A Centitry of English Judicature. case and putting it in the fewest possible words. His judgments are marked, too, by much independent thought.1 HOUSE OF LORDS. In view of the widespread dissatisfaction
483
would extend to the court of final appeal. The ultimate renovation of the tribunal owes much to Lord Westbury. As the leader of the chancery bar and a law officer of the government it was his caustic wit that con centrated attention upon the defects of the
LORD JUSTICE MEI.LISH.
the administration of legal affairs in the House, it was to be expected that the spirit of reform which had done so much toward transforming the procedure and use fulness of the courts of original jurisdiction 1 ff-ngent v. Smith, i C. P. D. 423; Nichols v. Marsland, z Ex. D. i; Aynsley v. Glover, ю Ch. 283; Hext v. Gill, 7 do. 712; Crook v. Hill, б do. 311; Lindsay z>. Gundy, 2 Q. B. D.co; Dickinson v. Dodds, 2 Ch. D. 463; Wimbleton Conservators v. Dixon, I Ch. 0.362; Rogers v. Ingham. 3 do. 351; Re South Wales, etc., Co., 2 do. 763, Hopkins 7'. Great Northern Ry. Co., 2 Q. B. D. 228.
existing system and overcame the inertia of public sentiment: and subsequently as Lord Chancellor it was he who brought to the discharge of his judicial functions the com manding ability which led the way to better things.1 It was finally determined to rein 1 His various arguments in answer to the supporters of the old order of things afford fine specimens of his powers. For instance, in reply to the contention that judgments of the highest authority had been rendered in the House by the Chancellor alone, he said : " If there be a single judge who, by the common consent of mankind,
