Page:Select Essays in Anglo-American Legal History, Volume 1.djvu/817

 20. V ELDER: A CENTURY OF JUDICATURE 803 Mellish was considered by many eminent judges the ablest advocate of his time before a court in banc. Lord Selborne said of him that " as an advocate he was distinguished above all other men whom I remember at the bar by the candor of his arguments and by the decision with which he threw aside everything which did not seem to him relevant to the case and deserving of serious consideration by the court which he was addressing." Mellish belonged to the common law bar, but his mastery of the principles of jurisprudence and the judicial quality of his intellect qualified him to sit in any court. He came to the bench with an impaired constitution, which limited his work both in quality and in extent ; but his subtle mind, stored with the learning of the common law, in combination with James' profound knowledge of equity, made a most satisfactory court of appeal, and justified the subse- quent establishment of a single court of appeal in law and equity.^ (e) The House of Lords and the Privy Council The ultimate reorganization of the House of Lords as an appellate tribunal owes much to Lord Westbury. As the leader of the chancery bar and a law officer of the govern- ment, it was his caustic wit that concentrated attention upon the defects of the 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 commanding ability which led the way to better things.^ 15 do. 247; Re Goodman's Trusts, 44 L. T. 527; Wimbleton Conser- vators V. Dixon, 1 Ch. D. 362; Pike v. Fitzgibbon, 14 do. 837; In re Agar Ellis, 10 do. 49; Re Canadian Oil Works, 10 Ch. App. 599; Barnes v. Addy, 9 Ch. 244; Day v. Brownrigg, 10 Ch. D. 294; Johns ». James, 8 do. 744; Macdonald v. Irvine, 8 do. 101; Rogers v. Ing- ham, 3 do. 351 ; Nitro Phosphate Co. v. London, etc.. Docks, 9 do. 503. 'Nugent V. Smith, 1 C. P. D. 493; Nichols v. Marsland, 2 Ex. D. 1; Aynsley v. Glover, 10 Ch. 283; Hext v. Gill, 7 do. 712; Crook v. Hill, 6 do. 311; Lindsay v. Cundy, 2 Q. B. D. 96; Dickinson v. Dodds, 2 Ch. D. 463; Wimbleton Conservators v. Dixon, 1 Ch. D. 362; Rogers v. Ing- ham, 3 do. 351; Re South Wales, etc., Co., 2 do. 763; Hopkins v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 2 Q. B. D. 228. • 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 ren- dered in the House by the chancellor alone, he said: "If there be a sin-