Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 13.pdf/112

 A Century of English Judicature. the trade has been carried on by persons •he reached the woolsack. With his strong acting in his behalf. When that is the case, intellect and untiring industry he made a he is liable to the trade obligations and respectable equity judge, but his overbear entitled to its profits; or to a share of them. ing nature caused much friction where steady It is not strictly correct to say that his right co-operation was most needed. to share in the profits makes him liable to The inferior chancery tribunals were for the debts of the trade. The correct mode of the most part highly efficient during this stating the proposition is to say that the period. Shadwell (1827-50) was an improve same thing which entitles him to the one ment on his predecessors in the vice-chan makes him liable to the other; namely, the cellorship, but the most efficient assistance fact that the trade has been carried on on in chancery began in 1841 with the appoint his behalf; i. e., that he stood in the relation ment of Knight-Bruce (1841-51) and of principal towards the persons acting osten Wigram (1841-51) as additional vice-chan sibly as the traders, by whom the liabilities cellors. At the same time the equitable have been incurred and under whose man jurisdiction of the Court of Exchequer was taken away. Knight-Bruce was a judge of agement the profits have been made." Cranworth was followed by two common great capacity who afterwards distinguished law chancellors, Chelmsford and Campbell. himself as a lord justice of appeal in chan Lord Chelmsford (1858-59; 1866-68) had cery. Wigram was profoundly learned in shared with Sir William Follett the honors technical equity, and his opinions have of the bar, and it has been customary to always been held in high esteem for their decry his judicial service on the general lucid exposition of equitable principles. theory, apparently, that an eloquent lawyer In the Rolls Court much was expected from the appointment of Pepys (1834-36); is not apt to be a profound judge. Un doubtedly he would have taken a higher but he was soon advanced to the woolsack position on the common law bench; but a as Lord Cottenham. Improvement is notice fair examination of his work shows that he able soon after the advent of Lord Langdale was a very respectable judge. Certainly he (1836). From his time the decisions of discharged his duties with assiduity, and his the Rolls Court have been regularly reported numerous judgments are often instructive in a separate series of reports, first by Keen on account of his habit of reviewing prior (1836-38) and afterwards by Beavan (1838authorities.1 66). Lord Langdale administered the duties Lord Campbell's brief chancellorship of the office, at a time when its scope had (1859-61) is really a minor feature of his been considerably enlarged, with industry career, owing to the advanced age at which and ability, as the few successful appeals from his judgment attest. 1 Chascmore v. Richards, 7 H. L. Cas. 360; If his reputation as a judge fell somewhat Peek v. Gurney, 6 E. & I. App. 377; Bain v. below what was expected from his distin Fothergill, 7 do. 170: Hollins v. Fowler, 7 do. 762; Robinson r. Mallett, 7 do. 802; Rankin v. Potter, guished professional career, his lucid and methodical exposition of the facts with 6 do. 83; Overend v. Gurney, 5 do. 480; Daniel v. Metropolitan Ry., 5 do. 49; Knox v. Gye, 5 do which he had to deal gave perfect satisfac <>5б; Duke of Buccleuch, 5 do. 418; Ricket v. tion to those who were most interested in a Metropolitan Ry., 2 do. 174; Shaw v. Gould, 3 do. 55: Hammersmith Ry. v. Brand, 4 do. 171; Lister just decision. His lofty character and abso "'. Ferryman. 4 do. 521: Gilbin v. McMullen, 2 lute impartiality inspired the utmost confi P. C. 318; Steele v. No. Met. Ry., 15 W. R. 597. dence.