caustic humor. "As the rule is well estab lished by decisions," he ironically remarks in Emmens v. Elderton, 4 H. L. Cas. 624, "it is not necessary to give any reasons in its support, or to say anything to show it to be a good and useful one." His subtle mind was balanced by good sense and entire free dom from technicality.1 But his mental gifts were smothered in indolence, and he is chiefly remembered for his cynical humor. It was he who, while reading a novel in bed by candle light, set fire to his chambers and burned down a large section of the Temple. Cresswell (1842-58) and E. V. Williams (1846-65) were the strong judges in this court during the latter part of the period. Cresswell was an accomplished lawyer who afterwards added to his reputation in the probate and matrimonial court. He was, essentially a broad-minded judge. Williams, the second generation in a line of great lawyers of that name, was pro foundly learned in the common law, and his concise and accurate if somewhat technical opinions have always been respected. He was somewhat labored in expression, but had great influence with his associates during his twenty-two years' service.2 The Court of Exchequer came into great prominence during this period. The first two chief barons, Lyndhurst (1831-34) and Abinger (1834-44), failed to sustain on the bench the great reputations they had made at the bar. Both were men of great gifts, but their success as advocates was due rather 1 R. i'. Burton, i Dears. C. C. 282; Borrodaile v. Hunter, 5 M. & G. 639; M'Naghten's case, ю Cl. & F. 199; Shore v. Wilson, 9 Cl. & F. 353. "Earl of Shrewsbury v. Scott. 6 C. B. (N. S.) i; Behn v. Burness, i B. & S. 877; Ex parte Swan. 7 C. B. (N. S.) 400; Johnson v. Stear, 15 C. B. (N. S.) 30; Spence v. Spence, 31 L. J., C. P. 189; Hall v. Wright, E.. B. & E. i; Cooper v. Slade, 6 E. & B. 447; Anderson v. Radcliffe, 29 L. J., Q. B. 128; Bamford v. Turnley, 31 do. 286; Penhallow v. Mersey Docks Co., 30 L. J., Ex. 329; Shore v. Wilson, 9 Cl. & F. 353; Wright v. Tatham, 5 do. 670; Roddam v. Morley, l De G. & J. i: Hounsell •j. Smith. 7 C. B. (N. S.) 731.
| to their knowledge of men than to any mas tery of legal principles. Pollock (1844-56), on the other hand, who succeeded them in the middle of this period, brought to the bench the industry and gen eral ability which had characterized his distinguished forensic career. He came from an hereditary race of lawyers, and combined brilliant scholarship with uncommon indus try. There have been many more learned but few more useful judges. His high-toned personality is reflected in his scholarly and felicitous opinions, which, whether right or wrong in the result, are always interesting.3 Under his administration, with Parke (183455) and Alderson (1834-57) as associates, the exchequer reached its greatest influence. It is undeniable that this reputation was largely made by Parke (1834-55). "Baron Surrebutter." as he was ironically named, was a modern Coke, profoundly learned in the common law and indefatigably industri ous in its administration. He possessed that ability in grasping and fathoming a subject which is the supreme test of judicial power, and his extraordinary memory enabled him to draw at will upon his vast store of learn ing. It must be admitted that he was a man of high character and powerful intellect; no smaller man could have accomplished as much. For more than twenty years he was the ruling power in Westminster Hall. Con sidering the state of the law in his day and his fond adherence to its formalities and pre cedents, one's admiration for his undoubted ability gives way to surprise that he should have acquired such ascendency over his brethren. Even so great a lawyer as Willes said that "to him the law was under greater obligations than to any judge within legal memory." For more than twenty years he 'Gift v. Schwabe, 17 L. J., C. P. 2; Attorney General v. Sillem, 33 L. J., Ex. 92; Hall v. Wright, 29 L. J., Q. B. 43; Egerton v. Brownlow, 4 H. L. Cas. i; Gibson r. Small. 4 do. 352; Jeffreys v. Boosey, 4 do. 842; Wood v. Wand, 3 Ex. 774; Molton r. Caurraux, 4 do. 17; Bellamy v. Major, 7 do. 389; Hudson v. Roberts, 6 do. 697; R. v. Abbott, i Dears. С. С. 273.
