was

What bids fair to become a "leading case recently heard before a full Court of seven King's Bench judges, presided over by the Lord Chief Justice. I refer to the case of R. v. Governor of Lewes Prison, Ex parte Doyle, where the Court decided that in a trial by Court-martial the Court has an inherent power to disregard its own statutory rules of procedure and hear a case in camera, when the public interests so require. The decision follows Scott v. Scott,1 in holding that this inherent power does exist in every Court. In that case it was clearly laid down that Courts of justice have power to hear cases in camera where a hearing in open Court might defeat the ends of justice. "Tumult or disorder," said Lord Loreburn in that case "or the just apprehension of it, would certainly justify the exclusion of all from whom such interruption is expected, and if discretion is impracticable, the exclusion of the public in general." The facts in the case of Ex parte Doyle were as follows: Doyle was an Irish volunteer, who was arrested during the Dublin rising last year. He was tried for treason and sedition by a Court-martial sitting in camera, and sentenced to death. The sentence was afterwards commuted to one of penal servitude, and Doyle was removed to England. A rule nisi for a habeas corpus directed to the Governor of Doyle's English prison was granted by the Court of King's Bench in January, and a return was taken on February 12th, before a Court of three judges; they reserved the case for re-hearing before a full Court of seven judges, and on this re-hearing the Court refused to make the rule absolute on the ground of the inherent power of the Court above referred to. The importance of the deeision cannot be over-estimated. It is gratifying that the Lord Chief Justice emphatically rejected the contention of the Attorney-General that the "Court" is "open," although the public are excluded if the accused and his advisers are present.

The Court was, however, of the unanimous opinion that every Court can exclude the public if such a course is necessary for the proper administration of justice. The Court was further of opinion that in the circumstances of the present case a hearing in camera was shown to be necessary. It must be remembered that trials by Court-martial are regulated by Rules of Procedure made by the Army Council under the Army Act, 1881, and one of these Rules, 119c, provides that proceedings are to be held "in open Court," but that the Court may be closed for deliberation amongst its members. The Divisional Court while holding that for a Court-martial to sit in camera, was a breach of the Rules of Procedure just mentioned, yet considered that, among a hostile population, it would be impossible to secure evidence if such trials took place in public; the administration of justice and the public safety would be imperilled if no power existed to hear a case in camera; consequently the Court was of opinion that there is an inherent jurisdiction in every Court to exclude the public if it became necessary for the proper administration of justice.

The extent to which private rights must be surrendered for the common safety is well exemplified by the case of the Irish solicitor who has recently been sentenced to six months' imprisonment by the decision of a Dublin Court-martial for having, in defending a prisoner, published in open Court, contrary, as it was alleged, to the Defence of the Realm Regulations, some confidential documents issued by the Royal Irish Constabulary. It would seem that the original charge against the solicitor, which was that of refusing to disclose how he obtained the documents, was not persisted in. This decision makes a great inroad into, if it does not entirely destroy, the privilege of an advocate to utilise a document that is relevant to the issue before the Court, and the interests of justice

on which alone that privilege is based must inevitably suffer if such a restriction is imposed.

The recent honours list contains a number of lawyers. Mr. W. F. A. Archibald, who until recently was a Master of the Supreme Court (King's Bench Division) obtains a well-merited knighthood. The son of Mr. Justice Archibald, he was educated at Repton and St. John's College, Oxford. He was called to the Bar in 1874 and became a Master of the Supreme Court in 1890. He took a large part in drafting and making practicable the Rules for Suits by Poor Persons. A knighthood has also been conferred on Mr. A. H. Bodkin, the Senior Treasury Counsel at the Central Criminal Court, since 1908, who was called to the Bar in 1885. Sir Charles Matthews, K.C.B., the Director of Public Prosecutions since 1908, who received a knighthood from King Edward at the opening of the new Central Criminal Courts, becomes a Baronet. Sir Charles, who was called to the Bar in 1872, became Junior Counsel to the Treasury at the Central Criminal Court in 1886, and Senior Counsel in 1888. For English lawyers, the most interesting name in the list is that of Professor Paul Vinogradoff, the Corpus Professor of Jurisprudence at Oxford University since 1903, who receives a knighthood. Born in Russia in 1854, he took a distinguished part in the promotion of education in that country.. Resigning his position as Chairman of the Educational Committee in Moscow, he came to England and resumed his interrupted studies in English social and legal history. His repute as a jurist is world-wide. Among other works of high authority, he has written "Villainage in England," "The Growth of the Manor," "English Society in the Eleventh Century," and "The Roman Law in Medieval Europe." He is an honorary D.C.L. of Oxford and Durham, an honorary LL.D. of Cambridge, Harvard and Liverpool, and a Literary Director of the Selden Society.

The large part taken by lawyers in the government of the Empire is shown by the names of the members of the Imperial Conference who are now assembling. All the Dominions, with the exception of New Zealand, will be represented by lawyers. Canada, by Sir Robert Borden; Australia, by Mr. W. M. Hughes, and Sir W. H. Irvine; Newfoundland, by Sir Edward Morris; South Africa, by General Smuts; India, by Sir J. P. Sinha. Of the fourteen Colonial and Indian statesmen who will attend the Conference, six are men who have practised law. The Conference will, of course, be presided over by Mr. Lloyd George, himself a solicitor.

W. E. WILKINSON.

THE WORKING OF FEDERAL INSTITUTIONS IN CANADA.1

I notice that in the announcement of this lecture I am referred to as having been for some time the Deputy of the Minister of Justice. That was a long time ago, but the fact that I once occupied the office probably equips me to say things about the working of Federal Institutions in Canada, which I would not otherwise have been able to say, and the fact that, just nine years after the British North America Act (Canada's Constitution) came into force, I assumed that office and remained in it until 1882, enables me to speak of the workings of our Federal System from practically the beginning of that System. It took the first ten years for the country to find its bearings under the new federation, and for the Dominion and the Provinces to settle down to an understanding of their true constitutional relations. It also took that time for the Dominion and the Mother Country to settle, satisfactorily, certain debatable questions respecting their relations, and to make clear that the principles relating to Ministerial responsibility in Canada did not differ from those relating to similar responsibility in England. It is a pleasant memory that I was appointed Deputy Minister of Justice upon the recommendation of the Honourable Edward Blake, when he was Minister, and I am sure that the loyal sons and daughters of the University of Toronto take pride in the thought that he who shed such lustre upon his Alma Mater, first as a graduate and later as Chancellor of the University, was to a large extent instrumental in settling some of the most important questions arising under our constitution, not only when he was Minister of Justice, but also when he, as one of the greatest lawyers at the Bar, took part in

1 A lecture delivered in the Convocation Hall of the University of Toronto by Mr. Z. A. Lash, K.C., LL.D., on March 20th, 1917.