Unscrupulous and wily

John Pollock

(See Chapter 6))

In the “Memoirs and Correspondence of Marquis Cornwallis,” (vol. iii., p. 320,) a letter appears, addressed by Mr Secretary Cooke to the Lord Lieutenant, in which various persons are recommended, including MacNally and MacGuicken, as fit recipients for a share in the £1,500 per annum which in 1799 had been placed for secret service at his Excellency’s disposal. Mr Cooke thus concludes:- “Pollock’s services ought to be thought of. He managed Mac--- and MacGuicken, and did much. He received the place of Clerk of the Crown and Peace, and he has the fairest right to indemnification.” Mr Charles Ross, the editor, reminds his readers that “Mac” is “Leonard MacNally, Esq., a barrister of some reputation, who was regularly employed by the rebels, and was entirely in their confidence. He was author of various plays and other works, - born 1752; died 1820.”

It may interest the students of that eventful period of Irish history to learn some account of the unscrupulous and wily person who succeeded in corrupting the counsel and solicitor of the unfortunate state prisoners. On this negotiation some important events hinged. For almost every name mentioned in the “Cornwallis Correspondence,” Mr Ross has furnished an explanatory footnote. In the page following the mention of Mr Pollock’s name, the editor says: “It has been found impossible to ascertain anything in regard to most of these individuals;” and as we have no note relative to Mr Pollock, it may be presumed that Mr Ross knows little or nothing of him.

Half a century ago John Pollock was a well-known solicitor in Dublin. In the “Dublin Directory” for 1777 his name appears for the first time, and his residence is given as 31 Mary Street. In 1781 he removed to 12 Anne Street, and in 1784 to Jervis Street. In 1786, Mr Pollock was appointed “solicitor to the trustees of the linen manufacture;” in 1795 we find him Clerk of the Crown and Peace for the province of Leinster, and Clerk of the Peace for the county of Dublin. In the year 1800, Mr Pollock was gazetted to the enormous sinecure of Clerk of the Pleas of the Exchequer.

The MS. volume already noticed, containing an “account of secret service money expenditure employed in detecting treasonable conspiracies,” chronicles the frequent payment of pecuniary stimuli to Mr Pollock. On December 11,1797, £300 is recorded; April 20,1793, “John Pollock, £110,” appears. June 15, £109, 7s. 6d; August 18, £56, 17s. 6d.; August 28, ditto; September 14, do.; and on January 18, 1799, the large sum of £1,137, 10s. arrests attention. There are, however, various other payments to Mr Pollock, which it would be tedious to enumerate.

As soon as he received the bloated sinecure of Deputy Cleric of the Pleas, Mr Pollock removed from Jervis Street to No. 11 Mountjoy Square East, where, as I am informed by M--- S---, Esq., he lived in a style of lavish magnificence, and spent not less than £9,000 a year. This reign of luxury lasted until the year 1817; when Mr Pollock was suddenly hurled from his throne.

The sinecure office of Clerk of the Pleas of the Exchequer had been “in some measure created for Lord Buckinghamshire,” as a reward for his important services in India [Sketches of Irish Political Characters, p.49. London; 1799.], as well as in Ireland, when discharging the services of Chief Secretary. Sir J. Newport declared in Parliament, on April 29, 1816, that his lordship’s fees had amounted to £35,000 per annum. Lord Buckinghamshire died on February 5 in that year. From the *Dublin Evening Post *of February 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 indolently, inefficiently, and often fraudulently discharged. “Purchasers can have no security,” observes the same authority; “we have been informed of a judgment of £10,000 *omitted *in a certain certificate. It is one of the most lucrative and unnecessary offices in the country,” continues the *Post; *“all the duty is performed by the deputy, Mr Pollock, who derives about £5,000 a year. All this is made up of fees on the distribution of justice in a single court of law. If this unnecessary 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 profit; 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 oh no other authority than their own assumptions!”

The son of a late eminent solicitor, in a letter addressed to us, dated September 25, 1865, thus refers to Mr Pollock and the lax practices then prevalent:-

“In 1816 my father died. Long before his death my mother used to hear him and other professional men talk of the general extravagance and demoralisation that existed among the officials of the Four Courts, several of whom, from poor clerks, were floated up to wealth by the rise of the times. Most of the higher class among them habitually anticipated their incomes, availing themselves of the facilities for doing so then afforded by the paper-credit or kite-flying [This phrase greatly puzzled a member of the English bar, Lord Redesdale, who was sent to Ireland as Chancellor. Plunket endeavoured to explain. “In England, my lord, the wind raises the kite, but in Ireland the kite raises the wind.” “I feel no better informed yet, Mr Plunket,” replied the matter-of-fact Chancellor. Possibly some readers may say the same~—W J. F.] system.

As to Pollock, he lived magnificently in Mountjoy Square and in the country; and like those, for the most part, who spend freely, he was not, indeed, disliked; though if, in taxing an attorney’s costs, lie received a note, in order, after deducting what was due him, to return the balance, he would, as it were by way of a joke, laugh, and say, ‘We’ll talk of this another time; and keep the note - the attorney not daring to object lest he should be proportionately a sufferer when he’d *next *have to get his costs taxed!

But, in time, the attorneys became sufficiently *up *to the great cost-taxer’s failing as regards note-keeping, to be on their guard against it, by not letting him finger more than he was actually entitled to receive. Like ‘robbers all at Parga,’ it should be added, that others of those gentry of the courts, Papists as well as Protestants, were Pollocks in their way, ‘feathering their nests well’ and eventually purchasing estates. At last a Government commission came, and reformed this very corrupt system.”

The peculation upon which Mr Pollock had so long fattened soon began to enkindle a wide sensation. A commission of inquiry was held, and some startling facts came to light. Mr Leslie Foster, afterwards Baron of the Exchequer, observed “To show the progress of abuse, he might pursue the history of the place held by this deputy. In 1803, his profits amounted to £3,000 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 £2,000, which, joined to his fees, made up £3000, his original income. Instead of being worth £3,000 at present, the office yielded £7,000 a year, having increased £5,000 since 1803; which, with a compensation of £2,000 for anticipated loss, amounted to the £7000 mentioned. All 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 was simply the wages earned by the corruption of MacNally and MacGuicken!

It further appeared that £13,000 extra had been seized upon and squandered by understrappers. The commissioners pursued their inquiries. “They unexpectedly discovered,” says the *Post *of May 4, 1817, “an apparently humble satellite who obtained an income of £1,300 per annum from fees, and who, without being ambitious of even the celebrity which an almanac confers, quietly revolved above 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. Impeachment became unavoidable; and we find the Attorney-General, Saurin, bringing forward nine distinct charges against Mr Pollock. One paragraph will suffice for a specimen:- “With respect to the taxation of costs, the officer has exercised an arbitrary and discretionary power in demanding fees’; and that the fees received have, in some instances, exceeded the amount of the costs themselves.”

In the Court of Exchequer, July 1, 1817, the Chief-Baron O’Grady, afterwards Lord Guillamore, passed judgment on Mr Pollock. He thus concluded “We are obliged to declare, from the acts lately for the first time come to our knowledge, that he has abused his duty-abused his discretion - he has done acts without authority - 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-administration of justice; and it is therefore due to the public - to the ends of justice - to the authority and purity of the court - to the maintaining of the court’s authority over its own officer - and to the end of the officer presiding with effect over those under him, that Mr Pollock be removed, and he is thereby 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 extracted 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 Lord Chief-Justice Norbury’s registrar, Mr Jackson, to the effect that “he would prevent 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. In 1818 Leonard MacNally saw his seducer consigned to the grave.

It may be worth adding that Chief-Baron O’Grady claimed the right of patronage in the appointment of successors to Lord Buckinghamshire and Mr Pollock; and having named his son and brother to the overgrown sinecures, much comment was excited, which resulted in an elaborate public trial of the judge’s right. Saurin contended that the king, not the court, had the right of appointment.

Sham Index Home.