date

PRIVATE Letter V The view
PRIVATE

Letter V

The view thus given of the profit made by the whole firm would be but partial if some idea, {howsoever incompleat,} were not given of the particular remuneration allowed to the managing partner or partners.

Profits (in [...?...?...?...?]) made by the Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench for a part of his share in the partnership profit upon the /delay/ 543 years of delay made [...?] as above [...?] manufactory in the course of the three years

One year's dividend received by the Chief Justice of the King's Bench for the year 1797, Lord Kenyon being the Chief Justice, upon a part of the partnership profit for that year £1,434:13:6. Multiplied by 3 this gives for three years dividends upon this part of the profit made by sale of the 543 years of factious delay in the 3 years to so many malâ fide suitors in the character of customers ............. £4,304:0:6.

This divided by 543 (the number of the customers) gives or received by the said Chief Justice to his own use from each such customer in part payment upon this one article ......... £7:18:6½.

The mode in which this profit was extracted presents, it should seem, some title to regard. The fees were in every instance payable - not to the Chief Justice, nor to any person for his use, but to a particular Officer under him, entitled Clerk of the Errors. The Clerk being put into his place by the Judge, the Judge takes advantage of this circumstance to squeeze out of him whatever thing that he receives over and above £150 a year, leaving that pittance to him for his own support: the Clerk by whom all the business is done that is done, is allowed to retain for it no more than the £150: the Judge by whom no part of it is done, takes for his share the £1,434:13':6 d. It is thus that in the King's Bench Gospel that labourer is decreed worthy of his hire.

And this is the Judge who among his powers and duties, numbers that of protecting men against oppression on the part of the subordinate authorities.
Similar Items
  • Title: [Scotch Reform & Elucidations to Table XII]
    Description: Scotch Reform & Elucidations to Table XII

    (e) (argued 12: not argued 1247) By this report just quoted (pp.27. and 161) the profit made in one year by the Chief Justice of the King's Bench from the corresponding source was - ,1434. 15.6

    Deduct profit on the 12 bona fide [...?] - 13.16

    Remains [...?] the 1247 mala fide [...?] ,1420. 17.6

    If ,732[?] a year be efficient to tranquillize a learned and reverend mind under the imputation of perpetual error, how much more certainly sufficient will ,1434. 15.6 be?

    The Chief Justice of the King's Bench was not, like the learned Brother of the Common Pleas, himself Clerk under himself to pocket the fruit of his own errors, real or supposed: ,150 a year (an addition to the above) is allowed by him to a Clerk, who with the title bears the sole honour of the office, without being to any greater extent encumbered with the emolument.

    On this occasion, a further article of information not altogether uninteresting, would be - (distinguishing the usual[?] oaths[?]) - 1810 being in 3 years the number in those same years by which the imputation was created? - or, in plain English, this being the number of dishonest [...?] (chiefly dishonest defendants with other mens' money in their hands) by whom the invitation to purchase the delay at the price set upon it was accepted, by how many others was it declined? declined, whether it was that the quantity purchasable was not worth the purchase, or that money for the purchase of it was not to be found.

    /Printer - What follows is over and above the manuscript of the matter [...?] in the Table./

    In the Finance Report abovementioned, the pages in which the matter here in question are contained, are pps. 27, 160, 161, 190, 191, 236, 237, 272, 273. Taken together it presents points of obscurity, which on the occasion here in question, became sources of proportionable distress, to an annotator, to when the consciousness of any material misrepresentation, howsoever unintentional, would be a source of concern and shame.
  • Title: [4 May 1807 7 Feb 1808 on L d Eldons]
    Description: 4 May 1807 7 Feb 1808

    on L d Eldons Bill

    Appeal List defective

    English Review Chambers

    Such being the profit allowed by the manufacturers of factitious delay to the customer, I [...?] now to give an account of the profits made by the manufacturers, the reverend the manufacturers with their junior partners constituting together the great firm of Judge and C o: the profits which constitute the valuable consideration - the quid pro quo - and that reciprocity and mutual good understanding which is so essential to trade.

    Here as before I have to deplore that want of appropriate power, which no labour however hard can supply.

    Here as before I am reduced to take for the subject of my labours the materials furnished by the Committee on Finance so long ago as the year 1798, compounded with the Accounts of Costs as furnished by Mr Palmer.

    1. Costs of one Writ of Error (not argued) (alias a sham Writ of Error brought for the mere purpose of delay) from the Common Pleas to the King's Bench, Pllf's side £28:15.0. Defend ts d o 14.18

    to the King's Bench - - Plaintiff's side £30:1.3

    Defendant's side £25:19.2

    Together £55:0.5

    This, multiplied by 543, being the n o of these unargued Appeals presented in the three years ending 1797, gives for the amount of manufacturers profit for the three years in the Kings Bench manufactory £29,876:6.3

    2. Costs of one d o from King's Bench to Exchequer Chamber

    Plaintiff's side £28:15:0.

    Defendants side 14.18.6.

    Together £43:13.6

    Multiplied by 1247, the n o presented in d o 3 years, gives the amount of d o profit for d o years in the Exchequer Chamber

    manufactory £54,460:14:6

    Profit in both manufactories for the three years, viz. £84,339:0:9

    Divided by 3. years the average profit for one year £28,113:0:3.
  • Title: [15 Oct r 1807 Lords Delegates]
    Description: 15 Oct r 1807

    Lords Delegates

    After Ch. │ │ Advantages

    Ch. │ │ Hale's Plan

    In the first of these three following /consecutive/ pages he had already given us another per saltum case. Judgment being given the Common law side of the Court of the Chancery, error lies in the King's Bench, and therefore (concludes he) a writ of error lies not in the Lord's House in Parliament for them it would proceed per saltum. Whether it was that the learned Judge did not very well know what he was writing, or whether it was that a temptation presented itself for stealing in the appearance of an argument in favour of the main position, one sees how much broader the consequent conclusion is than the antecedent: therefore a writ of error lies not in that case in the Lords House till after a judgment has been given in the Kings Bench, and then the appeal must be from the judgment in the King's Bench. This is the conclusion that would have been consistent with reason, and with the authority which in this book written for the purpose of contesting it, he is continually proving /shewing/ was for ages after ages exercised without dispute by the House of Lords: this would have been consistent with the more accurate /compleat and thence more correct/ statement given by them as abovementioned, in the next page but one.

    To have done with per saltum - In /To/ the eye of an English learned Judge - of a fee-gathering Judge - of the Chief Justice of the King's Bench - though that justice were a Lord Hale, we have /it has been/ some how impossible it is that any such dancing should have been agreable. To the eye of the legislator how would it have shewn? - if a legislator placing before him the welfare of the community, to the ends of justice the prompt and undeviating fulfilment of the declared will of the legislator? So far from condemning this step, he would have allowed no other. The ultimately appellate judicatory that that branch of the legislature which the whole body, not having time for judicature, has rendered the depository of its will, let this alternately[?] appellate (he would say) be the only appellate judicatory: it is thus that conformity to the assumed standard of rectitude the will of supreme powers[?] is most assuredly and constantly provided for: and that with the least delay, vexation and expence.