HC Deb 23 December 1830 vol 2 cc65-6
Mr. Ruthven

again expressed himself not satisfied with the answer relative to the Masters of Chancery, and gave notice, that after the recess, he would bring the matter before the House.

Mr. Drake

said, the question mooted by the hon. Member was not a new one, and had been brought before the House on the question—whether Masters in Chancery could sit in that House or not? He did not conceive, that the question had any relation to that House, as a Master in Chancery could only come into contact with it, by bringing down a message from the other House.

Sir E. B. Sugden

deprecated the discussion. There was, he believed, but one opinion on the subject. There was no reason whatever why the noble Lord should vacate his place. He had executed the duties of his office with great credit to himself, and with great advantage to the public. The question might arise in another place, whether it was consistent with its privileges; but it ought not to be interfered with in that House. He hoped the hon. Member would not persist in a Motion which might embarrass individuals without any public advantage. The Government had, he thought, taken a very proper course in not interfering with the matter.

Mr. Ruthven

thought, public duty called on him to bring the subject under the notice of the House.

Sir M. W. Ridley

said, the Government had not made a Peer a Master in Chancery but a Master in Chancery had, by the course of nature been made a Peer. In that circumstance there was no reason to find fault with any body.

Petition read.