828 V. BENCH AND BAR tervals by the successive acts which, from 1847 onward, under the guidance of Cranworth, Westbury and Cairns, had eradicated most of the perversities of ancient procedure. But the most radical and comprehensive legal reform of the century was accomplished by Selborne in the passage of the Judicature Acts.^ When Blackburn (1876-87) was appointed one of the first lords of appeal in ordinary under the Judicature Act it afforded satisfactory evidence to the profession that a new era in the court of final appeal had in reality begun. Black- burn had given abundant evidence of his complete mastery of the common law, and he soon showed that his grasp of Scotch and colonial and ecclesiastical law was no less strong. In chancery appeals he did not hesitate to express inde- pendent views, but he was naturally overshadowed by the authority of Cairns and Selborne. In common law appeals his pre-eminence was undisputed. It was not until the last year or two of Blackburn's service that Watson began to take a prominent part in English appeals, and the sturdy Bramwell did not become a member of the court until 188.^. Lord Watson (1880-99), the ablest judge contributed by
- Some of Selborne's more important opinions are: Maddison v.
Alderson, 8 App. Cas. 467 (statute of frauds) ; Debenham r. Mellon, 6 App. Cas. 24 (wife's necessaries) ; Dalton v. Angus, 6 App. Cas. 740 (easements; Sewell v. Burdick, 10 App. Cas. 74 (bill of lading); Pearks v. Moseley, 5 App. Cas. 714 (bequest) ; Lyell v. Kennedy, 14 App, Cas. 448 (real property) ; Sturla v. Freccia, 5 App. Cas. 623 (evidence) ; Speight V. Gaunt, 9 App. Cas. 1 (trust) ; Bank of England v. Vagliano, (1891) A. C. 107; Duncan v. Wales Bank, 6 App. Cas. 8 (bill of ex- change) ; Harvey v. Farnie, 8 App. Cas. 43 (Scotch divorce) ; Mackon- ochie V. Penzance, 6 App. Cas. 424 (ecclesiastical law) ; Whyte v. Pollock, 7 App. Cas. 400 (will) ; Mayor of London v. London Bank, 6 App. Cas. 393 (attachment) ; Mersey Steel Co. v. Naylor, 9 App. Cas. 434 (con- tracts) ; London, etc., Ry. v. Truman, 11 App. Cas. 45; Drummond v. Van Ingen, 12 App. Cas. 284; Ewing v. Orr-Ewing, 10 App. Cas. 499; Minors v. Battison, 1 App. Cas. 428; Sarf v. Jardine, 7 App. Cas. 345; Singer Mfg. Co. v. Loog, 8 App. Cas. 15; Kendal v. Hamilton, 4 App. Cas. 504; Brogden v. Met. Ry., 2 App. Cas. 666; Capital and Counties Bank v. Henty, 7 App. Cas. 741 ; Erlanger «. Phosphate Co., 3 App. Cas. 1218; Dublin Ry. Co. v. Slattery, 3 App. Cas. 1155; Lyon v. Fishmonger's Co., 1 App. Cas. 662; Clyde Navigation Co. v. Barclay, 1 App. Cas. 790 Bradlaugh v. Clarke, 8 App. Cas. 345; Foakes v. Beer, 9 App. Cas. 605 Earl of Aylesford v. Morris, 8 Ch. App. 484; Ex. parte Watkins, 8 Ch 520; Cooper v. McDonald, 16 Eq. 258; Ayerst r Jenkins, 16 Eq. 275 Freke v. Lord Carbery, 16 Eq. 461; Noble v. Willock, 8 Ch. App. 778 Cooper V. Macdonald, 16 Eq. 258.
