Page:Select Essays in Anglo-American Legal History, Volume 1.djvu/822

 808 V. BENCH AND BAR ities in the solution of difficult problems, and was content to contribute less to the law than colleagues not so gifted. Oc- casionally a case of general public interest roused him from his seeming indifference, and on such occasions his work was so admirable as to prompt a feeling of regret that he was not more assiduous in the exercise of his undoubted ability. The reports contain several such expositions of the law, animated by learning, exquisite diction, elevation of sentiment and lib- erality of thought. The interesting case of Reg. v. Dudley, 15 Cox Cr. Cas. 624, where the issue was whether ship- wrecked persons were justified in taking the life of one of their number in order to save themselves from death by starv- ation, displays his powers at their best. His statement of the modern law relating to blasphemy, on the trial of Ramsey and Foote, 48 L, T. 733, is in every way a notable effort. With his ready wit and fluent tongue, Coleridge was perhaps at his best when sitting with a jury. In summing up a case he was always admirable.^ Russell, who succeeded Coleridge as chief justice in 1894, had been for many years the leader of the common law bar. Although not a profound lawyer, he was a man of great force, and displayed commendable energy in the furtherance of practical reforms in the procedure of his division. The institution of the new court for commercial causes was largely due to him. Like many of his predecessors he dis- played great ability as a criminal judge. He enjoyed the distinction of being the first Roman Catholic to hold the office of chief justice since the Reformation. The lord chancellor, the president of the Chancery Divi- sion, now practically confines his judicial labors to the House of Lords. The first president of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division was Hannen. With his knowledge of the law relating to the various sections of his court, his pains- IS Cox Cr. Cas. 225; Usill v. Hales, 3C. P. D. 319; Reg. v. Labouchere, 15 Cox Cr. Cas. 423; Mogul Steamship Co. v. McGregor, 21 Q. B. D. 544; Reg. v. Keyn, 2 Ex. D. 63; Twvcross ». Grant, 2 C. P. D. 469; Bowen v. Hall. 6 Q. B. D. 333 (dissenting) ; Ford v. Wiley, 16 Cox Cr. Cas. 688; Bradlaugh v. Newdigate, 11 Q. B. D. 1.; Currie v. Misa, 10 Ex. 153 (dissenting); Mackonochie r. Penzance, 4 Q. B. D. 697; Ex parte Daisy Hopkins, 17 Cox Cr. Cas. 448.
 * Other evidences of his ability may be found in Reg. v. Bradlaugh,