Talk:Exchequer of Pleas

bARONS

Were the "Barons of the Court of Exchequer" always actual barons in the peerage sense, or did the title accompany the position? This should be made clearer in the article. Walton monarchist89 14:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

They were not lords, and did not sit in the House of Lords (unless also a peer). I think they were known as Mr Baron (Smith). It was just the name for the judicial office they held. Peterkingiron 15:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

new low

What a horrible article! Surely, something as significant as the court of exchequer would deserve a more comprehensive article. [Some one]

It is only a brief article. If you do not like it, please expand it; I have done so by adding something on the equity jurisdiction (which was missing). Since my source is my own experience of using documents not the book cited, I have changed 'references' to 'Further Reading'. Peterkingiron 15:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The link you put in does not work for me -- I get a page saying "you do not have cookies enabled" (I do). Can you fix it? Francis Davey 17:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

You need to alter the settings on your Internet program. Alternatively look at National Archives and search there for 'Rsearch Guides' - Equity proceedings in Exchequer. Peterkingiron 23:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

What about the postman?

What did the "postman" do? (*Getzler, J. S. (2004) "Jervis, Sir John (1802–1856)", Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, [1], accessed 4 July 2007 (subscription required)) Did other courts have this office? etc. Cutler 20:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not know, but it sounds like an advocate - possibly a barrister practising in that court. That is a guess derived from John Jervis being 'offered silk', that is, promotion to a Queens Counsel, a higher grade of barrister. This remains a poor article, and needs expansion to explain far more of the working of the court and who its officials were. The court was one of those amalgamated inot the High Court in 1875, but the resultant Exchequer division was abolished when the chief baron died about five years later, its functions being transferred to the Queens Bench division. It is thus long extinct. Peterkingiron 23:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Exchequer of Pleas/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Malleus Fatuorum 22:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

This is, of course, excellent, and I've only really got one issue, with the accessibility of the lead, although I've made a few other points below as well.

Lead

• "The Exchequer of Pleas or Court of Exchequer was a court of equity and common law in England and Wales. Originally part of the curia regis, the Exchequer of Pleas split from the curia during the 1190s, sitting as an independent, central court." I know the terms like "equity" and "curia regis" are linked, but I'd also like to see just a very brief explanation of what they mean here, to make the article more accessible to a general reader.

Origins

• "It was originally claimed that the Exchequer was based on a similar Norman court". By whom was that claimed?

  "academics" I guess. The source text doesn't provide any detail as to who.

Loss of equity jurisdiction and dissolution

• File:English common law courts before judicature acts (exchequer highlighted).png is too small to see any detail, and really needs to be legible even as a thumbnail. If you ever take this article to FAC (which you should) it will be suggested that you convert the image to an SVG.

  Noted; any pointers to users who could do that?

• "In 1867 a commission was finally created to look into issues with the central courts ...". I'm not sure what "finally" is meant to imply here.

  Removed.

Jurisdiction and relationship with other courts

• "... this was done through the Writ of Quominus, which allowed royal debtors to bring a case against a third party who owed them money if it was that lack of money which prevented them paying the king." The Writ was earlier mentioned in the Increasing work and transformation section, where it would be better explained instead of having to wait. It's also mentioned in the lead, where perhaps a simple explanation might be in order?

  Done.

Officers

• "... only became head of the court after this position decayed during the reign of Henry III". Not sure how positions can "decay".

  Scrapped it is, since that's what happened.

Other Officers

• "The King's Remembrancer also employed a clerk, who was also a secretary, receiving no salary and, as he was not a sworn officer, being completely replaceable by the Remembrancer." This reads like the Remembrancer could replace the clerk, i.e., do the clerk's job, which I'm sure isn't what's intended.

  Fixed; the tenses were pissing me off anyway.

• "In addition to an examiner, each Baron had at least one clerk, who acted as their private secretaries". That just doesn't work. "One" acted "their secretaries"?

  Point, fixed.

• "Is it "puisne barons" or "puisne Barons"? earlier in the Barons section it was the former. I'm a bit suprised as well that "puisne" isn't in italics, as a foreign word, but you're the expert.

  "puisne barons/Barons" was the full title, and none of the sources I've encountered treat it as a foreign word. Then again, most of our legal words are foreign; "assize" and "demesne" come to mind. Ironholds (talk) 19:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Continuing...

Hi Ironholds. Malleus is preoccupied with other matters and has asked me to take over this review. I should have completed a read-through by today and hopefully we can get it to GA within 24 hours. Parrot of Doom 07:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Cool beans. Heh, "other matters", yes :P. Ironholds (talk) 16:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok first impressions are that you've done a good job in making what could have been undecipherable (to a layman) article into something that anyone could learn from. There are areas I'm still not fully understanding of, but then again I don't believe that Wikipedia should be in the business of dumbing-down. Anyone who wants to learn, will, and you've made that easier by linking many unfamiliar terms. Interestingly I wish I could use the Writ of Quominus to force the many people who owe me money to pay up.

• You'll hate me. Are the dates given in the article Julian or Gregorian? Not that it's important now but at FAC (which this article should surely be at) someone might raise it, as the article crosses both calendars. Parrot of Doom 18:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

  Julian; academics tend to adjust to Julian, or note that they're Old Calendar if not doing so. Ironholds (talk) 21:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• "With the Chancery's reputation for slow pace and expense, much of this went to the Exchequer." - much of "slow pace and expense" went to the Exchequer? I think you mean business but at first glance this is how it reads. You might rephrase, or perhaps merge with the preceding sentence?

  Fixed.

• "It was originally claimed that the Exchequer was based on a similar Norman court" - claimed by whom?

  No idea; the academic didn't give a name

• "The word "Exchequer" derives from the chequered cloth laid on a table for the purposes of counting money" - I never knew that. How did the chequered cloth help? Was it just to separate piles of coins?

  I am the king of random legal trivia :P. Essentially yes; the chequer pattern allowed you to divide coins up; shillings would go in one square, pennies in another, and so on.

• "The court's equity side became highly unpopular during the 1830s" - highly popular, deeply unpopular, surely?

  Fixed.

• "Henry Brougham" - might be better to give him a title or position, for those who don't know who is able to speak in Parliament.

  Fixed.

• "As such, it's initial jurisdiction, as defined by the Statute of Rhuddlan, was as a court where only the king could bring cases" - spurious apostrophe.

  Fixed.

• "The Exchequer stood on an equal footing with the other Westminster courts" - first and only mention of Westminster, this could use a little clarification.

  added an explanation

• "At least one Baron sat to hear case, with convention insisting on a maximum of 4 Barons after the rule of Edward IV of England" - the other monarchs aren't given the "of England" bit.

  Fixed.

• "by the 17th century he no longer possessed the keys to the record office" - real keys, or metaphorical?

  Real.

• "Fanshawe v Impey" - is this related to the Fanshawes mentioned later in the article?

  Not as far as I'm aware.

• "Other offices include the sworn clerks" - include or included? Parrot of Doom 18:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

  Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 21:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

One more thing - wrt to File:Exchequer manuscript.jpg, I'm not sure that a description of "unknown, but given that the Exchequer of Pleas was dissolved in 1880 and this work was obviously created far earlier, irrelevant" for the author is acceptable. The image might easily have been a modern creation. Would you be able to email the website, and ask? Parrot of Doom 21:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• The image is a manuscript from the Inner Temple archives, one of "four illuminated manuscripts which are the earliest known depictions of the English courts and court dress. They date from about 1460 and show the four courts at Westminster Hall" according to this Ironholds (talk) 21:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Ok just bung all that into the image description and I'll pass the article. Parrot of Doom 21:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

  Done. Ironholds (talk) 22:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• All done. Well done, and now to FAC :) Parrot of Doom 22:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Chancellor of the Exchequer

The section dealing with officers includes a section headed "Chancellor". The Lord Chancellor was certainly head of the court of Chancery, but I was not aware that he had any involvement with the Exchequer. It seems to me that the section is confusing Chancellor of the Exchequer and Chancellor i.e. Lord Chancellor of England. I have not altered the text, sicne there is a citation and I do not have access to the sources, but would be grateful if this issue could be clarified. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not confusing anything; I wrote the article on the Court of Chancery, so I'm pretty sure I know the Lord Chancellor's role. If you read the section, you will see it is about the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Ironholds (talk) 08:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Scope

My experience of the Exchequer of Pleas is as a user of some of its records, for equity proceedings begun by bill. My impression is that the court was not particualrly active in the early 18th century, when most of its business concerned disputes over tithes, which probably came within its jurisdiction due to the crown's right to First Fruits, but the increasing delays in Exchequer increased its popularity. It is unfortunate that The National Archives have again out-housed the Exchequer bills, so that these are again comparatively inaccessible: the problem is that the means of reference to them (indices) are contemporary lists, which are kept in the stack, not on open shelves. This measn that it is likely to be necessary to make two successive visits to TNA to consult records - one to identify the document needed and the second (at least a week later) to examine it. This makes this significant historical source difficult to use. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)