date

Jan y 1807 Facienda IV. Inquirenda
Jan y 1807

Facienda

IV. Inquirenda

Fees &c.

1). Parliament strong enough to compel adequate returns?

In submitting to Your Lordship the propriety and use of these proposed exercises of constitutional authority over subordinate Courts for the purposes of public justice I would at the same time beg of Your Lordship to consider well whether in Your Lordships Honourable House - whether in either or both Houses of Parliament - whether in both Houses with his Majesty at their head there be in effect /in reality/ any such efficient power as is adequate /equal/ to the task of inquiring from the quarter /nominal subordinates/ in question effective and adequate obedience. (whether the 4 th estate comprized of the lawyers)

That the power of the, Commons was not equal to the task is a fact that stands upon record. I mean in the Reports made by the Committee of Finance.

An account of fees being called for (fees received by Judges of different ranks and denominations - L d Kenyon growled and delayed - L d Loughborough growled and stood out longer - the Master of the Rolls of that day - Sir Pepper[?] Arden - since then sank into the grave and from thence into the gulph of oblivion under the title of Lord Alvarley Sir Pepper Arden secure in the support of /safe under the way[?]/ a Minister who knew so well when it was and when it was not safe to stand out - refused to give any account: and no account is given. The Masters in Chancery, as of in division, gave in what shall I say? Not no account at all: but the same sort of account that the fraudulent Bankrupt Perrot was hanged for: They gave in part /a fragment/ of an account: they would have given in the rest but they were in the power of their Clerks - all of them to a man in the [...?] of their Clerks, and their Clerks to a man would give no account - saying they had kept none.
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: [Jan y 1806 Facienda IV. Inquirenda]
    Description: 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
  • Title: [12 Jan y 1807 Facienda IV.]
    Description: 12 Jan y 1807

    Facienda

    IV. Inquirenda

    Fees &c.

    The Bankrupt Perrit had his reasons: the Masters in Chancery /dispensers of Equity/ had theirs. In their mutilated[?] account, the highest mass of real emolument is set down at , │ │ the lowest, at , │ │. Was this the whole? By /From/ those who would not answer lightly, and whose name, were it proper for me to mention it would command your Lordships instant confidence, I am assured /hear a negative/. Meantime what is public is this. By the recent Act a half-pay is secured to those Judges when retiring on super-annuation: and this half-pay is ,1,500.