746 V. BENCH AND BAR 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. WiUiams (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 profoundly learned in the common law, and his concise and accurate if somewhat technical opin- ions have always been respected. He was somewhat labored in expression, but he had great influence with his associates during his twenty-two years' service.^ The Court of Exchequer came into great prominence dur- ing 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 to their knowledge of men than to any mastery of legal principles. Pollock (1844-56), on the other hand, who succeeded them, brought to the bench the industry and gen- eral ability which had characterized his distinguished forensic career. 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.^ Under his ad- ministration, with Parke (1834-55) and Alderson (1834-57) as associates, the Exchequer reached its greatest influence. » Earl of Shrewsbury v. Scott, 6 C. B. (N. S.) 1; Behn v. Burness, 1 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. 1; Cooper v. Slade, 6 E. & B. 447; Anderson v. RadclifPe, 29 L. J., Q. B. 128; Bamford v. Turnley, 31 do. 286; Pen- hallow V. Mersey Docks Co., 30 L. J., Ex. 329; Shore v. Wilson, 9 CI. & F. 353; Wright v. Tatham, 5 do. 670; Roddam v. Morley, 1 De G. & J. 1; Hounsell v. Smith, 7 C. B. (N.S.) 731. » Clift 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. Brown- low, 4 H. L. Cas. 1; Gibson v. Small, 4 do. 352; Jeffreys v. Boosey, 4 do. 842; Wood v. Wand, 3 Ex. 774; Molton v. Caurraux, 4 do. 17; Bellamy v. Major, 7 do. 389; Hudson v. Roberts, 6 do. 697; R. v. Ab- bott, 1 Dears. C. C. 273.
