![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Exchequer of Pleas has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
April 11, 2010. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the
Exchequer of Pleas was dissolved after its
chief judge died? | ||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
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)
They were not lords, and did not sit in the House of Lords (unless also a peer). I think they were known as Mr Baron (Smith). It was just the name for the judicial office they held. Peterkingiron 15:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
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)
What did the "postman" do? (*Getzler, J. S. (2004) "Jervis, Sir John (1802–1856)", Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, [1], accessed 4 July 2007 (subscription required)) Did other courts have this office? etc. Cutler 20:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Reviewer: Malleus Fatuorum 22:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
This is, of course, excellent, and I've only really got one issue, with the accessibility of the lead, although I've made a few other points below as well.
Hi Ironholds. Malleus is preoccupied with other matters and has asked me to take over this review. I should have completed a read-through by today and hopefully we can get it to GA within 24 hours. Parrot of Doom 07:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
One more thing - wrt to File:Exchequer manuscript.jpg, I'm not sure that a description of "unknown, but given that the Exchequer of Pleas was dissolved in 1880 and this work was obviously created far earlier, irrelevant" for the author is acceptable. The image might easily have been a modern creation. Would you be able to email the website, and ask?
Parrot
of Doom
21:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Exchequer of Pleas has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
April 11, 2010. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the
Exchequer of Pleas was dissolved after its
chief judge died? | ||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
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)
They were not lords, and did not sit in the House of Lords (unless also a peer). I think they were known as Mr Baron (Smith). It was just the name for the judicial office they held. Peterkingiron 15:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
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)
What did the "postman" do? (*Getzler, J. S. (2004) "Jervis, Sir John (1802–1856)", Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, [1], accessed 4 July 2007 (subscription required)) Did other courts have this office? etc. Cutler 20:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Reviewer: Malleus Fatuorum 22:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
This is, of course, excellent, and I've only really got one issue, with the accessibility of the lead, although I've made a few other points below as well.
Hi Ironholds. Malleus is preoccupied with other matters and has asked me to take over this review. I should have completed a read-through by today and hopefully we can get it to GA within 24 hours. Parrot of Doom 07:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
One more thing - wrt to File:Exchequer manuscript.jpg, I'm not sure that a description of "unknown, but given that the Exchequer of Pleas was dissolved in 1880 and this work was obviously created far earlier, irrelevant" for the author is acceptable. The image might easily have been a modern creation. Would you be able to email the website, and ask?
Parrot
of Doom
21:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)