or argued with more precision. Counsel are more careful in stating their facts and seldom or never do you hear them comtending for a proposition of law except upon grounds that are fairly arguable. Some of our best Canadian counsel take the position that it is their duty to put forward all the points of law that occur to them, leaving it to the Judge, assisted by the opposing counsel, to sift the wheat from the chaff. With a strong Judge this way of handling a case presents no advantages. With a weaker one it ought not to be attempted unless upon the theory that the sole business of counsel is to bear fruit for his client. But counsel is more than an advocate paid to win by any means. He is an official of the Court whose duty it is to assist the Court in arriving at the right conclusion. Time and again do English counsel agree with each other as to what the law is or narrow down the points of law in dispute so as to make it comparatively easy to arrive at a correct decision. And this is, I think, as it ought to be.

Speaking of counsel being well prepared, I once heard a Judge comment upon the way some cases are handled, and this is what, in sul stance, he said: "If counsel only knew how the presiding Judge appreciates the work of one who is seen to have mastered his brief and to know his facts and law, I think fewer of them would conduct their cases in the careless manner in which they are sometimes conducted. There are few things that tend to put a Judge out of temper so much as to have the whole case both as to facts and law thrown at him with a pitchfork as a farmer handles his fodder. A Judge leans towards helping the man who is seen to be doing his very best and becomes disgusted with the counsel, whatever his ability may be, who is seen not to be prepared." Under this heading it must be admitted that the English Judges have less to complain of than have our own.

It is needless to say, of course, that the English Judge presides with great dignity and has complete command of the Court. It is seldom that counsel steps outside his own territory and seeks to run the Court. The moment he does so he is effectually checked. In the Old Bailey this summer, I heard the trial of a man who was charged with forging a will. The prisoner's counsel, in addressing the Court, made it clear that in his opinion his opponent's conduct of the case had been such as to cause a miscarriage of justice. He said that never during the whole course of his professional experi

ence had he seen a case conducted with such a total disregard of consequences. Lord Justice Ridley listened to him patiently and then in his own quiet way said, "Mr.

you appear to be under the mistaken impression that you are master of the situation here. I need not, of course, remind you that the presiding Judge is supposed to occupy and, as a matter of fact, does occupy that proud position. I do not want to hear anything further from you upon this line." Mr. —————— was of course completely taken back and the trial was proceeded with. But after all the English Judges preside with no more dignity or control than do the Ontario Judges. I can see very little difference between them in that respect. But in another respect we are ahead of them. The Judges are too slow, with their work. The shorthand reporting system is not developed as is our own and the result is that the Judge has to make very full notes of the evidence. This takes up unnecessary time, so much so that the subject has been referred to several times in the House of Com

mons.

One thing very noticeable in connection with the administration of justice in England is the entire absence of any criticism in the public press. This is not surprising so far as the trials of cases are concerned, for we have little of that in this country, but there seems to be little or no criticism of public judicial officers. What occurred to me as strange. was that in the Crippen case, Scotland Yard was not criticised for allowing Crippen to get out of the country. It will be remembered that they had suspicions as to Crippen some weeks before he left. In fact, Scotland Yard had made one examination of the house and had found nothing. It is true that there was no sufficient evidence of the murder upon which they could have arrested Crippen, but it did seem to Canadians that they might well have kept him under surveillance and thus prevented him from leaving London. This, however, was not done. Strange to say, the London. papers instead of offering criticism of Scotland Yard commended the authorities in every way. It is important, of course, that the authorities should receive at all times healthy support. Irresponsible and unwarranted criticism is always to be regretted. But one cannot help feeling that a reasonable. amount of well reasoned criticism has a splendid effect in keeping officials stirred up to the point of duty.

Our American friends urge this as a reason for electing their Judges. Andrew Carnegie, on his last visit to Toronto, was heard to say that he was a thorough believer in the system of electing Judges, that there was nothing like public opinion to keep the Bench pure, that he had known several instances where a Judge had done something or taken some position which aroused the suspicion of the public or confirmed them in the belief that he had departed from the path of rectitude, and that when such Judge sought re-election he was invariably defeated.

But I am straying from the path myself.

In looking at the way trials are conducted in English Courts one cannot, with all our admiration, fail to conclude that the High Court of Justice in England is rapidly becoming, if it has not already become, a rich man's Court. The fees that successful barristers command, added to the solicitor's costs which are higher than ours, make the total expense of the litigation out of all proportion to the amount involved unless that amount should be very large. The jurisdiction of the County Courts is much more limited than our own. The client who has a claim of a moderate amount, or who is himself a man of moderate means, hesitates long before availing himself of the Courts. I am not a prophet but I do predict that a radical change in the judicial system is about to take place and that this change will consist largely of a substantial increase in the jurisdiction of the County Courts.

While on this subject of County Courts let me say that at the county sessions three justices of the peace sit with the Judge. They take no part in the trial but when a conviction is made they always consult with the Judge as to the punishment to be meted out. Might not our own county Judges consider whether the plan is practicable here? The question of punishment is not one of law. It is something that calls only for sober common sense and good judgment. In a multitude of counsellors there is often, though sometimes there is not, great wisdom.

A great change has come over the English Bench on this subject of punishment. Lighter sentences are becoming more common and the suspended sentence in the case of first offenders is often made use of where the criminal has theretofore borne a good character and the crime is not of a

serious character. All this you may think is tending in the right direction.

Another feature noticed particularly in the Scotch Courts-whether it is of modern growth or not I cannot say -is the effort that is made to save time in getting out facts as to which there is no dispute. I mean by this the asking of leading questions. A witness is put in the box; it may be necessary to get from him his age, occupation, experience, residence, nationality, whether he was present on the occasion in question, etc. With us, perhaps, a dozen questions would be asked to obtain this information and as many answers received. Not so with them. One question is asked in the following form: "Your name is John Smith, 30 years of age; you are a carpenter with 10 years' experience; you live at 50 Jones street; you are a Scotsman and you were present on the occasion in question?" One answer in the affirmative is given and much time saved.

These are a few of the impressions I received or the things I noticed. I give them for the benefit or otherwise of my brethren of the Bar. If they seem to bear hard upon ourselves let us remember that—

"Those bear reproof the best who merit praise."

OBITER DICTA.

CANADIANS AND THE PRIVY COUNCIL.

The preface of the Canadian Reports (1909) Appeal Cases contains the statement that that series of reports for the year 1909 comprises seventeen appeals to the Privy Council and that six of them were appeals from the Supreme Court of Canada, while eleven of them were from the provincial Courts of Appeal direct to the Privy Council. The idea suggested by this is that the Privy Council is gradually coming to be regarded as the virtual Court of Appeal for Canada, performing towards Canada the functions the Supreme Court was designed to fill. At any rate the volume of Canadian litigation now settled annually in London seems to warrant, as a commercial enterprise, the publication of a series of reports devoted exclusively to the reporting of these Canadian appeals. That there should be this tendency to go direct from the provincial Courts to the Privy Council when the expense is so enormously in excess of that involved in going to Ottawa, would seem to be due to the fact that leave to appeal from judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada is so frequently granted in every day actions that litigants prefer to reach the goal of final determination by the shortest route and so skip the Supreme Court.

When we consider some of the cases in which the Privy Council of late years has granted leave to appeal from judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada, it is apparent that the Canadian practitioner must experience the very greatest difficulty in advising his clients when or under what circumstances, or in what class of case the litigation is likely to be ended if taken to Ottawa. He is always confronted with the probability that if taken to Ottawa it may have to be in the long run fought out all over again in London, in which case there is the added cost and delay of the appeal to Ottawa and of the application to the Privy Council for leave to appeal. Better therefore go direct from the provincial Courts. Do we want to find out the meaning of language used by Canadian legislators in a Canadian statute? London and not Ottawa, it would seem, is where we must go. In the case of the Cumberland Railway and Coal Co. v. The Saint John Pilot Commissioners, reported in Canadian