The Sun. — London, England, 1856-02-15 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS-(YESTERDAY). The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack at five o'clock. THE BARONY OF FERMOY. The Earl of DERBY called attention to a question involvinc, the privileges of that house. The noble earl opposite (Earl Granville) a few nights ago informed him that a petition was in preparation on behalf of the 'Baron of Fermoy, and that it was probable it would be presented to the house within a day or two afterwards. Under that impression he postponed his motion he bad given notice of, to refer the case to a committee of privilege, deeming it better to raise the question on that occasion. He, however, had received a note from the noble earl, to say that he had received the pe tition and had transmitted it to the Lord Chancellor, and that noble lord bad referred it to the Committee of Privileges without laying it on the table of the house. He complained of this being most inconvenient. For centuries there had never been any difference between the hoose and Crown until last year, when her Majesty's Mi nisters had contrived ungraciously to involve the Crown in difficulties as regarded the privileges of the house in the creation of two separate peerages, each of whose patents was considered by a large portion of that house, including some of the most eminent law authorities, as invalid. He contended that it was only in the case of a _ lineal descendant of one who had exercised the right of voting for Irish representative peers that a petition such as the present was referred to the committee of privileges. By the act of Union it was provided in re gard to Irish peerages that her Majesty had the power of creating a new peerage in Ireland upon the extinction of three Irish peerages, and that such creation could not . take place until the lapse of 12 months after the death of the last peer. This right was possessed by the Sovereign until the number of the Irish was reduced to 100. The noble earl then proceeded to argue that there had not lapsed three Irish peerages according to the terms of the Act of Union, and that consequently the Govern ment were not authorised to advise her Majestyto create a new peer at the time the Crown conferred the patent upon the Baron Fermoy. Earl GRANVILLE said that; the Government bad acted under the advice of the law officers of the Crown at the time they advised her Majesty to confer the peerage upon Baron Fermoy, and they were, of course, to prepare to take the responsibility of this new creation. He would not then enter into a discussion as to the legality of such craa tins], as the case had been referred to a Committee of Privileges. He would merely remark that there was something new in the law as laid down by the noble lord. As to the Irish peerage, no member of that body, unless a professed supporter of the policy of the noble lord opposite, had a chance of being elected to a seat in that house. A conversation then took place, in which Lord Brougham, Lord Campbell, and the Earl of Desart took part, after which the subject dropped. TRIAL OF OFFENCES BILL The house then went into committee on this bill, the whole of the clauses were agreed to, and the bill was reported. NATIONAL EDUCATION. Earl GRANVILLE laid upon the table a bill for the promotion of education in England and Wales, and it was read a first time. UNSEAWORTHY VESSELS. The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH presented several petitions from seamen at Whitby, West Hartlepool, Sunderland, and other ports, complaining that they were obliged by law to gn to sea in unseaworthy vessels. The noble earl stated that having carefully examined the allegations of the petitioners, he had come to the con clusion not only that they really had a serious grievance, lout that likewise the public interests were materially in jured by the existing state of the la :v. The petitioners called attention to the fact that the casualties at sea and the number of lives lost had of late years increased in a greater proportion than the number of ships. At the time the petitions were drawn up, that statement was true ; but he was glad to say that a return just laid upon their lordships' to►ble showed a gratifying decrease in the num ber of lives lost during the last year. Iu 1852 the number of vessels wrecked in the British seas was 1,015 ; but that must have been a year of more than ordinarily tern pestuoue weather. In 1853 the number was 8.32; in 1854, 987 ; and in 1855, 1,141. The number of lives lost was in 1852. 920 ; in 1853, 689 ; in 1854, 1,549 ; and in 1355, 465. The diminution under this head was very gratifying, and it was also satisfactory to find that out of 1,388 persons whose lives bad been in peril, but who had, nevertheless, been saved, no fewer than 650 had been rescued by the most modern appliances for the preservation of life. (Hear.) During the last year no fewer than 57 vessels had been destroyed, 173 most se riously injured; and 14 less seriously so, in all 247, lost or damaged by collisions. Of course there were occa sions in which it was almost impossible to avoid acci dents of thi.i kind; but there could be no doubt that a vast proportion of these casualties were doubtless trace. able to incompetency intlte master, orto the vessel, from faults of construction, not answering to her helm ; to inadequacy in the crew, or to deficiency in the equip ment of the ship. The petitioners complained that in consequence of the great competition that prevailed, persons were appointed masters who produced certi ficates of competency, but who were not really compe tent. They also stated that a great number of foreigners were now employed who were only imperfectly acquainted with the English language, and who were consequently liable to misunderstand what they were ordered to do. It was, however, quite clear that by far the greater number of casualties were occasioned by one or other of the titree or four causes he bad just enumerated ; and it was certainly very hard upon seamen that having once esgiged to sail in a particular vessel they were unable to quit it, however unseaworthy it might appear to them to be ; nay, that if they merely wont ashore to make a csmplaint, they were liable to be apprehended as de serters, and sent to prison for different periods up to 12 weeks. This was a very serious state of things. The inspector of prisons for the county of Cornwall made the following statement respecting the House of Correction at Yarmouth, in his report for 1855 : Nine prisoners tinder sentence of 12 weeks' imprison ment for having deserted their ships or refused to sail in them after having signed articles of agreement, the ground of their refusal having been the unseaworthiness of the ships, or tho fact of their having oa board an insufficient number of able seamen to work them with a due regard to the safety of the ships and crews. The inspector goes oa to say;— The frequent occurrence of commitments under the Mer chant Seamen's Act in this and other seaport towns has led me to bring the subject under the notice of the Secre tary of State in a special report, from a feeling that the administration of the law affecting merchant seamen is attended with an amount of hardship to that class of per sons not contemplated by the Legislature. A very large number of merchant seamen are committed summarily to the prisons of seaport towns for refusing to proceed to sea, after having signed articles of agreement, the grounds of their refusal being, as stated above, the alleged unseawor thiness of their ships, or the insufficient complement of " able seamen" among their crew. The first of these objections is in many cases notoriously well founded, more especially at - the present time, when the great and sudden increase of trade to the Aus• tralian colonies and elsewhere has led to many ships being taken up for service, to the requirements of which they are quits unequal. " * Whether the circum stances hero alluded to may throw any light upon the nu merous mi , chancee that have occurred of late to merchant ships 1 am not qualified to judge ; but I have the best rea son to know that the prisons of several seaport towns in my district are continually supplied with seamen com mitted under the circumstances referred to ; the good character of many of. whom, obtained both in the navy and merchant service, lea•is to the strongest presumption iu their favour. * * The above remarks apply to all prisons with which I am acquainted in seaport towns ; but in the cage of that which forms the subject of this report a peculiar hardship is inflicted on the prisoners by the closeness of confinement and the very defective ac commodation. This state of things ought not to be permitted to con tinue. Ey an act passed about a year and a half ago a sea• Orin was permitted to go ashore in order to make a com • laint ; but it was idle to give a man a privilege like that if he was liable to be seized and sentenced by a bench of ship-owning magistrates to 12 weeks' imprison meet for attempting to avail himself of it. On the other band, if deterred by the fear of being arrested if he went ashore to make his complaint—he consented to go to sea in an unseaworthy vessel, and if that vessel was wrecked he would have no right to sue the master for any clothes or other property that he might lose, There could be no doubt that a very pregnant cause of accidents was the in • adequate number of persons employed as crews. In most merchant ships they could only get up or take in one sail at a time, and tbey were consequently exposed to much danger from snitlen changes of the weather. The course which he (the noble lord) wished to see adopted, was that the Board of Trade, which already had power to direct an inquiry to be made after a casualty had occurred, should appoint in every seaport an inspector, and that no ship should be allowed to sail without h av i ng undergone anp examination, both as to the seaworthiness of the vessel And the adequacy of the crew. (Rear.) He would go even further, and suggest that an investigation should take place in the case of every serious casualty occurring to merchant vessels, as was done with respect to vessels belonging to the royal navy. If those two steps were adopted, Le had no doubt that not only many lives, but much valuable property would be saved to the country e very year. Their lordships had probably no idea of the extent of our annual losses from shipwreck. The ves sels lost last year amounted tan° leas than 176,000 tons, d the lives j eo p a rdised could not have b een le s s than an 7,000 or 3,000. He (the noble earl) was not at present n, v step in relation to th e p e titi ons prepared to propose _ a b ebegged to present, but be might perhaps on some fa ure occasion move for a committee. had reference. STANLEY admitted the earl's observations great importance d of the subject to which the noble reference. Th e h a rdship complained of by the petition ers had al r e a dy rece i ve d the attention of her Majesty's Government ; and in order that be might know how the law really stoo d w i t h re f erence t o m en going on sherd to complain o f th e unseawor th ines s of their ships, D. had had a case drawn up and subm i tte d t o Sir J. D Harding, the Queen's advocate, and to another eminent authority. The following were the questions put to the learned gentleman, and their answers :- 1. Whether, when a seaman is engaged, there is or is not an implied condition on the part of the shipowner that the ship shall be seaworthy? We are of opinion that there is an implied condition on the part of the shipowner that the ship shall be seaworthy. 2. Whether, if the ship is not seaworthy, and the sea mreatedan usedrefusd to go to sea in her on t h at groun d , h e can b o deserter, er punish e d un d er t h e enac t ments t above referred to, or otherwise? —And that if the ship is not seaworthy, and the seaman refugee to go to sea in her on that ground, he cannot be treatod as a deserter, or punished under the enaettnent referred to ; but the burden of proof will lie on the seaman. He must establish the unssaworthiness of the vessel. _ _ 3. Whether, if seaman is apprehended on the ground of desertion and alleges in his defence that the ship is un seaworthy, it is the duty of the court which hears the case to examine into the questions, and to reccive such evidence as it may be possible to procure of the truth of the allega tion ?—lf the seaman apprehended for desertion alleges the unseaworthiness of the ship in his defence, it will be the duty of the court which hears the case to examine into the question, as it would so on any other disputed question of fact that might arise before it ; and it must dispose of the question on such evidence as may be laid before it, bearing in mind, as we have before said, that the burden of proof is on the seaman. --- 4. Whether, if the ship is not seaworthy, and the sea man refuses to go to sea in her on that ground, and the master and owner refuse to deliver any clothes or effects which the seaman has on board, the seaman can bring an action to recover them, or to recover damages for their de tention ?—We think that the seaman is justified in refusing togo to sea in the ship on the ground of her unseawor thiness, and may maintain an action to recover his effects if detained. Whether, if a seaman serves iq a ship which is sett to sea in an unseaworthy state, and the ship is lost in conse qeence, and the seaman thereby suffers damage by loss of his clothes, or by injury to his person or otherwise, he has any remedy against the owner ?-0n the authority of the Case "Priestly v. Fowles" (3 M. & W., p. 1), we are of opinion that a seaman proceeding to sea in au unseaworthy ship, and sustaining injury in consequence, could not maintain an action, and. would be without a remedy against the owner. 6. Whether, when a seaman is engaged, there is or is not an implied condition on the part of the owner that the ship shall be adequately manned (i. e., manned in such a manner as would, under ordinary circumstances, be suffi cient for the safety and proper navigation of the ship on the voyage on whick she is to be employed); and, ifj?, whether or not the non-performance of this condition' is attended by consequences similar to those which would attend the non-performance of the implied condition that the ship shall 'be seaworthy, assuming such last-mentioned condition to exist? We are of opinion that there is an implied condition on the part of the owner that the ship shall be manned by a crew sufficient to navigate her with reasonable safety, and that if she be not so manned the con sequences will be the same as though the ship was unsea worthy. It wag clear, then, that the law already provided for the safety of the seamen ; and it should be borne in mind that crimps were always ou the watch to seize sailors and hand them over to other ships. If there must be an inspection at the instance of every drunken sailor who wished to excuse his absence from his ship, or of every man who wished to get rid pf his present engagement in order to make a better one, it war obvious that it must lead to much delay in the sailing of vessels, and the con sequent loss of trade. While constrained to admit the in crease in the yearly returns of the number of wrecks, he did not think that it arose from any increase in the actual number of casualties, but from the greater care which was used in reporting cases to the Board of Trade. It should be remembered, too, that the wreck of a single emigrant vessel would swell the loss of life in a particu lar year without indicating any real increase in the number of wrecks. A clause had been inserted in the Merchant Shipping Act, giving the Admiralty courts power to award salvage for lives as well as property saved—an enactment which worked well, and had given great satisfaction. He (the noble lord) would not object to the appointment of a committee, though he did not think one was necessary. The suggestion of the noble earl, that no vessel should be allowed to sail until it bad undergone an inspection, was well worthy of considera , tion. Lord COLCHESTER observed that the law, as stated by Sir John Harding, appeared perfectly satisfactory, except in one particular, namely, that the burden of proof was thrown upon the sailor complaining of the unsea worthint ss of his ship. The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH said it had hap , pened in one case that the seaman of a vessel, the Swan, which was in die - Tyne, came on shore, and com plained that she was unseaworthy. They were treated as deserters, and sent to prison, bat it was proved after wards that their objecion was well founded, for the ves sel, after going to sea, returned after a few days, because she wa3 not in a state to proceed on her voyage. Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY said he trusted that in future the magistrates would pay a more ready attention to the complaints of the seamen. The Earl of ELLENBOROUG a said, the noble lord seowied to forget that he had read an extract from a report of the Inspector of Prisons, who stated, with regard to one prison, that a great proportion of the prisemers were seamen who had been committed for de sertion, and be hold with the man. Lard STANLEY did not know that the Inspector of Prisons had vny particular means of knowing whether the ship wag unseaworthy or not. The subject then dropped, and their lordships ad journtAL HOCSE OF COMMONS.—(YESTERDAY,) The SP'RAKER took the chair at the usual hour. PETITTONS. Mr. L, .KING presented a petition from Surrey for the consoli dition of the statute law. Mr. BALL presented several petitions against opening the Crystal _Palace on Sundays. Mr. EVBI;YN presented a petition against opening the British Museum. on Sundays. Mr. A. PETaLATT presented similar petitions from Southwark. Mr. FIADFIrILD presented a petition against the Police Bill. Mr. SPOONER presented several petitions against opening the Crystal: Palace on Sundays. Mr. ALEX. HASTIE presented similar petitions from Glasgow. Mr. HORSFALL presented a petition against opening the Crystal Palace, and also one praying fur a discon tinuance of the music in the park on Sundays. Mr. COLLIER presented a petition from South Devon, praying that l4he local dues upon shipping m;ght be abolished. Mr. BROWN presented a petition from Liverpool against the epening; of the Crystal Palace on Sundays. Sir D. L. EVANS gave notice that he intended to postpone the motion standing iu hie name till that day fortnight. Mr. SPOONER, on the part of Mr. Muntz, postponed the motion relative to the monetary laws till that day fortnight. TH 3N LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING- FEBRUARY 15, 1856. statutes if these were net included. Ho did not at present contemplate dealing with acts which related to Ireland. There were many acts relating to England which did not relate, or at least only to a partial extent, to Ireland, and were ho to perpetuate Ireland in his present scheme, the effect might be to perpetuate that confusion which he was seeking to put an end to. There were probably some six or eight thousand local nets of which the judges were found to take notice, and which were printed in extenso, in all the editions of the statutes. He might mention, as a specimen of them, the act relating to Dover Harbour, by which certain ccnemissions were created, having various powers concerning the management of the harbour. There were many thousand acts of a similar description applying to Liverpool, Hull, and other large towns. In these acts, which were of a strictly local character, were to be found many provisions of a public and general nature. For ex ample, an assault committed on any of the commissioners or superintendents, or any of the officers under them, while they were in the execution of their duty, was made a mis demeanour : the more obstructing of such persons was dealt with in a similar way. No action could he brought, however, more than six months after the offence was al leged to have been committed, and thus there was a special statute of limitations. The greatest inconvenience arose from the existing state of these local acts : and what he should propose to do when they cam© to deal with this class of statutes was to repeal all the provisions that ex isted, and all that might hereafter be enacted, and to substitute for them one single general act of Parlia ment resembling the Railway Clauses Consolidation - Act. The acts relating to the army and navy, and the militia, the acts relating to the revenue, and the loan acts might be consolidated with great facility. Of the forty volumes of statutes, at least four or five relating to the re venue would, he believed, be found to have expired. The effect of the system of consolidation for which the present bill was intended e to provide would be to remove from the statute-book at least three-fourths of the statutes of which the law consisted, and to make the statute-book, instead of comprising a long succession of statutes without order, con sistency, or arrangement, consist only of a series of cons°. lidation acts, beginning with those of a general nature and finishing with those of a departmental or administrative character ? But then came the important and difficult question, what were they to do as regarded future legisla lation. The statute law commission, which had devoted its attention to this branch of the subject, had it appeared, prepared a report which would shortly be laid before Par liament, comprising a scheme for future legislation. The framing of bills by independent members, not familiar with the statute law, was a very serious matter for consideration ; and as soon as the report in question had been presented, he should propose to have distributed among members of both houses of Parliament ,suggestions as to the phrase ology and structure of bills to be introduced into Parlia ment, which would greatly assist such persons as he had referred to. As regarded the future framing of bills, he thought that the house would entirely concur with him in the opinion that there ought to be, and must be, some officer, or a corps of officers, appointed by and invested with the authority of bath houses of Parliament, to watch and assist in the course of legislation ; to consider every bill for the amendment of the law, not forgetting its bearing on the statute-book as it already existed, and to take upon themselves the general superintendence and revision of the bills introduced into Parliament. Sup posing some such authority to exist, then came the ques tion by what means cou ld th e new enactments be made consistently and conveniently to form part of the pre viously consolidated statute law. Not wishing to deal with the question merely in the abstract, he would take the case of the other bill which he was about to ask leave to introduce, relating to bills of exchange and promissory notes. At present there was in this country a mercantile custom by which three days' grace was allowed on notes of hand. Suppose it were thought expedient by Parliament to make the law of England consistent with the law of other countries in that respect, and to do away with the three days' grace, and suppose a bill were passed for that purpose—in that case, if the Consolidation Act re lating to bills of exchange and promissory notes were en titled " Consolidation Act No. 1, Bills of Exchange," no thing wield be easier than to affix the sauce title to the act which made the alteration. And in like manner, after the general consolidation of the statutes, it might be pro vided by a resolution cf both houses of Parliament that whenever a new act was passed it should be printed, so as to become part of the consolidation act re lating to the same subject. Under this scheme, or modes operandi, not only would the consolidation of the sta tutes be attended with immediate benefit, but, as legisla tion proceeded, the now acts would be made to form part of the already consolidated statutes, and the statute-book would consist of a series of single acts, each series contain log the whole statute law on the subject to which it re lated. This, then, was the plan for consolidating the whole statute law of the laud, for which he asked the sanction of the honse—a plan in which no attempt was made to codify , or deal with the common law. It was eezential to the suc cess of his scheme that, if the principle of it should receive the sanction of both Houses of Parliament, the several consolidation acts which would be founded upon it should bo passed in as rapid succession as practicable, so that they might with the least possible delaybecome part of the law of tho land. He had satisfied himself that the scheme was practicable, and would be successful if it received the sanction of Parliament; and he would, at any sacrifice of time which might be necessary, undertake the superinten dence and preparation of all the acts of Parliament. As re garded the possible objections to his scheme, he believed it was owing to the mixing up of consolidatiou with codifi cation that the greatest and ablest men who had hitherto attempted to deal with this subject had hitherto failed. The consolidation of a multiplicity of acts of Par liament was a comparatively simple task, consisting in the substitution for 20 or 30 acts of one single not containing verbatim the same provisions. This would lead to no die cuasion—it was only putting the law in a different form ; but if they superadded to that the codification of the sta tute law, on what a wide field would they enter ! He ven tured to say, with perfect confidence, that no one could advance through one page of a bill for codifying the com mon law of England without giving rise to discussions and differences of opinion as to the construction and exposition of the law, doubts upon the construction and exposition of the law, anti as to what the law was, which would render the passing of a single act of Parliament for the consolida tion of any one single branch of the law in any ono session of Parliament utterly impossible. (Hear, hear.) So long as the house limited its exertions to consolidating the statutes, there would be no difficulty in proceeding, but if an attempt were made to codify, the result would, he feared, be differeet. As an instance of this he would call attention to what took place in the House of Lords a few sessions since, when an attempt was made to codify the criminal law The bill which was brought in at that time was referred to a committee, consisting, he would not say of some of the most distinguished lawyers, but of the naost distinguished lawyers of the kingdom. Four of the com mittee were noble lords who had filled the office of Lord Chancellor, one was then Lord Chancellor, and the sixth was chief justice of England. Lord Truro, Lord St. Leo nards, Lord Brougham, Lord Cranworth, Lord Lyndhurst, and Lord Campbell, were the noble lords composing that committee. The first clause of the bill was an interpre tation clan e, fixing the meaning of the words thereinafter used. The committee held eleven meetings, sitting on the average from four to six hours upon each occasion, and in the end they were ule'iged to give up the bill in despair, finding it absolutely impossible ,to agree upon the meanings to be affixed to the technical words used in the bill. If any hon. member thought that the difficulty was one easy to be got over he would suggest to him to en deavour to put into the shape of a section of an act a defi nition of the word "malicious," a term constantly occur ing in criminal jurisprudence. If then they could not have codification, they might certainly have consolidation. And the advantage of acceding to this proposition was this, that the one plan by no means interfered with the other, but was rather a step towards it. Were the entire statute law con solidated and arranged under appropriate headings, a st_p which would materially aid any future attempts to codify would be accomplished. There was another matter con nected with the subject which he mu: t bring before the house. He was perfectly willing to undertake the responsi bility of superintending such measures as might be neces sary to carry into effect the scheme which he hadimper fectly sketched out, but it was obvious that it would require the close attention of learned and competent men, and the country could not expect that the services of such persons could be given without remuneration. When the house came to consider that, in order properly to frame an act con solidating a branch of the law, it would be necessary to read through, collate, and weigh the effect of 30, 40, or perhaps 50statutes, ho did not think that a remuneration for each bill averaging between 501. and 10i/. would be too large. But in connection with this matter hon. members should bear in mind the fact that a great saving would result to the country at large from the system which he advocated. It was almost impossible to over-estimate the advantages of such reform. He believed that two recent acts of Parliament —the County Court Act and the Common Law Procedure Act—had effected an annual saving of 1,000,0001. sterling. He therefore hoped that the house would favourably view the plan which he lead brought under its consideration ; and if he were fortunate enough to obtain its consent to the second reading of this bill, hon. members might rely upon it that he would not relax his efforts in the course which ho was now pursuing. Of course so vast a subject would in require some time to carry it through all its parts, but he did not hesitate in saying that it might be done within 2 years from that time. He was quite sure that he should not back co-operation. There was no want of earliest and able men ready to aid the cause of legal reform ; in deed, so true was this that he could see no reason why, at the present day, one single grievance in the hews of England should remain unredressed. Lord STANLEY—I rise to second the motion of my hon. and learned friend; but, after his comprehensive speech, and not anticipating opposition at this stage, I shall trouble the house with but few remarks. I see with plea sure, as does every man who has reflected on the wants of this community, that, in the rather unusual cessation of political antagonism which characterises the present time, the qu , stion of law reform is rising daily into greater pro minence. Daring half a century that question has occupied the attention of Parliament, and be some extent of the pub lic ; but what has been wanting is not so much the guidance of a directing mind or the agency of honest and competent persons skilled in the law, as that popular interest and sup port out of doors, without which, in a popularly-constituted Government, any reform, especially if it involves much labour of detail, is sure tube thrust aside to make way for other measures less important, hot at the moment more interesting. The difficulty with which law reformers have to contend has arisen not so much from the actual magni tude and weight of obstacles in the way as from the want of suf f icient impelling force to encounter and bear thorn down. The work has been there to be done, the machine was ready to do it, but the propelling driving power was not adequately supplied. If Parliament be in earnest in dealing with this subject, what course ought we to adopt? I do . not dogmatise on such a question, but I accept my hon. and learned friend's conclusion, that any attempt to reeset the whole law of England into the form of a code would, for the present at least, be useless. You would have to amalgamate with the statutes the whole f thelcommon un written law, now scattered over more than 500 volumes ; to try on an immense scale, under every disadvantage, that experiment which was tried 3 or 4 years ago, on a small scale, under the most favourable circumstances, the result of which my learned friend has described. The alternative, then, is to deal with one part of the law—the statute law —only; to s i m plify it, to a men d it, t o b r i ng it w ithi n th e smallest p oss ibl e co mpass, an d, a ft er th a t t as k h as b een ac complished, th en , but not till th en , t o cons id er w h a t fur ther st e p s oug h t to b e t a k en . I use t h e wcrd a l ternative, bet, in t ru th , th e acce pt ance o f one p l an d oes not i mp the rej ec ti on, hardly even the postponement, of the other. For it must be borne in mind by the advocates of codifica tion that the first step towards codification is the consolida tion of the statute law, and even if nothing should be done beyond consolidation a great economy of time and labour would be etlected, and much confusion would be removed. Every step taken in that direction 'is a guarantee for fur ther improvement, because when confusion has been re moved from the law upon any single subject the force of contrast will operate, and men will ask why ono part of the law should be simple and another obscure ? If consolidation be determined. on Loy hon. and learned friend wall take upon himself a large proportion of the Parliamentary la bour which it involves, but the great mass of the work to be done will have to be done out of this house. (Hear.) Two methods present themselves of getting through that work. Ono is to have a fixed body of met, either a Minis ter of Justice with subordinate agents. or a certain num ber of commissioners to deal successively with all the sub jects concerning which enactments are contained in the statutes. The other is to divide the statute law into groups, and to confide each separate group to some :person or per sons who have made that particular branch of law their special study. Each method has its advantages. By the first you will obtain that uniformity of system which fol lows upon the action of a single directing mind. By the second you will utilise the services of men who have ac- Tared a special familiarity with a particular subject, with out perhaps being under the necessity of taking them alto gether away from their profession. It is a question whe ther the two methods might not be advantageously united, whether the necessary unity of plan may not be gained by the superintendence of a Minister or commissioner, while the work of consolidation upon each particular subject is assigned to the person best able to undertake it. The next question that arises refers to the arrangement of the -sta tutes. Some jurists have proposed au entire redistribution of the statutes, which would require many of them to be taken to pieces and arranged under separate Leads. It is clear that this process (whether desirable or not I do not pronounce) is ono of codification, and not merely of conso lidation. The plan which is the most simple, and which involves the least departure from the existing arrange ment, would no doubt he the most convenient. There are many statutes which cannot be arranged or classified with out difficulty, but those of the greatest importance relate to subjects upon which Parliament has frequently legis lated, and they might be classified into large and compre hensive groups. I have made out a list of nine such groups, which I will lead to the house. With regard to the qua lification and election of members of Parliament 185 separate acts have been passed ; with regard to Excise, 120; stamps, 130; Poor Law; 120; assessed taxes, 40; Crown lands, 40; municipal corporations, 60 ; rent, 40; and sheriffs and their officers, 55, This list by no means exhausts the instances in which a large number of statutes has been passed upon a single subject, but it shows that 790 separate acts may easily be reduced to nine. This kind of legislation is different from every other kind. In other cases, if the work to be done is not completed the labour bestowed upon it is entirely lost, but in this case every step gained is gained once for all, an d w ill b e equally useful and valualewhether the work be completed or not. A question has been raised with regard to the degree of verbal alteration which ought to bo Made in the different statutes when they were thrown together. Tho commissioners of 1854 have fully argued that ques tion, and answered the objection thet verbal alterations would destroy the authority of the judicial decisions now in existence. They contend that the result of former judicial interpretations would be embodied in such alte rations, and litigation, instead of being created, would be decreased by the consequent removal of doubts. A doubt has been raised as to whether anything ought to be at tempted in the way of subetantiye as well as verbal altera tion, and it has been said that nothing ought to be done beyond consolidating the law as it s t an d s , lest the Govern ment or the commissioner should assume an undue respon sibility la making alterations. No doubt there is just ground for such a ffear ; but, on the other hand, much of our statute law has become wholly or partially obsolete, much has been virtually repealed, and thus substantive as well as verbal alterations 'may, to a certain degree, be ne cessary, while no persons can be so competent to suggest such alteration: as those whose attention has, by the very labour of consolidating, been closely fixed upon the law as it stands. The Government and the framers of any act em bodying such alterations will be responsible for them. Cara must always be taken to explain their nature and extent ; and I take for granted that nothing will be at tempted in that way except what th e s t a t e o f the law and the necessities of the time render obviously expedient. I now come to what has been looked upon as the greatest difficulty in the way of consolidation, namely, the con tinual introduction and passing of new acts. It is urged that no,reform in the nature of consolidation can be more than temnorary, because fresh changes are every day being ma !e. My answer is, that this objection, even admitting its validity to the fullest extent, does not touch the ques .tion of the beneficial e Teets of consolidation. t will be a great step towards the simplification of the law, and a great saving of labour and time, it all we obtain be that those who have to ascertain the statute law upon a parti cular subject shall be able to begin their inquiries with the year 1856 or 1817, instead of having to look back 300 or 400 years. My hon. and learned friend, however, holds that the difficulty, such as it is, is not insuperable. The consolidation act upon a particular subject will embody the law up to the time of its passing, and whether any amendment act subsequently passed be classified separately as a consolidation semendment act, or whether it be joined ou by way of supplement to the consolidation act, the objection will in either nay be overcome, and the whole statute law upon that subject may still be found in the !same part of the same book. I think it clear that some competent authority is required—whether a board or a Minister, Parliament must decide—by whom every act of Parliament shall be examined to see that it is not inconsistent with former acts, and that it rightly and fully expresses the intentions of its propounders. That prepo sition is not novel. It was put 'forward about two years ago in au able pamphlet by Mr. Willmore, it has been again and agein discussed among members of the profes sion, I believe there is a general concordance of legal opinion in its favour, and I at least never heard any valid argument against it. The expense will be but trifling, even if in such a matter expense can be regarded. My hon. and learned friend has raised the point of far greater difficulty—namely, what ought to be done with local or personal acts which are in some sense acts of a general character —as, for instance, where special and exceptional protection is given, in certain cases, to persons or pro perty. It is rash to generalize, but :I confess to me all such acts (I don't deny their necessity in supposable cases) appear faulty in principle, and as in the ease of the Rail way Clauses Act. they ought, for the warning and guid ance of the public, to be embodied in one general statute, controlling and limiting their provisions. With regard to the specific measures which my hon. and learned friend his introduced I shall 1106 trouble the House. They are large in themselves, bat they aro far loss important than the general plan which he has sketched out, and the pledge which he has given. The . pledge is before the country. I will only observe that wo are too apt, in the conflict of parties, to forget the right, the duty, and the responsi bility which belongs to individual members of aiding in the work of leeislation. We remember and t a lk l ou dl y of the responsibility of action, but we lose sight of the equally real responsibility of doing nothing %share abuses exist. It is not reasonable or just that the exclusive burden of legislation should devolve on those who have already on their hands the administrative business of the Dalian. My hon, and learned friend, in asociating himself with the Executive in undertaking this task, is not only promoting a legal reform, but setting a good Parliamentary example, and with the energy and industry he has dis played it is not likely that he will fail from any want of support either in or out of the house. (Hear.) The ATTORNEY-GENERAL thought they well all per fectly agreed on this—that it was desirable to consolidate their statutes. (Hear.) That was a point on which it was not necessary to labour. Every one would agree that the state of the law with regard to its promulgation was highly discreditable to the legislature. The laws of England were scattered ou the face of a large number of text books, in hundreds of volumes of reports, and in thousands of statute books. (Hear.) In the course of his able speech, in se conding the motion before the house, the noble lord the member for King's Lynn had pointed out a hundred dif ferent statutes on the same subject. Now that was beyond all doubt scandalous. (Hear.) But the question was, what was the best remedy for that state of things ? What was the best mode of consolidating the statutes : He quite agreed with his hon. and learned friend the member for Suffolk and with the noble lord, that it was not desirable to attempt to combine codification with consolidation. (Hear.) Let them first consolidate the statutes, and iu that point of view ho was strongly disposed to think, that how ever defective they might be, the task of proceeding to deal with the statutes by proceeding to name them and to alter their provisions and their language in the way that had been suggested would ha a protracted work—a work of im mense labour. He believed that by such a procedure what was necessarily a work of great time would assume an un limited duration. He thought that the first thing they ought to do was, to sweep away from the statute book all statutes that had been repealed, or all parts of statutes that had been repealed ; and then begin to consolidate those that remained. (Hear, hear.) They then came to the question—how could that consolidation bo effected ? The honourable and learned member for Suffolk had detailed to the house the scheme by which he proposed to effect that object ; but he (the Attorney-General thought that his hon. and learned friend had taken too much credit to himself for the originality of that scheme. As he (the Attorney-General) understood it, it was nothing more nor less than what the statute law commission had for some time been acting on in the preparation of statutes to be submitted to Parliament. He did not quite under stand the position V his hon. and learned friend, who lie was sure wee sincerely desirous of turning his great knowledge and his great ability to the furtherance of that most essential object, the coneolidatiou of the statute law—he did not understand whether his hon. and learned friend was to be considered as the organ of the statute law commission, or whether he assumed an independent position in that house with respect to the consolidation of the statutes. He had no wish to accord to the hon and learned member—who had been for so many years an ornament of the profession of which they were both members—a modesty for which a barrister of such standing would scarcely claim credit, but he did not think that his hon. audio trned fi iei.d would as sume a merit which in this case ho did not Possess. However he should say that he did not apprehend there was any thing in the plan of his hon. and learned friend that was not contained in the plan of the statute law commission, which was now proceeding with its duties. Ho did not, as he had before observed, quite understand whether the hon. and learned member was the organ of that commission or not. He (the Attorney-General) had the honour to be a member of the commission, as were two or three of his learned friends now around him, and they were not aware that the lion. and learned member was authorised to speak in the name of the statute low commission. It might, be that he was; b u t if so, cer t a i n l y h e (th e Attorney-General) (lid not know it. His hon, and learned friend had said that he would take under his careful superintendence bills on the statute law. They were to . to the exer . cise hear.) hon. and Attorney-General) did not know whether t plan of could d e n u o n t d c e o r m li e is ivu auspicious nde r bettor.supervision, H eand(Hoar, doubt °° :a n r o e ) into i t et ( h h t iy e t that body. his own prerogative or appear there ht he, he (the At- Ht hlearnedoew However, statuterg .e n wl t ha l gentleman e a cs n oo fuawfi commission—whether oens—c We introduce mheethme t r h i gi : :sh p eo_ la .nw n oat a os ass f forto r nheey•G ener thoughtal) was that a d friend required to was required that proposed by his hon. and e He thought that • to meet the existing state of Slim e s. _ if they went on acting on the principle which his hon. and not m di o s r p o os e tt p o rt r e =e sc i h ts em m e ez t lt a s n ; the work in two years, he doubted if they from completing complete it in two centuries. He was of opinion would learned friend principlef riend lla d o f stated th e that statute law night--whichcoturnigs commission—so thought_ so afar the lawrespecting that if they dealt with the statute law by taking, say first, concerning offences agains t the person, those as between bills of exchange, and then the laws master and servant, blouse relating to landlord and tenant, those havingget g thr r o e u fer i en t c h e ein to stamps,uewas inclinedan dso on, tothink they they would n would have to wait till doomsday for a completion of their task. What he would recommend was, that they should compile analytically the statute law of England complete —as any one would to form a code, or to write a text book of the law of England, classifying and subdividing into chapters and heads • and having got a great outli ne or skeleton of the law of England, they could arrange under their proper heads all the laws relating to money, to husband and wife, to guardian and ward, to person and property, to political etfences, to police," to Parliamentary repreeentation, &sc. This, he thought, would be a com prehensive mode of dealthir, with the matter, But the plan THE cROIrEAN COMMISSION. Mr. LNYARD postponed his motion from this day week till that day fortnight. The motion he should sub mit to the house would be as follows :—"That this house has observed with regret that those officers whose conduct in their rftpective departments has been shown by the report of the , commission of inquiry into the supplies of the Briti sh army in the Crimea to have occasioned great and unnecessary sufferings and losses in that army, have received honours and reward', or have been appointed to, :and are still holding, re sponsib!e offices in the public- service." _ COMMUNICATION \ WITH AUSTRA.LIA. Mr. BAXTER asked the t3ecretary of State for the Colonial Department if her Altajesty's Government were taking steps to re-establish f4eam communication be tween this country and the .A-ustralian colonies ; and, if :not, what were the obstacles which prevented them doing so. Mr. LABOUCUERE said the Government had taken steps to place the communication on a satisfactory basis. The plan would be found iu the Treasury minute which had just been 14bid on the table. The Government intended to put out tenders for a monthly communi cation—one-half of the expense to be borne by the Go vernment, and the otizer half by the colonies. THE ARMISTICE. Mr. J. EIVART asked the First Lord of the Trea sury whether It would he lawful to despatch British ships with cargoes to Raissian ports during the armistice which was about to be concluded ; and, in that case, would articles contraband of war, such as brimstone, lead, and saltpetre, be. exempt from snc'l permis4ons of shipping ?—lf the sailing of British ships was unlawful, might foreign ships be cb'nrtered for the purpose ; or whether the blockade of gaassian ports would be soon re-established ? Lord PALMERSTON said the only answer he could give to those parties engaged in that trade was to wait till the armistice was agreed to, and then they could see what was its nature. WEST INDIA MAILS. Mr. LINDSAY asked the, Secretary of State for the Colonies if he had received a memorial from certain in• habitants of British Guiana, complaining of great irre gularities in tha conveyance of mails between this coun try and our West India possessions, and praying for an inquiry into the same ; if that memorial had been re ceived, and what steps, if any, had been taken to insure for the future the regular performance of the contract entered into by the West India Royal Mail Steam-Packet Company ; and if the Secretary for the Colonies would lay the memorial, with any correspondence bearing upon it, on the table of that house ? Mr. LABOUCIIIIRE said the memorial had been received, and there would be no objection to its produc tion. CONSOLIDA_TION OF THE STATUTES. Sir F. KELLY said that he rose for the purpose of in troducing the first of a series of bills for the consolidation of the entire statute law of England. He was not insensible to the magnitude e and difficulty of the task he had undertaken; but, looking with some degree of confidence not only to the but to the effective support and assistance in divid"ll3' and collectively of the house, and especially of the memb ers without hope of her Majesty's Government, he was not success. This subject had often before baffled the efforts of lawyers and statesmen, and it was only by the effective co - operation of others that he could beme fieia i l u re i s si lt b fr om, his labours. In order to state ellc morn any ore clearly, intelligibly, precisely the nature of what he proposed to do, he would first explain what he meant by a consolidation of the statute law, because a great deal of perplexity and Coufasion had arisen from con founding the terms consolidationszT:fcrod from ifica n These terms were indi fforently used by whomtio a . g rea ta or degree of accuracy ought to be expected. The consolidation of the statute law, as that law now existed in the statute-books, was that which he had undertaken to effect. The statute law was at present contained in some 35 or 40 fc.lio volumes, and the number of the sta tutes was somef hing like 15,000 or 20,000. What he pro posed to do was. to arrange and classify these statutes, and to have one act of Parliament on each subject, s o th at instead of the statute-book consisting of 40 volumes foil), and 20,000 str‘tutes, without order, classification, arrange ment, or reference, it would consist of some 200 or 300 acts of Parliament, each act embracing the whole statute law on that particular subject to which it related. He did not seek to occupy the time of the house with the question of codification, which included a consolidation wand not only of the :statu te law, but of the common la which he belies oil to be impracticable in the present state of things. The condition of the statute-book was such that the judge who bad to administer the law, the counsel or the attorney who had to apply it, and the subject who had to observe and obey it, were obliged, in order to ascertain what the law was, to refer to text books which might or might not exist, which, if they existed, might not be ample or accurate enough to satisfy the re quit 'meats of the inquirer. Having found a text book he had to go through all the statutes and sections of statutes on the subject, from Magna Charts to the present time, till be discovered, or hoped that he discovered, the parti c ilsr provision he wished for. And after all he could not be certain that he was right, because he could not be sure that he had not overlooked some statute or section of a statute bearing on the subject of inquiry. This was one of the many evils resulting from the present state of the law. Another evil was this, that whenever a member of that house was desirous of amending the law, and intro duced a bill for th a t p urpose, h e cou ld never be sure, un less he was a perfect master of every provision relating to the subject (and who could say that), that he had not overlooked some clause in some act of Parliament, which would be inconsistent with the proposed measure, and thereby merely increase the confusion and the evil. He might point out a variety of other evils resulting from this state of things. He would only refer to one particular case to illustrate this evil. An act of Parliament was passed in the time of George 11., which made a malicious destruction of property in certain conditions a felony. Fifty years after that another act was passed on the same subject, the framer of which, probably a very learned mac, but whose attention had not been called to the previous act, made it a misdemeanour. Some one committed the offence in ques tion, and the framer of the indictment, being acquainted with the earlier and better known statute, and not with the latter one, framed it for a felony. The person was tried, convicted, and punished under that statute. It was fortunate that it was not a capital felony, for then he would have been hanged, and it would have been too late to discover that a statute was passed half a century later which reduced that particular offence to a misdemeanour. (Hear, hear.) The consequence was less serious than it might have been, but it was still a consequence highly discreditable to the state of the law. (Hear, hear.) There were another set of statutes familiar to some mem bers of that house, the acts under which the ecclesiastical commissioners, or rather the commissioners for building churches, were constituted. These acts were so confused and inconsistent that no lawyer would advise a client to act on any single section without great doubt and hesitation. He need not dwell further on the state of confusion in which the statute law now was, as the subject was familiar to the house, but would proceed to call their attention to the history of the attempts to remedy it, and then explain the nature of the steps which, supported by the ablest as sistance, he proposed to take for the entire consolidation of the statute law. (Hear, hear.) The subject hied been under their consideration a few evenings ago, on the mo tioa of the right honourable member for the Univer sity of Dublin, but the complaints then made were almost in the same terms as those made by Lord Bacon 250 years ago. From time to time various attempts had been made to remedy these evils, but from the Imes) of Lord Bacon to that of Lord Brougham no attempt to consolidate the statute law of England had succeeded. He felt therefore that he was entitled to the indulgence of the house, when he appeared before them to commence such a task. He had lately become a member of the Statute Law Commission, and he felt satisfied that with the assistance to be derived from the labours of the commission the ob ject could be attained. Two centuries had elapsed from the time of Lord Bacon, when in 1803 the subject of the con solidatior. of the statute law came under the consideration of the Record Commission. They resolved, " That Francis Hargrave, Esq., should be requested to consider and re port as to the beat mode of reducing the statute law into a smaller compass and more systematic form." The recom mendations of the Record Commission were approved of by both houses of Parliament, but nothing was done, nor any attempt made, to carry them out from thence until 1816. In that year a report was made to the House of Lords, ' aed they resolved," That from the present state of the sta tute law, it is inexpedient that effectual means should be taken to arrange the matters contained in the statute-book of she United Kingdom, and the statutes passed by the several Parliaments of England, Ireland, and Scotland, under their distinct and proper heads." For some years nothing was done, until Lord Brougham made his cele brated oration in that house, on the state of the law, but the consolidation of the statute law did not form one of th 3 subjects of his speech. In 1833, when he became Chan cellor, he issued a commission to inquire into the subject. The commissioners made a report, but it was never acted on. It was always found that, as soon as any classification was attempted, the most active law reformers soon con founded consolidation and codification, and the scheme always turned out a failure. In 1843 one step was taken in preparing an index of the statutes. In 1852 an °Veer attempt was made, and a bill was actually laid on the table of the House of Lords. It was intended to be the first of a series, but it failed because it attempted to codify : it dealt with the criminal law, repealing existing enactments, and re-enacting such of their pro visions us were not obsolete. Unfortunately it did not stop there, but attempted to give definitions of, and to re duce into a statutable form of expression a number of offences which before were left to be determined by the common law. The result was, that whilst there was no ditlerence of opinion as to the sections of the bill which re newed the statutory enactments, every single definition and every single provision affecting the common law be came a subject of discussion and difference. That was fatal to the bill. It was referred to a select committee, but came to nothing. In 1853, the present Lord Chancellor, when laying on the table of the House of Lords a bill re latiug merely to registration, entered into a statement of the arrangements ho proposed to make for attempting the consolidation of the statute law. That system, how ever, coafoundod consolidation and codification, and must, of necessity, have proved impracticable. Towards the end of the session, the Lord Chancellor brought in a bill, the first of the promised series, for the consolidation of the criminal law, but it did net pass. In 1851 Lord Craw worth appointed the present statute-law commission. of which he (Sir F. Kelly) bad, within the last few weeks, become a member. He could not, therefore, claim any credit for the many useful suggestions that had emanated from that body; but having now become a member of it he had undertaken to peruse and revise every bill prepared for the classification and consolidation of the different subdivisions of the statute law. He had further under taken to bring each of these bills before the house, and he trusted he would succeed in accomplishing the task, if he received from the different members of the house that as sistance they were so well qualified to give, and which he stood so much in need of. (Hear, hear.) The commission, when first . appointed, held several meetings; some very eminent members of it insisted on an attempt at some general codification, but that, as before, proved inconsist ent with any effort at consolidation. Mr. Anstey, a gentleman for whose zeal and abilities ho had the highest respect, devoted himself to the preparation of an analysis of the law as a preliminary to au attempt at codification, but it was found to be productive of the greatest con fusion and difficulty; and, like every other attempt at codification, ended in failure and disappointment. The first head of Mr. Anetey's analysis was—" Of personal ca pacities—and of natural-born British subjects, all their rights and liberties, however secured by statutes or other wise, shall be taken to be by common law. No act of the Sovereign derogatory to those rights shall be valid." If the ideas of the hon. gentleman had been carried out, he would by such an enactment lepeal Magna Charta and substitute some general cause of his. After this system had been abandoned, the commission, at the suggestion pf the Lord Chancellor, employed different members of the profession to consolidate the statute law relating to the subjects with which they were each most conversant. From the experience which he had derived from the la bours of these gentlemen, he was perfectly convinced that the entire consolidation of the whole statute law was easy and practicable. He now undertook, with the assist :ince of the commission, to go through the whole com pass of the statute law, and reduce every act and every section of an act relating to the various subjects into a complete classification. He would now shortly explain the plan on which he intended to proceed, then en deavour to explain to the house what appeared to him tobe the distinction between consolidation and codification, and he thought ho could satisfy the house that if ever the latter was to be successful, it could only be after censolidatiou. The plan on which they intended to proceed was this—in the first place, they would take one, two, or three, of the most important, and at the same time most familiar sub jects within the compass of the law, then go over the en tire volume of the st a t u t es , an d e xtr a ct from them not only every act of Parliament, but every section, every pro vision, every line of an act that bore on either of the sub jects ; this had been done with the two bills which he uow asked leave to lay on the table. He would take the second, that relating to the laws on bills of exchange and promis sory notes, as an instance, to make his statement more iclear. At present, if a merchant or lawyer wished to know what was the statute law relating to bills of ex change or promissory notes, he would have to look into no less than 15 acts, some of them containing a groat many sections, passed from the Bth Wm. 111. down to the present day. The course which had been taken on this subject, and which would be followed in every other in science, was to take out of the statute-book every act, and every section of an act, relating to bills of exchange or pro missory notes, and at once repeal them all, and then bring in, not 13 acts, but substitute for those dispersed through the entire statute-book one single act containing every ex isting provision bearing on bills of exchange ; by this means a portion of the statute-hook would at once be swept away, and some 400- pages struck out of the 40 volumes. The next subject they proposed to deal with was insurance; that would strike out 1,000 pages more. The whole statute law of the realm, which now rills forty volumes, contain ing some eighteen or twenty thousand acts, would be re duced to a seventh or an eighth of its present bulk ; and, instead of a collection of a multitude of enactments, from Magna Charts to the latest act, following each other with outsequenceg i o n r ningw connection,itwi t h : C i t onsol will ideaotnedsi consist . a N sa o ri . eB l— ol l Offences against the Person; Consolidated Act, No. 2— Law statutes , b of Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes ; Consolidated Act, No. 3—Policies ofi Insurance against Fire, on Lives, &c.; and so on till theyreached the end of the statute - book. Etch act would contain all the statute law of England on the subject to which it referred. Although this task might seem easy, yet there were many difficulties in the way. One was that the Legislature must rely entirely on the ac curacy of the framers of these acts—that he had extracted from the statute-book every provision bearing on the sub ject. As fair as that was concerned he had recommended — and if he obtained the sanction of the house would see the recommendation serried oat—that for the consolidation of the statute law in each ,particular subject that member of the profession who was undoubetedly and unquestionably the most competent for the task, from his acquaintance with it, should be selected ; for example, with regard to bills of Exchequer they had employed the ablest men who could afford the time required for the slight remuneration they wore enabled to offer. It would be invidious to mention names, but he could promise the house that the same rule would bo adopted in every other case. After they had gone through the princi pal branches of the law, as the criminal law, the merchant law, the law relating to public rights, the municipal law, the law of customs and excise, there would still remain a large number of statutes which would require to be grap pled with before they could effect a complete consolida tion of the law. It appeared from a return annexed to one of the reports of the statute law commission that the num ber of acts passed in the last session was 131. Of these 11 were general public statutes relating to the United King dom ; two applied to Great Britain, six to E n g land and Ireland, 21 to England, six to Scotland , 13 to Ireland, making altogether 59 acts of a general and public nature. Now supposing that these had been carried through Par liament, a succession of bills upon all the branchesthesta tute-book of th e law, embraced in these acts, so as to have purged of nine-tenths of its contents , and to have em solidated into several distinct and singl e acts of Paella. inent, all subjects of a general and public nature, then would come the question what was to be done w lie with the re a mainiug acts? Besides the 59 public acts , to r i cts, six ch had referred there remained 26 special and Inca re lating t o the colonies, two relating to the East Indies, 11 to the army, the navy, and the militia, and 39 to the le venue and other financial subjects. These last-mentioned acts were not strictly of a gene ral and public nature, but it wuuld b e i n vain to say that they had eousolidatecl the • his hon. and learned friend had proposed would never ii finish. That was his view of the subject. He would not say that he stood alone in entertaining it, for he had the great advantage of having in it the concurrence of his hou. and learned friend the Solicitor-General ; but, unfortu nately, they were in the minority as regarded the statute law commission, and he therefore did not vindicate that practical scheme as one that that commission had any regard for. He was, however, very glad that an hou. gentleman with such transcendant abilities as those pos sessed by his hon. and learned friend had come forward with a proposition on so important a subject. And so far from opposing the introduction of the bill, he would have great satisfaction in seein g the hon. and leaned member receiving any assistance which her Majesty's Government Or any hon. member of that house could afford him iu the good work. Although he did not think that the thing was done in the best manner, he could assure his hon. and learned friend that ho might calculate on any aid which he (the Attorney-General) could give him. Mr. S. WORTLEY expressed his gratification at the measures proposed for the improvement of the statute law by his bon. and learned friend the member for Suffolk. He entirely concurred in what had been stated by his hon. and learned friend the Attorney-General as to the senti ment, now so general that it might be called universal, in favour of the consolidation of the statute law. He rather coincided in the opinions of the hon. and learned member for Suffolk and of the noble lord the member fur King's Lynn than in the views of the Attorney-General, as to the plan that should now be proceeded on to effect the object in view. And ho thought ho might congratulate the country on the ability,lhe perseverance, and the energy which had induced the hon. and learned member for Suf folk to pledge himself to the House of Commons to carry out, with the concurrenc) of Parliament, the task ho had undertaken. Consolidation was in his opinion perfectly practicable, for it introduced nothing new and therefore raisel no question. (Hear, hear.) It was possible, there fore, in a deliberative assembly like the House of Com mons to pass a bill with a preamble somewhat to this effect :—" Whereas, there are scattered among various statutes various provisions on the same subject, and whereas it is desirable (if these are to be law at all), that all should be included in ono statute, be it therefore enacted that these provisions be all included in this bill." This would not pledge Parliament to details, but the moment they attempt to codify, every question raised a host of new principles. Ho again congratulated the hon. and learned member on the measures he had brought for ward, which measures had his (Mr. S. Wortley's) concur rence and support. (Hear.) Sir F. KELLY rose to say one word in explanation, in consequence of what had fallen from his learned friend the Attorney-General. He would take another opportunity of noticing the general remarks of his hon. and learned friend; but as to the question before the house, and what the At torney-General has said in reference to his introduction of the measures, ho (Sir F. Kelly) begged to state distinctly that ho was not the organ of the statute law commission. (Hear.) Ho appeared there to propose these measures merely as an individual—as an independent member of Parliament. (Hear, and cheers.) It was quite true that for the last few weeks ho had been a member of the statute law commission ; he had attended many of its meetings ; and his propositions had the entire sanction and approval of every member who attended those meetings, amongst whom he could not recollect having numbered either of his learned friends the Attorney or Solicitor-General on any single occasion. (Hear.) He certainly felt it due to every member of the commission with whom ho had communi cated to say that he had their cordial sanction and approval of the measures be was now bringing forward. He also begged to state that any attempt to carry those bills through Parliament without the aid which that commis sion could afford, and which it could only afford him un der the authority and sanction of the members of her Ma jesty's Government, would not, in his opinion, be success ful. (Hear, and cheers.) Mr. G. PHILLIMORE did not think that any valid argument could be adduced against such a codification of the statute law as had been suggested by the Attorney- General. Sir G. GREY said that the Attorney-General had shown that there was no difference of opinion as to the diffi culties arising from the present state of our statute law , nd our common law. It was beyond all doubt that there was a great variety and multiplying of statutes, many of them on the same subject, scattered over an immense num ber of volumes ; and that hitherto no attempt had been made at a consolidation or codification of those statutes. As regarded consolidation, distinct from codification, his hon. and learned friend the Attorney-General had stated his concurrence in the proposition that consolidation should come first and codification afterwards ; but the difference between hon. members was as to the best mode of effect ing consolidation. (Hear, hear.) His (Sir G. Grey's) opinion was that if they desired to make any effectual pro gress they should proceed by degrees. With all deference to the Attorney-General and other hon. and learned mein bort, who were more competent to form an opinion on the subject than he was, he was of opinion that they would the more speedily and effectually arrive at a codification of the statute laws by consolidating them, subject by sub j set, than by attempting by ono measure a complete codi fication of the statute law. (Hear, hear.) He thought that the hon. and learned gentleman opposite had some what underrated some of the difficulties in the way of consolidation. For instance, that which would arise in d ea li n g with the laws of exchange and our custom of the three days' grace on bill s o f exchange; but he did not think that these difficulties ought to deter them. Where difficulties arose he thought they Might be much simplified by always consolidating up to the present, and having a periodical republication of the statutes ; so that counsel could take up the labour where his predecessor had left off. The consolidation would in this way bo kept in such a state as to effect, he thought, the object they all had in view. Mr. L. KING had listened with great attention to the speech of the hon. and learned member for Suffolk, whom ho was glad to see coming forward as a law reformer. As to the statute law commission he would ask what had it done? In 1853 a good plan was framed by it; in 1854 all the men employed in working out that plan had been detached from the commission ; and in 1855 the commission was left destitute and without a plan, The plan laid down by the Lord Chancellor was, the pre paration of a list of statutes that had become obsolete, or been repealed, and the introduction of a declaratory bill ; but that list was never prepared, and the declaratory bill which the Lord Chancellor promised in 1853 had not been brought in to this day. He (Mr. L. King) felt confident that this plan would have 'been a far better one than that proposed by the hon. and learned gentleman for by the system of consolidation now proposed the confusion already existing in the statute-book would be increased rather than diminished. If they adopted the plan which had been laid by Lord Bacon, Lord Hardwick, and even the Lord Chan cellor himself, to expurgate and cleanse the statute•book of those ten thousand and odd statutes, they would at once clear away a great deal deal of lumber and open the road to a salutary measure of law reform. He would only add, that ho felt extremely grateful to the hon. and learned. gentleman (Sir F. Kelly) for having brought this important question before the house. Mr. BAINES approved of the plan of Sir F. Kelly, fur it was founded on the labours of the statute•law commis sion, where the drafts of those and other bills were now lying. If they proceeded in supporting his learned friend they would be fast arriving at the point of codification. Mr. M`MA.HON was in favour of consolidation as the only practical mode of proceeding. Mr. NAPIER here intimated that if no satisfactoryplan for carrying out the objects contemplated by the resolution he had proposed on Tuesday night, and to which the house then agreed, were introduced by the Goverement before Easter, he should lose no time in again calling the atten tion of the house to the subject. The SOLICITOR GENERAL would have been glad if his right hon. friend before bringing on his motion theother night had had the opportunity of reading the valuable paper which had been submitted to the statute law com mission, and which he (the Solicitor General) thought he would have recognised as embodying all he desired for the accomplishment of his object, and even further objects than those which were comprehended in his motion. (Hear.) With regard to the question before the house, it was necessary to discriminate somewhat between that which was most properly in the motion of his hon. and learned friend (Sir F. Kelly), and the great number of theotrical and discursive subjects which had been referred to in the course of the debate. (Hear.) In justice to his hon. and learned friend the Attorney-General, he (the Solicitor-General) rose only to explain in some degree bow far they had differed from the commission, and what was the real object they desired to achieve. They had bowed with deference to the united opinions of the other corns misiioners ; and the whole subject of difference between them was simply this, as appeared from the papers before the house—what was the mode in which they should select the subjects to which the statutes referred that were now propuied to be consolidated ? He must admit that he de sired the selection should be made according to some system of aualyeis ; end be confessed that be did so in the hope that it might lay the foundation for the future framework of codifying the law, (Hear, hear.) The statute law com mission proposed to take a particular subject, to collect the vat bolls statutes relating to that subject, and to embody them in one. But the objection to this might be illus trated in the following manner :—Take the law relating to real property, for instance. The statutes which referred to that subject involved certain enactments, some of which related to freeholds, some to leaseholds, some to copy holds, and others to partnership ; so that when they had completed their consolidated statute , they would hav e heaped together a tumulus of fragmentary parts of the law, certainly ranging under one head —namely, that of executors and administrators—but having no connection with the subject. The proposition made, therefore, was, that instead of this arrangement, the heads and titles should be selected with reference to an analyitical division of the law, and then all branches of the law would find their appropriate places—the law relating to real pro perty would not be mixed up with personal property, and the consolidation would proceed on a plan of philo sophical analysis. All that he desired, therefore, was, that that analysis should be made the groundwork on which the selection of subjects, or heads or titles of the consoli dated statutes, should stand. That, however, was not ac• ceded to ; it was repudiated by the body of the commission and, therefore, as his learned friend (the Attorney-Gene ral) and himself found theupelves in a minority, he was bound to admit that they must have been in error, although they were not at the time enabled to discover in what that error consisted. (Hear, and a laugh.) He admitted, with regard to the subject of codification, that there might be some difficulty in expressing in written words the great and extensive general principles of the common law ; but the great principles of the common law and the principles of equity were always to be found in some universal gene ral maxims of the law of morality, of good sense, or of na tural justice that would ever remain embodied in those maxims. With this exception, then, he believed there was no more difficulty in reducing the law of England to a code, whether it was the written—that was the statute law—or I whether it was that which was called the unwritten law, collected out of the reports of cases and decisions—that there was no snore difficulty in doing that than there was in framing a book upon any given subject, pr than had been experienced in regard to the laws of Rome. (Hear. What was done with the laws of Rome might be done with the laws of England now, and he thought there was no reason to despair of the possibility of a pproaching a state of things when these latter should present something like order, ar rangement, and analysis. (Rear.) He agreed that they must commence the work by consolidating the statute law ; and so thinking, he bailed and welcomed in the moat c .rdial manner tho accession of his hon, and learned friend (Sir F. Kelly), and must express the great pleasure and delight with which he had heard the most sensible, tho most seitesamulike, and, he would add, the most philoso nhical speech of the noble lord the member for King's Lynn. (Hoar. Sir F. KELLY, in reply, said, if it were practicable to sweep away that vast portion of the statute law which had become obsc late, as recommended by the Attorney Geuoral he should be obliged to his hon. and learned friend if he would perform the task for him, and so enable him with the greater faoility to proceed with the bills he asked leave to submit to the house. But his hon. and learned friend had entirely forgotten that, in order to cleanse the statute bock of these enactments, it would be necessary to go from beginning to end of the statute book, through every one of the subjects which ho sought to classify and consolidate. His hon. and learned friend said he objected to any other than an analytical'arrangement. He (Sir F. Kelly) under stood his objection to be this —" You propose to consoli date the statute law in a certain order. I object to that order, on the ground that it will throw the statute book into a state of confusion, equal to that which now exists. I would rather, therefore, that you should pursue a strict analytical plan." His (Sir F. Kelly's) answer to that ob jection was simply this—lf the Attorney-General, who in this had been followed by the Solicitor-General, would be good enough to furnish him with what he thought a cata logue of subjects in the order in which he thought the con solidation ought to be carried out; he would confer a great obligation upon him ; and if he found that it was in any degree more easy, practicable, or expedient, than the order which he himself had selected—not from choice, but ne cessity, ho would be thankful for the suggestion, and adopt it. But it was said that they ought to have made an attempt at codification ; and his hon. and learned friend the member for Leominster (Mr. J. G. Phillimoro) had addressed the house as if he (Sir F. Kelly) were the enemy and opponent of the improvements in the law which he sought to carry into effect. They would permit him to say that he was us much iu favour of codification, if it could be made out to be practicable, as his hon. and learned friend or any other member of the house—(hear) —but let him remind his hon. and learned friend that whoa he talked of the Pandects of Justinian and the code of No' poleon, that Justinian and Napoleon were both absolute monarchs. (Hear.) Their will, when expressed, became the law of the empire they ruled ; and if his hon. and learned friend could find a power in this country by which he could at once prepare and establish a code of laws equal to the Pandects of Justinian or the Code Napoleon, ho would not only have the applause of the house, but of the Whole country. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) Leave was then given to bring in the bills. BILLS OF EXCHANGE. Leave was also granted on the motion of Sir F. KELLY, to bring in a bill to consolidate the law relating to bills of exchange and promissory notes. The bill was introduced and read a first time. THE IRISH JUDICIAL BENCH. Sir J. SHELLEY moved for a return of the date of the call to the bar of each of the judges of the-superior courts of law in Ireland ; the dates of their respective appoint* ments as judgep ; the number of times each had been ab sent during the whole of any assize, or, if absent during* part only, stating what part, and the reasons, if any, give° for such absence ; also, in how many, and in what ins stances substitutes had been appointed by the Crown preside at any assize or any portion thereof, in the absence of any such judge, giving in each case the name of the town. He said he rose to perform the duty which he boa undertaken—that of calling the attention of the house t° the state of the judicial bench in Ireland, and to move fat a return, showing the fact, as he believed it to be, that several of those judges were incapacitated by old age .0 infirmities from attending properly t o th e i r d u ti es . isie hoped it would not be said that it was a subject which ought not to be brought before Parliament, and he could refer the house to a great precedent to prove that it wail e matter which might be brought before them. In the year 1842, the noble lord, the member for the City of London , proposed a resolution having reference to the judicial re: signations of Ireland and Scotland. The noble lord moved for certain papers and correspondence, and,,.... 1 1 believed, stated that cert a i n res i gna ti ons having Wen place, at a time of ch ange o f a d m i n i s t ra ti on, it Va s necessary there should be some further inquiry the matter, in order that some explanation shell' be given, because as things then stood, the resign!: tious appeared one of two things, either that the judges question had attained their position long after their infix' mities had disabled them from properly fulfilling their duties ; or else that their particular party, having corn s into power, they had been placed on the retired list whoa their services might and ought to have been applied to 00 4 duties of their office. Hi s r eason f or b r i ng i ng th e BA° forward had not in any way reference to political opilli° 11 : : (Oh, oh.) No such motive could b e a tt r ib u t e d t o him. -or ground for bringing the matter before the house was sinell this, that however eminent these venerable men n il . • have been in their time—h owever ornamen t a l t o the judi' cial bench—the infirmities of age had come upon theil? , . and they were not n o w i n a situation to perform tha t= duties in a way to be creditable, to themselves or to df, justice to the country. Th e su bj ec t fi rs t a tt rac t e d his e"t. tention in consequence of a question which was put W session by an hon. m em b er on t h e o th er s id e o f the helle to the right hon. gen tl eman th e S ecretary for Ireland' That hou, member asked whether the Secretary for DI . land was aware that a'large en °portion of th e I r ish jedg a were incapacitated for a full discharge of , their duties, a!, that some of them wore ca ll e d t o the bar in 1796 and the following years. The reply given by the right hon. gef Merman on that occasion was, that the only official keer' ledge the Government had of the circumstance referred e 'f' was derived from the fact, that when a judge was unsil to go the circuit he provided a substitete, who was p a id out of the consolidated fund. To the latter part of to question the Secretary for Irel a nd sa id h e cou ld o nly at . that the circumstances had b een b roug ht t o the netie of the Government, and they were still under considers; tion. He (Sir J. Shelley) left th e ma tt er t o the clo se of the session, and then gave notice of his inten4o3 to bring the subject before the house at au early ner2 e ,, of the pressnt session. Ho must say that her Me.leel te Ministers had been to bl a me f or a ll ow i ng suc h a A,' of things to grow up, as the return he now asked 10 '; if granted, would prove. He had tried to find 501 excuse for such ap a thy on th e i r par t , an d h e thoug h it must have arisen from certain feelings of delicacy. was quite possible the Government might have not dee4 that which they th oug ht th ey oug h t t o do for fear it s h o w be said they had endeavoured to remove these venerab le men from their of43es in order that during the , time Wil t held office the Gove rnmen t m i g ht place eminent men 0: their own opinions in their place. But if he found some excuse for her Majesty's Ministers, he really was at a le' to find any excuse for her Majesty's Opposition ; for tb e i had remained perfectly qu i e t , an d a ll owed this state ° things to grow up. While he said this he felt bound to de justice to ono right hon. gen tl eman —h e a ll u d ed to t h e ri b hon. gentleman the me m b er f or th e U n i vers i ty o f Du b lin. The report was, that in th e ti me o f L or d D er b y ' s Gove rn' meet an Irish judgeship f e ll vacan t, an d th a t the rig h t hon. gentleman, with a pr o p er regar d f or th e pu blic service' _ upon having that judgeship o ff ere d t o hi m, re fused it r ' consequence of having the infi rm ity o f d ea f ness . (Cries 01 " Oh, oh.") He mentioned th e su bj ec t , f ee li ng th a t it • a very creditable one to the right hon. gentleman; be e C i g he had given any offence by his observation, all he e°". 9 say was that the right hon. member's conduct had b ee ' highly creditable on the occasion referred to. With 'gni to the subject-matter of his Motion, he should not thieef t , necessary to trouble the house by going through the wi le d list of these gentlemen. There were 12 judges in Ireton j and he should only allude to two or three of these wb ° ,,, 13 ,%1 arrived at the longest period of existence. There was Justice Lefroy, who was born in the year 1774, and tb er : T e fore was now 82 years of age • he was called to the bar eY . 1797, and consequently he had ' been at the bar 59 yea r ; He (Sir J. Shelley) need not say that infirmities wee upon upon that gentleman, and he believed that he had AM obliged to absent himself from his duties? The next Judge Torrens, who was born in the year 1772, and Zia consequently 84 years of age; h e was called to the w h „ in 1798. The next old es t was B aron Pennefat h er , was born in 1771; he was called to the bar in 179 5, 1 , 1 , - 41 had therefore been at th e b ar 61 years, and on the be n t, 35 years, and was now 85 years of age. It would dolly e less be said, and he (Sir J. Sh e ll ey) did not deny it, Os; Baron Pennefather p er f orme d h i s duties with Pier. activity, wonderful as it was to say so, than most of t he !„ venerable men. (Hear, hear.) They all knew eae° l 4 which that learned judge had distinguished himself g=ee , e by his elaborate summing up, and the physical streugter ar had displayed ; but, unfortunately for him, and . alse eee - ss his country, that learned judge had for a long time er e " deprived of his sight. Looking at the duties which sill. had to perform, it was quite impossible , indeed, it w i g awful to thick of, that a judge deprived of his sight bh9 11 4 sit to try persons for their lives and char ac t ers , With ° t being able to take a single note cf the proceedings. s e there might be no question of the learned judge belt' really blind, he (Sir J. Shelley) wished to be allowed refer to a newspaper, which was certainly not favourably to his motion or to the party on that side of the boils.' Cries of " Order.") He would refer to a document. (Oider' order.) This published document was the organ of a partp and in alluding to the present motion, it said that it coil safely assert— (The hon. member was here interrupted loud cries of " Order.") Sir F. THESIGER said he believed it was not in orde r for hon. gentlemen to read from a newspaper. The ht member began to read f rom a newspaper, and when he le checked, he immediately called it a document. H e , there' fore, appealed to the Speaker to know whether the 11 ° P. gentleman was strictly in order ? ' The SPEAKER said the hon. gentleman had c orrectl y stated wh a t th e ru l e o f t h e house was a few years ago O che had checked an h on. mem b er in accordance wit h t ha t rule, when, however, his opinion was overruled by that 01 the house. (Hear, hear.) t ° Sir J. SHELLEY said h e m i g ht, th en, b e perm itted t refer to this document. It stated that it was the aka° unanimous opinion of the bar in Ireland that Baron Y en .; nefather, although suffering from impaired sight, re°:, fully discharged those judici a l d u ti es , i n th e a d m i ra ble Pe' formance of which he had passed nearlp 50 years of Wag: He (Sir J. Shelley), therefore, might fairly say , that th e learned judge performed these duties while suffering from impartial sight. (Loud laught e r.) H o mean t i m per fec t sight ; but however that might be, ho f oun d frees the Thir lin correspondent of the same paper a further reference Baron Pennefather, to the effect that he wis now iu 84th year, but still retaining all the vigour and acuteness o f his intellect—(hear)—but it went on to state that for tbo last year he had been totally deprived of sight. He he ; lie ced they might read for " lust year," th e " l as t Or e l years." At the present moment, however, th a t ve nerabl e I was struck with total blindness. Was it possible for a blind man to execute properly the duties of a Judge ? O u t of the first duties of a judge at a trial was to take cal o . notes of the proceedings. In cases of hand wr iti ng a jet i e gr, should be able to compare the different styles, and yet tit" could not be done. Those concerned i n courts c f Justr . knew there was nothing more important than taking e v " . dunce, fo2 in many cases they turned upon the eviden ce and reports of conversatio ns , an d it was very i mpor ts*t that judges should be able to take it down, and yet thie could not be tone. How often had it happened that ail had been bewildered by the counsel on both sides, and lid called upon the j u d ge t o expla i n the evidence, and y e t thle f could not ho doue as regarded one of the judges to whe m he referred. Me might bring many instances to show re' inconveniences which had occurred in consequence of the misfortunes of this venerable man. At the spring assi zes last year a man was indicted before Baron Pennefather for writing a threatening letter, and there was a difficulty obtaining a conviction because of want of proof of t he handwriting. The whole question turned upon the hod' writing, but in this case the judge could not assist the pre' soner at all, who said to his lordship that if " he would eve' mine the paper himself he would see the letters were not written by the same hand," but this the judge could not do' The prisoner was convicted, and was now undergoing term of iurprisonment. He would ask whether that was state of thing s which oug ht t o ex i s t. (Hear.) The nest cese was that of Fitzgerald v. Hammond, in which ever° ler olved charges of fraud and forgery in regard to a bill of exchange, and the question was, whether the writing on the instrument was written before or after thesignat sr* In this case, also, the judge could give the jury no a ssist anee, and when a new trial was moved for the point made by the learned counsel was, that " the learned judge before whom the cause was tried was iu such a state that be conk' afford the jury no assistance." This involved the character of a man in high position, and he (Sir J. Shelley) would sill that the judge could not do justice between the parties • Se would mention that the spring circuits had been struck , and Baron Pennefather had selected the north-west cir cuit, on which some important cases of murder,and oth er charges, amongst others that of the persons indicted for th e murder of Miss Hind, would have to be tried. Now, in the event of those potions appealing against being tried 14 •