736 V. BENCH AND BAR tion. " The doctrines of this court," he said in Gee v. Pritchard, 2 Swanst, 414, " ought to be as well settled and made as uniform almost as those of the common law, laying down fixed principles, but taking care that they are to be applied according to the circumstances of each case. I can- not agree that the doctrines of this court are to be changed with every succeeding judge. Nothing would inflict or give me greater pain in quitting this place than the recollection that I had done anything to justify the reproach that the equity of this court varies like the chancellor's foot." From his time onward the development of equity has been effected mainly by strict deduction from the principles of decided cases, and the work of succeeding chancellors has been prac- tically confined to the elaboration of these principles by repeated review and definition.^ The first competent successor to Eldon was Cottenham. Lyndhurst (1827-30; 1834-35; 1841-46) was a consum- mate orator, but he had no training in equity and shone principally in politics. Brougham's chancellorship (1830-34) was only an incident in his varied career. As a statesman he has left an abiding mark on the English legal system. For nearly fifty years he struggled with indefatigable industry and extraordinary ability in the cause of reform. The vast scheme of law reform which he laid before parliament in 1828 bore ample fruit in after times. The overthrow of the cum- brous and antiquated machinery of fines and recoveries, the abolition of the Court of Delegates and the substitution for it of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, the insti- tution of the Central Criminal Court and the Bankruptcy Act, are a few of his herculean labors. Although he always
- Lord Eldon's leading cases are: Ellison v. Ellison, 6 Ves. 656
Mackreth v. Symmons, 15-329; Murray v. Elibank, 10-84; Aldrich v Cooper, 8-382; Brece v. Stokes, 11-319; Howe v. Dartinouth, 7-137; Huguenen v. Baseley, 14-273; Ex parte Pye, 18-140; Seton v. Slade, 7-265; Agar v. Fairfax, 17-533; Murray's Benbow, 4 St. N. 1410: Lucena v. Crawford, 2 Bos. & P. (N. R.) 317; Duffreld v. Elwes, 1 Bligh (Ns.) 499; Jeeson v. Wright, 2 Bligh, 54; Evans v. Bicknell, 6 Ves. 174; Booth v. Blundell, 19 Ves. 494; Callow v. Walker, 7-1; Southey v. Sherwood, 2 Meriv, 435; Wykham v. Parker, 19 Ves. 21; Gee V. Pritchard, 2 Swanst. 414; Davis v. Duke of Marlborough, 2 Swanst. 162; Atty. Gen. v. Forstes, 10 Ves. 342; Landsdowne v. Lans- downe, 2 Bligh, 86; Gordon v. Majoribanks, 6 Dow, 111.
