786 V. BENCH AND BAR (6) Chancery Courts The courts of equity responded slowly to the spirit of re- form. A new and better period in chancery may be said to have begun with the accession of Lord Westbury to the woolsack in 1861- During the succeeding fifteen years the Chancery was presided over by Westbury, Cairns, Hather- ley and Selborne. Of these judges, Westbury, Cairns and Selborne rank among the most distinguished names known to English law. Lord Westbury once said of a distinguished contempo- rary that " the monotony of his character was unrelieved by a single fault." From such a characterization Westbury himself was surely exempt. With professional capacity of the highest order he combined peculiarities of mind and faults of character which marred much of his work. His eminence as a lawyer was unquestioned by his bitterest ene- mies. Baron Parke considered him the greatest advocate at the bar ; Sir George Jessel described him as a man of genius who had taken to the law. Gladstone, who had frequent oc- casion to learn the temper of Westbury's mind, said of him: " It was subtlety of thought, accompanied with the power of expressing the most subtle shades of thought in clear, forci- ble, and luminous language, which always struck me most among the gifts of Lord Westbury. In this extraordinary power he seemed to have but one rival among all the men, A. C. 74 (bill of lading) ; Britton v. Gt. Western Cotton Co., 7 Ex. 130 (master and servant) ; Duke of Buccleuch v. Board of Works, 3 Ex. 306; Reg. v. Castro, 5 Q. B. D. 507 (criminal procedure); Drew*. Nunn, 4, Q. B. D. 668 (agency) ; Ryder v. Wombell, 3 Ex. 218 (infants' necessaries). Some of his more characteristic opinions as to method and tendencies are: Abrath v. Northeastern Ry., 11 A. C 247 (malicious prosecution) ; Great Western Ry. v. Bunch, 13 A. C. 31 (negligence) ; Membery v. Gt. Western Ry., 14 A. C. 179;^ Sullivan v. Metcalfe, 5 C. P. D. 469 (com- pany); Salt, V. Marquis of Northampton, (1892) A. C. 18 (mortgage); Bamford v. Turnley, 3 B. and S. 62 (nuisance) ; Bridges v. No. London Ry. (negligence); Twycross v. Grant, 2 C. P. D. 469 (company). His dissents are always vigorous and original. See the following: Bank of England v. Vagiiano, (1891) A. C. 107 Smith v. Baker, (1891) A. C. S25; Household Fire Ins. Co. v. Grant, 4 Ex. D. 216 (contract); Riche V. Ashbury Co., 9 Ex. 224 (company) ; Jackson v. Met. Ry., 9 C. P. D. 125 (negligence) ; Johnson v. Roylton, 7 Q. B. D. 438 (sales) ; Gray V. Fowler, 8 Ex. 249 (vendor and purchaser).
