§ MR. WESTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is true, as reported to have been stated by the Lord Chancellor, that the Second Report of the Judicature Commissioners has been signed but not presented; and, if so, why it has not been and when it will be presented; and, further, whether it is the intention of the Lord Chancellor to appoint a new County Court Judge in the place of the Brentford County Court Judge, recently deceased?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,in reply, said, it was a mistake that the Lord Chancellor ever stated that the second Report of the Judicature Commissioners had been signed but not presented. It had not been signed, but was at present under discussion, and as the discussions were proceeding it was impossible to say when the Report would be signed, or when the discussions upon it would end. With regard to the second part of the Question, he had to say that Brentford was part of the Marylebone and Brompton district, and that in that district in 1870 there were 18,500 plaints heard and disposed of. The only other two districts to which Brentford could be attached were Clerkenwell and Bloomsbury, and in the former 15,400 plaints were heard and disposed of last year, and in the latter 11,400. It had been ascertained that to break up the Marylebone district, and attach it partly to Camberwell and partly to Bloomsbury, would involve the payment of considerable compensation to the officers of the district, so that no saving of expense would thereby be effected. It was, therefore, the intention of the Lord Chancellor to appoint a County Court Judge in place of the Judge lately deceased; but he would be appointed, as every other County Court Judge was now appointed, subject to whatever arrangements any future changes might render necessary. The Lord Chancellor was in communication with a gentleman of the highest possible standing at the Bar, whose appointment, if made, would give the greatest satisfaction.