Page:Select Essays in Anglo-American Legal History, Volume 1.djvu/751

 so. VEEDER: A CENTURY OF JUDICATURE 737 upheld the cause of hberty and humanity, his character carried httle moral force. As chancellor he worked with extraordinary energy, and expedited the work of the court in marked contrast with Eldon. But he had been trained in the common law, and was little fitted either by learning or by temperament for the judicial duties of the office. " If he had known a little law," said the caustic St. Leonards, " he would have known a little of everything.^ Waring v. War- ing, 6 Moo. P. C. 341, is a characteristic specimen of his judicial style. Cottenham (1836-41 ; 1846-50) brought to the discharge of his duties a complete mastery of the existing principles and practice of the court of chancery, which he regarded as the perfection of human wisdom. Outside this sphere his learning was limited ; and his mind was vigorous and sound rather than broad and subtle. He was an able and pains- taking, if somewhat cautious, judge.^ His successor, Truro (1850-52), a learned but plodding lawyer, left the Court of Common Pleas, where he was serving with credit, to assume the chancellorship, for which he had no particular qualifica- tions. He sacrificed his life in attempting to cope with the work. Lord St. Leonards (1852), who next held the seals for a brief period, within his limits realized as nearly as possible the ideal of an infallible oracle of the law. In com- plete contrast to Brougham, who knew a little of everything, St. Leonards knew a great deal of one thing and little besides. In comprehensive and accurate knowledge of the » Ferguson v. Kinnoul, 9 CI. & F. 250; Stokes v. Herron, 12 do. 163; Birtwhistle v. Vardell, 2 do. 581 ; 7 do. 895 ; Cookson v. Cookson, 12 do. 121; O'Connell's case, 11 do. 155; R. v. Millis, 10 do. 534; Atwood v. Small, 6 do. 232; Wright v. Tatham, 5 do. 670; Purves v. Landell, 12 CI. & F. 97; Egerton v. Brownlow, 4 H. L. Cas. 1; Greenough v. Gas- kell, 1 Myln. & K.; McCarthy v. De Caix, 2 Russ. & Mylne; Cooper V. Bockett, 4 Notes of Cases, 685. TuUett V. Armstrong; Scarborough v. Borman, 4 Myln & Cr. 120 Cookson V. Cookson, 12 CI. & F. 121; Atwood v. Small, 6 do. 232 Shore v. Wilson, 9 do. 353; R. v. Millis, 10 do. 534; Stokes v. Heron, 12 do. 163; Dunlop v. Higgins, 1 H. L. Cas. 351; Wilson v. Wilson, 1 do. 538; Faun v. Malcomson, 1 do. 637; Thynne r. Earl of Glengall, 3 do. 131 ; Duke of Brunswick v. King of Hanover, 2 do. 1 ; Foley v. Hill, 2 do. 28; Piers v. Piers, 2 do. 331; Charlton's case, 2 Myln & Cr. S16: Pym v. Locker, 5 do. 29.
 * Auchterarder case, 6 CI. & F. 46; O'Connell's case, II do. 155