§ MR. VINCENT SCULLY
said, he would now beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland if his attention has been directed to the case of Mercer v. Mercer, in the Dublin papers of the 10th instant, which report the Lord Chancellor of Ireland as having expressed his judicial opinion to the effect that "There was, no doubt, a considerable arrear of business in the Taxing Offices of the Court, owing to Master Tandy's death, and he might say that it was not any fault of his that the office was not filled up." Is it intended to fill up that office, and when; and there is any objection to produce the official correspondence between 497 the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, or the head of the Taxing Department there, and the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury in London?
said, his attention had not been called to the case alluded to. But the delay in the appointment of a Taxing Master was attributable to the Treasury, who thought it their duty to ascertain whether, in consequence of the decrease of business in the Irish Court, the duty could not be performed by two Taxing Masters instead of three, and whether the appointment should not be considered of a temporary rather than of a permanent character. The Lord Chancellor having advised the appointment to be made permanently, it was not the intention of the Treasury to delay any longer the appointment. They, however, reserved to themselves the right, whenever the next vacancy arose, of inquiring into the whole subject and the number of Taxing Masters required for the proper discharge of the duties. He was quite ready to produce the correspondence in question if the hon. and learned Gentleman moved for it.