Page:Select Essays in Anglo-American Legal History, Volume 1.djvu/753

 20. VEEDER: A CENTURY OF JUDICATURE 739 bell's brief chancellorship (1859-61) is really a minor feature of his career, owing to the advanced age at which he reached the woolsack. With his strong intellect and untiring indus- try he made a respectable equity judge, but his overbearing nature caused much friction where steady co-operation was needed. The inferior chancery tribunals were the Rolls Court and the Vice-Chancellor's Court. The judicial standing of the Rolls Court was established by Sir William Grant (1801- 18). Kenyon, the most prominent prior incumbent of the office, discharged the duties of the office with his customary ability and expedition, but he was not really in sympathy with the equitable jurisdiction and habitually decided his cases on the narrowest grounds, avoiding the enunciation of general principles. Grant dignified the office with his high character and eminent abilities. He was unquestionably the most eminent judge sitting in this court until the time of Jessel. Calm, deliberate, patient in hearing, and clear, luminous, subtle and comprehensive in judgment, his power- ful intellect made a deep impression upon his contempo- raries. This reputation was enhanced by his parliamentary service, which was even more distinguished than his service as a judge. His opinions, which are comparatively few in num- ber, are mostly brief but comprehensive statements of his conclusions, giving slight indications of that masculine rea- soning which was the principal feature of his parliamentary oratory. The office was at this time a modest one. The master of the rolls simply supplied the place of the chancellor when the latter's political duties required his presence else- where. On other occasions, when requested by the chancellor, the master of the rolls sat with the chancellor to give advice and assistance in cases argued before both. In order that he might assist the chancellor when present and supply his place during occasional absence, it was arranged that during 762; Robinson v. Mallett, 7 do. 802; Rankin v. Potter, 6 do. 83; Over- end V. Gurney, 5 do. 480; Daniel v. Metropolitan Ry., 5 do. 49; Knox V. Gye, 5 do. 656; Duke of Buccleuch, 5 do. 418; Ricket v. Metropol- itan Ry., 2 do. 174; Shaw v. Gould, 3 do. 55; Hammersmith Ry. v. Brand, 4 do. 171; Lister v. Ferryman, 4 do. 521; Gilbin v. McMuUen, 2 P. C. 318; Steele v. No. Met. Ry., 15 W. R, 597.