Page:Select Essays in Anglo-American Legal History, Volume 1.djvu/828

 814 V. BENCH AND BAR Brett and Mellish, he supplemented the impetuosity of the former and the somewhat academic narrowness of the latter. Sitting in equity with Jessel and James he was not so much in his element. On one occasion, in following the chancery judges in giving opinion in an equity case, he said: " Having listened all day to things which I don't think I ever heard of before, I can safely say I am of the same opinion and for the same reasons." His pronounced views upon the desirabihty of holding people to their bargains prompted little sympathy with certain equitable doctrines. Cotton, through a longer term of service, made a very respectable reputation. He brought to the discharge of his judicial duties the clearness of thought and thorough preparation which had characterized his vast labors as an equity lawyer, and, notwithstanding a certain want of facility in expression, his numerous opinions (for he was rarely satisfied with mere acquiescence) will repay careful study. ^ Upon the death of Jessel in 1883 he became more prominent as the presiding judge of the chancery division of the court. When Brett (better known by his subsequent title, Lord Esher) was made one of the first judges of the Court of Appeal he had already served an apprenticeship of eight years as a judge of the Court of Common Pleas. Being fur- ther promoted to the post of master of the rolls in 1883, he served until 1897, thus completing a continuous service of thirty years. Unfortunately for his reputation, he clung to office so long after age had impaired his usefulness that he was often spoken of by his contemporaries with reproach. But no one who has examined with any care the total result of his long service will be apt to overlook its value. That he was a learned lawyer, particularly in the domain of commer- cial law, cannot be gainsaid ; shortly after his accession to the bench we find the learned Willes adopting and commending the opinion of his young associate.^ Still, it was rather as Bank, 7 do. 174; Davies v. Davies, 36 Ch. D., 359; AUcard v. Skinner, 36 do. 145 ; Tod Heatley v. Benham, 40 do. 97 ; Angus v. Dalton, 6 App. Cas. 779; Harney v. Farnie, 6 P. D. 35; Nibovet v. Nibovet, 4 do. 1; Re Goodman's Trusts, 44 L. T. 527; Turton v. turton, 61 do. 571; Ken' sit V. Great Eastern Ry., 51 do. 863; Hunt v. CJarke, 61 do. 343. 'Gray v. Carr, 6 Q. B. 564.
 * Johnstone v. Milling, 16 Q. B. D. 460; Henty v. Capital & Counties