Editing Exchequer of Pleas (section)

==History==

===Origins===
It was originally claimed that the Exchequer was based on a similar Norman court. While there are many records of the Exchequer's work in England, there is no evidence of a similar body in pre-[[Norman Conquest|conquest]] Normandy. The first reliable records come from the time of [[Henry I of England|Henry I]], when the sole surviving [[Pipe rolls|Pipe roll]] from his reign shows the Exchequer working out of the king's palace as part of the ''[[curia regis]]''.<ref>Thomas (1848) p.1</ref> 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.<ref>Thomas (1848) p.2</ref> 

By the late 12th century it had taken to sitting in a fixed location, the one body of government in England to do so.<ref>Kemp (1973) p.561</ref> By the 1170s it was possible to distinguish the Exchequer's work from that of the other parts of the ''curia regis'',<ref>Kemp (1973) p.565</ref> although the king of the time considered the Exchequer to simply be an element of the ''curia''.<ref>Kemp (1973) p.568</ref> It was referred to as the ''Curia Regis ad Scaccarium'', or King's Court at Exchequer. The word "Exchequer" derives from the chequered cloth laid on a table for the purposes of counting money.<ref>[[The Green Bag (1889–1914)|The Green Bag]] (1899) p.341</ref> 

In the 1190s the Exchequer began separating from the ''curia regis'', a process which continued until the beginning of the 13th century. Academics have suggested that this was due to an increasing demand on the revenue side of the court, which led to part of the common law element being split off to form the [[Court of Common Pleas (England)|Court of Common Pleas]].<ref>Kemp (1973) p.572</ref> Although the Exchequer of Pleas was the first common law court, it was the last to separate from the ''curia regis''.<ref>Baker (2002) p.47</ref>

===Increasing work and transformation===
[[File:Sir William Paulet, 1st Marquess of Winchester by Circle of Hans Eworth.jpg|thumb|upright|[[William Paulet, 1st Marquess of Winchester|William Paulet]], who as [[Lord High Treasurer]] significantly increased the power and influence of the Exchequer|alt=On a square black frame is a golden circle with a photo of a man with a brown beard and black garments with a white ruff on a starry background.]]
There are few records known to date from before 1580, as bills were not dated before then.<ref>Bryson (2008) p.2</ref> Until the 16th century, the Exchequer carried out its duties with little variation in its function or practice. A small court, the Exchequer handled around 250 cases a year, compared to 2,500 in the [[Court of King's Bench (England)|Court of King's Bench]] and 10,000 in the [[Court of Common Pleas (England)|Court of Common Pleas]].<ref>Guth (2008) p.149</ref> Under [[Tudor dynasty|the Tudors]], the Exchequer's political, judicial and fiscal importance all increased. This was partially thanks to the [[Lord High Treasurer]]. Although the [[Lord Chancellor]] was more traditionally important, the Lord High Treasurers from 1547 to 1612 were politically influential figures, including [[Robert Cecil, 1st Earl of Salisbury|Robert Cecil]], [[Thomas Sackville, 1st Earl of Dorset|Thomas Sackville]] and [[William Paulet, 1st Marquess of Winchester|William Paulet]]. Since the Lord High Treasurer was head of the Exchequer, with the Treasurer's increased influence came increased importance for the Exchequer.<ref>Guth (2008) p.150</ref>

The appointment of the [[Thomas Howard, 2nd Duke of Norfolk|second]] and [[Thomas Howard, 3rd Duke of Norfolk|third]] [[Duke of Norfolk|Dukes of Norfolk]] as Lord High Treasurers from 1501 to 1546 led to a gradual reduction in the Exchequer's power. The Dukes were seen by the government as too independent to be trusted with any real power, but too useful to be removed. As a result, to indirectly reduce their power, the Exchequer was deliberately weakened. When William Paulet was appointed Treasurer in 1546 the Exchequer again increased in power, absorbing the [[Court of Augmentations]] and [[Court of First Fruits and Tenths]] by 1554.<ref>Guth (2008) p.152</ref> The Exchequer was assisted in this period by [[Thomas Fanshawe (remembrancer of the exchequer)|Thomas Fanshawe]], the Queen's Remembrancer. A capable man, Fanshawe was often consulted by the Barons of the Exchequer as to the best way to administer the court, and helped standardise pleadings, allowing the Exchequer to cope during a period of increased business. Fanshawe's administrative reforms were considered excellent, and his work continued to be used as the standard until the 1830s.<ref>Bryson (2008) p.22</ref>

Exchequer business increased under [[James I of England|James]] and [[Charles I of England|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.<ref>Bryson (2008) p.25</ref>

The Civil War caused four equitable courts to be dissolved. The [[Star Chamber|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.<ref>Bryson (2008) p.25</ref> After the War ended there were only two equity courts remaining, the Exchequer and [[Court of Chancery]]. The Court of Chancery was publicly reviled for its slow pace and because it was led by the [[John Finch, 1st Baron Finch|Lord Chancellor John Finch]], a political figure who had been intimately involved in the conflict.<ref>Bryson (2008) p.26</ref> 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.<ref>Bryson (2008) p.27</ref>

===Loss of equity jurisdiction and dissolution===
[[Image:English common law courts before judicature acts (exchequer highlighted).png|thumb|300px|[[English common law]] courts before the Judicature Acts|alt=A hierarchical chart of the English common law courts before judicature acts.  The lowest portion of the chart is the Common Pleas and Assizes at Nisi Prius with arrows pointing toward each other.  Common Pleas parent is King's Bench which is also the parent of equal level Local courts.  The Exchequer is the parent of the Assizies at Nisi Prius.  The parent of both the King's Bench and Exchequer is the Exchequer Chamber and top of the chart is the House of Lords.]]
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]]. As a result, each court cited the other's cases as precedent, and drew closely together. In addition, 18th-century Acts of Parliament treated them in the same way, merely referring to "courts of equity" rather than mentioning them individually. At the same time, the [[HM Treasury|Treasury]] became more and more important, leading to a reduction in the inferior Exchequer's influence. 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.<ref>Bryson (2008) p.160</ref> 

The court's equity side became deeply unpopular during the 1830s because many cases were heard by a single judge with no real prospect of appeal; while cases could be taken to the House of Lords, it was highly expensive and time-consuming to do so.<ref>Bryson (2008) p.161</ref> The Court of Chancery, however, had long had an established method of appealing to the Lords,<ref>Kerly (1890) p.168</ref> and later introduced an intermediary appellate court – the [[Court of Appeal in Chancery]].<ref>Lobban (Spring 2004) p.390</ref> 

At the same time, many elements of the Exchequer's equity business had dried up, with the [[Tithe Commutation Act 1836]] ending their tithe cases and the Insolvent Debtors Act 1820 establishing the [[Bankruptcy|Court of Bankruptcy]], removing cases of insolvency from the Exchequer. The Exchequer's fees were also higher than those of the Court of Chancery, and with both courts now using almost identical precedent it was seen as unnecessary to maintain two equitable courts.<ref>Bryson (2008) p.163</ref> As a result, the Administration of Justice Act 1841 formally dissolved the equitable jurisdiction of the court.<ref>Bryson (2008) p.162</ref>

With the loss of its equitable jurisdiction, the Exchequer became a dedicated common law court, and thus fell prey to the same fate as the other two common law courts (the [[Court of King's Bench (England)|Court of Queen's Bench]] and the [[Court of Common Pleas (England)|Court of Common Pleas]]) during the late 19th century. There had long been calls for the merger of the courts, and in 1828 [[Henry Brougham, 1st Baron Brougham and Vaux|Henry Brougham]], a Member of Parliament, complained in Parliament that as long as there were three courts unevenness was inevitable, saying that "It is not in the power of the courts, even if all were monopolies and other restrictions done away, to distribute business equally, as long as suitors are left free to choose their own tribunal", and that there would always be a favourite court, which would therefore attract the best lawyers and judges and entrench its position.<ref>Brougham (1828) p.10</ref>

In 1867 a commission was created to look into issues with the central courts, and the outcome were the [[Judicature Acts]], under which all the central courts were made part of a single [[Senior Courts of England and Wales|Supreme Court of Judicature]], with the three central common law courts becoming three of the five divisions of the Supreme Court; this was not designed to be permanent, but rather to avoid having to retire or demote two of the three Chief Justices to allow a single head of the Supreme Court, as this would have violated the constitutional principle that senior justices were irremovable. By sheer chance [[Fitzroy Kelly]] and [[Sir Alexander Cockburn, 12th Baronet|Alexander Cockburn]], [[Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer]] and [[Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales|Lord Chief Justice of England]], respectively, both died in 1880, allowing the merger of the common law divisions of the Supreme Court into a single division, the [[High Court of Justice#Queen.27s Bench Division|Queen's Bench Division]], under [[John Coleridge, 1st Baron Coleridge|John Coleridge]], who had been [[Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas]] and became Lord Chief Justice of England, by an [[Order in Council]] of 16 December 1880. At this point, the Exchequer of Pleas formally ceased to exist.<ref>Mackay (2002) p.603</ref>