Page:Select Essays in Anglo-American Legal History, Volume 1.djvu/849

 eO. VEEDER: A CENTURY OF JUDICATURE 835 held this high office under three administrations. These facts are, in themselves, evidence of varied ability and marked force. If he does not possess the profound knowledge of equity which distinguished his more eminent predecessors, his wide experience at the bar developed other gifts not less essential than learning to the successful discharge of the multifarious duties with which the chancellor is now charged. A distinguished French observer has described the English chancellor as a living image of the Trinity, embodying in his own person the three branches of government. As a peer, as speaker of the House of Lords, and as a member of the cabinet, he participates in legislation. As the creator of judges, with extensive administrative duties in regard to the courts, he represents the executive. In his judicial capacity he is president of the Court of Appeal and of the High Court, with a statutory right of sitting as a judge of first instance, if he so desires. Many years have passed since the chan- cellor sat as a judge of first instance, and, except when an occasional press of business may demand his presence in the Court of Appeal, his judicial duties are now confined to the House of Lords. As presiding judge of the court of final appeal. Lord Halsbury has served through many years with credit to himself and to the satisfaction of the bar. Among colleagues of greater special acquirements he has displayed unfailing tact and self-reliance, and the record of his judicial service reveals the good sense which results from wide experi- ence with men and affairs.^ (d) The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is composed of the Lord President, such members of the Privy Council A. C. 1 ; Monson v. Madam Tassaud, 63 L. J., Q. B. 454; R. v. J'ackson, 64 L. T. 679; Derry v. Peek, 14 App. Cas. 337; Membery v. Great Western Ry., 14 App. Cas. 179; Great Western Ry. v. Bunch, 13 App. Cas. 31; London, etc., Ry. v. Truman, 11 App. Cas. 4S; Adam v. New- bigffing, 13 App. Cas. 308; Macdougall v. Knight, 60 L. T. 762; Cox v. Halles, 63 L. T. 679; Bank of England v. Vagliano, (1891) A. C. 107; London Joint Stock Bank v. Simmons, (1892) A. C. 201; Mogul Steam- ship Co. V. McGregor, (1892) A. C. 25-, Smith v. Baker, (1891) A. C. 325; Russell v. Russell, (1897) A. C. 395.
 * Some of the best specimens of his powers are: Allen v. Flood, (1898)