Page:Select Essays in Anglo-American Legal History, Volume 1.djvu/757

 W. VEEDER: A CENTURY OF JUDICATURE 743 current jurisdiction of the three superior courts of common law was officially recognized, and a central criminal court was established. The antiquated and cumbrous machinery of fines and recoveries was finally abolished, and a general bankruptcy act ameliorated the condition of insolvent debtors. But the movement in favor of legal reform was not wide- spread, and comparatively little was accomplished. In fact, the quarter century following the Reform Bill is significant only because it marks the limits o/ the influence of Baron Parke in the common law courts. The Queen's Bench at the beginning of this period was still the ablest as well as the most prominent of the three courts of common law. Of the two chief justices during this time. Lord Denman (1832-50), the first, was a great and good man, whose predisposition to individual liberties was a new departure in a chief of this court. His judgment in Stock- dale V. Hansard is a monument of learning and independence.^ Compared with his immediate predecessors he could not be called a great lawyer or a strong judge, but his high char- acter and attractive personality won universal esteem. " To have seen him on the bench, in the administration of justice," said Charles Sumner, " was to have a new idea of the eleva- tion of the judicial character." Campbell (1850-59), his successor, whose character is much less to be admired, sur- passed him in learning and efficiency. With a strong intel- lect, wide knowledge and untiring industry, Campbell made during his short term a lasting reputation.^ Of the prominent puisnes during this period, Littledale Wolveridge v. Steward, 3 L. J., Ex. 360; Neal v. Mackenzie, 6 do. 263; Nepean v. Knight, 7 do. 335; Muspratt v. Gregory, 7 do. 385; Rhodes V. Smethurst, 9 do. 330; Davies v. Lowndes, 12 do. 506; McCallum «, Mortimer, 11 do. 429. ^Hochster v. De la Tour, 2 E. & B. 678; Queen v. Bedfordshire, 4 do. 535; Ivevy v. Green, 8 do. 575; Brass v. Maitland, 6 do. 70; Humphries r. Brogden, 20 L. J., Q. B. 10; Harrison v. Bush, 25 do. 25; Wheelton v. Hardisty, 26 do. 265; In re Alicia Race, 26 do. 169; Hum- frey v. Dale, 26 do. 137; Thompson v. Hopper, 26 do. 18; Queen v. Munneley, 27 do. 345; Lewis v. Levy, 27 do. 282; Knight v. Faith, 19 do. 509; Morton v. Tibbett, 19 do. 382; De Haber ». Queen of Portu- gal, 20 do. 488; Shallcross v. Palmer, 20 do. 367; Boosey v. Jeffries, 20 L. J. Ex. 354; Lynch v. Knight, 9 H. L. Cas. 580; Gibson v. Small, 4 do. 352; Brook v. Brook, 9 do. 195. )
 * See also R. v. O'Connell, CI. & F., 155, R. v. Millis, 10, do. 5.S4;