cercly believed that the interests of justice were best served by a strict adherence to technical rules. The sixteen volumes of reports by Meeson and Welsby were his especial pride. "It is a lucky thing that there was not a seventeenth volume," said Eric. "for if there had been the common law itself would have disappeared altogether amidst the jeers of mankind." 1 In these pages, in deed, he may be seen at his best and his • worst. He was one of the last of the judges who systematically delivered written opin ions. They were prepared with great fulness and care, and do not fall far short of two thousand in number. Alderson (1834-57) was a strong associate, learned, vigorous and efficient, and particu larly capable as a criminal judge.2 Valuable assistance, particularly in its equitable jurisdiction, was rendered in this court by Rolfe (1839-50), who subsequently reached a higher station as Lord Cranworth. 1 When asked once why he had not written a book he replied: "My works are to be found in the pages of Meeson and Welsby." These volumes are the best monuments of his industry. As most of the opinions are rendered by him, it is unnecessary to undertake to give a comprehensive selection. The following will suffice as examples: Norton ï'. Elain, 2 M. & W. 461; Langridge r. Levy, 2 do. 461; Nepean v. Knight. 2 do. 894; Doe d. Rees i>. Williams, 2 do. 749; Harris v. Butler, 2 do. 539; Jackson v. Cummings, S do. 342; Evans т. Jones, 5 do. 77; Merry v. Green, 7 do. 623; Acton v. Blundell. 12 do. 324; King v. Hoare, 13 do. 494. Among his leading opinions in the House of bords and Privy Council are Atwood v. Small, 6 Cl. & F.; Shore v. Wilson, 9 do. 353: O'Connell's case, IT do. 155; Gibson v. Small, 4 H. L. Cas. 352; Jeffreys v. Boosey, 4 do. 842; Chasemore v. Rich ards, 7 do. 349; Wicker v. Hume, 7 do. 165; Dolphin v. Robbins, 7 do. 390; Wing v. Angrave, 8 do. 183; Brook v. Brook, 9 do. 195; Lynch v. Knight, 9 do. 587; Barry v. Buttin, 2 Moo. P. C. 480; Calder v. Halket, 3 do. 28. 1 Hadley v. Baxendale; Wood v. Leadbitter. 13 M. & W. 840; King v. Hoare. 13 do. 494; Skeffington v. Whitehurst, i Y. & C. i; Startup v. Macdonald, 12 L. J., Ex. 477; Egerton v. Brownlow, 4 H. L. Cas. i; Gibson v. Small, 4 do. 352: Jeffrey v. Boosey, 4 do. 842: O'Connell's case, n Cl. & F. 155; Wright v. Tatham, 5 do. 670.
CHANCERY COURTS. The first competent successor to Eldon was Lord Cottenham. Lord Lyndhurst (1827-30; 1834-35; 1841-46) was a consum mate orator; but he had no training in equity and shone principally in politics.3 Lord Brougham's chancellorship (1830-34) was only one incident in his varied career. As a statesman he has left an abiding mark on the English legal system. For nearly fifty years he struggled with indefatigable industry and extraordinary ability in the cause of reform. The vast scheme of law reform which he laid before parliament in 1828 bore ample fruit in after times. The overthrow of the cumbrous and antiquated machinery of fines and recoveries, the aboli tion of the Court of Delegates and the sub stitution for it of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, the institution of the Cen tral Criminal Court and the Bankruptcy Act are a few of his herculean labors. Although he always upheld the cause of liberty and humanity, his character carried little moral force. His power was altogether intellec tual. As chancellor he worked with extra ordinary energy and expedited the work of the court in marked contrast with Eldon. But he had been trained in the common law, and was little fitted either by learning or by temperament for the judicial duties of the office. Tf he had known a little law," said the caustic St. Leonards, "he would have known a little of everything.4 Waring т1. Waring, 6 Moo. P. C. 341, is a characteristic specimen of his judicial style. 'Small г: Atwood. 6'C1. & F., 232; O'Connell's case, ii do. 155; R. v. Millis, ю do. 534; Shore v. Wilson, 9 do. 353; Egerton v. Brownlow, 4 H. L. Cas. i.
- Ferguson v. Kinnoul, 9 Cl. & F. 250; Stokes
i'. Herrón, 12 do. 163; Birtwhistle v. Vardell, 2 do. 581; 7 do. 895: Cookson i'. Cookson, 12 do. 121; O'Connell's case, n do. 155; R. v. Millis, ю do. 534; Atwood v. Small, 6 do. 232: Wright v. Tatham. 5 do. 670; Purves v. Landell. 12 Cl. & F. 07; Egerton v. Brownlow. 4 H. L. Cas. i; Greenough v. Gaskell, i Myln. & K.; McCarthy v. De Caix, 2 Russ. & Mylne; Cooper t'. Bockett, 4 Notes of Cases, 685.
