[ Lord Muir Mackenzie, as Permanent Secretary to the Lord Chancellor. ] Three Autograph Letters Signed (all 'K. Muir Mackenzie') to Sir Richard Harington, with two long autograph drafts by Harington, all on the subject of County Court registrars.

K. Muir Mackenzie, Lord Muir Mackenzie [ Kenneth Augustus Muir Mackenzie, 1st Baron Muir Mackenzie ] (1845-1930), barrister, civil servant, politician; Sir Richard Harington (1835-1911), 11th Baronet
Publication details: 
Muir Mackenzie's three letters on House of Lords letterheads; 7 January and 21 May (two) 1897. Harington's drafts from Whitbourne Court, Worcester (the second on cancelled letterhead of County Court Office, Kidderminster); 3 January and 17 March 1897
SKU: 19576

The five items in good condition, lightly aged and worn. ONE: Muir Mackenzie to Harington, 7 January 1897. 3pp., 12mo. Begins: 'Dear Sir Richard | The Lord Chancellor and his predecessors for many years have declined to sanction the appointment of joint registrars except in places where the amount of business requires two registrars; that is to say, if the business at Stourbridge is such as to require two Colles, it would still require a colleague for Colles Junr. on the retirement of Colles Senr.' The latter part of the letter concerns the question of the 'payment of a fee to a County Court Judge for other public business which he undertakes'. Although the practice has 'always been discountenance[d] by L.CC. in my time', he does not suppose that 'the L.C. Will demur to your accepting any honorarium they may think fit to send to you afterwards.' TWO: Muir Mackenzie to Harington, 21 May [1897]. 2pp., 12mo. Addressed to 'My Dear Judge' and beginning: 'I do not presume to criticize the substance of the views which you propose to communicate to your Registrars, but I would suggest the small alteration of form which I have indicated in pencil.' He is concerned that the registrars might take Harington's letter 'more literally as a direction than it is intended to be.' He cannot see any reason why Harington should not inform them what his practice will be 'pending the issue of any new Rules'. THREE: Muir Mackenzie to Harington, 21 May [1897]. 2pp., 12mo. Addressed as Item Two. He has spoken to the Lord Chancellor about the affidavit which Harington sent to Muir Mackenzie, and 'he is astonished that a Registrar could have issued a summons out of the district in such a case: indeed he is prepared, if you give him liberty to use the information which your letter conveys to me, to call on the Registrar for his explanation'. FOUR: Autograph Draft of Harington to Muir Mackenzie, 3 January 1897 [mistakenly given as '1896']. Corrected draft of the letter which elicited Item One. 5pp., 12mo. Begins: 'I have been asked by Mr Colles the Registrar of the Stourbridge Court to appoint his son Mr Charles Herbert Colles joint Registrar with him. I am, as you may recollect from some correspondence in similar cases averse to doing anything which aims to make the office hereditary but in this case there are reasons which incline me to ask for the Lord Chancellors approval to the appointment'. He also broaches the subject of the work he will be doing for the Home Office: 'the Home Secretary has asked me to hold an enquiry in Radnorshire into a police scandal there which leaves him in doubt as to whether he ought to issue the certificate of efficiency of the police force'. FIVE: Autograph Draft Signed of Harington to Muir Mackenzie, 17 March 1897. 7pp., 12mo. The letter which elicited Item Two above. Harington writes that he has 'read the papers & correspondence you send me […] I never had any doubt myself that it was the sduty of the Registrars to exercise a judicial discretion in regard to the cases in which leave should be granted to issue a summons [...]'