Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 04.pdf/370

 London Legal Letter.

343

LONDON LEGAL LETTER. London, June 10, 1892. THE English judiciary has recently lost two of its most prominent figures in the persons of Lord Bramwell and Sir Charles Butt. George William Wilshere Bramwell was born in 1808, the oldest son of a London banker; as quite a youth he spent a short time in his father's counting-house, where he gained a knowledge of the practice and principles of commerce which stood him in good stead in after years. His career at the bar was a highly prosperous and distinguished one. He was raised to the bench in 1856 as a Baron of the Ex chequer, ten years later became a Lord Justice of Appeal, and shortly after his retirement in 1881, on completing a quarter of a century's judicial service, he was created a Law Lord, and since then has taken an active and prominent part in the deliberation of our Supreme Court of Appeal, the House of Lords. Lord Bramwell was one of the last survivors of the great lawyers whose careers united the old and the modern law of England. When at the bar some of the more famous men before whom he practised were Lord Justice Denman and Lord Justice Campbell, Barons Parke and Alderson, and Mr. Justice Patteson; he took a notable part in the labors of the Common Law Procedure Commission of 1852, and in the great Judicature Commission of an after year. The de ceased was one of the greatest masters of the Common Law who has sat on the English bench. He was far more than a mere lawyer, however; he was perfectly versed in affairs, and possessed a character of unusual force and originality, which showed itself in the racy humor with which he en livened legal proceedings. Lord Bramwell passed away in the fulness of years. Not so Sir Charles Parker Butt, President of the Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division of the High Court of Jus tice; he has died at the age, early for a judge, of sixty-two. Sir Charles Butt commenced his forensic career at the consular bar of Constantinople; and when he started practice in England, he naturally came to the front in mercantile and admiralty matters. On the bench as a divorce judge, he tried some of the most celebrated divorce suits within recent years, among others, Langworthy v. Langworthy, the first Dilke case, the Colin Camp bell case, and the Scott and Sebright nullity suit;

he became President of his division when his pre decessor, Sir James Hannen, at the termination of the Parnell Commission, was made a law Lord. Sir Charles Butt was an admirable judge, with im mense natural quickness, and experience in the class of causes which came before him; he suffered from ill health for a long time before his end, courageously discharging his judicial duties on many occasions with the utmost patience and for bearance while enduring severe physical pain. Sir Francis Jenne, the junior judge of the Probate Divorce and Admiralty Division, has been pro moted to the Presidency; and the vacant appoint ment has been conferred on Mr. Gorell Barnes, a comparatively young man. He is only forty-three, and therefore finds himself a judge at an unusually early age. The appointment has given great satis faction, as the new judge has practically been the leader of the Admiralty Court, where he exhibited very conspicuous legal qualities, and aptitudes which augur well for the successful discharge of his new duties. The Westminster Debating Society has just held its Annual Dinner. The Committee were fortunate in securing Mr. Frank Lockwood, Q. C. M. P., an old member, as guest of the evening. Mr. Lockwood is not only the wittiest man at the bar, but he enjoys the reputation of being one of the very first after-dinner speakers in London. Mr. Lockwood's speech on the occasion was well worthy of his reputation, and gave great pleasure to the members of the Society and their guests; it con tained an amusing comparison of the position of debating societies nowadays with that which they occupied in the days of Mr. Pitt. The speaker referred to an Act of George III. in 1795, and which actually remained on the statute-book till 1869, when it was repealed by the Newspapers, Printers, and Reading-Rooms Repeal Act. The act in question purported to be for the more effec tually preventing seditious meetings and assem blies; it forbade any meeting being held, of any description of persons, exceeding the number of fifty, for the purpose of deliberating upon any grievance in Church or State unless due notice had been given, signed by seven householders and publicly advertised. The seven householders were required to give notice of the meeting to the clerk