§ MR. WINTERBOTHAMsaid, he wished to ask Mr. Attorney General, Whether his attention has been called to the state of the Court of Appeal in Chancery; and whether he is aware that there has been only one Lord Justice of Appeal since August last; that Causes can be heard on Appeal only by two Lords Justices sitting together, or by the Lord Chancellor; that the Lord Chancellor has sat on only eleven days, or fragments of days, since the 23rd of March, and has in that time heard only one Cause; that forty-seven Causes are already waiting to be heard on Appeal, and if he supposes that they will be heard before the long vacation, considering the present state of the Court of Appeal; if his attention has been drawn to the fact that there being only one Lord Justice, Causes on Appeal from the Vice Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster cannot be heard except by making the Chancellor of the Duchy, who is not a lawyer, one of the Judges of Appeal; if he is aware that dissatisfaction is felt at Causes being heard on Appeal by one Lord Justice sitting alone; whether the Government intend to appoint at once another Lord Justice in the place of the late Lord Justice Selwyn; and, by 1598 what prerogative the Crown abstains from filling up judicial posts created by statute?
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, in answer to the first Question of his hon. and learned Friend, he had to say that of course he was aware of the fact stated in that Question. In respect of the statement that the Lord Chancellor had only sat 11 days, or fragments of days, since the 23rd of March, and in that time had only heard one cause, he had to observe that he had been informed that one cause was an exceptionally long one. He was aware that 47 causes were already waiting to be heard on appeal, but he believed they had been only entered four months ago—in February. He was informed by the Lord Chancellor that he intended to sit during the Whitsuntide Recess, and that his Lordship expected all the appeals would be cleared off before the long vacation. He (the Attorney General) admitted there was some difficulty with respect to appeals from the Duchy of Lancaster; but those appeals were very rare. There had been only one for a long time; and that of itself would hardly justify the appointment of another Judge if there were not other reasons for such an appointment. His hon. and learned Friend asked him whether he was aware that dissatisfaction was felt at causes being heard on appeal by one Lord Justice sitting alone. In reply, he had to say that he was not aware of such dissatisfaction. With regard to the inquiry, as to whether the Government intend to appoint at once another Lord Justice in the place of the late Lord Justice Selwyn, he need not remind the House that two Bills of a very important character were now pending in the House of Lords. If those Bills should pass, the office to which the question of his hon. and learned Friend related would be put an end to, or, at all events, considerably changed. Under those circumstances the Government would not feel justified in at once appointing another Lord Justice; but, in the event of such an appointment becoming necessary, it was not improbable that a short Bill would be introduced to enable the Government to make an appointment of the kind for a limited period. In reply to the last Question of his hon. and learned Friend, he had to reply that it did not require a 1599 prerogative of the Crown to enable the Crown to dispense with the exercise of a prerogative.