738 V. BENCH AND BAR law of real property he stood for forty years without a rival. His judgments were always delivered promptly, with- out notes, and were seldom reversed. Yet it must be admitted that, from the technical character of the subject and his apparent lack of general culture, they are dry reading.^ St. Leonards was more competent than any of his contempo- raries to reform the law of real property, but he seems to have been quite contented with it as it was. He literally lived in the law during his lifetime and bequeathed to it a leading case upon his death. His will could not be found, and its contents were established by oral evidence. Cran- worth (1852-58), whose professional training had been in chancery, came to the woolsack after his long experience as a baron of the Exchequer. He thus combined a large acquaintance with both systems. He was a man of high character and a sound and acute judge. His extreme caution and timidity, however, limited the influence which his learn- ing and experience would otherwise have exerted.^ Cran- worth was followed by two common law chancellors, Chelms- ford and Campbell. Chelmsford (1858-59; 1866-68) had shared with Sir William Follctt the honors of the bar, and it has been customary to decry his judicial service, on the general theory, apparently, that an eloquent lawyer is not apt to be a profound judge. Undoubtedly he would have taken a higher position on the common law bench ; but a fair examination of his work shows that he was a very respectable judge. Certainly he discharged his duties with assiduity, and his numerous judgments are often instructive in consequence of his habit of reviewing prior authorities.^ Lord Camp-
- Egerton v. Brownlow, 4 H. L. Cas. 203; Maunsell v. White, 4 do.
1037; Jeffreys v. Boosey, 4 do. 842; lyumley v. Wagner, 5 De G. & S. 485; Grey v. Pearson, 6 H. L. Cas. 61; Brook v. Brook, 9 do. 195; Colyer v. Finch, 5 do. 905; Savery v. King, 5 do. 627; Bargate v. Shortridge, 5 do. 297; Jordan v. Money, 5 do. 185. 'Cox V. Hickman, 8 H. L. Cas. 267; Egerton v. Brownlow, 4 do. 1; Jeffreys v. Boosey, 4 do. 842; Oakes v. Turquand, 2 do. 369; Brook V. Brook, 9 do. 195; Ranger v. Great Western Ry. 5 do. 72; Ricket v. Metropolitan Ry. 2 E. & I. App. 174; Rylands v. Fletcher, 3 do. 330; Shaw V. Gould, 3 do. 55; Startup v. Macdonald, 12 L. J., Ex. 477; Clift V. Schwabe, 17 L. J., C. P. 2; Money v. Jorden, 2 De G. M. & G., 318 ; Hills v. Hills, 8 M. & W. 401 ; Jones v. Lock, 1 Ch. App. 25. » Chasemore v. Richards, 7 H. L. Cas. 360; Peek v. Gurney, 6 E. & I. App. 377; Bain v. FothergiU, 7 do. 170; HoUins v. Fowler, 7 do.
