In the very first judgment ever rendered by him, he gave utterance to sentiments which, to put the matter mildly, were very much out of place. The case was one brought by George Rolph, of Dundas, against T. G. Simons and others, for a gross outrage which had been perpetrated on the plaintiff, who was a brother of the Attorney-General's great political rival. The outrage had arisen out of private complications, and no political question arose in the course of the trial. In concluding his judgment Mr. Willis took occasion to remark that he had formed his opinion of the case on its intrinsic merits, unbiased by any political considerations. He added that he was totally devoid of party feelings, and that it would ever be his most earnest desire to render to every one impartial justice. It goes without saying that these are very proper sentiments on the part of an occupant of the judicial bench. Such principles were especially required in Upper Canada, where there had long been much judicial partiality and frequent miscarriages of justice by reason of political differences. But a judge should at least assume that his integrity is taken for granted, and should deem it beneath his dignity to attempt any vindication of his rectitude while an occupant of the bench. Moreover, there were no circumstances to call forth such expressions as were used by Judge Willis. No hint of any partiality had ever been heard against him. There had been no opportunity for any display of partiality by him, for he then took his seat on the bench for the first time. Saith the proverb: "He who makes unnecessary excuses accuses himself." In this case the Judge certainly indulged in wholly unnecessary self-vindication. And there were reasons why any such vindication by him was especially indelicate. The Radical newspapers had heralded his arrival as the dawn of a new era, when judicial corruption would cease in the land. It is pretty evident that he had been flattered by the eulogy, and that he now went out of his way to administer a covert reproof to his colleagues on the bench. His remarks were undoubtedly taken in that sense, and tacitly resented by them. It may have been that they were all the more ready to take the remarks as applying to themselves from their consciousness of past shortcomings; but it was not from a brother on the bench--one, too, who had been only a few weeks in the country--that they should have been subjected to reproof.