however, they have found themselves unable to go far enough, and the plaintiff has failed.

But now try Mr. Ewart's way. It is obvious, and is, indeed, universally conceded and held, that “void” and "forfeited" in a clause of the kind in question mean not ipso facto automatically void, but-voidable or liable to forfeiture at the election of the company. Bearing this in mind, it is plain that the company's defence of breach of condition simpliciter is no defence at all, for, without more, the policy is still on foot. The company must go further, and must allege that it did in fact elect to terminate the policy. In reply, you join issue upon this question of fact. And

you go to trial with the burden firmly fastened upon

the company to prove (1) election to terminate, and (2) that the person whose words or acts are relied upon for that purpose had authority to elect on behalf of

to put but little strain upon either law or facts in order to decide in your favour.

Similar reasoning is applicable to a variety of relations besides that of insurer and insured-landlord and tenant, for example, or vendor and purchaserand Mr. Ewart pursues his argument with the same acuteness and lucidity through them all. No more a bare reference is possible in the space of a short review, and it is hoped that enough has been said to send readers to the book itself. But, lest any impression may still linger that Mr. Ewart's work is

than

wholly particular attention to the author's answer, at pp. 200201, to a critic of his thesis in its practical side. The book is one for the practising lawyer, quite as much as for the student, and Mr. Ewart has had the practitioner's needs in mind. As he himself says in the preface, the constant repetition of the central idea, as each aspect of its application is dealt with-a repetition per

or mainly theoretical, we direct the reader's

haps objectionable on purely literary grounds-renders

perusal of the whole work unnecessary for those consulting it upon subjects in which, from time to time, they may be specially interested.

It is a pity that the printing has not been done with that care and intelligence which we should have expected from the Harvard University Press. The book contains many misprints, which should be corrected in any future edition. For example, "imperative," on p. 131, should obviously be "inoperative." And the subtleties of the French accent seem to have been altogether beyond the grasp of the proof-reader.

CHRISTOPHER C. ROBINSON.

In the Wake of the War: Parliament or Imperial Govern ment? By Harold Hodge, M.A. of the Middle Temple, Barristerat-Law, formerly Editor of The Saturday Review: London: John Lane The Bodley Head, New York: John Lane Company: 1917: Pp. 226: Price $1.50.

We have here an interesting little book which endeavours in a painstaking way to recommend certain constitutional changes which, in the opinion of the author, should follow in the wake of the war, and put an end to the old haphazard relation between United Kingdom and Dominions,' if we are to have as a 'memorial really worthy of the great dead in this war' -'a better England and a better Empire.' Mr. Hodge justly reminds us, in a manner which recalls Mr. W. S. McKechnie's New Democracy, how much the glory and importance of the House of Commons, as a debating and governing body, has departed under modern conditions. If we remember rightly, Lord Hugh Cecil, a few years ago, actually suggested, from his place in the House of Commons, that it would make no great difference if that historic body were abolished, and Mr. Hodge seems to agree with him.

"The House of Commons has ceased to hold the place it once held in the popular imagination, because it has ceased to perform for the people its old functions. On the whole, people

find that they do not want the House of Commons; they can do without it; they do not look to it for news, and the big men in politics speak to them direct in public meetings more and more frequently. .`. But there are internal causes for the decline in the importance of the House of Commons as far-reaching as any without. These are the ever-increasing stringency of the party machine, and the absolute supremacy of the Government of the day. King and Lords have had to stand aside, and the

Government have acquired complete control of the House of Com

mons.

It is common knowledge that argument in the House has no relation to votes given there.'

.

The vital importance to a government of skilfully playing the domestic party game leads them to subordinate foreign affairs, Army and Navy to infinitely less important matters of more controversial interest

at the moment.'

All this is carefully elaborated as preliminary to the unfolding of Mr. Hodge's grand scheme for the new control of imperial questions and the removal of them from the sphere of party politics. Here it is:

An Imperial Council, not responsible to any parliament, British or Colonial, might take over the work of the Foreign Office, Admiralty, War Office, India Office, and Colonial Office. The Colonial would include representatives of all the self-governing one of the British members might be a representative of organized Dominions, with an Indian Assessor to the Secretary of State, and labour. This Council would be obliged to refer to the whole body of electors throughout the Empire certain fixed questions every year, and other questions, involving changes, as they came up.'

Thus the essence of Mr. Hodge's scheme is this new Imperial Council plus the Referendum to all Britsubjects the Empire over. The members of this Council are to be appointed in the first instance by His

ish

Majesty

of his own motion, and throughout his scheme

it is interesting to see how Mr. Hodge regards it is practicable to revest, so to speak, very considerable power in the King. It is to be

"An Imperial Council not responsible to any parliament, but responsible to the King and the people, whom it must consult by

Referendum.'

Mr. Hodge may surely be credited with knowing the English people, and this is what he says about their view of the King:

In the eyes of the people, the King is more than a symbol

of Imperial Unity and much more than "First Magistrate of the

Realm."

To the common people the King is, as he has

ever been, the Lord's Anointed.

instinct that the King is sacrosanct.

The people now have the

He who is not too

a Divine Power investing a

King, can sympathise with Royalty's irrational attraction for the multitude and gauge its significance.'

As to the self-governing Dominions, 'the person of the Sovereign is much more to them than are our political institutions; and this agrees with their recognition of the King's authority, but not of the authority of the British Parliament.' Lastly, the new Imperial Council is to have a Finance member: estimates of supplies necessary for Army and Navy and other Imperial objects will be prepared, debated, and resolved on by them, but not in or by the Parliament. If any British or Dominion Government refuses or fails to collect the Imperial quota, why!-the Council can collect it throughout the Empire, and if necessary employ Imperial troops. We must refer our readers to the book itself to see how this scheme is worked out in detail. Thus Mr. Hodge takes his place with Mr. Sidney Low, Mr. Lionel Curtis, Mr. J. A. Marriott, Mr. Arthur Poley, and many other recent writers in framing schemes for a new Imperial Constitution. It sometimes seems to us,-with all humility be it said,-that these gentlemen have failed to really grasp Colonial feeling of to-day. Perhaps a life-long experience in a self-governing Dominion is necessary in order to do so. This is no place to enlarge on what we mean. To put it very shortly, however, we can quite believe that, after the present war, the Dominions will be willing to enter into quasi-treaty arrangements with the Imperial government as to future contributions to the Army and Navy, in ships, men, or money, and that such arrangements will be faithfully observed. But for the rest, we believe that so great is the confidence which the Imperial Government has in the last few generations inspired in the overseas Dominions, that they would prefer to any such ambitious schemes of change, that matters should continue, in point of form, as they were before the war, knowing well that they will be more and more intimately consulted in matters of Imperial policy, and that where appropriate individuals and favourable circumstances present themselves, colonial statesmen will be more and more admitted to the Imperial Cabinet, and other innermost Imperial Councils.

THE GAZETTES.

The Canada Gazette for December 8th, contains the Proclamation summoning Parliament for February 28th, next.

It also contains an amended statutory Black List of persons and firms with whom trading is prohibited on the part of all persons resident, carrying on business or being in Canada.

The Canada Gazette for December 15th contains Special Fishery Regulations for Saskatchewan, Alberta, and the Territories North Thereof.

The Canada Gazette for December 29th, contains Special Fishery Regulations for the Province of Mani

toba.

The Canada Gazette for January 5th, contains an Order in Council that in any case where a person engaged in agriculture has applied for exemption and such exemption has been refused, the Minister of Militia and Defence, if he is of the opinion that the services of such person are essential for promoting agricultural production, may, by order under his hand, discharge such person from Military Service.

The British Columbia Gazette for Jan. 13th, contains a

sembly

Proclamation convening the Legislative Ason Feb. 17th next.

LOCAL AND PERSONAL.

Mr. E. C. Mayers, formerly of Bodwell, Lawson, and Mayers, of Victoria, B.C., has dissolved partnership, and become a member of the firm of Ross, Mayers, and Lane, of Vancouver, B.C.

J

udges sitting on appeals in Winnipeg under the

Military Service Act are reported to be receiving threatening letters or telephone calls almost every

day.

Lt. Col. A. L. Bonnycastle has been appointed Judge of the County Court for the Dauphin Judicial District, Manitoba.