diverport is in itself a sufficient reason for taking measures to prevent any similar uncertainty in the future.
3. He might be argued that if the Chief Justice had before 1864 the right to deal in Chambers with the disposal of matters arising in the ordinary jurisdiction of the Court, the 4th section of the Order of 1864 would have given him a similar right in Bankruptcy matters; the fact that he had this right in Bankruptcy matters might have made a rule under section 7 (1) unnecessary. Presumably this view could be taken in determining what matters could be taken in Chambers.
The question whether decisions in Chambers should be taken remains. Except that there is a right in the...
4. The question will remain whether in the absence of such a rule the Chief Justice and other Judges are entitled to determine at their discretion whether they will take or not take particular matters in Chambers.
The question is whether in the absence of such a rule the right of sitting in Chambers can be exercised and carried out in the discharge of any business at all, e.g. in the C.
5. It is most undesirable that a state of uncertainty should prevail in the Administration of justice, and you should therefore cable the conflicting views at once.