The difference between the incomes of Scotch advocates and English barristers was far greater in the eighteenth century than at the present time, although in our own day the receipts of several second-rate lawyers of the Temple and Lincoln's Inn far surpass the revenues of the most successful advocates of the Edinburgh faculty. A hundred and thirty years since a Scotch barrister who earned 500_l._ per annum by his profession was esteemed notably successful.
Just as Charles Yorke's fee-book shows us the pecuniary position of an eminent English barrister in the middle of the last century, John Scott's list of receipts displays the prosperity of a very fortunate Crown lawyer in the next generation. Without imputing motives the present writer, may venture to say that Lord Eldon's assertions with regard to his earnings at the bar, and his judicial incomes, were not in strict accordance with the evidence of his private accounts. He used to say that his first year's earnings in his profession amounted to half-a-guinea, but there is conclusive proof that he had a considerable quantity of lucrative business in the same year. "When I was called to the bar," it was his humor to say, "Bessie and I thought all our troubles were over, business was to pour in, and we were to be rich almost immediately. So I made a bargain with her that during the following year all the money I should receive in the first eleven months should be mine, and whatever I should get in the twelfth month should be hers. That was our agreement, and how do you think it turned out? In the twelfth month I received half-a-guinea--eighteenpence went for charity, and Bessy got nine shillings. In the other eleven months I got one shilling." John Scott, be it remembered, was called to the bar on February 9, 1776, and on October 2, of the same year, William Scott wrote to his brother Henry--"My brother Jack seems highly pleased with his circuit business. I hope it is only the beginning of future triumphs. All appearances speak strongly in his favor." There is no need to call evidence to show that Eldon's success was more than respectable from the outset of his career, and that he had not been called many years before he was in the foremost rank of his profession. His fee-book gives the following account of his receipts in thirteen successive years:--1786, 6833_l._ 7_s._; 1787, 7600_l._ 7_s._; 1788, 8419_l._ 14_s._; 1789, 9559_l._ 10_s._; 1790, 9684_l._ 15_s._; 1791, 10,213_l._ 13_s._ 6_d._; 1792, 9080_l._ 9_s._; 1793, 10,330_l._ 1_s._ 4_d._; 1794, 11,592_l._; 1795, 11,149_l._ 15_s._ 4_d._; 1796, 12,140_l._ 15_s._ 8_d._; 1797, 10,861_l._ 5_s._ 8_d_; 1798, 10,557_l._ 17_s._ During the last six of the above-mentioned years he was Attorney General, and during the preceding four years Solicitor General.