§ MR. HUMEwished to ask the noble Lord the First Lord of the Treasury a question with respect to the Court of Chancery. He had moved on a former day for any report made by the Commissioners appointed in 1842. He had since found that though they were appointed and agreed in certain suggestions, they had made no absolute report. What he now asked, therefore, was, whether, as there was now a vacancy in the office of a Master in Chancery, Her Majesty's Government were about to make any alterations according to the plan entertained by the Commissioners—namely, by abolishing the office, of Master in Chancery altogether, and by appointing additional Judges in each court? The noble Lord would recollect, that the Act 4 and 5 Victoria gave authority to the Lord Chancellor, and to other officers, to make any changes. That Bill lasted for five years; and, having expired, a new Bill to revive it was passed in 1845; but nothing had been done as yet. He wished to know, therefore, whether the present vacancy would be filled up, or whether, in consequence of such vacancy, such changes would be made in the Court of Chancery as would be beneficial to the suitors.
LORD J. RUSSELLwould state, in answer to the first point to which his hon. Friend had referred, with regard to filling up the office of a Master in Chancery, that the Lord Chancellor, having turned his deliberate attention to the subject, and having considered that when the Equity Exchequer was abolished, an additional Master 818 was appointed, had come to the conclusion that the arrangement of the duties was such that it was not now necessary to appoint a Master in lieu of the one who had recently resigned; and, therefore, it was not intended by Her Majesty's Government to appoint a Master to fill the vacancy which now existed. With regard to the other question, it was impossible to say that the Lord Chancellor or the Government could adopt any recommendations which had never been embodied in any report, or in a formal way; but the subject had engaged the attention of the Lord Chancellor, and he had under his consideration reforms of considerable importance. His hon. Friend referred to the Bill of 1845; but it must be recollected that the present Lord Chancellor had come into office since 1845; and he assured his hon. Friend, that, besides discharging the regular duties of his office, the present Chancellor had considered several changes which would be very beneficial to the suitor's interest.
§ MR. HUMEsaid, that as the noble Lord had stated that there was no official report of the Commissioners' resolutions, he wished to know whether there would be any objection to allowing a Committee of that House to be appointed to collect this information, and to bring it in a tangible manner before the public?
LORD J. RUSSELLthought it would be better to allow the Lord Chancellor to consider the general recommendations; and if the House should not be satisfied with what was proposed to be done, it might be advisable to appoint a Committee.