Exchequer of Pleas

The Exchequer and Chancery, with similar jurisdictions, drew closer together over the years until an argument was made during the 19th century that having two seemingly identical courts was unnecessary.

With the Judicature Acts, the Exchequer was formally dissolved as a judicial body by an Order in Council on 16 December 1880.

The first reliable records come from the time of Henry I, when the sole surviving Pipe roll from his reign shows the Exchequer working out of the king's palace as part of the curia regis.

[1] The curia regis followed the king as he travelled, rather than sitting at any one fixed location, and was held in York, London and Northampton at various times.

The word "Exchequer" derives from the chequered cloth laid on a table for the purposes of counting money.

[11] The appointment of the second and third Dukes of Norfolk as Lord High Treasurers from 1501 to 1546 led to a gradual reduction in the Exchequer's power.

[13] Exchequer business increased under James and Charles I, before the English Civil War disrupted the courts.

With the increasing use of 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 and the new regime, the Exchequer actively transformed from a "tax court" dealing with civil cases to a dedicated court of equity and common law.

The Court of Star Chamber was formally dissolved in 1641, the Council of the North and Council of Wales and the Marches had their equity jurisdiction stripped by the same Act of Parliament, and the Court of Requests became invalid after the Privy Seal was invalidated by the outcome of the English Civil War, as it was dependent on the Seal for its authority.

The Court of Chancery was publicly reviled for its slow pace and because it was led by the Lord Chancellor John Finch, a political figure who had been intimately involved in the conflict.

[16] As a result, the Exchequer increased in importance as a court, although it is not known whether its active transformation was a judicial or political decision.

[17] By the beginning of the 18th century, the equity jurisdiction of the Exchequer of Pleas was firmly cemented, and it was considered a viable alternative to the Court of Chancery.

In addition, 18th-century Acts of Parliament treated them in the same way, merely referring to "courts of equity" rather than mentioning them individually.

Despite these warning signs, the Exchequer continued to flourish, maintaining a large amount of business, and by 1810 was almost entirely an equity court, having little common law work.

The king was represented by the Attorney General, allowing him to avoid much of the legal costs associated with a court case.

[27] The "next logical step" was to allow debtors to collect on their own debts in the Exchequer, so that they could better pay the king; this was done through the Writ of Quominus.

The Exchequer also had sole jurisdiction to try cases against their own officials and other figures engaged in collecting the royal revenue.

[33] By 1590 the Exchequer's jurisdiction over equity cases was confirmed, and it was handling a significant number a year, including disputes over trusts, mortgages, tithes and copyholds; since taxation was ever-present, it was not difficult to show that the dispute prevented the payment of a debt to the monarch, allowing the Writ of Quominus.

[36] The Exchequer had superior status over inferior courts of equity, able to take cases from them and countermand their decisions.

The jurisdiction of ecclesiastical courts also overlapped with that of the Exchequer, particularly in relation to the collection of tithes, and there are many records of disputes between the two.

[38] The formal head of the Exchequer for much of its existence was the Lord High Treasurer, who was tasked with collecting royal revenues.

[39] Originally a clerk,[40] he was supervised by the Chief Justiciar, and only became head of the court after this position was abolished during the reign of Henry III.

Unlike in the Court of King's Bench, the different positions did not equate to different degrees of power; each Baron had an equal vote in decisions.

[56] A Baron could leave the Exchequer in one of three situations; resignation, death, or appointment to another court, which automatically made their office void.

As well as his duties to the judicial body, the King's Remembrancer also handled the revenue side of the Exchequer, a jurisdiction established in the 14th century.

His main job was instead quasi-judicial, examining certain witnesses, taking minutes in court and settling disputes over "scandal and impertinence".

[66] In addition to an examiner, each Baron had at least one clerk, who acted as their private secretary; although not paid, they were authorised to take fees for their work.