VOLUME V SLICE VII Cerargyrite to Charing Cross (continued 7)

As a scientist Chamisso has not left much mark, although his Bemerkungen und Ansichten, published in an incomplete form in O. von Kotzebue’s Entdeckungsreise (Weimar, 1821) and more completely in Chamisso’s Gesammelte Werke (1836), and the botanical work, Übersicht der nutzbarsten und schädlichsten Gewächse in Norddeutschland (1829) are esteemed for their careful treatment of the subjects with which they deal. As a poet Chamisso’s reputation stands high, Frauen Liebe und Leben (1830), a cycle of lyrical poems, which was set to music by Schumann, being particularly famous. Noteworthy are also Schloss Boncourt and Salas y Gomez. In estimating his success as a writer, it should not be forgotten that he was cut off from his native speech and from his natural current of thought and feeling. He often deals with gloomy and sometimes with ghastly and repulsive subjects; and even in his lighter and gayer productions there is an undertone of sadness or of satire. In the lyrical expression of the domestic emotions he displays a fine felicity, and he knew how to treat with true feeling a tale of love or vengeance. Die Löwenbraut may be taken as a sample of his weird and powerful simplicity; and Vergeltung is remarkable for a pitiless precision of treatment.

The first collected edition of Chamisso’s works was edited by J.E. Hitzig, 6 vols. (1836); 6th edition (1874); there are also excellent editions by M. Koch (1883) and O.F. Walzel (1892). On Chamisso’s life see J.E. Hitzig, “Leben und Briefe von Adelbert yon Chamisso” (in the Gesammelte Werke); K. Fulda, Chamisso und seine Zeit (1881); G. Hofmeister, Adelbert von Chamisso (1884); and, for the scientific side of Chamisso’s life, E. du Bois-Raymond, Adelbert von Chamisso als Naturforscher (1889).

CHAMKANNI, a small Pathan tribe on the Kohat border of the North-West Province of India. They inhabit the western part of the Kurmana Valley in the Orakzai portion of Tirah, but are supposed to be a distinct race. They took part in the frontier risings of 1897, and during the Tirah expedition of that year a brigade under General Gaselee was sent to punish them.

CHAMOIS, the Franco-Swiss name of an Alpine ruminant known in the German cantons as Gemse, and to naturalists as Rupicapra tragus or R. rupicapra tragus. It is the only species of its genus, and typifies a subfamily, Rupicaprinae, of hollow-horned ruminants in some degree intermediate between antelopes and goats (see Antelope). About equal in height to a roebuck, and with a short black tail, the chamois is readily distinguishable from all other ruminants by its vertical, backwardly-hooked, black horns, which are common to males and females, although smaller in the latter. Apart from black and white face-markings, and the black tail and dorsal stripe, the prevailing colour of the Alpine chamois is chestnut brown in summer, but lighter and greyer in winter. In the Pyrenees the species is represented by a small race locally known as the izard; a very brightly-coloured form, R.t. picta, inhabits the Apennines; the Carpathian chamois is very dark-coloured, and the one from the Caucasus is the representative of yet another race. A thick under-fur is developed in the winter-coat, as in all other ruminants dwelling at high altitudes. Chamois are gregarious, living in herds of 15 or 20, and feeding generally in the morning or evening. The old males, however, live alone except in the rutting season, which occurs in October, when they join the herds, driving off the younger bucks, and engaging in fierce contests with each other, that often end fatally for one at least of the combatants. The period of gestation is twenty weeks, when the female, beneath the shelter generally of a projecting rock, produces one and sometimes two young. In summer they ascend to the limits of perpetual snow, being only exceeded in the loftiness of their haunts by the ibex; and during that season they show their intolerance of heat by choosing such browsing-grounds as have a northern exposure. In winter they descend to the wooded districts that immediately succeed the region of glaciers, and it is there only they can be successfully hunted. Chamois are exceedingly shy; and their senses, especially those of sight and smell, very acute. The herd never feeds without having a sentinel posted on some prominence to give notice of the approach of danger; which is done by stamping on the ground with the forefeet, and uttering a shrill whistling note, thus putting the entire herd on the alert. No sooner is the object of alarm scented or seen than each one seeks safety in the most inaccessible situations, which are often reached by a series of astounding leaps over crevasses, up the faces of seemingly perpendicular rocks, or down the sides of equally precipitous chasms. The chamois will not hesitate, it is said, thus to leap down 20 or even 30 ft., and this it effects with apparent ease by throwing itself forward diagonally and striking its feet several times in its descent against the face of the rock. Chamois-shooting is most successfully pursued when a number of hunters form a circle round a favourite feeding ground, which they gradually narrow; the animals, scenting the hunters to windward, fly in the opposite direction, only to encounter those coming from leeward. Chamois-hunting, in spite of, or perhaps owing to the great danger attending it, has always been a favourite pursuit among the hardy mountaineers of Switzerland and Tirol, as well as of the amateur sportsmen of all countries, with the result that the animal is now comparatively rare in many districts where it was formerly common. Chamois feed in summer on mountain-herbs and flowers, and in winter chiefly on the young shoots and buds of fir and pine trees. They are particularly fond of salt, and in the Alps sandstone rocks containing a saline impregnation are often met with hollowed by the constant licking of these creatures. The skin of the chamois is very soft; made into leather it was the original shammy, which is now made, however, from the skins of many other animals. The flesh is prized as venison.

(R. L.*)

CHAMOMILE, or Camomile Flowers, the flores anthemidis of the British Pharmacopoeia, the flower-heads of Anthemis nobilis (Nat. Ord. Compositae), a herb indigenous to England and western Europe. It is cultivated for medicinal purposes in Surrey, at several places in Saxony, and in France and Belgium,—that grown in England being much more valuable than any of the foreign chamomiles brought into the market. In the wild plant the florets of the ray are ligulate and white, and contain pistils only, those of the disk being tubular and yellow; but under cultivation the whole of the florets tend to become ligulate and white, in which state the flower-heads are said to be double. The flower-heads have a warm aromatic odour, which is characteristic of the entire plant, and a very bitter taste. In addition to a bitter extractive principle, they yield about 2% of a volatile liquid, which on its first extraction is of a pale blue colour, but becomes a yellowish brown on exposure to light. It has the characteristic odour of the flowers, and consists of a mixture of butyl and amyl angelates and valerates. Angelate of potassium has been obtained by treatment of the oil with caustic potash, and angelic acid may be isolated from this by treatment with dilute sulphuric acid. Chamomile is used in medicine in the form of its volatile oil, of which the dose is ½-3 minims. There is an official extract which is never used. Like all volatile oils the drug is a stomachic and carminative. In large doses the infusion is a simple emetic.

Wild chamomile is Matricaria Chamomilla, a weed common in waste and cultivated ground especially in the southern counties of England. It has somewhat the appearance of true chamomile, but a fainter scent.

CHAMONIX, a mountain valley in south-east France, its chief village, of the same name, being the capital of a canton of the arrondissement of Bonneville in the department of Haute-Savoie. The valley runs from N.E. to S.W., and is watered by the Arve, which rises in the Mer de Glace. On the S.E. towers the snowclad chain of Mont Blanc, and on the N.W. the less lofty, but rugged chain of the Brévent and of the Aiguilles Rouges. Near the head of the valley is the village of Argentière (4101 ft.), which is connected with Switzerland by “char” (light carriage) roads over the Tête Noire and past Salvan, and by a mule path over the Col de Balme, which joins the Tête Noire route near Trient and then crosses by a “char” road the Col de la Forclaz to Martigny in the Rhone valley. The principal village, Chamonix (3416 ft.), is 6 m. below Argentière by electric railway (which continues via Finhaut to Martigny) and is visited annually by a host of tourists, as it is the best starting-point for the exploration of the glaciers of the Mont Blanc chain, as well as for the ascent of Mont Blanc itself. It is connected with Geneva by a railway (55 m.). In 1906 the population of the village was 806, of the commune 3482.

The valley is first heard of about 1091, when it was granted by the count of the Genevois to the great Benedictine house of St Michel de la Cluse, near Turin, which by the early 13th century established a priory therein. But in 1786 the inhabitants bought their freedom from the canons of Sallanches, to whom the priory had been transferred in 1519. In 1530 the inhabitants obtained from the count of the Genevois the privilege of holding two fairs a year, while the valley was often visited by the civil officials and by the bishops of Geneva (first recorded visit in 1411, while St Francis de Sales came thither in 1606). But travellers for pleasure were long rare. The first party to publish (1744) an account of their visit was that of Dr R. Pococke, Mr W. Windham and other Englishmen who visited the Mer de Glace in 1741. In 1742 came P. Martel and several other Genevese, in 1760 H.B. de Saussure, and rather later Bourrit.

See J.A. Bonnefoy and A. Perrin, Le Prieuré de Chamonix (2 vols., Chambery, 1879 and 1883); A. Perrin, Histoire de la vallée et du prieuré de Chamonix (Chambéry, 1887); L. Kurz and X. Imfeld, Carte de la chaîne du Mont Blanc (1896; new ed., 1905); L. Kurz, Climbers’ Guide to the Chain of Mont Blanc (London, 1892); also works referred to under Blanc, Mont.

(W. A. B. C.)

CHAMPAGNE, an ancient province of the kingdom of France, bounded N. by Liége and Luxemburg; E. by Lorraine; S. by Burgundy; and W. by Picardy and Isle de France. It now forms the departments of Ardennes, Marne, Aube and Haute Marne, with part of Aisne, Seine-et-Marne, Yonne and Meuse. Its name—in Latin Campania, “country of plains”—is derived from the immense plains near Reims, Châlons and Troyes. It was constituted towards the end of the middle ages by joining to the countship of Champagne the ecclesiastical duchies of Reims and Langres, together with the ecclesiastical countship of Châlons. Documents of the 12th and 13th centuries make it possible to determine the territorial configuration of the countship of Champagne with greater accuracy than in the case of any other fief of the crown of France. Formed at random by the acquisitions of the counts of the houses of Vermandois and Blois, Champagne reckoned among its dependencies, from 1152 to 1234, the countship of Blois and Chartres, of which Touraine was a fief, the countship of Sancerre, and various scattered fiefs in the Bourbonnais and in Burgundy. Officially called the “countship of Champagne and Brie” since 1217, this state was formed by the union of the countships of Troyes and Meaux, to which the greater part of the districts embraced in the country known, since the beginning of the middle ages, by the name of Champagne and Brie came in course of time to be attached. Placed under the authority of a single count in 960, the countships of Troyes and Meaux were not again separated after 1125. For the counts of Troyes before the 11th century see Troyes. We confine ourselves here to the counts of Champagne of the house of Blois.

About 1020 Eudes or Odo I. (Odo II., count of Blois) became count of Champagne. He disputed the kingdom of Burgundy with the emperor Conrad, and died in 1037, in a battle near Bar-le-Duc. In 1037 he was succeeded by his younger son, Stephen II. About 1050 Odo II., son of Stephen II., became count. This prince, guilty of murder, found refuge in Normandy, where he received the castle of Aumale. He took part in 1066 in the conquest of England, and became earl of Holderness. About 1063 Theobald (Thibaud) I., count of Blois and Meaux, eldest son of Odo I., became count of Champagne. In 1077 he seized the countships of Vitry and Bar-sur-Aube, left vacant by Simon of Valois, who had retired to a monastery. In 1089 Odo III., second son of Theobald II., became count, and was succeeded about 1093 by his younger brother, Hugh, who became a templar in 1125, and gave up the countship to his suzerain, the count of Blois. In 1125 the countship of Champagne passed to Theobald II. the Great, already count of Blois and Meaux, and one of the most powerful French barons of his time. He was related to the royal house of England, and incurred the displeasure of the king of France, who in 1142 invaded Champagne and burnt the town of Vitry. After Theobald the Great the countship of Blois ceased to be the dominant fief of his house and became the appanage of a younger branch. In 1152 Henry the Liberal, eldest son of Theobald II., became count of Champagne; he married Mary, daughter of Louis VII. of France, and went to the crusade in 1178. He was taken prisoner by the Turks, recovered his liberty through the good offices of the emperor of the East, and died a few days after his return to Champagne. In 1181 his eldest son, Henry II., succeeded him under the tutelage of Mary of France. In 1190 he went to the Holy Land, and became king of Jerusalem in 1192 by his marriage with Isabelle, widow of the marquis of Montferrat. He died in 1197 in his town of Acre from the results of an accident. In 1197 Theobald III., younger son of Henry I., became count, and was succeeded in 1201 by Theobald IV., “le Chansonnier” (the singer), who was the son of Theobald III. and Blanche of Navarre, and was born some days after the death of his father. From 1201 to 1222 he remained under the tutelage of his mother, who governed Champagne with great sagacity. The reign of this prince was singularly eventful. The two daughters of count Henry II. successively claimed the countship, so that Theobald had to combat the claims of Philippa, wife of Erard of Brienne, seigneur of Rameru, from 1216 to 1222, and those of Alix, queen dowager of Cyprus, in 1233 and 1234. In 1226 he followed king Louis VII. to the siege of Avignon, and after the death of that monarch played a prominent part during the reign of St Louis. At first leagued with the malcontent barons, he allowed himself to be gained over by the queen-mother, and thus came into collision with his old allies. He became king of Navarre in 1234 by the death of his maternal uncle, Sancho VII. but by the onerous treaty which he concluded in that year with the queen of Cyprus he was compelled to cede to the king, in return for a large sum of money, the overlordship of the countships of Blois, Chartres and Sancerre, and the viscounty of Châteaudun. In 1239 and 1240 he took part in an expedition to the Holy Land, probably accompanied St Louis in 1242 in the campaign of Saintonge against the English, and died on the 14th of July 1254 at Pampeluna. If the author of the Grandes chroniques de France can be believed, Theobald IV. conceived a passion for Queen Blanche, the mother of St Louis,—a passion which she returned, and which explains the changes in his policy; but this opinion apparently must be relegated to the category of historical fables. The witty and courtly songs he composed place him in the front rank of the poets of that class, in which he showed somewhat more originality than his rivals. In 1254 Theobald V. the Young, eldest son of Theobald IV. and, like his father, king of Navarre, became count of Champagne. He married Isabelle of France, daughter of St Louis, and followed his father-in-law to Tunis to the crusade, dying on his return. In 1270 he was succeeded by Henry III. the Fat, king of Navarre. Henry was succeeded in 1274 by his only daughter, Joan of Navarre, under the tutelage of her mother, Blanche of Artois, and afterwards of Edmund, earl of Lancaster, her mother’s second husband. In 1284 she married the heir-presumptive to the throne of France, Philip the Fair, to whom she brought the countship of Champagne as well as the kingdom of Navarre. She became queen of France in 1285, and died on the 4th of April 1305, when her eldest son by King Philip, Louis Hutin, became count of Champagne. He was the last independent count of the province, which became attached to the French crown on his accession to the throne of France in 1314.

The celebrated fairs of Champagne, which flourished in the 12th and 13th centuries, were attended by merchants from all parts of civilized Europe. They were six in number: two at Troyes, two at Provins, one at Lagny-sur-Marne, and one at Bar-sur-Aube. They formed a kind of continuous market, divided into six periods, and passed in turn from Lagny to Bar, from Bar to Provins, from Provins to Troyes, from Troyes to Provins and from Provins to Troyes, to complete the year. It was, in fact, a perpetual fair, which had at once unity and variety, offering to the different parts of the countship the means of selling successively the special productions of their soil or their industry, and of procuring in exchange riches and comforts. These fairs had special legislation; and special magistrates, called “masters of the fairs,” had control of the police.

For the wine “champagne” see Wine.

Authorities.—H. d’Arbois de Jubainville, Histoire des ducs et des comtes de Champagne (1859-1866); A. Longnon, Documents relatifs au comté de Champagne et de Brie (1901 seq.; vol. i. with map); F. Bourquelot, Études sur les foires de Champagne (1865).

(A. Lo.)

CHAMPAGNY, JEAN BAPTISTE NOMPÈRE DE (1756-1834), French politician, was born at Roanne, and entered the navy in 1774. He fought through the war in America and resigned in 1787. Elected deputy by the noblesse of Forex to the states-general in 1789, he went over to the third estate on the 21st of June and collaborated in the work of the Constituent Assembly, especially occupying himself with the reorganization of the navy. A political career seems to have attracted him little; he remained in private life from 1791 to 1799, when Napoleon named him member of the council of state. From July 1801 to August 1804 he was ambassador of France at Vienna, and directed with great intelligence the incessant negotiations between the two courts. In August 1804 Napoleon made him minister of the interior, and in this position, which he held for three years, he proved an administrator of the first order. In addition to the ordinary charges of his office, he had to direct the recruitment of the army, organize the industrial exhibition of 1808, and to complete the public works undertaken in Paris and throughout France. He was devoted to Napoleon, on whom he lavished adulation in his speeches. In August 1807 the emperor chose him to succeed Talleyrand as minister for foreign affairs. He directed the annexation of the Papal States in April 1808, worked to secure the abdication of Charles IV. of Spain in May 1808, negotiated the peace of Vienna (1809) and the marriage of Napoleon. In April 1811 a quarrel with the emperor led to his retirement, and he obtained the sinecure office of intendant general of the crown. In 1814, after the abdication, the empress sent him on a fruitless mission to the emperor of Austria. Then he went over to the Bourbons. During the Hundred Days he again joined Napoleon. This led to his exclusion by Louis XVIII., but in 1819 he recovered his dignity of peer. He died in Paris in 1834. He had three sons who became men of distinction. François (1804-1882) was a well-known author, who was made a member of the French Academy in 1869. His great work was a history of the Roman empire, in three parts, (1) Les Césars (1841-1843, 4 vols.), (2) Les Antonins (1863, 3 vols.), (3) Les Césars du IIIe siècle (1870, 3 vols.). Napoléon (1806-1872) published a Traité de la police municipale in 4 volumes (1844-1861), and was a deputy in the Corps Législatif from 1852 to 1870. Jérome Paul (1809-1886) was also deputy in the Corps Législatif from 1853 to 1870, and was made honorary chamberlain in 1859. He worked at the official publication of the correspondence of Napoleon I.

CHAMPAIGN, a city of Champaign county, Illinois, U.S.A., about 125 m. S. by W. of Chicago, on the head-waters of the Vermilion river. Pop. (1890) 5839; (1900) 9098, of whom 973 were foreign-born; (1910 census) 12,421. It is served by the Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St Louis, the Wabash, and the Illinois Central railways (the last having repair shops here), and by the Illinois (electric) Traction System from Danville, Illinois, to St Louis, Missouri. In 1906 the city covered 3.5 sq. m.; it is situated in a rich agricultural region, and has small manufacturing interests. Immediately east of Champaign is the city of Urbana, the county-seat of Champaign county, served by the Wabash and the Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St Louis railways, with repair shops of the latter. In 1890 the population of Urbana was 3511; in 1900, 5728 (300 foreign-born); in 1910, 8245. Partly in Urbana and partly in Champaign is the University of Illinois (see Illinois); immediately south of its campus is the 400-acre farm of the university. Each city has a public library, and in Champaign are the Burnham Athenaeum, the Burnham hospital, the Garwood home for old ladies, and several parks, all gifts of former citizens. Champaign was founded in 1855, incorporated as a city in 1860, and re-chartered in 1883. Urbana secured a city charter in 1855.

CHAMPAIGNE, PHILIPPE DE (1602-1674), Belgian painter of the French school, was born at Brussels of a poor family. He was a pupil of J. Fouquières; and, going to Paris in 1621, was employed by N. Du Chesne to paint along with Nicholas Poussin in the palace of the Luxembourg. His best works are to be found at Vincennes, and in the church of the Carmelites at Paris, where is his celebrated Crucifix, a signal perspective success, on one of the vaultings. After the death of Du Chesne, Philippe became first painter to the queen of France, and ultimately rector of the Academy of Paris. As his age advanced and his health failed, he retired to Port Royal, where he had a daughter cloistered as a nun, of whom (along with Catherine Agnès Arnauld) he painted a celebrated picture, now in the Louvre, highly remarkable for its solid unaffected truth. This, indeed, is the general character of his work,—grave reality, without special elevation or depth of character, or charm of warm or stately colour. He produced an immense number of paintings, religious and other subjects as well as portraits, dispersed over various parts of France, and now over the galleries of Europe. Philippe was a good man, indefatigable, earnest and scrupulously religious. He died on the 12th of August 1674.

CHAMPARAN, or Chumparun, a district of British India, in the Patna division of Bengal, occupying the north-west corner of Behar, between the two rivers Gandak and Baghmati and the Nepal hills. It has an area of 3531 sq. m. In 1901 the population was 1,790,463, showing a decrease of 4% in the decade. A broad grass-covered road or embankment defines the Nepal frontier, except where rivers or streams form a natural boundary. The district is a vast level except in the N. and N.W., where it undulates, and gradually assumes a rugged appearance as it approaches the mountains and forests of Nepal. Wide uncultivated tracts cover its north-western corner; the southern and western parts are carefully cultivated, and teem with an active agricultural population. The principal rivers are the Gandak, navigable all the year round, the Buri Gandak, Panch Nadi, Lalbagia, Koja and Teur. Old beds of rivers intersect Champaran in every direction, and one of these forms a chain of lakes which occupy an area of 139 sq. m. in the centre of the district. Champaran, with the rest of Bengal and Behar, was acquired by the British in 1765. Up to 1866 it remained a subdivision of Saran. In that year it was separated and formed into a separate district. The administrative headquarters are at Motihari (population, 13,730); Bettia is the centre of a very large estate; Segauli, still a small military station, was the scene of a massacre during the Mutiny. Champaran was the chief seat of indigo planting in Behar before the decline of that industry. There are about 40 saltpetre refineries. The district suffered severely from drought in 1866 and 1874, and again in 1897. In the last year a small government canal was opened, and a canal from the Gandak has also been constructed. The district is traversed almost throughout its length to Bettia by the Tirhoot state railway. A considerable trade is conducted with Nepal.

CHAMPEAUX, WILLIAM OF [Gulielmus Campellensis] (c. 1070-1121), French philosopher and theologian was born at Champeaux near Melun. After studying under Anselm of Laon and Roscellinus, he taught in the school of the cathedral of Notre Dame, of which he was made canon in 1103. Among his pupils was Abelard. In 1108 he retired into the abbey of St Victor, where he resumed his lectures. He afterwards became bishop of Châlons-sur-Marne, and took part in the dispute concerning investitures as a supporter of Calixtus II., whom he represented at the conference of Mousson. His only printed works are a fragment on the Eucharist (inserted by Jean Mabillon in his edition of the works of St Bernard), and the Moralia Abbreviata and De Origine Animae (in E. Martène’s Thesaurus novus Anecdotorum, 1717, vol. 5). In the last of these he maintains that children who die unbaptized must be lost, the pure soul being denied by the grossness of the body, and declares that God’s will is not to be questioned. He upholds the theory of Creatianism (that a soul is specially created for each human being). Ravaisson-Mollien has discovered a number of fragments by him, among which the most important is the De Essentia Dei et de Substantia Dei; a Liber Sententiarum, consisting of discussions on ethics and Scriptural interpretation, is also ascribed to Champeaux. He is reputed the founder of Realism. For his views and his controversy with Abelard, see Scholasticism and Abelard.

See Victor Cousin, introduction to his Ouvrages inédits d’Abélard (1836), and Fragments pour servir à l’histoire de la philosophie (1865); G.A. Patru, Wilhelmi Campellensis de natura et de origine rerum placita (1847); E. Michaud, Guillaume de Champeaux et les écoles de Paris au XIIe siècle (2nd ed., 1868); “William of Champeaux and his Times” in Christian Observer, lxxii. 843; B. Hauréau, De la philosophie scolastique (Paris, 1850); Opuscula in J.P. Migne’s Patrologia, clxiii.

CHAMPERTY, or Champarty (Lat. campi partitio, O. Fr. champ parti), in English law, a bargain between a plaintiff or defendant in a cause and another person, to divide the land (campum partiri) or other matter sued for, if they prevail, in consideration of that person carrying on or defending the suit at his own expense. It is a misdemeanour punishable by fine or imprisonment. It differs only from maintenance (q.v.), in that the recompense for the service which has been given is always part of the matter in suit, or some profit growing out of it. So an agreement by a solicitor not to charge costs on condition of retaining for himself a share of the sums recovered would be illegal and void. It is not, however, champerty to charge the subject-matter of a suit in order to obtain the means of prosecuting it.

See Fifth Report of the Criminal Law Commissioners, pp. 34-9.

CHAMPION (Fr. champion, Late Lat. campio from campus, a field or open space, i.e. one “who takes the field” or fights; cf. Ger. Kampf, battle, and Kämpfer, fighter), in the judicial combats of the middle ages the substitute for a party to the suit disabled from bearing arms or specially exempt from the duty to do so (see Wager). Hence the word has come to be applied to any one who “champions,” or contends on behalf of, any person or cause. In the laws of the Lombards (lib. ii. tit. 56 §§ 38, 39), those who by reason of youth, age or infirmity could not bear arms were allowed to nominate champions, and the same provision was made in the case of women (lib. i. tit. 3 § 6, tit. 16, §2). This was practically the rule laid down in all subsequent legislation on the subject. Thus the Assize of Jerusalem (cap. 39) says: “These are the people who may defend themselves through champions; a woman, a sick man, a man who has passed the age of sixty, &c.” The clergy, too, whether as individuals or corporations, were represented by champions; in the case of bishops and abbots this function was part of the duties of the advocatus (see Advocate). Du Cange gives instances of mercenary champions (campiones conductitii), who were regarded as “infamous persons” and sometimes, in case of defeat, were condemned to lose hand or foot. Sometimes championships were “serjeanties,” i.e. rendered service to lords, churches or cities in consideration of the grant of certain fiefs, or for annual money payments, the champion doing homage to the person or corporation represented by him (campiones homagii).

The office of “king’s champion” (campio regis) is peculiar to England. The function of the king’s champion, when the ceremonial of the coronation was carried out in its completeness, was to ride, clad in complete armour, on his right the high constable, on his left the earl marshal, into Westminster Hall during the coronation banquet, and challenge to single combat any who should dispute the king’s right to reign. The challenge was thrice repeated by the herald, at the entrance to the hall, in the centre, and at the foot of the dais. On picking up his gauntlet for the third time the champion was pledged by the king in a gilt-covered cup, which was then presented to him as his fee by the king. If he had had occasion to fight, and was victorious, his fee would have been the armour he wore and the horse he rode, the second best in the royal stables; but no such occasion has ever arisen. This picturesque ceremonial was last performed at the coronation of George IV. The office of king’s champion is of great antiquity, and its origins are involved in great obscurity. It is said to have been held under William the Conqueror by Robert or Roger Marmion, whose ancestors had been hereditary champions in Normandy. The first authentic record, however is a charter of Henry I., signed by Robert Marmion (Robertus de Bajucis campio regis). Of the actual exercise of the office the earliest record dates from the coronation of Richard II. On this occasion the champion, Sir John Dymoke, appeared at the door of the Abbey immediately after the coronation mass, but was peremptorily told to go away and return later; moreover, in his bill presented to the court of claims, he stated that the champion was to ride in the procession before the service, and make his challenge to all the world. This seems to show that the ceremony, as might be expected, was originally performed before the king’s coronation, when it would have had some significance. The office of king’s champion is hereditary, and is now held by the family of Dymoke (q.v.).

See Du Cange, Glossarium, s.v. “Campio”; L.G. Wickham Legg, English Coronation Records (Westminster, 1901); J.H.T. Perkins, The Coronation Book (London, 1902).

CHAMPIONNET, JEAN ÉTIENNE (1762-1800), French general, enlisted in the army at an early age and served in the great siege of Gibraltar. When the Revolution broke out he took a prominent part in the movement, and was elected by the men of a battalion to command them. In May 1793 he was charged with the suppression of the disturbances in the Jura, which he quelled without bloodshed. Under Pichegru he took part in the Rhine campaign of that year as a brigade commander, and at Weissenburg and in the Palatinate won the warm commendation of Lazare Hoche. At Fleurus his stubborn fighting in the centre of the field contributed greatly to Jourdan’s victory. In the subsequent campaigns he commanded the left wing of the French armies on the Rhine between Neuwied and Düsseldorf, and took a great part in all the successful and unsuccessful expeditions to the Lahn and the Main. In 1798 Championnet was named commander-in-chief of the “army of Rome” which was protecting the infant Roman republic against the Neapolitan court and the British fleet. Nominally 32,000 strong, the army scarcely numbered 8000 effectives, with a bare fifteen cartridges per man. The Austrian general Mack had a tenfold superiority in numbers, but Championnet so well held his own that he ended by capturing Naples itself and there setting up the Parthenopean Republic. But his intense earnestness and intolerance of opposition soon embroiled him with the civilians, and the general was recalled in disgrace. The following year, however, saw him again in the field as commander-in-chief of the “army of the Alps.” This, too, was at first a mere paper force, but after three months’ hard work it was able to take the field. The campaign which followed was uniformly unsuccessful, and, worn out by the unequal struggle, Championnet died at Antibes on the 9th of January 1800. In 1848 a statue was erected in his honour at Valence.

See A.R.C. de St Albin, Championnet, ou les Campagnes de Hollande, de Rome et de Naples (Paris, 1860).

CHAMPLAIN, SAMUEL DE (1567-1635), French explorer, colonial pioneer and first governor of French Canada, was born at Brouage, a small French port on the Bay of Biscay, in 1567. His father was a sea captain, and the boy was early skilled in seamanship and navigation. He entered the army of Henry IV., and served in Brittany under Jean d’Aumont, François de St Luc and Charles de Brissac. When the army of the League was disbanded he accompanied his uncle, who had charge of the ships in which the Spanish allies were conveyed home, and on reaching Cadiz secured (1599) the command of one of the vessels about to make an expedition to the West Indies. He was gone over two years, visiting all the principal ports and pushing inland from Vera Cruz to the city of Mexico. The MS. account of his adventures, Bref Discours des Choses plus remarquables que Samuel Champlain de Brouage a recognues aux Indes Occidentales, is in the library at Dieppe. It was not published in French until 1870, although an English translation was printed by the Hakluyt Society in 1859. It contains a suggestion of a Panama Canal, “by which the voyage to the South Sea would be shortened by more than 1500 leagues.” In 1603 Champlain made his first voyage to Canada, being sent out by Aymar de Clermont, seigneur de Chastes, on whom the king had bestowed a patent. Champlain at once established friendly relations with the Indians and explored the St Lawrence to the rapids above Montreal. On his return he published an interesting and historically valuable little book, Des sauvages, ou voyage de Samuel Champlain de Brouage fait en la France Nouvelle. During his absence de Chastes had died, and his privileges and fur trade monopolies were conferred upon Pierre de Guast, sieur de Monts (1560-1611). With him, in 1604, Champlain was engaged in exploring the coast as far south as Cape Cod, in seeking a site for a new settlement, and in making surveys and charts. They first settled on an island near the mouth of the St Croix river, and then at Port Royal—now Annapolis, N.S.

Meanwhile the Basques and Bretons, asserting that they were being ruined by de Monts’ privileges, got his patent revoked, and Champlain returned with the discouraged colonists to Europe. When, however, in modified form, the patent was re-granted to his patron Champlain induced him to abandon Acadia and establish a settlement on the St Lawrence, of the commercial advantages of which, perhaps even as a western route to China and Japan, he soon convinced him. Champlain was placed in command of one of the two vessels sent out. He was to explore and colonize, while the other vessel traded, to pay for the expedition. Champlain fixed on the site of Quebec and founded the first white settlement there in July 1608, giving it its present name. In the spring he joined a war party of Algonquins and Hurons, discovered the great lake that bears his name, and, near the present Ticonderoga, took with his arquebus an important part in the victory which his savage friends obtained over the Iroquois. The Iroquois naturally turned first to the Dutch and then to the English for allies. “Thus did new France rush into collision with the redoubted warriors of the Five Nations. Here was the beginning, and in some measure doubtless the cause, of a long suite of murderous conflicts, bearing havoc and flame to generations yet unborn” (Parkman). Champlain returned to France and again related to Henry IV.—who had previously learned his worth and had pensioned him—his exciting adventures. De Monts failed to secure a renewal of his patent, but resolved to proceed without it. Champlain was again (1611) in Canada, fighting for and against the Indians and establishing a trading post at Mont Royal (see Montreal). He was the third white man to descend, and the second to descend successfully, the Lachine Rapids. De Monts, now governor of Paris, was too busy to occupy himself in the waning fortunes of the colony, and left them entirely to his associate. An influential protector was needed; and Champlain prevailed upon Charles de Bourbon, comte de Soissons, to interest himself to obtain from the king the appointment of lieutenant-general in New France. The comte de Soissons died almost immediately, and was succeeded in the office by Henri de Bourbon, prince de Condé, and he, like his predecessors and successors, retained Champlain as lieutenant-governor. “In Champlain alone was the life of New France. By instinct and temperament he was more impelled to the adventurous toils of exploration than to the duller task of building colonies. The profits of trade had value in his eyes only as means to these ends, and settlements were important chiefly as a base of discovery. Two great objects eclipsed all others,—to find a route to the Indies, and to bring the heathen tribes into the embraces of the Church, since, while he cared little for their bodies, his solicitude for their souls knew no bounds” (Parkman).

In 1613 Champlain again crossed the Atlantic and endeavoured to confirm Nicolas de Vignau’s alleged discovery of a short route to the ocean by the Ottawa river, a great lake at its source, and another river flowing north therefrom. That year he got as far as Allumette Island in the Ottawa, but two years later, with a “Great War Party” of Indians, he crossed Lake Nipissing and the eastern ends of Lakes Huron and Ontario, and made a fierce but unsuccessful attack on an Onondaga fortified town a few miles south of Lake Oneida. This was the end of his wanderings. He now devoted himself to the growth and strengthening of Quebec. Every year he went to France with this end in view. He was one of the hundred associates of the Company of New France, created by Richelieu to reform abuses and take over all his country’s interests in the new world. These ill-defended possessions England now prepared to seize. Three ships were sent out under letters of marque commanded by David, Lewis and Thomas Kirke, and Quebec, already on the verge of starvation, was compelled to surrender (1629). Champlain was taken to England a prisoner, but when Canada was restored to the French he returned (1633) to his post, where he died on the 25th of December 1635. He had married in 1610, Hélène Boullé, then but twelve years old. She did not leave France for Canada, however, until ten years later. After his death she became a nun.

Champlain’s complete works in 6 vols. were published under the patronage of the university of Laval in 1870. There is a careful translation of Champlain’s Voyages, by Professor and Mrs E.G. Bourne in the “Trailmaker” series edited by Prof. J.B. McMaster. See F. Parkman, Pioneers of France in the New World (1865); J. Winsor, Cartier to Frontenac (1894); N.E. Dionne, Champlain (1905).

(N. E. D.)

CHAMPLAIN, a lake lying between the states of New York and Vermont, U.S.A., and penetrating for a few miles into Canada. It extends about 130 m. from N. to S., varies from ¼ m. to 1 m. in width for 40 m. from its S. terminus, and then widens until it reaches a maximum width of about 11 m. near Ausable Point. Its area is about 500 sq. m. Its surface is 96 ft. above the sea. In the north part it is generally from 200 to 300 ft. deep; opposite Essex, N.Y., near its middle, the depth increases to 400 ft.; but farther south it is much less; throughout the greater part of the lake there is a depth of water of more than 100 ft. Since the lake is caused by the ponding of water in a broad irregular valley, the shore line is nearly everywhere much broken, and in the northern portion are several islands, both large and small, most of which belong to Vermont. These islands divide the lake’s northern end into two large arms which extend into Canada. From the western arm the Richelieu river flows out, carrying the water of Champlain to the St Lawrence. The waters abound in salmon, salmon-trout, sturgeon and other fish, and are navigated from end to end by large steamboats and vessels of considerable tonnage. The lake was formerly the seat of extensive traffic, especially in lumber, but navigation has greatly decreased; the tonnage entering and clearing at the lake was twice as great in the early ’70’s as it was thirty years later. The principal ports are Burlington, Vt., and Plattsburg, N.Y. Lake Champlain lies in a valley from 1 to 30 m. wide, between the Green Mountains on the east and the Adirondack Mountains on the west, and the scenery is most picturesque. On the east side is a rather gradual ascent for 20 m. or more from shore to summit, while on the west side the ascent is by a succession of hills, in some places from the water’s edge. North of Crown Point low mountains rise 1000 to 1600 ft. above the lake, and behind these are the higher peaks of the Adirondacks, reaching an elevation of more than 5000 ft. Lake George is a tributary on the south, several small streams flow in from each side; the Champlain Canal, 63 m. in length, connects the lake with the Hudson river; and through the Richelieu it has a natural outlet to the north into the St Lawrence.

Lake Champlain was named from Samuel de Champlain, who discovered it in July 1609. The valley is a natural pathway between the United States and Canada, and during the various wars which the English have waged in America it had great strategic importance. In 1731 the French built a fort at Crown Point; in 1756, another at Ticonderoga; and both were important strategic points in the French and Indian War as well as in the American War of Independence. On the 11th of October 1776, the first battle between an American and a British fleet, the battle of Valcour Island, was fought on the lake. Benedict Arnold, the American commander, with a decidedly inferior force, withstood the British under Thomas Pringle for about seven hours, and then during the night escaped through the enemy’s line. Although overtaken the next day he again, after a fight of a few hours, made a successful retreat.

At the beginning of the War of 1812 the American naval force on the lake, though very small, was superior to that of the British, but on the 3rd of June 1813 the British captured two American sloops in the narrow channel at the northern end and gained supremacy. Both sides now began to build and equip vessels for a decisive contest; by May 1814 the Americans had regained supremacy, and four months later a British land force of 11,000 men under Sir George Prevost (1767-1816) and a naval force of 16 vessels of about 2402 tons with 937 men and 92 guns under Captain George Downie (d. 1814) confronted an American land force of 1500 men under Brigadier-General Alexander Macomb (1782-1841), strongly entrenched at Plattsburg, and an American naval force (anchored in Plattsburg Bay) of 14 vessels of about 2244 tons with 882 men and 86 guns under Commodore Thomas Macdonough (1783-1825). In the open lake the British naval force should have been the superior, but at anchor in the bay the Americans had a decided advantage. Expecting the British land force to drive the American fleet from its anchorage, Captain Downie, on the 11th of September 1814, began the battle of Lake Champlain. It had continued only fifteen minutes when he was killed; the land force failed to co-operate, and after a severe fight at close range for 2½ hours, during which the British lost about 300 men, the Americans 200 and the vessels of both sides were greatly shattered, the British retreated both by land and by water, abandoning their plan of invading New York.

See C.E. Peet, “Glacial and Post-Glacial History of the Hudson and Champlain Valleys,” in vol. xii. of the Journal of Geology (Chicago, 1904); P.S. Palmer, History of Lake Champlain (Albany. 1866); and Capt. A.T. Mahan, Sea Power in its Relations to the War of 1812 (2 vols., Boston, 1905).

CHAMPMESLÉ, MARIE (1642-1698), French actress, was born in Rouen of a good family. Her father’s name was Desmares. She made her first appearance on the stage at Rouen with Charles Chevillet (1645-1701), who called himself sieur de Champmeslé, and they were married in 1666. By 1669 they were playing in Paris at the Théatre du Marais, her first appearance there being as Venus in Boyer’s Fête de Venus. The next year, as Hermione in Racine’s Andromaque, she had a great success at the Hôtel de Bourgogne. Her intimacy with Racine dates from then. Some of his finest tragedies were written for her, but her repertoire was not confined to them, and many an indifferent play—like Thomas Corneille’s Ariane and Comte d’Essex—owed its success to “her natural manner of acting, and her pathetic rendering of the hapless heroine.” Phèdre was the climax of her triumphs, and when she and her husband deserted the Hôtel de Bourgogne (see BÉJART ad fin.), it was selected to open the Comédie Française on the 26th of August 1680. Here, with Mme Guérin as the leading comedy actress, she played the great tragic love parts for more than thirty years, dying on the 15th of May 1698. La Fontaine dedicated to her his novel Belphégor, and Boileau immortalized her in verse. Her husband distinguished himself both as actor and playwright, and his Parisien (1682) gave Mme Guérin one of her greatest successes.

Her brother, the actor Nicolas Desmares (c. 1650-1714), began as a member of a subsidized company at Copenhagen, but by her influence he came to Paris and was received in 1685 sans début—the first time such an honour had been accorded—at the Comédie Française, where he became famous for peasant parts. His daughter, to whom Christian V. and his queen stood sponsors, Christine Antoinette Charlotte Desmares (1682-1753), was a fine actress in both tragedy and soubrette parts. She made her début at the Comédie Française in 1699, in La Grange Chancel’s Oreste et Pylade, and was at once received as sociétaire. She retired in 1721.

CHAMPOLLION, JEAN FRANÇOIS (1790-1832), French Egyptologist, called Le Jeune to distinguish him from Champollion-Figeac (q.v.), his elder brother, was born at Figeac, in the department of Lot, on the 23rd of December 1790. He was educated by his brother, and was then appointed government pupil at the Lyceum, which had recently been founded. His first work (1804) was an attempt to show by means of their names that the giants of the Bible and of Greek mythology were personifications of natural phenomena. At the age of sixteen (1807) he read before the academy of Grenoble a paper in which he maintained that the Coptic was the ancient language of Egypt. He soon after removed to Paris, where he enjoyed the friendship of Langlès, De Sacy and Millin. In 1809 he was made professor of history in the Lyceum of Grenoble, and there published his earlier works. Champollion’s first decipherment of hieroglyphics dates from 1821. In 1824 he was sent by Charles X. to visit the collections of Egyptian antiquities in the museums of Turin, Leghorn, Rome and Naples; and on his return he was appointed director of the Egyptian museum at the Louvre. In 1828 he was commissioned to undertake the conduct of a scientific expedition to Egypt in company with Rosellini, who had received a similar appointment from Leopold II., grand duke of Tuscany. He remained there about a year. In March 1831 he received the chair of Egyptian antiquities, which had been created specially for him, in the Collège de France. He was engaged with Rosellini in publishing the results of Egyptian researches at the expense of the Tuscan and French governments, when he was seized with a paralytic disorder, and died at Paris in 1832. Champollion, whose claims were hotly disputed for many years after his death, is now universally acknowledged to have been the founder of Egyptology.

He wrote L’Égypte sous les Phraons (2 vols. 8vo, 1814); Sur l’écriture hiératique (1821); Sur l’écriture démotique; Précis du systéme hiéroglyphique, &c. (1824); Panthéon égyptien, ou collection des personnages mythologiques de l’ancienne Egypte (incomplete); Monumens de l’Égypte et de la Nubie considérés par rapport a l’histoire, la religion, &c.; Grammaire égyptienne (1836), and Dictionnaire égyptienne(1841), edited by his brother; Analyse méthodique du texte démotique de Rosette; Aperçu des résultats historiques de la découverte de l’alphabet hiéroglyphique (1827); Mémoires sur les signes employés par les Égyptiens dans leurs trois systèmes graphiques à la notation des principales divisions du temps; Lettres ecrites d’Égypte et de Nubie (1833); and also seveial letters on Egyptian subjects, addressed at different periods to the duc de Blacas and others.

See H. Hartleben, Champollion, sein Leben und sein Werk (2 vols., 1906); also Egypt: Language and Writing (ad init.).

CHAMPOLLION-FIGEAC, JACQUES JOSEPH (1778-1867), French archaeologist, elder brother of Jean François Champollion, was born at Figeac in the department of Lot, on the 5th of October 1778. He became professor of Greek and librarian at Grenoble, but was compelled to retire in 1816 on account of the part he had taken during the Hundred Days. He afterwards became keeper of manuscripts at the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris, and professor of palaeography at the École des Chartes. In 1849 he became librarian of the palace of Fontainebleau. He edited several of his brother’s works, and was also author of original works on philological and historical subjects, among which may be mentioned Nouvelles recherches sur les patois ou idiomes vulgaires de la France (1809), Annales de Lagides (1819) and Chartes latines sur papyrus du VIe siècle de l’ère chrétienne. His son Aimé (1812-1894) became his father’s assistant at the Bibliothèque Nationale, and besides a number of works on historical subjects wrote a biographical and bibliographical study of his family in Les Deux Champollion (Grenoble, 1887).

CHANCE (through the O. Fr. chéance, from the Late Lat. cadentia, things happening, from cadere, to fall out, happen; cf. “case”), an accident or event, a phenomenon which has no apparent or discoverable cause; hence an event which has not been expected, a piece of good or bad fortune. From the popular idea that anything of which no assignable cause is known has therefore no cause, chance (Gr. τύχη) was regarded as having a substantial objective existence, being itself the source of such uncaused phenomena. For the philosophic theories relating to this subject see Accidentalism.

“Chance,” in the theory of probability, is used in two ways. In the stricter, or mathematical usage, it is synonymous with probability; i.e. if a particular event may occur in n ways in an aggregate of p events, then the “chance” of the particular event occurring is given by the fraction n/p. In the second usage, the “chance” is regarded as the ratio of the number of ways which a particular event may occur to the number of ways in which it may not occur; mathematically expressed, this chance is n/(p-n) (see Probability). In the English law relating to gaming and wagering a distinction is drawn between games of chance and games of skill (see Gaming and Wagering).

CHANCEL (through O. Fr. from Lat. plur. cancelli, dim. of cancer, grating, lattice, probably connected with an Indo-European root Kar-, to bend; cf. circus, curve, &c.), in the earliest and strictest sense that part of a church near the altar occupied by the deacons and sub-deacons assisting the officiating priest, this space having originally been separated from the rest of the church by cancelli or lattice work. The word cancelli is used in classical Latin of a screen, bar or the like, set to mark off an enclosed space in a building or in an open place. It is thus used of the bar in a court of justice (Cicero, Verres, ii. 3 seq.). It is particularly used of the lattice or screen in the ancient basilica, which separated the bema, or raised tribunal, from the rest of the building. The use of the name in ecclesiastical buildings is thus natural, for the altar stood in the place occupied by the bema in the apse of the basilica. From the screen the term was early transferred to the space inter cancellos, i.e. the locus altaris cancellis septus. This railed-off space is now generally known among Roman Catholics as the “sanctuary,” the word chancel being little used. In the Church of England, however, the word chancel survived the Reformation, and is applied, both in the ecclesiastical and the architectural sense, to that part of the church occupied by the principal altar or communion table and by the clergy and singers officiating at the chief services; it thus includes presbytery, chancel proper and choir (q.v.), and in this sense, in the case of cathedrals and other large churches, is often used synonymously with choir. In this more inclusive sense the early basilican churches had no chancels, which were a comparatively late development; the cancelli, e.g. of such a church as San Clemente at Rome are equivalent not to the “chancel screen” of a medieval church but to the “altar rails” that divide off the sanctuary. In churches of the type that grew to its perfection in the middle ages the chancels are clearly differentiated from the nave by structural features: by the raising of the floor level, by the presence of a “chancel arch,” and by a chancel or rood screen (see Rood). The chancel screen might be no more than a low barrier, some 4 ft. high, or a light structure of wood or wrought iron; sometimes, however, they were massive stone screens, which in certain cases were continued on either side between the piers of the choir and (on the European continent) round the east end of the sanctuary, as in the cathedrals of Paris, Bourges, Limoges, Amiens and Chartres. These screens served the purpose, in collegiate and conventual churches, of cutting off the space reserved for the services conducted for and by the members of the chapter or community. For popular services a second high altar was usually set up to the west of the screen, as formerly at Westminster Abbey. In parish churches the screen was set, partly to differentiate the space occupied by the clergy from that reserved for the laity, partly to support the representation of the crucifixion known as the Rood. In these churches, too, the chancel is very usually structurally differentiated by being narrower and, sometimes, less high than the nave.

In the Church of England, the duty of repairing the chancel falls upon the parson by custom, while the repair of the body of the church falls on the parishioners. In particular cases, as in certain London churches, the parishioners also have to repair the chancel. Where there are both a rector and a vicar the repairs are shared between them, and this is also the case where the rector is a lay impropriator. By the rubric of the English Prayer Book “the chancels shall remain as they have done in times past,” i.e. distinguished from the body of the church by some partition sufficient to separate the two without interfering with the view of the congregation. At the Reformation, and for some time after, this distinction was regarded by the dominant Puritan party as a mark of sacerdotalism, and services were commonly said in other parts of the church, the chancels being closed and disused. The rubric, however, directs that “’Morning and Evening Prayer’ shall be used in the accustomed place in the church, chapel or chancel, except it shall be otherwise determined by the Ordinary.” Chancel screens, with or without gates, are lawful, but chancellors of dioceses have refused to grant a faculty to erect gates, as unnecessary or inexpedient.

CHANCELLOR (M. Eng. and Anglo-Fr. canceler, chanceler, Fr. chancelier, Lat. cancellarius), an official title used by most of the peoples whose civilization has arisen directly or indirectly out of the Roman empire. At different times and in different countries it has stood and stands for very various duties, and has been, and is, borne by officers of various degrees of dignity. The original chancellors were the cancelarii of Roman courts of justice, ushers who sat at the cancelli or lattice work screens of a “basilica” or law court, which separated the judge and counsel from the audience (see Chancel). In the later Eastern empire the cancellarii were promoted at first to notarial duties. The barbarian kingdoms which arose on the ruin of the empire in the West copied more or less intelligently the Roman model in all their judicial and financial administration. Under the Frankish kings of the Merovingian dynasty the cancellarii were subordinates of the great officer of state called the referendarius, who was the predecessor of the more modern chancellor. The office became established under the form archi-cancellarius, or chief of the cancellarii. Stubbs says that the Carolingian chancellor was the royal notary and the arch-chancellor keeper of the royal seal. His functions would naturally be discharged by a cleric in times when book learning was mainly confined to the clergy. From the reign of Louis the Pious the post was held by a bishop. By an equally natural process he became the chief secretary of the king and of the queen, who also had her chancellor. Such an office possessed an obvious capacity for developing on the judicial as well as the administrative side. Appeals and petitions of aggrieved persons would pass through the chancellor’s hands, as well as the political correspondence of the king. Nor was the king the only man who had need of a chancellor. Great officers and corporations also had occasion to employ an agent to do secretarial, notarial and judicial work for them, and called him by the convenient name of chancellor. The history of the office in its many adaptations to public and private service is the history of its development on judicial, administrative, political, secretarial and notarial lines.

The model of the Carolingian court was followed by the medieval states of Western Europe. In England the office of chancellor dates back to the reign of Edward the Confessor, the first English king to use the Norman practice The chancellor in England. of sealing instead of signing documents; and from the Norman Conquest onwards the succession of chancellors is continuous. The chancellor was originally, and long continued to be, an ecclesiastic, who combined the functions of the most dignified of the royal chaplains, the king’s secretary in secular matters, and keeper of the royal seal. From the first, then, though at the outset overshadowed by that of the justiciar, the office of chancellor was one of great influence and importance. As chaplain the chancellor was keeper of the king’s conscience; as secretary he enjoyed the royal confidence in secular affairs; as keeper of the seal he was necessary to all formal expressions of the royal will. By him and his staff of chaplains the whole secretarial work of the royal household was conducted, the accounts were kept under the justiciar and treasurer, writs were drawn up and sealed, and the royal correspondence was carried on. He was, in fact, as Stubbs puts it, a sort of secretary of state for all departments. “This is he,” wrote John of Salisbury (d. 1180), “who cancels (cancellat) the evil laws of the realm, and makes equitable (aequa) the commands of a pious prince,” a curious anticipation of the chancellor’s later equitable jurisdiction. Under Henry II., indeed, the chancellor was already largely employed in judicial work, either in attendance on the king or in provincial visitations; though the peculiar jurisdiction of the chancery was of later growth. By this time, however, the chancellor was “great alike in Curia and Exchequer”; he was secundus a rege, i.e. took precedence immediately after the justiciar, and nothing was done either in the Curia or the exchequer without his consent. So great was his office that William FitzStephen, the biographer of Becket, tells us that it was not purchasable (emenda non est), a statement which requires modification, since it was in fact more than once sold under Henry I., Stephen, Richard and John (Stubbs, Const. Hist. i. pp. 384-497; Gneist, Const. Hist. of England, p. 219), an evil precedent which was, however, not long followed.

The judicial duties of the chancellor grew out of the fact that all petitions addressed to the king passed through his hands. The number and variety of these became so great that in 1280, under Edward I., an ordinance was issued directing the chancellor and the justices to deal with the greater number of them; those which involved the use of the great seal being specially referred to the chancellor. The chancellor and justices were to determine which of them were “so great, and of grace, that the chancellor and others would not despatch them without the king,” and these the chancellor and other chief ministers were to carry in person to the king (Stubbs ii. 263, note, and p. 268). At this period the chancellor, though employed in equity, had ministerial functions only; but when, in the reign of Edward III., the chancellor ceased to follow the court, his tribunal acquired a more definite character, and petitions for grace and favour began to be addressed primarily to him, instead of being merely examined and passed on by him to the king; and in the twenty-second year of this reign matters which were of grace were definitely committed to the chancellor for decision. This is the starting-point of the equitable jurisdiction of the chancellor, whence developed that immense body of rules, supplementing the deficiencies or modifying the harshness of the common law, which is known as Equity (q.v.).

The position of the chancellor as speaker or prolocutor of the House of Lords dates from the time when the ministers of the royal Curia formed ex officio a part of the commune concilium and parliament. The chancellor originally The chancellor in parliament. attended with the other officials, and he continued to attend ex officio after they had ceased to do so. If he chanced to be a bishop, he was summoned regularly qua bishop; otherwise he attended without summons. When not a peer the chancellor had no place in parliament except as chancellor, and the act of 31 Henry VIII. cap. 10 (1539) laid down that, if not a peer, he had “no interest to give any assent or dissent in the House.” Yet Sir Robert Bourchier (d. 1349), the first lay chancellor, had protested in 1341 against the first statute of 15 Edward III. (on trial by peers, &c.), on the ground that it had not received his assent and was contrary to the laws of the realm. From the time, however, of William, Lord Cowper (first lord high chancellor of Great Britain in 1705, created Baron Cowper in 1706), all chancellors have been made peers on their elevation to the woolsack. Sometimes the custody of the great seal has been transferred from the chancellor to a special official, the lord keeper of the great seal (see Lord Keeper); this was notably the case under Queen Elizabeth (cf. the French garde des sceaux, below). Sometimes it is put into commission, being affixed by lords commissioners of the great seal. By the Catholic Emancipation Act of 1829 it was enacted that none of these offices could be held by a Roman Catholic (see further under Lord High Chancellor). The office of lord chancellor of Ireland, and that of chancellor of Scotland (who ceased to be appointed after the Act of Union of 1707) followed the same lines of development.

The title of chancellor, without the predicates “high” or “lord,” is also applied in the United Kingdom to a number of other officials and functionaries of varying rank and importance. Of these the most important is the Chancellor of the exchequer. chancellor of the exchequer, an office which originated in the separation of the chancery from the exchequer in the reign of Henry III. (1216-1272). His duties consisted originally in the custody and employment of the seal of the exchequer, in the keeping of a counter-roll to check the roll kept by the treasurer, and in the discharge of certain judicial functions in the exchequer of account. So long as the treasury board was in active working, the chancellorship of the exchequer was an office of small importance, and even during a great part of the 19th century was not necessarily a cabinet office, unless held in conjunction with that of first lord of the treasury. At the present time the chancellor of the exchequer is minister of finance, and therefore always of cabinet rank (see Exchequer).

The chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster is the representative of the crown in the management of its lands and the control of its courts in the duchy of Lancaster, the property of which is scattered over several counties. These Chancellor of the duchy. lands and privileges, though their inheritance has always been vested in the king and his heirs, have always been kept distinct from the hereditary revenues of the sovereign, whose palatine rights as duke of Lancaster were distinct from his rights as king. The Judicature Act of 1873 left only the chancery court of the duchy, but the chancellor can appoint and dismiss the county court judges within the limits of the duchy; he is responsible also for the land revenues of the duchy, which are the private property of the sovereign, and keeps the seal of the duchy. His appointment is by letters patent, and his salary is derived from the revenue of the duchy. As the judicial and estate work is done by subordinate officials, the office is practically a sinecure and is usually given to a minister whose assistance is necessary to a government, but who for one reason or another cannot undertake the duties of an important department. John Bright described him as the maid-of-all-work of the cabinet.

The chancellor of a diocese is the official who presides over the bishop’s court and exercises jurisdiction in his name. This use of the word is comparatively modern, and, though employed in acts of parliament, is not mentioned in the commission, Ecclesiastical chancellors. having apparently been adopted on the analogy of the like title in the state. The chancellor was originally the keeper of the archbishop or bishop’s seals; but the office, as now understood, includes two other offices distinguished in the commission by the titles of vicar-general and official principal (see Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction). The chancellor of a diocese must be distinguished from the chancellor of a cathedral, whose office is the same as that of the ancient scholasticus (see Cathedral).

The chancellor of an order of knighthood discharges notarial duties and keeps the seal. The chancellor of a university is an official of medieval origin. The appointment was originally made by the popes, and the office from the Academic, &c. first was one of great dignity and originally of great power. The chancellor was, as he remains, the head of the university; he had the general superintendence of its studies and of its discipline, could make and unmake laws, try and punish offences, appoint to professorial chairs and admit students to the various degrees (see Du Cange, s. “Cancellarii Academiarum”). In England the chancellorship of the universities is now a more or less ornamental office and is conferred on noblemen or statesmen of distinction, whose principal function is to look after the general interests of the university, especially in its relations with the government. The chancellor is represented in the university by a vice-chancellor, who performs the administrative and judicial functions of the office. In the United States the heads of certain educational establishments have the title of chancellor. In Scotland the foreman of a jury is called its chancellor. In the United States the chancellors are judges of the chancery courts of the states, e.g. Delaware and New Jersey, where these courts are still maintained as distinct from the courts of common law. In other states, e.g. New York since 1847, the title has been abolished, and there is no federal chancellor.

In diplomacy generally the chancellor of an embassy or legation is an official attached to the suite of an ambassador or minister. He performs the functions of a secretary, archivist, notary and the like, and is at the head of the chancery, or chancellery (Fr. chancellerie), of the mission. The functions of this office are the transcribing and registering of official despatches and other documents, and generally the transaction of all the minor business, e.g. marriages, passports and the like, connected with the duties of a diplomatic agent towards his nationals in a foreign country. The dignified connotation of the title chancellor has given to this office a prestige which in itself it does not deserve; and “chancery” or “chancellery” is commonly used as though it were synonymous with embassy, while diplomatic style is sometimes called style de chancellerie, though as a matter of fact the chanceries have nothing to do with it.

France.—The country in which the office of chancellor followed most closely the same lines as in England is France. He had become a great officer under the Carolingians, and he grew still greater under the Capetian sovereigns. The great chancellor, summus cancellarius or archi-cancellarius, was a dignitary who had indeed little real power. The post was commonly filled by the archbishop of Reims, or the bishop of Paris. The cancellarius, who formed part of the royal court and administration, was officially known as the sub-cancellarius in relation to the summus cancellarius, but as proto-cancellarius in regard to his subordinate cancellarii. He was a very great officer, an ecclesiastic who was the chief of the king’s chaplains or king’s clerks, who administered all ecclesiastical affairs; he had judicial powers, and from the 12th century had the general control of foreign affairs. The chancellor in fact became so great that the Capetian kings, who did not forget the mayor of the palace, grew afraid of him. Few of the early ecclesiastical chancellors failed to come into collision with the king, or parted with him on good terms. Philip Augustus suspended the chancellorship throughout the whole of his reign, and appointed a keeper of the seals (garde des sceaux). The office was revived under Louis VIII., but the ecclesiastical chancellorship was finally suppressed in 1227. The king of the 13th century employed only keepers of the seal. Under the reign of Philip IV. le Bel lay chancellors were first appointed. From the reign of Charles V. to that of Louis XI. the French chancelier was elected by the royal council. In the 16th century he became irremovable, a distinction more honourable than effective, for though the king could not dismiss him from office he could, and on some occasions did, deprive him of the right to exercise his functions, and entrusted them to a keeper of the seal. The chancelier from the 13th century downwards was the head of the law, and performed the duties which are now entrusted to the minister of justice. His office was abolished when in 1790 the whole judicial system of France was swept away by the Revolution. The smaller chanceliers of the provincial parlements and royal courts disappeared at the same time. But when Napoleon was organizing the empire he created an arch-chancellor, an office which was imitated rather from the Erz-Kanzler of the Holy Roman Empire than from the old French chancelier. At the Restoration the office of chancellor of France was restored, the chancellor being president of the House of Peers, but it was finally abolished at the revolution of 1848. The administration of the Legion of Honour is presided over by a grand chancelier, who is a grand cross of the order, and who advises the head of the state in matters concerning the affairs of the order. The title of chancelier continues also to be used in France for the large class of officials who discharge notarial duties in some public offices, in embassies and consulates. They draw up diplomas and prepare all formal documents, and have charge of the registration and preservation of the archives.

Spain.—In Spain the office of chancellor, canciller, was introduced by Alphonso VII. (1126-1157), who adopted it from the court of his cousins of the Capetian dynasty of France. The canciller did not in Spain go beyond being the king’s notary. The chancellor of the privy seal, canciller del sello de la puridad (literally the secret seal), was the king’s secretary, and sealed all papers other than diplomas and charters. The office was abolished in 1496, and its functions were transferred to the royal secretaries. The cancelario was the chancellor of a university. The canciller succeeded the maesescuela or scholasticus of a church or monastery. Canciller mayor de Castilla is an honorary title of the archbishops of Toledo. The gran canciller de las Indias, high chancellor of the Indies, held the seal used for the American dominions of Spain, and presided at the council in the absence of the president. The office disappeared with the loss of Spain’s empire in America.

Italy, Germany, &c.—In central and northern Europe, and in Italy, the office had different fortunes. In southern Italy, where Naples and Sicily were feudally organized, the chancellors of the Norman kings, who followed Anglo-Norman precedents very closely, and, at least in Sicily, employed Englishmen, were such officers as were known in the West. The similarity is somewhat concealed by the fact that these sovereigns also adopted names and offices from the imperial court at Constantinople. Their chancellor was officially known as Protonotary and Logothete, and their example was followed by the German princes of the Hohenstaufen family, who acquired the kingdoms of Naples and Sicily. The papal or apostolic chancery is dealt with in the article on the Curia Romana (q.v.). It may be pointed out here, however, that the close connexion of the papacy with the Holy Roman Empire is illustrated by the fact that the archbishop of Cologne, who by right of his see was the emperor’s arch-chancellor (Erz-Kanzler) for Italy, was confirmed as papal arch-chancellor by a bull of Leo IX. in 1052. The origin and duration of this connexion are, however, obscure; it appears to have ceased before 1187. The last record of a papal chancellor in the middle ages dates from 1212, from which time onward, for reasons much disputed, the head of the papal chancery bore the title vice-chancellor (Hinschius i. 439), until the office of chancellor was restored by the constitution Sapientius of Pius X. in 1908.

The title of arch-chancellor (Erz-Kanzler) was borne by three great ecclesiastical dignitaries of the Holy Roman Empire. The archbishop of Mainz was arch-chancellor for Germany. The archbishop of Cologne held the dignity for Italy, and the archbishop of Trier for Gaul and the kingdom of Arles. The second and third of these dignities became purely formal with the decline of the Empire in the 13th century. But the arch-chancellorship of Germany remained to some extent a reality till the Empire was finally dissolved in 1806. The office continued to be attached to the archbishopric of Mainz, which was an electorate. Karl von Dalberg, the last holder of the office, and the first prince primate of the Confederation of the Rhine, continued to act in show at least as chancellor of that body, and was after a fashion the predecessor of the Bundes Kanzler, or chancellor of the North German Confederation. The duties imposed on the imperial chancery by the very complicated constitution of the Empire were, however, discharged by a vice-chancellor who was attached to the court of the emperor. The abbot of Fulda was chancellor to the empress.

The house of Austria in their hereditary dominions, and in those of their possessions which they treated as hereditary, even where the sovereignty was in theory elective, made a large and peculiar use of the title chancellor. The officers so called were of course distinct from the arch-chancellor and vice-chancellor of the Empire, although the imperial crown became in practice hereditary in the house of Habsburg. In the family states their administration was, to use a phrase familiar to the French, “polysynodic.” As it was when fully developed, and as it remained until the March revolution of 1848, it was conducted through boards presided over by a chancellor. There were three aulic chancellorships for the internal affairs of their dominions, “a united aulic chancellorship for all parts of the empire (i.e. of Austria, not the Holy Roman) not belonging to Hungary or Transylvania, and a separate chancellorship for each of those last-mentioned provinces” (Hartig, Genesis of the Revolution in Austria). There were also a house, a court, and a state chancellor for the business of the imperial household and foreign affairs, who were not, however, the presidents of a board. These “aulic” (i.e. court) officers were in fact secretaries of the sovereign, and administrative or political rather than judicial in character, though the boards over which they presided controlled judicial as well as administrative affairs. In the case of such statesmen as Kaunitz and Metternich, who were house, court, and state chancellors as well as “united aulic” chancellors, the combination of offices made them in practice prime ministers, or rather lieutenants-general, of the sovereign. The system was subject to modifications, and in the end it broke down under its own complications. We are not dealing here with the confusing history of the Austrian administration, and these details are only quoted to show how it happened that in Austria the title chancellor came to mean a political officer and minister. There is obviously a vast difference between such an official as Kaunitz, who as house, court, and state chancellor was minister of foreign affairs, and as “united aulic” chancellor had a general superiority over the whole machinery of government, and the lord high chancellor in England, the chancelier in France, or the canciller mayor in Castile, though the title was the same. The development of the office in Austria must be understood in order to explain the position and functions of the imperial chancellor (Reichs Kanzler) of the modern German empire. Although the present empire is sometimes rhetorically and absurdly spoken of as a revival of the medieval Empire, it is in reality an adaptation of the Austrian empire, which was a continuation under a new name of the hereditary Habsburg monarchy. The Reichs Kanzler is the immediate successor of the Bundes Kanzler, or chancellor of the North German Confederation (Bund). But the Bundes Kanzler, who bore no sort of resemblance except in mere name to the Erz-Kanzler of the old Empire, was in a position not perhaps actually like that of Prince Kaunitz, but capable of becoming much the same thing. When the German empire was established in 1871 Prince Bismarck, who was Bundes Kanzler and became Reichs Kanzler, took care that his position should be as like as possible to that of Prince Kaunitz or Prince Metternich. The constitution of the German empire is separately dealt with, but it may be pointed out here that the Reichs Kanzler is the federal minister of the empire, the chief of the federal officials, and a great political officer, who directs the foreign affairs, and superintends the internal affairs, of the empire.

In these German states the title of chancellor is also given as in France to government and diplomatic officials who do notarial duties and have charge of archives. The title of chancellor has naturally been widely used in the German and Scandinavian states, and in Russia since the reign of Peter the Great. It has there as elsewhere wavered between being a political and a judicial office. Frederick the Great of Prussia created a Gross Kanzler for judicial duties in 1746. But there was in Prussia a state chancellorship on the Austrian model. It was allowed to lapse on the death of Hardenberg in 1822. The Prussian chancellor after his time was one of the four court ministries (Hofämter) of the Prussian monarchy.

Authorities.—Du Cange, Glossarium, s.v. “Cancellarius”; W. Stubbs, Const. Hist. of England (1874-1878); Rudolph Gneist, Hist. of the English Constitution (Eng. trans., London, 1891); L.O. Pike, Const. Hist. of the House of Lords (London, 1894); Sir William R. Anson, The Law and Custom of the Constitution, vol. ii. part i. (Oxford, 1907); A. Luchaire, Manuel des institutions françaises (Paris, 1892); K.F. Stumpf, Die Reichs Kanzler (3 vols., Innsbruck, 1865-1873); G. Sceliger, Erzkanzler und Reichskanzleien (ib. 1889); P. Hinschius, Kirchenrecht (Berlin, 1869); Sir R.J. Phillimore, Eccles. Law (London, 1895); P. Pradier-Fodéré, Cours de droit diplomatique, ii. 542 (Paris, 1899).

CHANCELLORSVILLE, a village of Spottsylvania county, Virginia, U.S.A., situated almost midway between Washington and Richmond. It was the central point of one of the greatest battles of the Civil War, fought on the 2nd and 3rd of May 1863, between the Union Army of the Potomac under Major-General Hooker, and the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia under General Lee. (See American Civil War, and Wilderness.) General “Stonewall” Jackson was mortally wounded in this battle.

CHANCE-MEDLEY (from the A.-Fr. chance-medlée, a mixed chance, and not from chaude-medlée, a hot affray), an accident of a mixed character, an old term in English law for a form of homicide arising out of a sudden affray or quarrel. The homicide has not the characteristic of “malice prepense” which would raise the death to murder, nor the completely accidental nature which would reduce it to homicide by misadventure. It was practically identical, therefore, with manslaughter.

CHANCERY, in English law, the court of the lord chancellor of England, consolidated in 1873 along with the other superior courts in the Supreme Court of Judicature. Its origin is noticed under the head of Chancellor.

It has been customary to say that the court of chancery consists of two distinct tribunals—one a court of common law, the other a court of equity. From the former have issued all the original writs passing under the great seal, all commissions of sewers, lunacy, and the like—some of these writs being originally kept in a hanaper or hamper (whence the “hanaper office”), and others in a little sack or bag (whence the “petty-bag office”). The court had likewise power to hold pleas upon scire facias (q.v.) for repeal of letters patent, &c. “So little,” says Blackstone, “is commonly done on the common law side of the court that I have met with no traces of any writ of error being actually brought since the fourteenth year of Queen Elizabeth.”

The equitable jurisdiction of the court of chancery was founded on the supposed superiority of conscience and equity over the strict law. The appearance of equity in England is in harmony with the general course of legal history in progressive societies. What is remarkable is that, instead of being incorporated with or superseding the common law, it gave rise to a wholly independent set of tribunals. The English dislike of the civil law, and the tendency to follow precedent which has never ceased to characterize English lawyers, account for this unfortunate separation. The claims of equity in its earlier stages are well expressed in the little treatise called Doctor and Student, published in the reign of Henry VIII.:—“Conscience never resisteth the law nor addeth to it, but only when the law is directly in itself against the law of God, or law of reason.” So also King James, speaking in the Star Chamber, says: “Where the rigour of the law in many cases will undo a subject, then the chancery tempers the law with equity, and so mixes mercy with justice, as it preserves a man from destruction.” This theory of the essential opposition between law and equity, and of the natural superiority of the latter, remained long after equity had ceased to found itself on natural justice, and had become as fixed and rigid as the common law itself. The jealousy of the common lawyers came to a head in the time of Lord Ellesmere, when Coke disputed the right of the chancery to give relief against a judgment of the court of queen’s bench obtained by gross fraud and imposition. James I., after consultation, decided in favour of the court of equity. The substitution of lay for clerical chancellors is regarded by G. Spence (Equitable Jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery, 2 vols., 1846-1849) as having at first been unfortunate, inasmuch as the laymen were ignorant of the principles on which their predecessors had acted. Lord Nottingham (1621-1682) is usually credited with the first attempt to reduce the decisions of the court to order, and his work was continued by Lord Hardwicke (1690-1764). By the time of Lord Eldon equity had become fixed, and the judges, like their brethren in the common law courts, strictly followed the precedents. Henceforward chancery and common law courts have exhibited the anomaly of two co-ordinate sets of tribunals, empowered to deal with the same matters, and compelled to proceed in many cases on wholly different principles. The court of chancery could in most cases prevent a person from taking advantage of a common law right, not approved of by its own system. But if a suitor chose to go to a court of common law, he might claim such unjust rights, and it required the special intervention of the court of equity to prevent his enforcing them. In many cases also a special application had to be made to chancery for facilities which were absolutely necessary to the successful conduct of a case at common law. Another source of difficulty and annoyance was the uncertainty in many cases whether the chancery or common law courts were the proper tribunal, so that a suitor often found at the close of an expensive and protracted suit that he had mistaken his court and must go elsewhere for relief. Attempts more or less successful were made to lessen those evils by giving the powers to both sets of courts; but down to the consolidation effected by the Judicature Act, the English judicial system justified the sarcasm of Lord Westbury, that one tribunal was set up to do injustice and another to stop it.

The equitable jurisdiction of chancery was commonly divided into exclusive, concurrent and auxiliary. Chancery had exclusive jurisdiction when there were no forms of action by which relief could be obtained at law, in respect of rights which ought to be enforced. Trusts were the most conspicuous example of this class. It also included the rights of married women, infants and lunatics. Chancery had concurrent jurisdiction when the common law did not give adequate relief, e.g. in cases of fraud, accident, mistake, specific performance of contracts, &c. It had auxiliary jurisdiction when the administrative machinery of the law courts was unable to procure the necessary evidence.

The Judicature Act 1873 enacted (§ 24) that in every civil cause or matter commenced in the High Court of Justice, law and equity should be administered by the High Court of Justice and the court of appeal respectively, according to the rules therein contained, which provide for giving effect in all cases to “equitable rights and other matters of equity.” The 25th section declared the law hereafter to be administered in England on certain points, and ordained that “generally in all matters not hereinbefore particularly mentioned in which there is any conflict or variance between the rules of equity and the rules of the common law with reference to the same matter, the rules of equity shall prevail.” The 34th section specifically assigned to the chancery division the following causes and matters:—The administration of the estates of deceased persons; the dissolution of partnerships, or the taking of partnership, or other accounts; the redemption or foreclosure of mortgages; the raising of portions, or other charges on land; the sale and distribution of the proceeds of property subject to any lien or charge; the execution of trusts, charitable or private; the rectification, or setting aside, or cancellation of deeds or other written instruments; the specific performance of contracts between vendors and purchasers of real estates, including contracts for leases; the partition or sale of real estates; the wardship of infants and the care of infants’ estates.

The chancery division originally consisted of the lord chancellor as president and the master of the rolls, and the three vice-chancellors. The master of the rolls was also a member of the court of appeal, but Sir George Jessel, who held that office when the new system came into force, regularly sat as a judge of first instance until 1881, when, by the act of that year (sec. 2), the master of the rolls became a member of the court of appeal only, and provision was made for the appointment of a judge to supply the vacancy thus occasioned (sec. 3). Sir James Bacon (1798-1895) was the last survivor of the vice-chancellors. He retained his seat on the bench until the year 1886, when he retired after more than seventeen years’ judicial service. For some reason the solicitors, when they had the choice, preferred to bring their actions in the chancery division. The practice introduced by the Judicature Act of trying actions with oral evidence instead of affidavits, and the comparative inexperience of the chancery judges and counsel in that mode of trial, tended to lengthen the time required for the disposal of the business. Demand was consequently made for more judges in the chancery division. By an act of 1877 the appointment of an additional judge in that division was authorized, and Sir Edward Fry (afterwards better known as a lord justice) was appointed. In August 1899 the crown consented to the appointment of a new judge of the High Court in the chancery division on an address from both Houses of Parliament, pursuant to the 87th section of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876. The chancery division, therefore, consists of the lord chancellor and six puisne judges. The latter are styled and addressed in the same manner as was customary in the old common law courts.1 Formerly there were only four judges of this division (being the successors of the master of the rolls and the three vice-chancellors) to whom chambers were attached. The fifth judge heard only causes with witnesses transferred to him from the overflowing of the lists of his four brethren. In each set of chambers there were three chief clerks, with a staff of assistant clerks under them. The chief clerks had no original jurisdiction, but heard applications only on behalf of the judge to whose chambers they belonged, and theoretically every suitor had the right to have his application heard by the judge himself in chambers. But the appointment of a sixth judge enabled the lord chancellor to carry out a reform recommended by a departmental committee which reported in 1885. The great difficulty in the chancery division always was to secure the continuous hearing of actions with witnesses, as nearly one-half of the judge’s time was taken up with cases adjourned to him from chambers and other administrative business and non-witness actions and motions. The interruption of a witness action for two or three days, particularly in a country case, occasioned great expense, and had other inconveniences. It was a simple remedy to link the judges in pairs with one list of causes and one set of chambers assigned to each pair. This reform was effected by the alteration of a few words in certain rules of court. There are therefore, only three sets of chambers, each containing four chief clerks, or, as they are now styled, masters of the Supreme Court, and one of the linked judges, by arrangement between themselves, continuously tries the witness actions in their common list, while the other attends in chambers, and also hears the motions, petitions, adjourned summonses and non-witness cases.

Although styled masters it does not appear that the chief clerks have any larger or different jurisdiction than they had before. They are still the representatives of and responsible to the judges to whom the chambers are attached. The judge may either hear an application in chambers, or may direct any matter which he thinks of sufficient importance to be argued before him in court, or a party may move in court to discharge an order made in chambers with a view to an appeal, but this is not required if the judge certifies that the matter was sufficiently discussed before him in chambers.

Under the existing rules of court many orders can now be made on summons in chambers which used formerly to require a suit or petition in court (see Order LV. as to foreclosure, administration, payment out of money in court and generally). The judge is also enabled to decide any particular question arising in the administration of the estate of a deceased person or execution of the trusts of a settlement without directing administration of the whole estate or execution of the trusts generally by the court (Order LV. rule 10), and where an application for accounts is made by a dissatisfied beneficiary or creditor to order the accounts to be delivered out of court, and the application to stand over till it can be seen what questions (if any) arise upon the accounts requiring the intervention of the court (Order LV. 2, 10a). Delay and consequent worry and expense are thus saved to the parties, and, at the same time, a great deal of routine administration is got rid of and a larger portion of the judicial term can be devoted to hearing actions and deciding any question of importance in court. The work of the chambers staff of the judges has probably been increased; but, on the other hand, it has been lightened by the removal of the winding-up business. The chancery division has also inherited from the court of chancery a staff of registrars and taxing masters.