Talk:Exchequer of Pleas

message: 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)
thread_title: bARONS

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  new low 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Chancellor of the Exchequer 

message: 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)
thread_title: Scope