Page:Select Essays in Anglo-American Legal History, Volume 1.djvu/816

 802 V. BENCH AND BAR Several distinguished chancery lawyers sat in this court for brief periods. Cairns (1866-68) and Page-Wood (1868) were elevated to the woolsack, and Rolt (1868-69), Selwyn (1868-69) and Gifford (1869-70) died in office. During his brief service as lord justice. Cairns justified the expectations raised by his distinguished career at the bar. He began in this court the splendid service which, continued in a higher tribunal, placed him in the front rank of English judges. In 1870 the unity of the court was again restored under James (1870-81) and Mellish (1870-77). James was a most eminent judge, exceptionally learned, and gifted with rare power in the formulation of principles. Cairns said of him that he had a no less admirable share of common sense than of law. In quoting his own decisions he would humor- ously add, " which is an authority though I joined in it." His comprehension of a case was rapid and masterly, and his memory marvelous. Bramwell said of him that " he possessed every quality and accomplishment that a judge needed. He had a very great intellect, at once keen and pro- found. He was a consummate lawyer, thoroughly imbued with legal principles. He was a man of vast experience, not merely in the law, but in those things which make a man what is commonly called a man of the world, fitted to deal with the affairs of the world. He had but one desire when he took his seat upon the bench, and that is, that justice should be done according to right. It was said of him, and truly, that he was rapid in the formation of his opinions and confident in the expression of them, and so he was, and so a man of his ability had a right to be; but I can say this of him, that a more candid man never lived, nor one more ready to renounce an opinion, though he had given expression to it in the most confident way, if he thought it was wrong." His most sub- stantial contributions to the law were in the domain of company, bankruptcy and patent law.^ instruction which would be given being received with carelessness or in- difference, or, which would certainly not be less danc^erous or less de- structive to the character of the boy, with affected acquiescence ? " ^ Harvey v. Farnie, 6 P. D. 35 ; Niboyet v. Niboyet, 4 do. 1 ; Mas- sam V. Cattle Food Co., 14 Ch. D. 748; In re Campden's Charities, 18 do. 310; New Sombrero Co. v. Erlanger, 5 do. 73; Smith v. Anderson,