Talk:List of recorders of Penang, Singapore, and Malacca

This article was nominated for deletion on 26 October 2021. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Malaysia Low‑importance

	Malaysia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Malaysia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Malaysia and Malaysia-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MalaysiaWikipedia:WikiProject MalaysiaTemplate:WikiProject MalaysiaMalaysia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Singapore Low‑importance

	Singapore portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Singapore, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Singapore on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SingaporeWikipedia:WikiProject SingaporeTemplate:WikiProject SingaporeSingapore articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Grouping[edit]

From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Recorders of Penang, Singapore and Malacca: Find bruce, can you help me understand what the relevant group is? Is it something like "chief British colonial justices in the Straits Settlements before 1867, when the position of chief justice of the Straits Settlements became the highest judicial position in the Straits Settlements"? The sources you provided are helpful, but they don't explain why this group is treated as a group. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 12:55, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Breaking things down, it seems the first point of confusion is that a recorder is neither a justice nor a chief - they were only one of 3 people that formed the court of judicature, along with the Governor of the Straits Settlement & the resident councillor in the particular settlement - part of the curious history of Claridge is that his dispute with Fullerton, who was both Governor & employed by the East India Company started when Fullerton & Ibbetson (the resident councillor at Penang who would succeed Fullerton as Governor) overruled him in relation to a person who was being held by the military. The real power was on display when the East India Company had Claridge sacked. I presume the resident councillor is why the second charter of justice established the Court by reference to each of the settlements. There will be a reason why they were split up again in 1856. I am unclear why the list includes Maxwell as recorder of Singapore separately from Singapore & Malacca - I had moved the list from an inappropriate location Attorney-General of Singapore. --Find bruce (talk) 21:45, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've yet to find a clear description of the recorder's role. Turnbull contrasts the recorders with the other "lay" members of the Straits Settlements courts, and all the bios I've read or written of recorders indicate that they were called to the bar at one of the Inns of Court in London, so they seem to be legally trained. But clearly there must have been some difference between recorders and justices—otherwise, why not call them justices? And a resident councillor is … what, exactly? Perhaps the answers to these questions would be best placed at Straits Settlements#History and government. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:54, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From memory there was a formal requirement of being a barrister of 5 years standing - Jeffcott was from the Irish Bar, but same same. The main reasons they were not given the title justice were that (1) a justice would not sit on a bench with a non-lawyer & (2) the title came with a higher pay and more staff & the East India Company objected to the cost of a recorder. While the passage of time makes clarity harder, a lack of clarity about the role was a major issue at the time, for Claridge & others. Similar problems beset the Supreme Court of Civil Judicature of New South Wales & its predecessor the Court of Civil Jurisdiction. The positions were driven by patronage. Best place I know of to look for the duties of a resident councillor is Robert Ibbetson. --Find bruce (talk) 03:02, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]