nerve centre of the autonomous nations of an Imperial Commonwealth. I doubt whether the thought which underlies this idea has been expressed better than in the words used by Sir Robert Borden, when speaking, on the 3rd of April, 1917, to the Empire Parliamentary Association, he said: "For the first time in the Empire's history there are sitting in London two Cabinets, both properly constituted, and both exercising well-defined powers. Over each of them the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom presides. One of them is designated as the War Cabinet, which chiefly devotes itself to such questions touching the prosecution of the War as primarily concern the United Kingdom. The other is designated as the Imperial War Cabinet, which has a wider purpose, jurisdiction and personnel. To its deliberations have been summoned representatives of all the Empire's self-governing Dominions. We meet there on terms of equality under the presidency of the First Minister of the United Kingdom; we meet there as equals; he is Primus inter pares. Ministers from six nations sit around the Council Board, all of them responsible to their respective Parliaments and to the people of the countries which they represent. Each nation has its voice upon questions of common concern and highest importance as the deliberations proceed; each preserves unimpaired its perfect autonomy, its self-government and the responsibility of its Ministers to their own electorate. For many years the thought of statesmen and students in every part of the Empire has centred around the question of future constitutional relations; it may be that now, as in the past, the necessity imposed by great events has given the answer. "With the constitution of that Cabinet," he added, "a new era has dawned and a new page of history has been written. It is not for me to prophesy as to the future significance of these pregnant events; but those who have given thought and energy to every effort for full constitutional development of the overseas nations may be pardoned for believing that they discern therein the birth of a new and greater Imperial Commonwealth." I hope indeed that the belief so eloquently expressed by Sir Robert Borden may become a reality in our time. The League of All Nations is a great conception, but much time and effort must be expended before it comes to full fruition. In the meantime there is a League in being,-a League, strong, effective and peace loving, nurtured in independence, skilled in selfgovernment, ambitious for no "world empire" but only for a world peace the league of the British Nations. The bond which unites its great component units,-Great Britain, Canada, Newfoundland, `Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, is no chain of possession but the hand clasp of free men. It is founded on two principles, the autonomy of each and the voluntary co-operation of all, and while we are true to these principles, to each other and to our King, no enemy can prevail against us. C.L.T.-52 WHEN THE COURTS OF QUEEN'S BENCH AND CHANCERY STROVE FOR SUPREMACY. BY WILLIAM RENWICK RIDDELL, LL.D., F.R.S.C., &c., &c., Justice of the Supreme Court of Ontario. Every lawyer is familiar with the historic struggle between the Court of King's Bench and the Court of Chancery, with Coke and Ellesmere as champions, in the time of the British Solomon, the Scots King of England, "James I. and VI." The story is told in Lord Campbell's entertaining Life of Lord Ellesmere;2 and at this length of time we cannot say how far the result was due to the gruffness of Edward Coke and the suavity and courtliness of Thomas Egerton. The Chancellor, thought to be dying, was triumphant—the Chief Justice, at the acme of his powers, physical and mental, was abased-to take post mortem revenge in the 3rd Book of his Institutes. Few, however, have heard of what promised to be a similar struggle in Upper Canada.3 A Court of Chancery had existed in the old Province of Quebec but the reinstitution of the former French Canadian Civil Law by the Quebec Act of 1774, had practically destroyed its usefulness. When the Province of Upper Canada began its separate Provincial existence (1791-2), no Court of Chancery was formed. The delivery of the Great Seal of the Province to the Lieutenant-Governor was considered to make him Of him the amusing story is told that a Chaplain when preaching before the King selected his text: "James first and sixth. He that wavereth is like a wave of the sea, driven with the wind and tossed.' It is no wonder that the King, who, whatever his faults, was generally good natured, should say to the divine, "Faith, mon, ye are no blate." In the second volume of his "Lives of the Lords Chancellors.” I was put on the track of this interesting episode in our legal history by the perusal of contemporaneous letters written, by (Sir) Oliver Mowat, kindly placed at my disposal by his nephew, Herbert Mowat. Esq., K.C.. M.P. * (1774), 14 Geo. III. c. 83 (Imp.). ipso facto Chancellor; and that he had the power to set up a Court of Chancery there was and could be no doubt-but it was not thought wise for him to take advantage in that respect of the powers given him by his Royal Master. There were many schemes framed for such a Court; and Powell, Allcock, Thorpe, Willis, in succession desired to be the head of it, under the Lieutenant-Governor; but for various reasons all these schemes fell through," and it was not till 1837 that the Legislature established a Court of Chancery for the Province of Upper Canada. The Provincial Act passed March 4th, 1837, 7 Wm. IV., c. 2, "constituted and established a Court of Chancery" with one Judge called "the Vice-Chancellor of Upper Canada" and having very wide equitable jurisdiction. 6 To the office of Vice-Chancellor of Upper Canada was appointed the Attorney-General, Robert Sympson Jameson, of the Middle Temple, who had been a Judge at Dominica, B.W.I., and had been appointed AttorneyGeneral of Upper Canada in 1833 -he continued to fill the position of Vice-Chancellor after the Court was reorganized in 1849, and retired in 1850 to be succeeded by a much abler man, John Godfrey Spragge, who later became Chancellor and Chief Justice of the Province. In 1844 the incident took place the subject of this paper. The Bankruptcy Act of 1843, 7 Vic., c. 10 (Can.), gave the jurisdiction in Bankruptcy to "the Judge or Commissioner"-i.e., "the several Judges of the Dis 5 The interesting story of these early attempts to set up a Court of Chancery has not been told-the materials are abundant in the Archives at Ottawa, the Powell Papers, the Simcoe Papers, etc. 66 6 He was the husband of the well-known authoress, Mrs. Jameson (Anna Murphy). When he was appointed to the Vice-Chancellorship, the question came up in Convocation of the Law Society of Upper Canada whether he could continue at the head of the Society as Treasurer; it was decided by the Benchers that he was not a Judge SO as to become a visitor of the Society, and consequently he retained his place as Treasurer. While the Judges of the Court of King's Bench were already Their Lordships," during all the time Jameson was Vice-Chancellor, 1837-1850, he was "His Honour," following the English custom. trict Courts in this Province and the several Commissioners appointed under the Ordinance of Lower Canada concerning Bankrupts," with power to the Governor to appoint other Commissioners in case of need. No power was given to or taken away from the Courts of Queen's Bench or Chancery except that they were made "Courts of Review... with full ority to entertain, hear and determine Sec. 68. . auth appeals from the said Judges and Commissioners. The firm of Merritt and Scott carried on business at St. Catharines in rather a large way; John Mittleberger claimed to be a creditor of that firm in a considerable amount and proposed to issue a Commission of Bankruptcy against the firm. Merritt and Scott applied to the Vice-Chancellor on a petition praying that the Commission when issued might be superseded and that in the meantime advertisement in the Gazette might be stayed, and seizure of their property prohibited-whereupon the Vice-Chancellor granted an order staying advertisement and seizure." Mittleberger's solicitors advised that the ViceChancellor had only appellate jurisdiction; and made an application to the Court of Queen's Bench for a writ of prohibition directed to the Vice-Chancellor forbidding him to proceed in the matter as not being within his jurisdiction." See the report in Re Merritt et al. (1844), 1 U. C. Jur., 283. In Hilary Term, 8 Victoriae, Tuesday, 12th Nov., 1844, before a Court composed of Chief Justice John Beverley Robinson and Puisne Justices Jonas Jones and Christopher Alexander Hagerman, "In the matter of Rule Nisi granted V. Vice-Chancellor Burns." Oliver Mowat in a letter to his brother, Mr. John B. Mowat. Kingston, dated Toronto, Nov. 15, 1844, says: "Mr. Burns moved the Court of Queen's Bench the other day for a Writ of Prohibition to restrain the Vice-Chancellor from proceeding to carry into effect an Order in Bankruptcy, which His Honour had made in one of our cases. The motion is to be argued to-morrow, and is creating some excitement in the profession. The general impression has always been that the Court of Chancery and not the Court of Queen's Bench was the Superior Court. And this is the first application ever made founded on a contrary view. The Master and Mr. Turner together have made the old |