A Century of English Judicature. has seldom been surpassed. It was his habit to extract the ruling principle of prior decisions, and then to trace the development of the branch of law under discussion. (Aylesford v. Morris, 8 Ch. App.484; Noble v. Willock, 8 Ch. App. 778). From his con-
29
reasoning on a matter collateral to the main issue. This undue prominence of matters of minor importance and trains of reasoning running off into collateral matters, explains the absence of proportion which character izes some of his work. But his statements
LORD FIELD.
servative regard for precedent he was es sentially a sound judge. He was inferior to Cairns in terseness, clearness and force be cause he indulged himself in his remarkable gift of subtlety. Beyond certain limits subtlety ceases to be desirable in the expo sition of practical rules of human conduct. While many of his opinions are master pieces of luminous reasoning, he had too often a habit of pursuing a fine train of
of legal propositions are carefully worded with a far seeing regard for the future, and probably from no other judge's decisions could be obtained so few hasty, ill consid ered dicta. Although he was great in council and dextrous in debate, he did not display in political life the marvelous adaptibility which was so conspicuous in Cairns. In some ways he would seem to have been better
