date

Jan y 1806 Facienda IV. Inquirenda
Jan y 1806

Facienda

IV. Inquirenda

Fees

My Lord on this head I observe a sort of contradiction which I am inclined to think will not be found altogether undeserving of your Lordship's notice.

In the Report concerning the High Court of Session in Scotland (30 th Report of Committee in Finance Appendix A.1) dated at Edinburgh 10 th April 1798 signed "by order of the Court John Pringle one of the Principal Clerks of Session, I find a round assertion in the following words "Neither the President nor the other Judges have any Enducements, Perquisites or Benefits whatsoever, excepting their Salaries".

In M r Russel's practice of the Court of Session 2 d edit. A o 1768 I find other words

In the book of practice attributed to M r Larne[?] edit. A o 17 I find the same proposition in the same words │ │

In the Appendix to the last mentioned book entitled A Table of Fees payable to the Clerks and Officers of the Court of Session I find in p. 382, 383 a list of "Fees payable to the Clerks of the Ordinary Lords". It /This list/ is taken from an Act of Sederunt dated the 1 st of August 1789. On turning to this Act of Sederunt I observe an Introduction in which after stating that a memorial had been presented praying augmentation of these fees for certain reasons neither memorial nor reasons given, the Lords enact and ordain that "the fees of the Clerks of the Ordinary Lords shall be paid agreable to the following Table. Then comes a list of 11 occasions in which fees are declared to be payable to these Clerks: in 7 of the instances the fee is 3': in one, 5' in two 6': in one 10'.6
Similar Items
  • Title: [2 Jan y 1806 Facienda IV. Inquirenda]
    Description: 2 Jan y 1806

    Facienda

    IV. Inquirenda

    Fees

    Net[?] the[?] return of these fees which [...?] in benefit

    In regard to those Officers stiled private Clerks of the respective Judges in their capacity of Ordinary Lords to the question by whom are they appointed I find not any where any express answer: viz: neither in any of the Returns made to the Committee on Finance, nor in any of the Books of practice. Your Lordship I am inclined to think will not regard in any such express statement as necessary to inform us in whose hands the appointment actually is vested │ │ the indication given by the word " private" seems sufficiently conclusive /to leave little if any doubt │ │ is not that the known destination attached /annexed/ to the word private when applied to a Clerk a Secretary to any person in high office?

    Taking for granted that these private Clerks are appointed by their respective masters, I should be curious to hear it explained, by order of their whole Lordships, how it is that the constituting of an officer by whom all those fees in all the great variety and infinite repetition of occasions are to be received, constitutes no benefit to any /one/ of these honourable masters? whether on the appointment of any such Clerk it is out of the power of any one of these honourable masters to make any terms with him, to raise for example to a higher destination any portion of these /such/ his fees: whether on the supposition that no such fee ever rests in /passes on into/ any other pocket than that of the Clerk by whom it was received, whether in this case the power of appointing a Son, a Brother or a Nephew to receive without deduction all this mass of fees be incapable of being refused with propriety to the Chapter of " benefits".
  • Title: [12 Jan y 1807 Facienda IV.]
    Description: 12 Jan y 1807

    Facienda

    IV. Inquirenda

    Fees &c.

    Thus much for England: - let us see now what obedience was paid to the authority of the Inquisitorial branch of the Legislature on the farther side of the Tweed.

    In reply to the question concerning Judges fees, the Clerk to the Court of Session, by order of their whole Lordships returns Nulla bona - No benefits have we or any of us in that shape.

    My Lord the fact is and was /was and is/ false: the falsity of it is notorious: it stands recorded in their Acts of Sederunt /it was known to every body and printed/. It is copied into their books of practice.

    Why say thus, and thus in the teeth of truth - that they /they the Judges/ derived no benefit from fees? Was the question asked of them? No. But it was matter of notoriety, and matter of universal scandal and complaint - even among those who shared in the profit of it - that in that Court - in the Technical Courts into which it decomposes[?] itself in the first instance - denial of justice knows no bounds: and having it to say - at least I hope they had it to say without any direct lie without any such violation of the laws of sincerity as could directly and properly in strict propriety of speech come under the denomination of a lie that whatsoever might be the magnitude of the abuse, they in their own person did not derive any benefit from it, so they /it was/ said accordingly.
  • Title: [28[?] July 1806 │ │ Old Scotch Reform]
    Description: 28[?] July 1806 │ │ Old

    Scotch Reform - Lett to L d Grenville

    Facienda

    Lett │ │ Facienda

    p-

    1. Salaries instead of fees. │ │ I shall not trouble your Lordship in this place with the reasons /For the Reasons, I beg leave in this [...?] to refer your Lordship ot the Appendix/. In the mode of /for/ payment by fees In the practice of receiving fees your Lordship if I am not much mistaken will there find the chief if not the only cause of all the evils by which the demand has been created for the now proposed remedy.

    Not that the abolition of fees will /be of/ itself be sufficient for the care: but only that whatever other remedies the cure may be demand[?], this is one that can not be dispensed with.