The Press. — London, England, 1857-01-03 00:00:00

2 statute-book—i e. from the reign of HENRY 111. to that of VICTORIA, a period of six hundred years. But as this would imply an amount of knowledge almost superhuman, we need not be surprised that the statute-book abounds in oversights and contradictions. Our legislators are, in short, compelled to attempt a remedy for each particular grievance as it may arise; and thus statute is heaped upon statute with out anything like system, and not unfrequcntly in direct contravention cf previous enact ments. It is notorious that the uncertainty which prevails as to the construction of Acts of Parliament is the most fertile of all the sources of litigation. The complaints upon this point are loud and frequent—witness the late proceedings in the case of the British Bank—but so long as the statute•book remains in its present state, so long as no attempt is made to diminish the bulk and to amend the forms of the written law of England, such evils are unadvoidable. Lord CRANWORTH appears to have been fully alive to the evils we have here indicated from the time he reached his present elevation; hut he sought in vain for the true remedy. He took one step, however, which has indi rectly led to results of the highest importance. He appointed the Statute-Law Commission to inquire fully into the subject, and of course to find a remedy if possible. Much was antici pated and promised from the labours of this learned body, but up to the beginning of last year no practical progress had been made ; and for this substantial reason, that notwith standing all that had previously been said and written on the subject of the Statute-Law Commission, no definite plan had been agreed upon as to its duties and its objects. The Lord Chancellor at first entertained the pro ject of codifying the common law of England, being instigated to attempt this impossible task by the present Attorney-General and Mr. JOHN GEORGE PHILLIMORE. We call this task impossible because with our present form of Legislature we believe it to be so. The most celebrated codes both of ancient and of modern times have been the work of despots. Neither JITSTINIAN nor the great FREDERICK nor NAPO LEON had any independent assembly to dis cuss or dispute the wisdom of their decrees. But where is the Minister who would under take to carry through a British House of Commons an entirely new code of laws? Who does not foresee the endless discussions, the infinite diversity of opinions, the collision of rival interests, to which such a measure would inevitably lead? Lord CRANWORTH had apparently considered none of these things when he committed himself in the first in stance to the project of codification. It is unfortunate for the interests of the public that he ever seriously entertained it, as by that means much valuable time was lost. Shortly after the opening of the last session of Parliament, Sir Fizzaov KELLY brought for ward his motion respecting the consolidation of the statutes. He had been previously placed upon the Commission, and had, after fully investigating the subject, made up his mind that the pr-jest of codification was wholly impracticable. But he perceived that the work of consolidating the Statute Law, although an undertaking of immense labour, was one which presented no insuperable diffi culties in its execution. In these views he was seconded by Lord STANLEY, who takes a warm interest in the improvement of the law ; and the House of Commons, convinced that the plan was practicable, and that, if carried out, it would prove of essential advantage to the public, consented after some delay to provide the funds necessary for its commencement. Since that time the work of consolidation has been proceeding steadily and rapidly The difficulties with which it is beset are innume rable; but they are fast giving way to the energy anti perseverance of those who planned, and who aro now engaged in superintending, the execution of this great undertaking. Let us briefly explain the nature of the work. The consolidation of the statutes implies no alteration or amendment of the law : it is only the work of reducing into form and symmetry that which is now a shapeless, undigested ihass. It is the winnowing of the wheat from the chair; and we may add, that the proportion of the former to the latter is THE PRESS. infinitesimally small. The statutes, at large, consist now of some forty or fifty huge and closely-printed volumes; when the winnowing process is completed—which it will be, if nothing occurs to interrupt the work, in little more than two years—these forty or fifty volumes will be reduced to four or five. Nine tenths of the statute-book will have disap peared, containing a mass of obsolete and re pealed and expired enactments; while every act in operation, and most of them in an im proved and consolidated form, will be retained. As a proof that the work has already made material progress, we may mention that the whole of the criminal law has been consoli dated into eight different bills, all of which are now ready to be laid before Parliament. These bills will embody all the existing pro visions of hundreds of previous enactments, scattered at random through the statute-book. The same operation is being performed with the mercantile law, and the law of real pro perty, both of which subjects we understand are nearly completed. The preparation of these consolidation bills is intrusted to cer tain members of the Bar selected fur the task; but the still more responsible duty of revision and general superintendence is undertaken by Sir FITZROY KELLY, at whose suggestion, and through whose untiring efforts, this great work was commenced. He has been power fully assisted in his labours by Lord WENSLEY DALE, by the late Chief Justice Jl:fly's, and by Mr. GREAVES. We sincerely trust that nothing may occur to retard the progress of this truly national work. If Sir FITZROY KELLY succeeds in com pleting the task he has so auspiciously begun, he will have earned the title of the greatest of our law reformers, for he will accomplish that which the most eminent of our jurists and legislators never previously ventured to attempt. FINANCE. THE Revenue Returns this week disclose the fact that, principally owing to the increased taxation imposed during the war, the income of the country is now about twenty millions more than it was before the war broke out. Of these twenty millions the increase in the income tax realises nearly ten millions. Is there now anything in the circumstances of the time, or in the condition of our finances, which can justify the continuance of this extra orlinary burden ? Whether it will be prudent to reduce our expenditure to that point which prevailed before the war occurred, when, with a revenue of about fifty millions, extensive reductions of taxation were proposed, and it was arranged that the income tax should be abolished altogether, is fair subject for discussion. But there can be no pretence for delaying to settle our establishments upon the scale that it is desirable should be maintained in future. There is nothing in the state of our relations with Lurope, with America, or even with the countries bordering our Asiatic possessions, that can justify extraordinary votes; or, if there be, it is proper that the extent of such extraordinary expenses should be known, and distinct votes taken for them. Our army and navy must always be on such a footing that we shall not be wholly unprepared for a dispute with a Chinese Commissioner, or for a squabble with some semi barbarous State in Asia con cerning a Mrs. Hashem. Let us take advantage of %dime when our revenue has been swollen far beyond its ordinary proportions to look fairly at our financial condition, to place our mili tary and naval services on a thoroughly efficient but not extravagant system, and to determine the amount of revenue we shall require in future, and in what manner it shall be raised. The income tax has proved a great resource. The country has shown that so long as the necessities of war demand unusual taxation, so long will this burden be cheerfully borne. But not longer. As at the close of the last war, meetings are now held to protest against a continuance of this tux. or, at least, against a continuance of the war portion of it There was profound wisdom in the obser vation of the Duke of WELLINGTON to Sir JOHN MALCOLM, that when the day of European con• SATURDAY, flict arrived, Russia, in spite of her million of soldiers—or rather in consequence of her million of soldiers—would be found less pre pared for war than Powers which maintained much smaller establishments. The wealth of a people is in times of necessity the wealth of the State, and justly so. Hence nothing can be more impolitic than to press un necessarily on the resources of a na tion, or to maintaiu larger establishments than arc demanded by the exigencies of the state. May it not now be prac ticable to arrange for the total abolition of the income tax—an impost which always must press unfairly, which must be inquisitorial in its operation, and which must in some shape be abstracted from the labours of industry ? With the entire abolition of this tax our reve nue would still be larger than has ever pre viously been thought necessary to be raised in a time of peace. We merely throw out the suggestion. One thing is certain, the people will never refuse to subunit to any burdens which necessity may demand ; and it seems, therefore, both harsh and impolitic to call on them to make sacrifices—and the income tax is seldom paid without a sacrifice— when no necessity requires it. THE CONVICT QUESTION. THAT a return to the system of transportation would be the most effectual method of check ing the fearful increase of crime in this country seems now to be so generally admitted, that it would be a waste of time to recapitulate our arguments in its favour. The question which has next to bo settled is, whether a return to that system, under such conditions as are ad mitted to be necessary, is any longer possible. The opponents of such a course endeavour to reduce its advocates to the following dilemma. If, say they, you only mean by transportation a recurrence to the system of Norfolk Island, that Nrould be just as well carried out at home. What is the difference between a wall of water and a wall of brick ? There is plenty of work to be done in this country, upon which convicts could be advantageously employer!; and you would thus save the expense of their deporta tion, and profit by the use of their labour. If, on the other hand, new penal settlements are to be established, on the same plan as those of Australia and the Cape of Good Hope, you can not, in the first place, find any suitable locality; and if you could, it would be impossible to pre serve it as a penal settlement. Thus, of the two kinds of transportation, the purely penal kind is said to be unnecessary, and the mixed or reformatory kind impossible. This, we think, is a tolerably fair statement of the case against us. Now, as we ourselves are quite as adverse to the renewal of the Norfolk Island system as the most sanguine and merciful of philanthro pists can possibly be, we should not have noticed the arguments brought against it did they not contain in its most naked form what we con ceive to be the fundamental error of the anti transportationists. What is the difference between a wall of water and a wall of bricks ? Why, exactly the difference between having our criminals as part of our own population, and not having them so. If any man believes that a body of convicts confined in some prison upon English soil, and daily led out to work in the open country, would not exercise more influence upon the population at large than if they were two thousand miles away, we can not argue with him. The disease would still be amongst us—collected to a head certainly, but still there—and the chances of infection consequently existing along with it. We must consider, moreover, that in the one case all the felons whose t erm o f i mpr i sonment h a d expired would be disgorged upon this country; while, on the other, that probably not one tenth would ever return to molest us. Thirdly, we have the old argument—but not because old less valid—that we should thereby be interfering with the wages of the honest labourer. It is, however, on the two former arguments that we lay the most stress. The cancer, we say, must be fairly cut out the infected parts of the body politic effectually removed; and for the accomplishment of thi s end we scarcely think any price too dear.