342 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



[2°<i S. Vlir. Oct. 29. '69. 



cretary. Sir J. Newport declared in parliament 

 on April 29, 1816, that his lordship's fees had 

 amounted to 35,000/. per annum. Lord Bucking- 

 hamshire died on Feb. 5 in that year. From the 

 Dublin Evening Post of Feb. 20, 1817, we learn 

 that 



« Mr. Pollock still continues to fulfil the duties of the 

 office, and the writs which had been authenticated by the 

 signature of ' Buckinghamshire,' are now signed * John 

 Pollock.' " 



The duties of the office were most indolently 

 and inefficiently discharged : " Purchasers can 

 have no security," observes the same authority ; 

 " we have been informed of a judgment of 10,000/. 

 omitted in a certificate." 



" It is one of the most lucrative and unnecessary offices 

 in the country," continues the Post : " all the duty is per- 

 formed bj' the deputy, Mr. Pollock, who derives about 

 5000/. a year. All this is made up of fees on the distri- 

 bution of Justice in a single Court of Law. If this un- 

 necessary office were now extinguished, how much would 

 it cheapen Justice to the Public. What a number of 

 poor suitors would then procure justice, who are now 

 excluded from its benefits by their poverty." 



But the estimate of the Post would seem to 

 have been " under the mark." On Monday, April 

 29, Leslie Foster declared that Mr. Pollock "drew 

 10,000/. out of the profits, and on which he ought 

 to pay the salaries of the other clerks ; but instead of 

 this, he pocketed the whole of the money, leaving 

 them to raise the fees upon the suitors on no other 

 authority than their own assumptions ! " 



The peculation upon which Mr. Pollock had so 

 long fattened soon began to enkindle a wide sen- 

 sation. A commission of inquiry was held, and 

 some startling facts came to light. Mr. Leslie 

 Foster, afterwards Chief Baron Foster, ob- 

 served : 



" To show the progress of abuse he might pursue the 

 history of the place held bj' this Deputy. In 1803, his 

 profits amounted to 3000/. a year. After that time the 

 office was placed under regulations which reduced its 

 emoluments to one-third ; and in consideration of what 

 was called the vested right of the possessor, he received a 

 compensation of 2000/., which, joined to his fees, made 

 up 3000/., his original income. Instead of being worth 

 8000/., at present the office yielded 7000/. a 3'eai', having 

 increased 5000/. since 1803 : 'which, with a compensation 

 of 2000/. for anticipated loss, amounted to the 7000/. men- 

 tioned. AH these abuses spring from the circumstance 

 that the power of taxation is lodged in the hands of 

 officers who were interested in the sums they imposed, or 

 in the abuses they connived at." 



■ At this time, as appears from the Directory, 

 Mr. Pollock not only held the lucrative office of 

 Crown Solicitor, but various sinecures besides. 

 The Cornwallis Papers had not then divulged that 

 all this emolument and peculation was nothing 

 more nor less than the wages earned by the cor- 

 ruptor of Mac Nally and Mac Guicken ! 



It farther appeared that 13,000/. extra had 

 been seized upon and squandered by understrap- 

 pers. The commissioners pursued their inquiries. 



" They unexpectedly discovered," records the Post 

 of Maj' 4, 1817, "an apparently humble Satellite who 

 obtained an income of 1300/. per annum from fees ; and 

 who, without being ambitious of even the celebrit}' which 

 an almanack confers, quietly revolved about the brilliant 

 orb of his Superior, as much unknown to the Public as 

 any of the satellites of Jupiter." 



A more monstrous labyrinth of inveterate 

 abuses had never before been explored. Im- 

 peachment became unavoidable ; and we find the 

 Attorney- General Saurin bringing forward nine 

 distinct charges against Mr. Pollock. One para- 

 graph will suffice for a specimen : — 



" With respect to the taxation of costs, the officer has 

 exercised an arbitrary »nd discretionary power in de- 

 manding fees; and that the fees received have, in 

 some instances, exceeded the amount of the costs them- 

 selves." 



In the Court of Exchequer, July 1, 1817, the 

 Chief Baron O'Grady, afterwards Lord Guilla- 

 more, passed judgment on Mr. Pollock. He thus 

 concluded : — 



" And whatever regret we may feel in respect to an 

 officer many years in office, who has so long acquitted 

 himself to our entire satisfaction, proved b}' his being 

 reinstated when the office lately became vacant by the 

 death of Lord Buckinghamshire, his appointment being 

 had with the full approbation of his Majesty's govern- 

 ment — while we urge these topics of panegyric, we are 

 obliged to declare, from the acts lateh'- for the first time 

 come to our knowledge, that he has abused his duty — 

 abused his discretion — he has done acts without autho- 

 rity — by accepting gratuities he has degraded the Court 



— he has permitted fictitious charges, and has raised the 

 fees of this Court to bring them to the level of higher 

 fees of other Courts, instead of bringing down what 

 was highest to the level of those that were lower — these 

 acts have tended to a perverse and mal-admiuistration of 

 Justice ; and it is, therefore, due to the Public — to the 

 ends of Justice — to the authoritj' and purity of the Court 



— to the maintaining of^e Court's authority over its 

 own officer — and to the entl of the officer presiding with 

 effect over those under him, that Mr. Pollock be removed ; 

 and he is hereby removed from the office of Deputy 

 Clerk of the Pleas of this Court." 



The Correspondent and Saunders of the day do 

 not report the case. The foregoing has been ex- 

 tracted from the Freeman s Journal. At the period 

 in question, it does not seem to have been always 

 easy for reporters to obtain access to courts of 

 law during the progress of peculiar cases. The 

 Freeman of July 12, 1817, devotes a leading 

 article to the discussion of a petulant remark 

 made by Mr. Jackson (Lord Chief Justice Nor- 

 bury's registrar) to the effect that "he would pre- 

 vent the Court from being turned into a printing 

 office.''' 



Mr. S tells me that he remembers having 



noticed with some pain the once swaggering and 

 influential John Pollock reduced to comparative 

 poverty and prostration. Mr. Pollock did not 

 long survive his humiliation. About the year 

 1818, he died, I believe childless ; and there is no 

 one now living, so far as I know, who could feel 



