A Book About Lawyers Part 8

These great fortunes were raised from fees taken in practice at the bar, from judicial salaries or pensions, and from other official gains--such as court dues, perquisites, sinecures, and allowances. Since the Revolution of 1688 these last named irregular or fluctuating sources of judicial income have steadily diminished, and in the present day have come to an end. Eldon's receipts during his tenure of the seals cannot be definitely stated, but more is known about them and his earnings at the bar than he intended the world to discover, when he declared in Parliament "that in no one year, since he had been made Lord Chancellor, had he received the same amount of profit which he enjoyed while at the bar." Whilst he was Attorney General he earned something more than 10,000 a year; and in returns which he himself made to the House of Commons, he admits that in 1810 he received, as Lord Chancellor, a gross income of 22,730, from which sum, after deduction of all expenses, there remained a net income of 17,000 per annum. He was enabled also to enrich the members of his family with presentations to offices, and reversions of places.

Until comparatively recent times, judges were dangerously dependent on the king's favor; for they not only held their offices during the pleasure of the crown, but on dismissal they could not claim a retiring pension. In the seventeenth century, an aged judge, worn out by toil and length of days, was deemed a notable instance of royal generosity, if he obtained a small allowance on relinquis.h.i.+ng his place in court. Chief Justice Hale, on his retirement, was signally favored when Charles II.

graciously promised to continue his salary till the end of his life--which was manifestly near its close. Under the Stuarts, the judges who lost their places for courageous fidelity to law, were wont to resume practice at the bar. To provide against the consequences of ejection from office, great lawyers, before they consented to exchange the gains of advocacy for the uncertain advantages of the woolsack, used to stipulate for special allowance--over and above the ancient emoluments of place. Lord Nottingham had an allowance of 4000 per annum; and Lord Guildford, after a struggle for better times, was constrained, at a cost of mental serenity, to accept the seals, with a special salary of half that sum.[19]

From 1688 down to the present time, the chronicler of changes in the legal profession, has to notice a succession of alterations in the system and scale of judicial payments--all of the innovations having a tendency to raise the dignity of the bench. Under William and Mary, an allowance (still continued), was made to holders of the seal on their appointment, for the cost of outfit and equipages. The amount of this special aid was 2000, but fees reduced it to 1843 13_s._ Mr. Foss observes--"The earliest existing record of this allowance, is dated June 4, 1700, when Sir Nathan Wright was made Lord Keeper, which states it to be the same sum as had been allowed to his predecessor."

At the same period, the salary of a puisne judge was but 1000 a year--a sum that would have been altogether insufficient for his expenses. A considerable part of a puisne's remuneration consisted of fees, perquisites, and presents. Amongst the customary presents to judges at this time, may be mentioned the _white gloves_, which men convicted of manslaughter, presented to the judges when they pleaded the king's pardon; the _sugar loaves_, which the Warden of the Fleet annually sent to the judges of the Common Pleas; and the almanacs yearly distributed amongst the occupants of the bench by the Stationers' Company. From one of these almanacs, in which Judge Rokeby kept his accounts, it appears that in the year 1694, the casual profits of his place amounted to 694, 4_s._ 6_d._ Here is the list of his official incomes, (net) for ten years:--in 1689, 1378, 10_s._; in 1690, 1475, 10_s._ 10_d._; in 1691, 2063, 18_s._ 4_d._; in 1692, 1570, 1_s._ 4_d._; in 1693, 1569, 13_s._ 1_d._; in 1694, 1629, 4_s._ 6_d._; in 1695, 1443, 7_s._ 6_d._; in 1696, 1478, 2_s._ 6_d._; in 1697, 1498, 11_s._ 11_d._; in 1698, 1631, 10_s._ 11_d._ The fluctuation of the amounts in this list, is worthy of observation; as it points to one bad consequence of the system of paying judges by fees, gratuities, and uncertain perquisites. A needy judge, whose income in lucky years was over two thousand pounds, must have been sadly pinched in years when he did not receive fifteen hundred.

Under the heading, "The charges of my coming into my judge's place, and the taxes upon it the first yeare and halfe," Judge Rokeby gives the following particulars:

"1689, May 11. To Mr. Milton, Deputy Clerk of the Crown, as per note, for the patent and swearing privately, 21, 6_s._ 4_d._ May 30. To Mr.

English, charges of the patent at the Secretary of State's Office, as per note, said to be a new fee, 6, 10_s._ Inrolling the patent in Exchequer and Treasury, 2, 3_s._ 4_d._ Ju. 27. Wine given as a judge, as per vintner's note, 23, 19_s._ Ju. 24. Cakes, given as a judge, as per vintner's note, 5, 14_s._ 6_d._ Second-hand judge's robes, with some new lining, 31. Charges for my part of the patent for our salarys, to Aaron Smith, 7, 15_s._, and the dormant warrant 3.--10, 15_s._--101, 8_s._ 2_d._

"Taxes, 420.

"The charges of my being made a serjeant-at-law, and of removing myselfe and family to London, and a new coach and paire of horses, and of my knighthood (all which were within the first halfe year of my coming from York), upon the best calculation I can make of them, were att least 600."

Concerning the expenses attendant on his removal from the Common Pleas to the King's Bench in 1695--a removal which had an injurious result upon his income--the judge records: Nov. 1. To Mr. Partridge, the Crier of King's Bench, claimed by him as a fee due to the 2 criers, 2. Nov.

12. To Mr. Ralph Hall, in full of the Clerk of the Crown's bill for my patent, and swearing at the Lord Keeper's, and pa.s.sing it through the offices, 28, 14_s._ 2_d._ Dec. 6. To Mr. Carpenter, the Vintner, for wine and bottles, 22, 10_s._ 6_d._ To Gwin, the Confectioner, for cakes, 5, 3_s._ 6_d._ To Mr. Mand (his clerk), which he paid att the Treasury, and att the pell for my patent, allowed there, 1, 15_s._ Tot.

60, 2_s._ 8_d._ The charges for wine and cakes were consequences of a custom which required a new judge to send biscuits and macaroons, sack and claret, to his brethren of the bench.

In the reign of George I. the salaries of the common law judges were raised--the pensions of the chiefs being doubled, and the _puisnes_ receiving fifteen hundred instead of a thousand pounds.

Cowper's incomes during his tenure of the seals varied between something over seven and something under nine thousand per annum: but there is some reason to believe that on accepting office, he stipulated for a handsome yearly salary, in case he should be called upon to relinquish the place. Evelyn, not a very reliable authority, but still a chronicler worthy of notice even on questions of fact, says:--"Oct. 1705. Mr.

Cowper made Lord Keeper. Observing how uncertain greate officers are of continuing long in their places, he would not accept it unless 2,000 a yeare were given him in reversion when he was put out, in consideration of his loss of practice. His predecessors, how little time soever they had the seal, usually got 100,000, and made themselves barons." It is doubtful whether this bargain was actually made; but long after Cowper's time, lawyers about to mount the woolsack, insisted on having terms that should compensate them for loss of practice. Lord Macclesfield had a special salary of 4000 per annum, during his occupancy of the marble chair, and obtained a grant of 12,000 from the king;--a tellers.h.i.+p in the Exchequer being also bestowed upon his eldest son. Lord King obtained even better terms--a salary of 6000 per annum from the Post Office, and 1200 from the Hanaper Office; this large income being granted to him in consideration of the injury done to the Chancellor's emoluments by the proceedings against Lord Macclesfield--whereby it was declared illegal for chancellors to sell the subordinate offices in the Court of Chancery. This arrangement--giving the Chancellor an increased salary in _lieu_ of the sums which he could no longer raise by sales of offices--is conclusive testimony that in the opinion of the crown Lord Macclesfield had a right to sell the masters.h.i.+ps. The terms made by Lord Northington, in 1766, on resigning the Seals and becoming President of the Council, ill.u.s.trate this custom. On quitting the marble chair, he obtained an immediate pension of 2000 per annum; and an agreement that the annual payment should be made 4000 per annum, as soon as he retired from the Presidency: he also obtained a reversionary grant for two lives of the lucrative office of Clerk of the Hanaper in Chancery.

In Lord Chancellor King's time, amongst the fees and perquisites which he wished to regulate and reform were the supplies of stationery, provided by the country for the great law-officers. It may be supposed that the sum thus expended on paper, pens, and wax was an insignificant item in the national expenditure; but such was not the case--for the chief of the courts were accustomed to place their personal friends on the free-list for articles of stationery. The Archbishop of Dublin, a dignitary well able to pay for his own writing materials, wrote to Lord King, April 10, 1733: "MY LORD,--Ever since I had the honor of being acquainted with Lord Chancellors, I have lived in England and Ireland upon Chancery paper, pens, and wax. I am not willing to lose an old advantageous custom. If your Lords.h.i.+p hath any to spare me by my servant, you will oblige your very humble servant,

"JOHN DUBLIN."

So long as judges or subordinate officers were paid by casual perquisites and fees, paid directly to them by suitors, a taint of corruption lingered in the practice of our courts. Long after judges ceased to sell injustice, they delayed justice from interested motives, and when questions concerning their perquisites were raised, they would sometimes strain a point, for the sake of their own private advantage.

Even Lord Ellenborough, whose fame is bright amongst the reputations of honorable men, could not always exercise self-control when attempts were made to lessen his customary profits, "I never," writes Lord Campbell, "saw this feeling at all manifest itself in Lord Ellenborough except once, when a question arose whether money paid into court was liable to poundage. I was counsel in the case, and threw him into a furious pa.s.sion, by strenuously resisting the demand; the poundage was to go into his own pocket--being payable to the chief clerk--an office held in trust for him. If he was in any degree influenced by this consideration, I make no doubt that he was wholly unconscious of it."

George III.'s reign witnessed the introduction of changes long required, and frequently demanded in the mode and amounts of judicial payments. In 1779, puisne judges and barons received an additional 400 per annum, and the Chief Baron an increase of 500 a year. Twenty years later, Stat. 39, Geo. III., c. 110, gave the Master of the Rolls, 4000 a year, the Lord Chief Baron 4000 a year, and each of the puisne judges and barons, 3000 per annum. By the same act also, life-pensions of 4000 per annum were secured to retiring holders of the seal, and it was provided that after fifteen years of service, or in case of incurable infirmity, the Chief Justice of the King's Bench could claim, on retirement, 3000 per annum, the Master of the Rolls, Chief of Common Pleas, and Chief Baron 2500 per annum, and each minor judge of those courts or Baron of the coif, 2000 a year. In 1809, (49 Geo. III., c.

127) the Lord Chief Baron's annual salary was raised to 5000; whilst a yearly stipend of 4000 was a.s.signed to each puisne judge or baron. By 53 Geo. III., c. 153, the Chiefs and Master of the Rolls, received on retirement an additional yearly 800, and the puisnes an additional yearly 600. A still more important reform of George III.'s reign was the creation of the first Vice Chancellor in March, 1813. Rank was a.s.signed to the new functionary next after the Master of the Rolls, and his salary was fixed at 5000 per annum.

Until the reign of George IV. judges continued to take fees and perquisites; but by 6 Geo. IV. c. 82, 83, 84, it was arranged that the fees should be paid into the Exchequer, and that the undernamed great officers of justice should receive the following salaries and pensions on retirement:--

An. Pension An. Sal. on retirement.

Lord Chief Justice of King's Bench 10,000 4000 Lord Chief Justice of Common Pleas 8000 3750 The Master of the Rolls 7000 3750 The Vice Chancellor of England 6000 3750 The Chief Baron of the Exchequer 7000 3750 Each Puisne Baron or Judge 5500 3500

Moreover by this Act, the second judge of the King's Bench was ent.i.tled, as in the preceding reign, to 40 for giving charge to the grand jury in each term, and p.r.o.nouncing judgment on malefactors.

The changes with regard to judicial salaries under William IV. were comparatively unimportant. By 2 and 3 Will. IV. c. 116, the salaries of puisne judges and barons were reduced to 5000 a year; and by 2 and 3 Will. IV. c. 111, the Chancellor's pension, on retirement, was raised to 5000, the additional 1000 per annum being a.s.signed to him in compensation of loss of patronage occasioned by the abolition of certain offices. These were the most noticeable of William's provisions with regard to the payment of his judges.

The present reign, which has generously given the country two new judges, called Lord Justices, two additional Vice Chancellors, and a swarm of paid justices, in the shape of county court judges and stipendiary magistrates, has exercised economy with regard to judicial salaries. The annual stipends of the two Chief Justices, fixed in 1825 at 10,000 for the Chief of the King's Bench, and 8000 for the Chief of the Common Pleas, have been reduced, in the former case to 8000 per annum, in the latter to 7000 per annum. The Chancellor's salary for his services as Speaker of the House of Lords, has been made part of the 10,000 a.s.signed to his legal office; so that his income is no more than ten thousand a year. The salary of the Master of the Rolls has been reduced from 7000 to 6000 a year; the same stipend, together with a pension on retirement of 3750, being a.s.signed to each of the Lords Justices. The salary of a Vice Chancellor is 5000 per annum; and after fifteen years' service, or in case of incurable sickness, rendering him unable to discharge the functions of his office, he can retire with a pension of 3500.

Thurlow had no pension on retirement; but with much justice Lord Campbell observes: "Although there was no parliamentary retired allowance for ex-Chancellors, they were better off than at present.

Thurlow was a Teller of the Exchequer, and had given sinecures to all his relations, for one of which his nephew now receives a commutation of 9000 a year." Lord Loughborough was the first ex-Chancellor who enjoyed, on retirement, a pension of 4000 per annum, under Stat. 39 Geo. III. c. 110. The next claimant for an ex-Chancellor's pension was Eldon, on his ejection from office in 1806; and the third claimant was Erskine, whom the possession of the pension did not preserve from the humiliation of indigence.

Eldon's obstinate tenacity of office, was attended with one good result.

It saved the nation much money by keeping down the number of ex-Chancellors ent.i.tled to 4000 per annum. The frequency with which Governments have been changed during the last forty years has had a contrary effect, producing such a strong bevy of lawyers--who are pensioners as well as peers--that financial reformers are loudly asking if some scheme cannot be devised for lessening the number of these costly and comparatively useless personages. At the time when this page is written, there are four ex-Chancellors in receipt of pensions--Lords Brougham, St. Leonards, Cranworth, and Westbury; but death has recently diminished the roll of Chancellors by removing Lords Truro and Lyndhurst. Not long since the present writer read a very able, but one-sided article in a liberal newspaper that gave the sum total spent by the country since Lord Eldon's death in ex-Chancellors' pensions; and in simple truth it must be admitted that the bill was a fearful subject for contemplation.

[19] During the Commonwealth, the people, unwilling to pay their judges liberally, decided that a thousand a year was a sufficient income for a Lord Commissioner of the Great Seal.

PART IV.

COSTUME AND TOILET.

CHAPTER XIX.

BRIGHT AND SAD.

From the days of the Conqueror's Chancellor, Baldrick, who is reputed to have invented and christened the sword-belt that bears his name, lawyers have been conspicuous amongst the best dressed men of their times. For many generations clerical discipline restrained the members of the bar from garments of lavish costliness and various colors, unless high rank and personal influence placed them above the fear of censure and punishment; but as soon as the law became a lay-profession, its members--especially those who were still young--eagerly seized the newest fas.h.i.+ons of costume, and expended so much time and money on personal decoration, that the governors of the Inns deemed it expedient to make rules, with a view to check the inordinate love of gay apparel.

By these enactments, foppish modes of dressing the hair was discountenanced or forbidden, not less than the use of gaudy clothes and bright arms. Some of these regulations have a quaint air to readers of this generation; and as indications of manners in past times, they deserve attention.

From Dugdale's 'Origines Juridiciales,' it appears that in the earlier part of Henry VIII.'s reign, the students and barristers of the Inns were allowed great licence in settling for themselves minor points of costume; but before that paternal monarch died, this freedom was lessened. Accepting the statements of a previous chronicler, Dugdale observes of the members of the Middle Temple under Henry--"They have no order for their apparell; but every man may go as him listeth, so that his apparell pretend no lightness or wantonness in the wearer; for, even as his apparell doth shew him to be, even so he shall be esteemed among them." But at the period when this licence was permitted in respect of costume, the general discipline of the Inn was scandalously lax; the very next paragraph of the 'Origines' showing that the templars forbore to shut their gates at night, whereby "their chambers were oftentimes robbed, and many other misdemeanors used."

But measures were taken to rectify the abuses and evil manners of the schools. In the thirty-eighth year of Henry VIII. an order was made "that the gentlemen of this company" (_i.e._, the Inner Temple) "should reform themselves in their cut or disguised apparel, and not to have long beards. And that the Treasurer of this society should confer with the other Treasurers of Court for an uniform reformation." The authorities of Lincoln's Inn had already bestirred themselves to reduce the extravagances of dress and toilet which marked their younger and more frivolous fellow-members. "And for decency in Apparel," writes Dugdale, concerning Lincoln's Inn, "at a council held on the day of the Nativity of St. John the Baptist, 23 Hen. VIII. it was ordered that for a continual rule, to be thenceforth kept in this house, no gentleman, being a fellow of this house, should wear any cut or pansid hose, or bryches; or pansid doublet, upon pain of putting out of the house."

Ten years later the authorities of Lincoln's Inn (33 Hen. VIII.) ordered that no member of the society "being in commons, or at his repast, should wear a beard; and whoso did, to pay double commons or repasts in this house during such time as he should have any beard."

By an order of 5 Maii, 1 and 2 Philip and Mary, the gentlemen of the Inner Temple were forbidden to wear long beards, no member of the society being permitted to wear a beard of more than three weeks'

growth. Every breach of this law was punished by the heavy fine of twenty s.h.i.+llings. In 4 and 5 of Philip and Mary it was ordered that no member of the Middle Temple "should thenceforth wear any great bryches in their hoses, made after the Dutch, Spanish, or Almon fas.h.i.+on; or lawnde upon their capps; or cut doublets, upon pain of iiis iiiid forfaiture for the first default, and the second time to be expelled the house." At Lincoln's Inn, "in 1 and 2 Philip and Mary, one Mr Wyde, of this house, was (by special order made upon Ascension day) fined at five groats, for going in his study gown in Cheapside, on a Sunday, about ten o'clock before noon; and in Westminister Hall, in the Term time, in the forenoon." Mr. Wyde's offence was one of remissness rather than of excessive care for his personal appearance. With regard to beards in the same reign Lincoln's Inn exacted that such members "as had beards should pay 12_d._ for every meal they continued them; and every man" was required "to be shaven upon pain of putting out of commons."

The orders made under Elizabeth with regard to the same or similar matters are even more humorous and diverse. At the Inner Temple "it was ordered in 36 Elizabeth (16 Junii), that if any fellow in commons, or lying in the Louse, did wear either hat or cloak in the Temple Church, hall, b.u.t.try, kitchen, or at the b.u.t.try-barr, dresser, or in the garden, he should forfeit for every such offence vis viiid. And in 42 Eliz. (8 Febr.) that they go not in cloaks, hatts, bootes, and spurs into the city, but when they ride out of the town." This order was most displeasing to the young men of the legal academies, who were given to swaggering amongst the brave gallants of city ordinaries, and delighted in showing their rich attire at Paul's. The Templar of the Inner Temple who ventured to wear arms (except his dagger) in hall committed a grave offence, and was fined five pounds. "No fellow of this house should come into the hall" it was enacted at the Inner Temple, 38 Eliz. (20 Dec.) "with any weapons, except his dagger, or his knife, upon pain of forfeiting the sum of five pounds." In old time the lawyers often quarrelled and drew swords in hall; and the object of this regulation doubtless was to diminish the number of scandalous affrays. The Middle Temple, in 26 Eliz., made six prohibitory rules with regard to apparel, enacting, "1. That no ruff should be worn. 2. Nor any White color in doublets or hoses. 3. Nor any facing of velvet in gownes, but by such as were of the bench. 4. That no gentleman should walk in the streets in their cloaks, but in gownes. 5. That no hat, or long, or curled hair be worn. 6. Nor any gown, but such as were of a sad color." Of similar orders made at Gray's Inn, during Elizabeth's reign, the following edict of 42 Eliz. (Feb. 11) may be taken as a specimen:--"That no gentleman of this society do come into the hall, to any meal, with their hats, boots, or spurs; but with their caps, decently and orderly, according to the ancient order of this house: upon pain, for every offence, to forfeit iiis 4d, and for the third offence expulsion. Likewise, that no gentleman of this society do go into the city, or suburbs, or to walk in the Fields, otherwise than in his gown, according to the ancient usage of the gentlemen of the Inns of Court, upon penalty of iiis iiiid for every offence; and for the third, expulsion and loss of his chamber."

At Lincoln's Inn it was enacted, "in 38 Eliz., that if any Fellow of this House, being a commoner or repaster, should within the precinct of this house wear any cloak, boots and spurs, or long hair, he should pay for every offence five s.h.i.+llings for a fine, and also to be put out of commons." The attempt to put down beards at Lincoln's Inn failed.

Dugdale says, in his notes on that Inn, "And in 1 Eliz. it was further ordered, that no fellow of this house should wear any beard above a fortnight's growth; and that whoso transgresses therein should for the first offence forfeit 3_s._ 4d., to be paid and cast with his commons; and for the second time 6_s_ 8d., in like manner to be paid and cast with his commons; and the third time to be banished the house. But the fas.h.i.+on at that time of wearing beards grew then so predominant, as that the very next year following, at a council held at this house, upon the 27th of November, it was agreed and ordered, that all orders before that time touching beards should be void and repealed." In the same year in which the authorities of Lincoln's Inn forbade the wearing of beards, they ordered that no fellow of their society "should wear any sword or buckler; or cause any to be born after him into the town." This was the first of the seven orders made in 1 Eliz. for _all_ the Inns of Court; of which orders the sixth runs thus:--"That none should wear any velvet upper cap, neither in the house nor city. And that none after the first day of January then ensuing, should wear any furs, nor any manner of silk in their apparel, otherwise than he could justifie by the stature of apparel, made _an._ 24 H. 8, under the penalty aforesaid." In the eighth year of the following reign it was ordained at Lincoln's Inn "that no rapier should be worn in this house by any of the society."

Other orders made in the reign of James I., and similar enactments pa.s.sed by the Inns in still more recent periods, can be readily found on reference to Dugdale and later writers upon the usages of lawyers.

On such matters, however, fas.h.i.+on is all-powerful; and however grandly the benchers of an Inn might talk in their council-chamber, they could not prevail on their youngsters to eschew beards when beards were the mode, or to crop the hair of their heads when long tresses were worn by gallants at court. Even in the time of Elizabeth--when authority was most anxious that utter-barristers should in matters of costume maintain that reputation for 'sadness' which is the proverbial characteristic of apprentices of the law--counsellors of various degrees were conspicuous throughout the town for brave attire. If we had no other evidence bearing on the point, knowledge of human nature would make us certain that the bar imitated Lord Chancellor Hatton's costume. At Gray's Inn, Francis Bacon was not singular in loving rich clothes, and running into debt for satin and velvet, jewels and brocade, lace and feathers. Even of that contemner of frivolous men and vain pursuits, Edward c.o.ke, biography a.s.sures us, "The jewel of his mind was put into a fair case, a beautiful body with comely countenance; a case which he did wipe and keep clean, delighting in good clothes, well worn; being wont to say that the outward neatness of our bodies might be a monitor of purity to our souls."

The courts of James I. and his son drew some of their most splendid fops from the mult.i.tude of young men who were enjoined by the elders of their profession to adhere to a costume that was a compromise between the garb of an Oxford scholar and the guise of a London 'prentice. The same was the case with Charles II.'s London. Students and barristers outshone the brightest idlers at Whitehall, whilst within the walls of their Inns benchers still made a faint show of enforcing old restrictions upon costume. At a time when every Templar in society wore hair--either natural or artificial--long and elaborately dressed, Sir William Dugdale wrote, "To the office of the chief butler" (_i.e._, of the Middle Temple) "it likewise appertaineth to take the names of those that be absent at the said solemn revells, and to present them to the bench, as also inform the bench of such as wear hats, bootes, _long hair_, or the like (for the which he is commonly out of the young gentlemen's favor)."

CHAPTER XX.