its advocacy in Canada was, if we remember right, one of the favourite topics of the late Sir Sandford Fleming.

It is a sad business when sound learning has to correct the inaccuracies of an existing and an ex-Lord Chancellor, but that is what the well-known archæologist Mr. J. H. Round has done in the following recent letter to the Times:—

A MYTH EXPLAINED.

To the Editor of the Times.

SIR, Although I have had to reject-with success in at least one instance the "judgments," in peerage cases of some former Lord Chancellors, it may seem rash to take the field against two at once. But when Lord Buckmaster asserts in the House of Lords that "at one time a woman sat on the Woolsack, but, possibly through lack of legal training, administered a wholly unprecedented form of justice," and when Lord Halsbury admits that "it was true that a woman had sat on the Woolsack, but she had to adjourn the proceedings and go away in order to become the mother of Edward I," one may really be excused for stating the facts, though to lawyers, I fear, they are much less interesting than the things they read in books.

When Henry III. left for Gascony in July, 1253, he made his Queen Regent of the realm with his brother Richard as her colleague. In May, 1254, the Queen herself left to join the King in Gascony. Between these dates, on September 9th, 1253, pleas were heard, apparently at the Exchequer, coram Domina Regina et consilio Domini Regis,' the Queen acting, in the words of Madox, vice regis, that is, as Regent. That she acted judicially, either as Chancellor or as Keeper of the Seal, is a pleasant fiction, for which, I believe, we have to thank yet another Lord Chancellor, namely, Lord Campbell.

Both the learned lords have yet, I gather, to discover that the Chancery in 1253 was not a Court of Justice and neither heard nor determined causes. The City of London's "mutiny' against Queen Eleanor, which according to Lord Buckmaster, was provoked by her strange law, took place 10 years later, and the birth of Edward I-though Sibyl Giffard acted as midwife on that occasion-took place it may surprise Lord Halsbury to learn, in 1239, not in 1253. The woman Chancellor, it will have been seen, may take her place with "Pope Joan" among the curiosities of history.

Yours faithfully,

Brighton.

J. H. ROUND.

We are glad to see from Law Notes (English) for March, that Captain Nutty Coke, whom we introduced to our readers last October, is still going strong. It appears that law is a favourite topic of conversation among lawyer officers, of whom the captain is one; and that while the commonest topics with nonlawyer soldiers are food, girls, and religion, the lawyers cannot keep off" shop." A month or so ago they spent a night in a German "dug-out," a title to which, Coke informed them, they had acquired by ocThereupon a heated discussion arose. Some contended that they were tenants in common, others that they were joint tenants. The Colonel asked Captain Nutty Coke his opinion on the point. "Obviously, sir," said the Captain, "joint tenants, because of the right of survivorship."

cupancy.