1 cannot agree that the doctrines of this court are to be changed with every succeed ing 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 chancel lors has been practically confined to tracing out these principles in detail and rationaliz ing them by repeated review and definition.1 The inferior chancery tribunals were the Rolls Court and the Vice-Chancellor's Court. The judicial standing of the Rolls Court was established by Sir Wm. Grant (1801-18). Kenyon, the most prominent prior incumbent of the office, discharged the duties of the office with his customary abil ity and expedition, but he was not really in sympathy with the equitable jurisdiction and habitually decided his cases on the narrow est grounds, avoiding the enunciation of gen eral principles. Sir Wm. Grant dignified the office by his high character and eminent abilities. He was unquestionably the most eminent judge who sat in this court until the time of Jessel. Calm, deliberate, patient in hearing, and clear, luminous, subtle and comprehensive in judgment, his powerful intellect made a deep impression upon his contemporaries. This reputation was enhanced by his parlia mentary service, which was even more dis-
tinguished than his service as a judge. His opinions, which are comparatively few in number, are mostly brief but comprehensive statements of his conclusion, giving but slight indication of that masculine reason ing which was the principal feature of his parliamentary oratory. Agar v. Fairfax, 17 Ves. 533, is a good example. The office was at this time a modest one. The master of the rolls simply supplied the place of the chancellor when the latter's political duties required his presence else where. On other occasions, when requested by the chancellor, he sat with the chancel lor to give advice and assistance in cases argued before both. In order that he might assist the chancellor when present and sup ply his place during occasional absence, it was arranged that during the sitting of the chancellor the separate business of the mas ter of the- rolls should be transacted in the evening; and accordingly during the greater part of the judicial year the sittings of the master of the rolls in his own court were held in the evening. To prevent over-bur dening either the master himself or the chan cery counsel these evening sittings were neither long nor frequent. The office at its best under Grant was not to be compared with its position in later times when the master ceased to sit as adviser to the chancellor, and was invested with a separate and, in some respects, inde pendent judicial authority in his own court. This system continued with but little change during the short terms of Grant's immediate successors. Plumer (1818-24), 1 Lord Eldon's leading cases are : Ellison v. Ellison, 6 Ves. 656; Mackreth v. Symmons, 15-329; Murray v. Gifford (1824-26), Copley (1826-27) and The office probably Elibank, 10-84; Aldrich v. Cooper, 8-382; Brece v. Leach (1827-34). Stokes, 11-319; Howe г/. Dartmouth, 7-1 37; Iluguenen reached its lowest point under Leach, who v. HasL'ley, 14-273; Exparte Pye, 18-140; Selon v. Slade, 7-265; Agar v. Fairfax. 17-553; Murray's Benbow, 4 St. was fitted neither by learning nor by tem N. 1410; Lucena v. Crawford, 2 Bos. & P. (N. R.) 317; perament for judicial office. Duffreld v. Elwes, I Bligh ( Ns.) 499; Jeeson 11. Wright, The unbearable arrears in chancery dur 2 Bligh, 54; Evans v. Bicknell, 6 Ves. 174; Booth v. ing Lord Eldon's administration finally led Blundell, 19 Ves. 494; Callow v. Walker, 7-1; Southey v. Sherwood, 2 Merin, 435; Wykham v. Parker, 19 Ves. to the appointment of a vice-chancellor in 21; Gee v. Pritchard, 2 Swanst. 414; Davis v. Duke of 1813. But as constituted the new court Marlborough, 2 Swanst. 162; Atty. Gen. v. Forstes, ю failed for many years to give satisfaction. Ves. 342; I.ansdoKkie v. Lansdowne, 2 Bligh, 86; Gor The first incumbent, Plumer (1813-18) was don v. Majoribanks, 6 Dow, in.
