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

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS—(YESTERDAY). The LORD CHANCELLOR4:OOk hie seat on the woolsack at five o'clock. . THE BARONY OF FERMOY. • The Earl of DERBY called attention to a question involving 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 had 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 tip the Lord Chancellor, and that noble lord had 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 bo'ise and Crown until last year, when her Majesty'sMi sisters had contrived ungraciously to involve the Crown in difficulties as regarded the privileges of the house in the creation of two s eparate peerages, each of whose patents was consulerea by a large portion of that house, including some of the most eminent law authorities, as invadd. 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 bad 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 Majesty to create a new peer at the time the Crown conferred the patent upon the Baron Fermoy. Earl GRANVILLE said that the Government had acted under the advice of the law officers of the Crown at the time they advised her Majesty to confer the p eerage 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 crea tion, as the case had been referred to a Committee of Privileges. He would merely remark that there was something new in the last 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 is that house. • A conversation then took place, in which Lord Brougham, Lord Campbell, and the Earl of Desart took part, after which the snbjegt dropped. TRIAL OF OFFENCES BILL. • The house then went into cotirnittee on this bill, the whole of the clauses were agreed to, and the bin was reported. NATIONAL EDUCATION. Earl GRANVILLE laid upon the table a bill for the promotioa 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 port; complaining that they were obliged by law to ge, to sea in unseaworthy vessels. The noble earl stated that having carefully examined the .allegations of the petit;onerA, he had come to the con clusion not only that they really had a serious grievance, but that likewise the public interests were materially in jured by the existing state of the law. 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 gla'l to say that a return just laid upon their lordships' table showed a gratifTing decrease in the num ber of lives lost during the last year. In 1852 thenumber of vessels wrecked •in the British seas was 1,015 ; but that must have been a year of more than ordinarily tem pestuous weather. In 1853 the number was 832; in 1854, 987 ; and in 1355, 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 th a t out of 1,388 persons wh o se lives had been in peril, but who bad, nevertheless, been saved, no fewer than 650 had been rescued by the most modern appliances fur the preservation of life. (h ear.) During the last year no fewer than 57 vessels had been destroyed, 178 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 this kind ; but there ..could be no doubt that a vast proportion of these casualties were doubtless trace. able to incompetency inthe master, orto the vessel, from faults of construction, not answering to her helm ; to inadequacy in the craw, er to deficiency in the equip ment of the ship. The petitioners complained that in consequence of the great cempetition that prevailed, persons were appointed "masters who produced certi ficates of competency, but who were not really compe tent. They ales stated that a great number of foreigners were now employed who werslonlyimperfectly acquainte I 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 el the tree or four causes he had just enumerated ; and it was certainly very hard upon seamen that having once e )g wed to Sail in a particular vessel they were usable to , quit it, however unseaworthy 'it might appear to them to be ; nay, that if they merely went ashore to make a cmplaint, they were liable to. le apprehended as de serters, and sent to prison for, different periods up to 12 weeks. This was a very ;Slone state of things. Th e inspector of prisons fo x .r tfie county of Cornwall made the following statement respe,eling the House of Correction at Yarmouth, in his repot fur 1855 : Nine prisoners under sentence of 12 weeks' imprison. ment for having deserted their s ships or refused to sail in them after having signed articles of agreement, the groun d of their refus a l having heart the eunsaeworthiness of the ships, or the fact of their having on board an insufficient amber of able seamen to work.thein with a duo regard to the safety of the ships and crews. The inspector goes oh to ray : 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 Socre rary 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 eenimitted summarily to the prisons of. seaporttowns fur 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 ship s , or t h e insufficient complement of "able . seamen" among tleeir crew. The first cf those 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 quite unequal. * Whether the circum stances here alluded to may throw any light upon the nu merous; mischances that have occurred of late to merchant ships I am not qualified to judge,; but I have the best rea son to know that the prisonsAf several seaport towns ip my district are continually' supplied with seamen com mitted under the cirodnistances referred to ; the good character of many of whom, obtainol both in the navy and merchant service, leads to the strongest presumption in their favour. -4- * The above remarks apply to all prisons with which I am acqnainted in seaport towns ; but in the.case 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. By an act passed about a year and a half ago a sea man was permitted to go ashore in order to make a com• plaint ; 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 ment for attempting to avail himself of it. On the other hand, if deterred by the fehy of being arrested if he went ashore to make his complaint = --he consented to go to sea in an unseaworthy venial, and if th a t vess e l was wrec k e d he would h ave no right to ens t h a master forwny clothes or other property that he might lose. There could be no 4oubt that a very pregnant cause of accidents was the in adequate number of persons employed as crews. In most merchant ship; they could only, get up or take in one sail at a time, and they were consequently exposed to much dancer from sudden changes of the weather. The course which he (the noble lord) wished to see adopted, was that the Board of Trade, which al rea d y had Power to di rec t an inquiry to be made after a casualty had cecurred, should appoint in every seaport an inspector, and that go s h si3euld be allowed to sail without having undergon can examination, both as to the seaworthiness of the vessel and the adequacy of thecrew. (Hear.) He would go even further, and suggest that au investigation should tak e place in the case of every serious casualty o ccurr i ng to merchant as was do ne w ith res p ec t to vessels vessels, b e l ong ing to the royal _ nays , . If those two steps were adopted, every year. Their lordship:{had prob a bly no id ea o f th e extent of our annual losses from shipwreck. The yes eels lost last yea r Mounted to no less th an 176 , 000 tons, and the lives jeopardised could not have been less than 7,000 or 8,000. He (the noble earl) was not a t present . pose any step in relation to th e pet i t i ons f;repared to pro li ebegged to present, but be might perhaps on s ome fu ure occasion move for a committee., Lord STANLEY a dmitted the great importance of the s u bj ect to which the no bl e e arl 's observations-had reference. The "hardship complained of by the petition ers had already received the attention o f Majesty's (lover - iv:neat ; and in order that be might know how the law really stood w i t h re f erence to men go i ng o n shore to complain of the unseaworthinese of their ships, lie had had a case drawn up and submitted to Sir J. D. Harding, the Qusen's advocate, and to another eminent authority„ The following were ties questions put to the leprned gentleman, and their answers 1, Whether, when 'a seamen is (waged, there is or is not an implied condition ou the pert of the shipowrier that the s hip shall be seaworthy? We are of• opini on that there is - an cen'lition "n the part of the ship:miser ship. shall be.seianro4h ya • 1' that the 2. Whether, if the ship is not seaworthy, and the sea man refused e n go to sea in her on that ground, he can be treated as a deserter, or punished under the enactments above referred to, or otherwise ?--And tlaut-if the ship is not seaworthy, and the seaman refuses to go to sea in ter an that ground, be cannot be treated as a deserter, or punished under the enactment referred to; but the burden of proof will lie on the seaman. He must establish the unsearworthiness of the vessel. 3. Whether, if a seaman is apprehended on the ground of dose rtion and alleges in his defence that the ship is un seaworthy, it is the duty of the court which hears the case to exranin3 into the questions, and to receive such evidence as it may be possible to procare 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 an y o th er di spute d ques ti on o f 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 en board, tho 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 to go to sea in the ship on the ground of her unseawor thiness, and may maintain an action to recover his effects if detained. 5. Whether, if a seaman serves in a ship which is sett to sea in an unseaworthy state, and the ship is lost in cense qaence, and the seaman thereby suffers damage by loss of his clothes, or by injury to his person or otherwise, he has any remed against the owner ?—On the authority of the case "Pr fstly 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 which she is to be employed); and, if so, 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 whip 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 was clear, then, that the law already provided for the safety of the seamen ; and it should be borne in mind that crimps were always on 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 of his present engagement in order to make a better one, it RS3 obvious that it must lead to much delay in the sailing of vessels, and the con sequent loss of trade. While constrained toadreit the in crease in the yearly retuins of the number of wrecks, he did not think that itqarose fromany increase in theactual number of casualties, but from the greater care which was used in reporting cases to the Board cf 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 had undergone aninspection, was well worthy of considera tion. ar 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 worthiness of his , hip. The Esrl of ELLENBOROUGH said it bad hap pened in one case that the seaman of a vessel, the Swan, which was in the Tyne, came on shore, and cora p:ained that she was unseaworthy. They were treated as deserters, and sent to prison, but it was proved after wards that their objec ion was well founded, for the ves sel, after going to s. a, returned after a few days, because she was not in a state to proceed on her voyage. Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY said - 12; trusted that in future the magistrates would pay a more ready attention to the eonsplaints of the seamen. The Earl of ELLENBOROUGLI said, the noble lord seemed to forget that he had read as_ extract from a report of thu Inspector of ,Prisons, who stated, with regard to one prison, that a great proportion of the prisoners were seamen who bad been committed for de. sertion, and he held with the men. . Lord STANLEY did not know that the Inspector of Prisons had vny particular means of knowing whether the ship wac unseaworthy or not. The subject then dropped, and their lordships ad journed. HOUSE OF COMMON:S.—(YESTERDAY.) The SPEAKER took the chair at the usual hour. PETITIONS. Mr. L. KING presented a rititiou from Surrey for the consolidation of the statute law. Mr. BA.LL presented several petitions against opening the Crystal Palace on Sundays. Mr. EVELYN presented a petition against opening the British Museum 'n Sundays. Mr. A. PELLATT presented similar petitions from S outhwark. Mr. HADFIELD 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 pray►ng far a discon tinuance of the music in the park an Sundays. Mr. COLLIER 'presented a ,petition from South Devon, praying that the local dues ape' shipping might be abolished. Mr. BROWN presented 4 petition from Liverpool against the opening of the Crystal Palace on Sundays. S;r D. L. EVANS gave „notice that he intended to sostpone the motion standing in his 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. THE CRIMEAN COMMISSION. Mr. L AYARD 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 respective departments has been shown by the report of the commission of inquiry into the supplies of the British army in the Crimea to have occasioned great and unnecessary sufferings and losses in that army, have received honiurs and rewards, or have been appointed to, and are still holding, re sponsible offices in the public service." COMMUNICATION WITH AUSTRALIA. Mr. BAXTER asked the Secretary of State for the Colonial Department if her Majesty's Government were taking steps to reestablish steam communication be-. tweet) this country and the . Australian colonies ; and, if !not, what were the obstacles which prevented them doing so. LABOUCHERE said the Government had taken steps to place the communication on a satisfactory basis. The plan would be found in the Treasury minute which had just been laid 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 other half by the colonies. THE ARMITICE Mr. J. EWART asked the Fir-t Lorl of the Trea sury whether it would be lawful to despatch British ships with cargoes to Russian ports during the armistice which was about to ha concluded ; and, in that case, would 'articles contraband 'of war, such as brimstone, lead, and saltpetre, b-1 exempt fr, , m - such permiseions of shipping . ?—lf the sailing:of - Eritish ships was unlawful, might foreign ships be Chartered for the purpose ; or whether thy blockade of IZUssiiiii ports wouli ho 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 agr,!ed to,-and then they could see what was its nature. WEST LNDIA MAILS. Mr. LINDSAY asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he bad received a memorial from certain in habitants of British Guiana, complaining of great irre gularities in the 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. LABOTTCHERE said the memorial bad been received; and there would be no objection to its prodac tion. CONSOLIDATION OF THE STATUTES. Sir P. KELLY said that he rose for the purpose of in troducing the first of a series of bills for the consolidation of but, looking the entire statute law of England. Ha was not insensible to d i ni vtei,liling:iiii;enbaut the r aa ,-,,,•.. , a heele and difficulty of the task he had undertaken; g with so.a degree of confidence not only to the to ' the e effective support and assistance in dividually of the house, and especially of the members ofe Majesty's Government, he was not without hope of suer- This subject had often before baffled the efforts or r . only by the effective co-"roi)veorr:Ond st atesmen, and it was expect any beneficial result froth of others that ho could n: i n b t i s labours. In order to - state hereo clearly, intellig Precisely the nature of what' proo to do, hey'ould meant by a consolidation of the atathuiiaw,.heeansea t explain what he location. Theo from con deal of perplexity and coufusion founding the terms consolidation and codification. great termewere indifferently need by some ha remf whom a greater degree of consolidation of th e s accuracy ought te : tatute law, as thatelLiVin existed :; The in the stat n te-booke, was that which he had to effect. The statute law was at present contact rt e aken i , some 33 or 40 f o li o volumes, and the number of th e e d et totes was somethi ng like 15,000 or 20,001 What h e pr a " o posed to do was to arrange' anth'classify these statut es , and to have one act of Parliament on each, subject, so th at instead of the statute-hook c ons i s ti ng of 40 volumes folio, and ne n t, 20,000 statutes, without order, classification, arrange oi•reference; it would consist of " same 20 0 or 300 f g ii,i,f.,? t ,.,4i..l t uent,-each act embracing thie- 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' ) not only of the statute law, but of the common law, and 1 which he believed to be impracticable in th e present state 1 of things. Tile condition of the statute-book was such that the judge who had to WOWS* the law, the THE SUN t LOL9DoN, FRIDAV EVENING, FEBRUARY 15, 1856 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 quirements of the inquirer. Having found a text book he had to go through all the statutes and sections of statutes on the sebject, from Magna Charta to the present time, till he discovered, or hoped that he discovered, the parti eller 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 f or that puroso, he could never be sure, un less he was a perfeCt master 'of every provision relating to the subject (and who couldesay 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 man, but whose attention had not been callel 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.) These ware another set of statutes tamiliar 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 no* was, as the subject was familiar to the house, but would p rocee d 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 had been under their consideration a few evenings ago, on the mo tion 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 ti me t o ti me various attempts had been made to remedy, these evils, but from the time of Lord B a c on t o th at 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 s a ti s fi e d th at with the assistance to be derives from the labour of the commission the ob ject could be attained. Two centuries had elapsed from the time of Lord Bacon, when in 1806 * the subject of the con solidatiot, 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 best 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, aid they resolvel," That from the present state of the sta tute law, it is inexpedient that effectual means should be taken to' arrange the matters contained ih the statute-book Gilt.!. 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 die not form one of the 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 raosteantive la,* reformers 'soon con foueded 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 ote.er 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 as 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 difference 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 nothi ng . I n 1853 , the present Lord Chancellor, when laying on the table of the House of Lords a bill re lating merely to registration, entered into a statement of the arrangements he proposed to make for attempting the consolidation of the statute law. That system, how ever, confounded consolidation and codification, and must, of necessity, have proved itupracticable. 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 not pass. In 185 t Lord Cran worth appointed the pre-zent statute-law commission, of which he (Sir F. Kelly) had, within the last few weeks, heceme a member. He could iibt, 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 consolicletion of the different subdivisions of the statute /awe 'He had further under taken to bring each of these hslls before the house, and he trusted lie would succeed' ire accomplishing the task, if he received from the different members of the house that as sistance they were so ,ell qualified to give, and which he stood so much in netsd of. (Haar, hear.) The commission, when first appoirieed, held several meetings; some very eminent members of it insisted on an attempt at some general eeditieUtion, but that, as before, proved inconsist ent with any effort at consolidation. Mr. Anstey, a gentleman for whose zeal and abilities he had the highest roepec', devoted himself to the preparation of an analysis of t.:ae law as a preliminary to au attempt at codification, lent 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. Anstey'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 repeal Magna Charts and substitute some general . cause of his. After this system had been abandoned, the commission, at the suggestion of the Lord Chancellor, employed different memoers of the profession to consolidate the statute law relating to the subjects with which they were each most conversant. From the experience which ho had derived from the la bours of these gentlemen., ho was perfectly convinced that the entire consolidation of the whole statute law was easy and practicable. He now undertook, with the assist ance 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 • explain to the house what appeared to him to be the distinction between consolidation and codification, and he thought he coull satisfy the house that if ever the latter was to be successful, it coiled only be afte r conso lid at i on. 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 volu me o f th e statutes, and extract from them not only every net of Parliament, bet 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 now 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 clear. 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 con t a i n i ng a groat many sections, p asse d from the . Bth Win. 111. down to the present day. The course which had been taken on this subject; and which would bo followed in every other in stance, 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-hook one single act containing every ex isting provision bearing on gills of exchange ' • by this' means a portion of the statute-nook would at o nce be swept away, and some 400 pages struck out of the 4) 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 fills forty volumes, contain ing some eighteen or twenty thousand acts, would be re duced to a seventh or aneelifith orits present bulk ; aud, instead of a collection of a multitude of enactments, from Magna Charts to the latest act, following each other with out statutes,e('ll e Il b C e e g i o n% r i e n o g lr w e t t 0 h : 11_, c i t o. n w s o i i l d C a O t it d A o e f t. a N se o ri . es l_ of Offences against the Person; Consolidated Act, No. 2—Law of Bills of Exchange and- Promissory Notes ; Consolidated Act, No. 3—Policies oft Insarance against File, on Lives, tic. • and so en till theyreach e d th e en d o f the st a tut e -b oo k. Each 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 far as that was concerned he had recommended — and if he obtained the sanction of the house would see the recommendation larded GC—that for the consolidation of the statute law in each _particular subject that member of the profgesion 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 tee slight remuneration they were enabled to offer. - It would be invidious to mention names, but he could promise the house that the same rule would be adopted in e r s ca o s f e t . he A la f w te , r a t s he t y tte h e a ri d m ie i t n n a e l t l h a r N o v u , gthhethmeeprerhinacnit the law of customs and' excise e th ere wou ld s till rema i n a l ie) a av w lery , b t r h aon e thc lew relating to publi c r i g ht s, th e mun i c i pa l l aw , he plei,rgt with enum b b e e r fo o r f e s t t h a e t y ute c s o w ul h d ic e h a7c o t u a ld .c r o zi e r t e e tobeglp- consolida tion of the law. It appeeredfroin a return annexed to one of the reports of the statute law conemission that f tl t i t e nseumn ber of acts passed in the last sessi on w as 131. 0 were general public 'statutes relating t o the United and King dom ; two applied to Groat Brit a i n , s i x t o England I te r a t i n o d g , l altogether to England, l t a ti v te - b o oko Now supposing that these had been carried through of Par liament a succession of bills upoteall the branches of the to Scotland, 13 to Ireland; ts six of a general aud public nature. tar. and to o h f av P e ar e li n e embraced f n mine-tenths t h e e n s t e h s a c o t f s solidated into several distinct and single acts purged the e sta .. - itssocontents, have the r wo uld come the question what was to be done with e 'Cent, all subjects of a geneeartand public nature, then . 'rnaining acts? Besides the 59 public eets,-to which he-had referred, there remained 26 apecial and local acts, six re lating to the-colonies, two relating to the East Indies, 11 to the army, the navy, and the militia, and 39 to the re venue and other financial subjects. These last-mentiontd acts were noe strictly o f a general and public nature, but it would po tzi vain to say that they had consolidated the statutes if these were not included. He did not at present upon himself a large proportion of the Parliamentary la contemplate dealing with aces which related to Ireland. beur which it involves, but the great mass of the work to There were many act s re l a ti ng to - England which did not b 3 done will have to be done out of this house. (Hear.) relate, or at least only to a partial extent, to Ireland, anti Two methods present themselves of getting through that were he to perpetuate Ireland in his present scheme, the work. One is to have a fixed body of men, either a Minis effect might be to perpetuate that confusion which he was tar of Justice with subordinate agents, or a certain num seeking to put an end to. There were probably some six ber of commissioners to deal successively with all the sub or eight thousand local acts of which the judges were jects concerning which enactments are contained in the found to take notice, and which were painted in extenso, rn statutes. The other is to divide the statute law into groups, all the editions of the statutes. He might mention, as a and to confide each separate group to some ,person or per specimen of them, the act relating to Dover Harbour, by sons who have made that particular branch of law their which certain commissions were created, having various special study. Each method has its advantages. By the powers concerning the management of the harbour. There 'first you will obtain that uniformity of system which fol. were many thousand acts of a similar description applying ' lows upon the action of a single directing mind. By the to Liverpool, Hull, and other. large towns. In these acts, second you will utilise the services of men who have ac which were of a strictly local character, were to be found i 'quired a sp ec i a l f am ili ar i ty w i t h a part i cular su b ject, with many provisions of a p u bli c an d general nature. For ex- i out perhaps being under the necessity of taking them alto ample, an assault committed on any of the commissioners i Igether away from their profession. It is a question whe or superintendents, or any of the officers under them, while I ther the two methods might not be advantageously united, they were in the execution of their duty, was made a mil- whether the necessary unity of plan may not be gained by demeanour : the mere obstructing of such persons was the superintendence of a Minister or commissioner, while dealt with in a similar way. No action could he brought, the work of consolidation upon each particular subject is however, more than six months after the offence was al- assigned to the person best able to undertake it. The next legee to have been committed, and thus there was a special question that arises refers to the arrangement of the sta statute of limitations. The .greatest inconvenience arose tutese Some jurists have proposed an entire redistribution from the existing state of these local acts : and what he of the statutes, which would require many of them to be should propose to do when they came to deal with this taken to pieces and arranged under separate heads. It is class of statutes was t o repea l a ll t h e prov i s i ons th at ex - ' clear that this process (whether desirable or not I do not isted, and all that might hereafter be enacted, and to pronounce) is one of codification, and not merely of conso subebibute for them one single general act of Parlia- lidation. • The plan which is the most simple, and which meat resembling the - Railway Clauses Consolidation involves the least departure from the existing arrange- Act. The acts relating to the army and navy, and the . ment, would no doubt be the most c onven i en t. Th ereare militia, the acts relati ng t o th e revenue, an d th e l oan ac t s many statutes which cannot be arranged or classified with might be consolidated with g reat facility. Of the forty out difficulty, but th ose of • the greatest import a n ce r e l a t e volumes of statutes, at least four or five relating to the re- to subjects upon which Parliament has frequently legis venue would, he believed, be found to have expired. The lated, and they might be classified into large and corapre effect of the system of consolidation for which the present hensive groups. I have made out a list of nine such groups, bill was intended;to provide would be to remove from the which I will lead to the house. With regard to the qua statute-book at least three-fourths of the statutes of which lifica'ion and election of members of Parliament 185 the law consisted, and to make the statute-book, instead of separate acts have been passed ; with regard to Excise, comprising a long succession of statutes withoutorder, con- f2O; stamps, 130; Poor Law, 120; assessed taxes, 40; sistency, or arrangement, consist only of a series of cense.. Crown lands, 4(1; municipal corporations, GO ; rent, 40; lidation acts, beginning with those of a general nature and and sheriffs and their officers, 55. This list by no means finishing with those of a. departmental or administrative exhausts the instances in which a large number of statutes character? But then came the important and difficult has been passed upon a single subject, but it shoWs that question, what were they to do as regarded future legisla- 790 separate acts may easily be reduced to nine. This lation. The statute law commission, which had devoted kind of legislation is different from every other kind. In its attention to this branch of the subject, had it appeared, other cases, if the work to be done is not completed the prepared a report which would shortly be laid before Par- labour bestowed upon it is entirely lost, but in this case liament, comprising a scheme for future legislation. Tne every step gained is gained once for all, and Will be framing of bills by independent members, not familiar with equally useful and valuable whether the work be completed thestatute law, vas a very serious matterfor consideration; or not. A question has been raised with regard to the and as soon as tae report in question had been presented, degree of verbal alteration which ought to be made in he should propose to have distributed among members of the different statutes when they .were thrown together. both houses of Parliament suggestions as to the phrase- The commissioners of 1834 have fully argued that ques. ology and structure of bills to be introduced into Parlia- tiou, and answered the objection that verbal alterations ment, which Would greatly assist such persons as he had would destroy the authority of the judicial decisions now referred to. As regarded the future framing of bills, he in existence. They contend that the result of former thought that the house would entirely concur with him judicial interpretations would be embodied in such alte in the opinion that there ought to be, and must be, some rations, and litigation, instead of being created, would be officer, or a corps of officers, appointed by and invested decreased by the consequent remuvrj.of doubts. A doubt with the authority of bothe houses of Parliament, to has been raised as to whether anything ought to be at watch and assist in the course of legislation ; to consider tempted in the Way of substantive as well as verbal altera every bill for the amendment of the law, not forgetting tion, and it has been said that nothing ought to be done its bearing on the statute-book as it already existed, and beyond consolidating the law as it stands, lest the Govern to take upon themselves the general superiutendence and moat or the commissioner should assume au undue respon revision of the bills introduced -into Parliament. Sup- sibility in making alterations. No doubt there is jest posing some such authority to exist, then came the titles- ground for such a , fear ; but, on the other hand, much of tion by what means could the new enactments be made our statute law has become wholly or partially obsolete, consistently and conveniently to form part of the pre- much has been virtually repealed, and thus substantive as vionsly consolidated statute law. Not wishing to deal well as verbal alterations may, to a certain degree, be ne with the question merely in the abstract, he would ces,ary, while no persons can be so competent to suggest take the case of the other bill which he was about such alteration , as those whoee attention has, by the very to ask leave to introduce, relating to bills of exchange and labeur of col:no:Hating, been closely fixed upon the law as promissory notes. At piesent there was in this country a it stands. The Government and the framers of any act em mercantile custom by which three days grace was allowed bodying such alterations will be responsible for them. on notes of lend. Suppose it were thought expedient by Care roust always be taken to explain their nature and Parliament to make the law of England consistent with the extent ; and I take for granted that nothing will be at law of other countries in that respect, and to do away with tempted in net way except what the state of the law, and the three el tyre grace, and suppose a bill were passed for the necessities of the time render obviously expedient. I that purpose—in-thee Case if the Consolidation Act re- n ow come t o w h a t h as b een l ooked upon as the greatest lating to bill s o f exchange and promissory notes were en- difficulty in the way of consolidation, namely, the con title i " Consolidation Act No. 1, Bills of Exchange," no- tinual introduction and passing of new acts. It is urged thing eyelid be easier than to affix the same title to the that no reform in the nature of consolidation can be more act which matte the alteration. And iu like manner, alter than tennerary, because fresh changes aro every day being the general consolidation of the statutes, it might be pro- ma ie. My answer is, that this objection, even admitti ng vided by a reso l u ti on c f bot h houses of Parliament its validity to the fullest extentedoes not touc't the ques that whenever a new act was passed it diode be tion of the benetici ci elects of consoli t will be a printed, so as to become pert of the consolidation act re- great step towards the simplification of the law, and a lating to the same subject. Under this scheme, or mocias great saving of labour and time, it all we obtain he that operandi, not only would the consolidation of the sta- those who have to ascertain the statute law upon a parti tutes be attended with immediate benefit, but, as legisla- (ruler subject shall be able to begin their inquiries with the tion proceeded, the new acts would be made to form part of year 1856 or 1857, instead of having to look back 300 or the already consolidated statutes, and the statute-book 400 years. My hon. and learned friend, however, holds would consist of a series of single acts, eadh series contain- that the difficulty, such as it is, is not insuperable. The ing the whole statute law ou the subject to which it re- consolidation act upon a particular subject will embody lated. This, then, was the plan for consolidatin the whole the law up t o th e t i me o f i ts p ass i ng, and whether any statute l aw of the land, for which h e as k e d th e sanction of amendment act subsequently passed be classified separately the house --5 plan in which no attempt was made to codify as a consolidation amendment act, or whether it be or deal with the common law. It was essential to the sue- joined on by way of supplement to the consolidation cess of his scheme that, if the principle of it should receive act, the objection will in either way be overcome, and the the sanctione o f b o th H ouses o f P ar li amen t , th e severa l w h o l e statute law upon that subject may still be found in consolidation acts which would be founded upon it should the ; same part of the saute book. I think it clear that be passed in as rapid succession as practicable, so that some competent authority is required—whether a board they might with the least possible delaybecome part of the or a Minister, Parliament must decide—by whom every law of the land. He had satisfied himself that the scheme act of Parliament shall be examined to see that it is not was practicable, and would his successful if it received the inconsistent with former acts, and that it rightly and fully sanction of Parliament ; and he would, at any sacrifice of expresses the intentions of its propounders. That propo time which might be necessary, undertake the superinten- sition is not novel. It was put forward about two years deuce and preparation of all the acts of Parliament. As re- ago in an able pamphlet by Mr. Willmore, it has been garded the possible objeetions to bis scheme, he believed it again and again discussed among members of the profes was owing to the mixing up ofeconsolidation with codifi- slon, I believe there is a general concordance o f l ega l cation that the gre a t es t an d a bl es t men w h o h a d hi t h erto op i n i on in its favonr,. and I at, least never heard any valid attempted to deal with this sneject had hitherto failed. argument against it. The expense will be but trifling, The consolidation of a multiplicity of acts of Par- even if in such a matter expense can be regarded. My liatnent was a comparatively simple task, consisting in the hon. and learned Lieu,' has raised the poi n t o f f ar greater substitution f or 20 or 30 acts of one Single act containing difficulty—namely, what ought to be done with local or verbatim the same provtaions. This wont' lead to no dis 7 personal acts which are in some SODS° acts of a general cussion—it was only putting the law in a different form ; character —as, for instance, where special and exceptional but if they superadded to that the codification of the eta- protection is given, in certain cases, to parsons or pro tute law, on what a wide field would they enter ! He yen- perty. It is rash to generalize, bat I confess to me all tured to say, with perfect confidence, that no one could such acts (I don't deny their necessity in supposable cases) advance through one pegs of a bill for codifying the cone- appear faulty in principle, and in the case of the Rail mon law of England without giving rise to discussions and way Clauses Act, they ought, for the warning and guid - differences of opinion as to the construction and exposition ante of the public, to be embodied in one general statute, of the law, doubts upon the construction and exposition of controlling and limiting their provisions. With regard to the law, and as to what the law was, which would render the specific measures which my hon. and learned friend the passing of a single act of Parliament for the consolida- his introduced I shall nos trouble the House. They are tion of any one single branch of the law in any one session large in themselves, but they are far le ss i m p or t an t th an of Parliament utte r ly impossible. (Hear, hear.) So l ong th e genera l plan which ! ho has sketched out, and the pledge as the house limited its exertions to consolid ding the which he hats given. The ; pledge is before the country. statutes, there would be no diffieelty in proceeding, but I will only observe that we are too apt, in the conflict of if an attempt were made to codify, the result would, he parties, to forget the right, t'ao duty, and the responsi feared, be differeat. As an instance of this he would call bility which belongs to individual members of aiding in attention to what took place in the House of Lords a few the work of legislation. We retnern bar and talk loudly sessions since, when an attempt was made to codify the of the responsibility of action, but we lose sight of the criminal law The bill which was brought in at that time equally real responsibility of doing nothing e here abuses was referred to a committee, consisting, he would not say exist. It is not reasonable or just that the exclusive of some of the most distinguished lawyers, but of the most burden of legislation should devolVe on those who have distinguished lawyers of the kingdom. Four of the cone- already on their hands the administrative business of the mittee were noble lords who had filled the office of Lord nation. My hon. and learned friend, in asociating himself Chancellor, one was then Lord Chancellor, and the sixth with the Executive in undertaking this task, is not only was chief justice of England. Lord Truro, Lord St. Lee- promoting a legal reform, but setting a good Parliamentary nerds ' Lord Brougham, L or d C ranwor th, L or d L yn dh urs t , example, anti with the energy and. industry h e h as dis and Lord Campbell, were the noble lords composing that played it is not likely that he will fail from any want of committee. The first clause of the bill was an interpre- support either in or out of the house. (Hear.) Wien clau e, fixing the meaning of the words thereinafter The ATTORNEY-GENERAL thought they well all per used. The committee held eleven meetings, sitting on fectly agreed on this—that it was desirable to consolidate the average from four to six hours upon each oceasiou, and in the end they were o bli ge d t o g i ve up th e bill i u their statutes. (Hear.) That was a point on which it was despair, finding it absolutely impossible to agree upon not necessary to labour. Every one would agree that the the meanings to be affixed to the technical words used state of the law with regard to its promulgation was highly in the bill. If any hon. member thought that the difficulty discreditable to the legislature. The laws of England were was one easy to be got over he worths suggest to him to en- Scattered on the face of it large number of text books, in deavour to put into the shape of a section of aei act a defi nition of the word " malicious " a term constantly occur- hundreds of volumes of reports, and in thous an d s o f s t a t ute ing in criminal jurisprudence. If then they coule not have books. (Hear.) In the course of his able speech, in se codification, they might certainly have consolidation. And conding the motion before the house, the noble lord the the advantage of acceding to this proposition was this, that member for King's Lynn had pointed out a hundred dif the one plan by no means interfered wills the other, but was rather a step towards it. W ere th e en ti re s t a t u t e l aw cen - ferent statutes on th e saran subject. Now th a t was b eyon d solidated solidated and arranged un d er a pp ro p r i a te h ea di ngs , a St p all d ou bt s can d a l ous , (Hear.) But the question was, what which would materially aid any future attempts to seedify was the beat remedy for that state of things ? What was would be accomplished. There was anether metter con the best mode of consolidating the statutes : He quite nected with the subject which he mu: t bring before the agreed with his hon. and learned friend the member for house. He was perfectly willing to undertake the respousi- Suffolk and with the noble lord, that it was not desirable bility of superintending such measures as might be rcces- to attempt to combine codification with consolidation. sary to carry into effect the scheme wnich he had moire (rear.) Let'tbeln first consolidate the statutes, and in that factly sketched out, but it was obvious that it would require point of view he was strongly disposed to think, that how the close attention of learned and competent men, and the ever defective they might be, the task of proceeding to deal country could not expe c t th a t th e serv i ces o f sha h p e r so ns with the statutes by proceeding to name them and to alter could be given without remuneration. Whenothe house their provisions and their laeguago in the way thet had came to consider that, in ord er p ro p er ly t o f ram e an act eon" been suggese,ed would be a protracted work —a work of im solidating a branch of the late, it would be necessar y to road mense labour. He believed that by such a procedure what through, collate, and weigh the effect of 30, 40, or perhaps was necessarily a work of great time would assume an un 50statates, he did not thinkehat a remuneration for each limited duration. He thought that the first thing they bill averaging between 50/. and 10)/. would be too large. ought to do was, to sweep away from the statute book all But in connection with this matter hon. members should statutes that had be en repealed, or all parts of statutes bear in mind the fact that a great saving would result to that hail been repealed and then begin to consolidate the country at large from the system which he advocated. It those that remained. (Hear, . hear.) They then came to was almost impossible to over-estimate the advantages of the question—how could that consolidation be effected ? such reform. Ho believed that two recent acts of Parliament The honourable and learned member for Suffolk had —the County Court Act and the Common Law Procedure detailed to the house the scheme by which ho proposed to Act—had effected an anneal saving of 1,000,009/. sterling, effect that object ; but he (the Attorney-General thought He therefore hoped that the house would favourably veetv that his hon. and learned friend had taken too much credit the plan which he had brought under its consideration to himself for the ori g in a lity of th a t sc h eme . A s he (the and if he were fortunate endugh to obtain its consent to the Attorney-General) Understood it, it was nothing more nor second reading of this bill, hod. members might rely upon i less than what the statute law commission had fur some it that he would not relax his efforts in the course whicn I time been acting on in the preparation of statutes to be he was now pursuing. Of course so vast a subject would submitted to Parliament. He dad not quite under stand the require some time to carry it through in all its parts, position of hon. and learned friend, who he was sure but he did not hesitate in saying that it might be done wss sincerely desirous - of turning his great knowledge and within 2 years from that time. He was quite sure that he his gr.eat ability; to the furtherance of . that most essential should not back co-operation. There was no want of earnest object, the come/id:4bn of the statute law—bo did not and able men ready to ail the cause of legal reform ; in understand whether his bon. and learned friend was to be deed, so true was this that he could see no reason why, at considered as the organ of the statute law commission, or the present day, one s i ng l e gr i evance i n t h e l aws o f E ng l an d whether he assumed an independent p os iti on i n that house should remain unredressed. with respect to the consolidation of the statutes._ He had Lord ST.A.NLEY—I rise to second the motion of my ' no wish tt accord to the bon and learned member—who hon. and learned friend; but, after his comprehensive had been for so many years an ornament of the profession speech, and not anticipating opposition at this stage, I shall of which they were both members—a modesty for which a barrister of such standing would scarcely claim credit, but trouble the house with but few remarks. I see with plea- he did not think that his hon, and learned friend would' as sure, as does ev er y man who has reflected on the Wants of mine a merit which in hie case fie did not possess. However' this community, that, in the rather unusual cessation of . he should say that het did not apprehend there was tiny political antagonism which characterises the present time, thing in the ;den of his hon. and learned friend that was the questi on of law reform is rising daily into greater pro- not contained in the pl an o f th e s t atute l aw comm i ss i on , mineace. Da r i ng h a lf a cen t ury that quest i on h as occupied j which was now proceedi ng w ith its duties. H o did not, as had before observed, quite understand whether the hon. the attention of Parliament, and to some extent of the pub- and learned member was the organ of that commission or lie ; but what has been wanting is not so much the guidance • not. Ho (the Attorney-General) had the honour to be a of a directing mind or the ifeencY of honest and competent member of the commission, as were two or three of his parsons skilled in the law, as that popular interest and sup- learned friends n ow aroun d hi m, an d t h ey were no t a ware port out of d oors, without which, in a popularly-con itituten that the hon. and learned member was authorised to speak Government, any reform, especially if it involves muc h in the name of the statute law commission, It might be labour of detail, is sure to he thrust aside to make way for that he was; but if so, certainly he (the Attorney-p a r: a s'? other measures less important, but at the moment more did not know it. His hon. and learned friend nice allie interesting. The difficulty with which law reformers have that he would take under his' careful superintend to contend has arisen not so much from the actual magni- bills on the statute law. They-were to come into that doubt they tude and weight of Obstaclenin the way as from the want house under his auspicious supervision, and- a n r o ) He (the of sufficient impelling force to encounter and bear them could not come in under better. (Hear , down. The work has teen there to be done, the machine Attorney-General) did not know whetherhetahsenheopril.aannudf was ready to do it, but /he propelling driving power wee ' learned gentleman was to introduce the plan t not adequately supplied. If Parliament be in earnest in the statute law commission—whether he was to exercise dealing with this subject, what course ought we to adopt? his own prerogative or appear there as ono of that body 'donee do grn e t i se on such esquestiOn, but I accept my hon. However, evhosesoever tho scheme might be , he (the Al.. and learned friend' s conchision, that, any attempt to recast torney-General) was not disposed to vindicate its merits ; the whol e l aw of England into the form of a code would, f or h e th oug h t t h a t a f ar store comprehensive scheme than for the present at least, be useless. Tote would have to that proposed by his hon. and learned friend washroenq.niarnel amalgamate with th e statutes the whole f the!eommon un- to meet the existing state of things. He thought that i written law, now scattered over more than 500 volumes ; they went on acting on the principle which , w h h e i-eh cl llis to try on an immense scale, undei- ' ever Y disadva ntage , that learned friend had stated that n hbe thought experiment , which was tried 3 or 4 years ag° , on a small was the principle of the statute law commission—so far scale, Under the most, favourable circumstances, the result from completingdoubted if they of which say learned friend bus described- The alternative, would complete it in two ce uries. He was of opinion the work iu two nt years then, is to deal with one part of We law—the statute law • that if they dealt with the e law by taking, say first, —only; to simplify it, to amend it, to bring it within the the law respecting bills . of exchange, and then the laws smallest possible compass, arid, after that task has been ac- concerning offences against the person, those as between complished, then, but not till thee, to consider what fur- roaster and servant, those relating to landlord and tenant, ther st eps ought to be taken: . I use the word alternative, those having reference to stenips, and so on, they wou!d. . a n eve r get te r ougb them. He w as i nc li ne t to think they but, in truth , the acceptanc e of one plan does not imp the rejection, ha r dly even the postponement, of the other. would have to wait till doomsdny for a completion of their For it must b e b orne in m i n d by the advocates of codifica- task. What he would recom men d was, that t h ey s h ould tion that the firat step towards Codification is the consolidae , compile_asany one would to forma code, or to write a text analytically the statute l aw o f Eiofland complet e tion of the st a t u t e law, an d even if nothingsheuht bo done beyond consolidation a great economy of time and labour • book of the law of England, c l aee if y i ng an d su bdi v idi ng would be effected, and much - c °"fusieu would be removed. into chapters and heads; anal having got a great outline Every step taken in that direction t ie a guarantee for fur- or skeleton of the law of England, they could arrange ther improvement, because when confusion has been re- tinder their proper heads all the laws relating to money, to i moved from the law upon any single subject the force of hu sband and wife, to guar di an an d war d , t o person and contrast will operate, and mete will ask why one part of the property, to political off ences, t o po li ce, t o P ar li amentary lawshould be simple and another obscure ?If consolidation representation, Zee. This, he thought, would be a com bo determined Qll Xay bon s and l rood friend g ill tau prehensive mode of dealing with th e Ulf tter s )3ut the plan ea ~~:._. _ his hon. and learned friend had proposed would never finish. That was his view of the subject.. Ho would not say that he stood alone in entertaining it, fir he had the great advantage of having in it the concurrence of his hon. and learned friend the Solicitor-General ; but, unfortu nately, they were in the minority as regarded the statute law commission, and be therefore did not vindicate that practical scheme as ono that that .commission had any regard for. He was. however, very glad that an hon. gentleman with such tranecendant 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 introducLion of the bill, he would have great satisfaction in seeing the hon. and learned member receiving any tvsistance which her Majesty's Government or any hon. member of that house could afford him iu the good work. Although ho did not think that the thing was done in the best' manner, he. could assure his hon. and learned friend that he 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 conctirred in wha.t 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 r a th er coincided in th e o pi n i ons o f th e hon. and learned member for Suffolk and of the noble lord the member for 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 he thought he might congratulate the country on the ability, the perseverance, and the energy which had induced the hon. and learned member fer Suf folk to pledge himself to the House of Commons to carry out, with the concurrene3 of Parliament, the task he had undertaken. Consolidation was in his opinion perfectly practicable, for it introduced nothing new and therefore raised 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 one 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 en 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, be consequence of what had fallen from his learned friend the Attorney-General. He would take another opportunity of noticing the general reuiarks of his hon. and learned friend; but as to the question before tho how% ' and what the At torney-General has said in refer ence t o his introduction of the measures, be (Sir F. Kelly) begged to state distinctly that he was not the organ of the statute law commission. (Hear.) He appeared there to propose these measures merely as an individeal—as *an independent member of Parliament. (Hear, and cheers) It was quite true that for the last few weeks he had been a merdber 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 whore he had communi cated to say that be 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 and 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. memberi 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 mom bert, who were more competent to form an opinion on the subject thaneheessas, he was of opinion that they would the more speedily and'effeetually arrive at a codification of the statute letvs by consolidating them, subject by sub ject, than by attempting by one measure a complete codi s rication of the statute law. (Hear, hear.) He thought that the hon. and leestated gentleman opposite had some what underrated scone of the difficulties in the way 'of consolidation. For instance, that which would arise in d ea li ng with the, lawiof exchange, and our custom of the three days grace on bills of 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 tbe statutes ; so that conasel could take up the labour where his predecessor had left'off. The consolidation Would in this way be kept in suesh a state as to effect, he thought, the object they all hul in view. Mr. L. KING had listenei,l With great attention to the speech of the hon. and learned member for Suffolk, whom ho was glad to see coining forward as a law reformer. As to the statute law counnissioh he would ask what had it done? In 1853 a e geOd ' 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 Lora chancel., was, the pre paration of a list of statute:3 that 'had become obsolete, or been repealed, and the introduction of a declaratory bill ; bat that list was nesser prepared, and the declaratory bill which the Lord Chaecellor promi s ed i n 1853 h a d not been brought in to this day. He (Hr. L. King) felt confident that this plan would have been a far better ono than that proposed by the hon. anti learned gentleman for by the system of consolidation now proposed the confusion already existing in the stetate-book would be increased rather than diminished. If they adopted the plan which hail 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 wonid at once clear away a groat deal deal of lure bar and open the road to a salutary measure of law reform. Ho would only add, that he felt extremely greteful 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, for it was founded on the labours of the statute-law commis sion, where the drafts of those and other bills wore noir lying. If they proceeded in' supporting his learned frasnd they would be fast arriving at the point ef codification. Mr. M‘MAHON was in - favour of consolidation as the only practical mode of proceeding Mr. NAPIER he 'e iotithated that if no satisfactory plan for carrying out the objects contemplated by the resolution he had proposed on Tuesdaynight, 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. Tho SOLICITOR. GENERAL would have been glad if his right hon. friend before bringing on hie motion the other 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 1 o 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 qu es ti on b e f ore th e h ouse, i t was necessary t o 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 Lad 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) s sose only to'explain in some degree how far they had differeifTrone s the commission, and what was the real object they desired to achieve. They had bowed with deference to the United cipieions of the other com missioners; 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 thestatutes referred that were now proposed to be consolidated ? He must admit that hede sired the sele c tion s h ou ld be made according to some system of analysis ; and he confesied that he did so in the hope that it might lay the-foundatiou for the future framework of codifying the law. (Hear, bear.) The statute law com mission proposed to take a• particular subject, to collect the 'various statutes relating to that subject, and to embody them in one. But the - objection to this might be illus; trated in the following matiner :—Take the law relating to real property, for instance. The statutes which referred to that subject involved certain enactments, some of which s'elated to freeholds, some to leaseholds, some to copy. holds, and others to partnership ; so that when they had completed their consolidated statute, they would have heaped together a tumulus of fragmentary parts of the law, certainly ranging wider one herd —Lamely, that of executors and administrators—but having no connection with the subject. The pioposition made, therefore, was, that i ns t ea d of this arrangement, the heath and titles should beseleeted with reference to an analyitical division of the law, and then ell branches (f the law would find their appropriate places—the law relating to real pro perty would not be mixed up with personal proert and the consolidation wool! proceed o n a p l an of philo sophical analysis. All that he desired, therefore, war, that that analysis should bs made the grouudwork 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 them=elves 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 inexinss of the law ef'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 whether it was that which was called the unwritten law, collected oat 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, or 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 e thought there was no reason to despair of the possibility of approaching a state of things when these latter should present something like order, ar rangement, and analysis. (Hear.) He agreed that they must com mence - th e wr i t by consolidating th e s t a t ute law ; and so thinking: he .hailed and welcomed in the most c nelial manner the accession of his hon. and learned friend (Sir F. Kelly), and must express the great pleasure and delight with which be had heard the most sensible, the most stetesmauliko, cud, ha would edd, the most philoso phical speech of the noble lord the member for King's Lynn. (Hear. Sir F. KELLY,. in ; reply, said,.if.jt were p ra cticable to sweep away'that vast portion Of the statute law whichhad become obsolete, as reconanaeuded by the Attorney General he should lee obliged to his hon. and learned friend if be would perform the task fm- hire, and so enable-him with the greater facility to prodeed with the bills he asked leave to submit to the house. But his hon, andleerned friend bad entirely forgotten that, in order to Cleanse the statute book of then eluKtinento, it world be inceonry to go fruz beginning to end of the statute book - , through every one of the subjects which he 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 orde r . I o bj ec t t o th a t order, on th e ground that it will throvi the statute book into a state of confusion, equal to that which now exists. I would rather, therefore, that you should pirsue 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 bo carried out, he would confer a groat 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, bat ne cessity, he 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. Phillinsore) had addressed the house as if he (Sir F. Kelly) were the enemy and opponent of the improvements i n t h e l• tw w hi c h ha sought to carry into effect. They would permit him to say that he was as much in 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 when he talked of the Pandects of - Justinian and the code of Na 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 v. code of laws equal to the Pandects of Justinian or the Code Napoleon, he would not only have the applause of tho 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 judges; the number of times each had been ab sent during the whole'of any assize, or, if absent during 3 part only, stating what part, and the reasons, if any, given 'for such absence ; also, id how many, and in what in stances substitutes had been appointed by the Crown to pre,ide at any assize or any portion thereof, in the absence of any such judge, giviog in each case the name of the town. He said he rose to perform the duty which he bad undertaken—that of calling the attention of the house to the state of the judiciiel bench in Ireland, and to move for a return, showing the fact, as he believed it to be, that several of those judges were incapacitated by old age and infirmities from attending properly to their duties. Ike 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 was a matter which might be brought before them. In the . year ' 1842, the noble lord, the member fer the City of London , proposed a resolution having reference to . the judicial re: signations of Irel an d and Scotland. The . noble bold moved for certain papers and correshondence, and, be believed, stated that certain reeignations h a vi n g taken place, at a time of change of administration, it ivas necessary there should be some further inquiry int o tho matter, in order that -some explanation s hould be given, because as things then stood, the resigna tioas appeared one of twe'things, either that the judges In question had attained their position long after their infir mities had disabled them from properly fulfilling their duties; or else that their particular party, having come into power, they had been placed on the retired list when their services might and ought to have been applied to the duties of their office. His reason fer bringing the subject forward bad not in any way 17efei once to political opinion. (Oh, oh.) No such motive could be attributed to him. W. °. ground for bringing th e ma tt er b e f ore th e h ouse was simply this, that however eminent these' venerable men Ini At have been in thei r ti me —h owe V er ornamental to the judi cial bench—the infirmities of age bad come upon theta , and they ware not no.v in a situation to perform their duties in a way to be creditable to themselves or to do justice to the country. Tho subject .first attracted his at tention in consequence of a question which was put lest' session by an hou. member on the other side of the house to the right hon. gentleman 'the Secretery for Ireland, That hon. member asked whether the Secretary for Ire' land was aware that a hre b e p oportion of th e I r i s h judges were incapacitated for a fult discharge of their duties, and that some of them were called to the bar in 176 and the following years. The reply given by the right hon. gen tleman on that occasion was, that the only official know' ledge the Government had of the circumstance referred to, was derived from the fact, that when a judge was unelele to go the circuit he provided a substitut e , who was paid out of the coneolidated fund. To' the latter p ar t of the question therEecretary for Irel an d said he could only sta te that the circumst ances h a d b een b roug h t t o th e n otice , of the Governm en t, co d th e y were s till un d er considera tion. He (Sir J. Sh e ll e y) l e ft th e ma tt er t o th e close of the session, and thna gave notice of hie iutention to bring the subject before the house at an early period of the present session. He must say that her Majesty's Ministers had been to blame for allowing such a state of things to grow up; as the return he now asked for , if granted, would prove. He had tried to find some excuse for such apathy on their part, and he. thought it must have arisen from certain feelings of delicacy. It was quite possible the Government might have not done that which they thought they ought to do for fear it should be said they had endeavoured to remove these venerable 'men from their offices in order that during the time they held office the Government Might place eminent men of their own opinions in their place. But if he found smile excuse for her MejeSty's Ministers, be really was at a i° ° ' to find any excuse for her Majesty's Opposition • for they had remained perf ec tly qu i et, an d • ellowed • th i e s tate o f things to grow up. While lie said this lie felt bound to do m justice . to one right hon. gentleman—he alluded to the right hon. gentleman th e ember for the U n i vers ity of Dublin . The report was, that in the ti me o f L or e Deiley's Gove rn- ment Irish judgeship fell vacant, and that the right hon. gentleman, with a properregard for the public servicet upon having that judge s hip o ff ere d t o hi m, r efused it . cesoequence of having the infi r thit z o f d ea fness. (Cries o "Oh, oh.") He atentionel the subject, feeling that it a very creditable ono to the right hon. gentleman ; but i f he had given any eff ence b y hi e o b servation, al l h e coul d say was that the right bon. member's conduct had boa highly creditable on tfireoccasion ref eree d t o . With regar.` t , to the subject-matt er o f hi s motion, he should not think it necessary to trouble th e h ous e by going through the list of these gentlemen. There were 12 judges in Ireland, and he should only allude to two or three of these who bad arrived at the longe s t p er i o d Of ex i s t ence. Th ere was Chief Justice Lefroy, who was born in the year 1774, arid there fore was now 82 years of age ; he was called to the bar in 1797, and consequently he had been at the bar 59 yea": He (Sir J. Shelley) need 'not' say that infirmities were upon that gentleman, and he believed that he had been obliged to absent himself from his duties? The next Nva e Judge Torrens, who was born in the year 1772, and wa s consequently 84 years of age; he was called to the bar in 1798. The next oldest was Baron Pennofather, who was born in 1771; h e was ca ll e d to tho bar in 1795, an d e tt had therefore been itkthe b ar 11 years, and on the bench 35 years, and was now 85 years of age. It would doubt less be said, and he (Sir J. Shelley) chid not deny it, that Baron Pennefather perforfeed his duties with mor e activity, wonderful as it was to' say so, than most of thes e venerable men. (Hoer, hear.) They all knew cases in which that learned judge had distinguished himself greatly by his elaborate summing up, and the physical strength be had displayed ; but, unfortunately for him, and also for his country, that learned eitidge had for a long time been deprived of his sight. Looking at the duties which . a judge had to perform, it was quite imposable, indeed, it was awful to think Of, that a judge deprived of his sight should sit to try persons for their lives and characters, without being able to take a single cote of the proceeding. That there might be no questioh of the learned judge being really blind, he (Sir.J. Shelley) wished to be allowed to refer to a newspaper, which was certainly not favourable' to his motion or to the party on that side of the houge. Cries of " Order.") He would refer to a document. (Order, order.) This published document was the organ of a party, and in alluding to the presebt motion, it saict that it could safely assert— (The hon. niember,was here interrupted by loud cries of " Order.") Sir F. THESIGER, said he believed it was not in order for hon. gentlemen to read from a newspaper. The hon. member began to read from a newspaper, and when he was checked, ho immediately called it a document. He, there fore, appealedeto the Speak er t o k now whether the' hon. gentleman was strictly e in order ? The SPEAKER Said the•hon. gentleman had correctly stated what the rule of the house was a few years ago, an d he had checked an member in accordance with that rule, when, how ever, his opinion was overruled by that of the house, (Hear. hear.) Sir J. SHELLEY said he might, then, be permitted to refer to this document. It stated that it was the almost unanimous opinion of the bar in Ireland that Bailin Pen.' nefather, although suffering from impaired sight, m ost fully discharged these judicial duties, iu the admirable per formance of which lee bad Passed nearlp 50 years of hislife. Ho (Sir J. Shelley), therefore, might-fairly say .that the' learned judge performed these duties while suffering from impartial sight. (Loud laughter.) He meant imperfect sight ; but however that might'be, he found'from the Dub lin correspondent of the same paper as further reference to Baron Pennerather, ate the effect that he wss now in his 84th year, but still retaining all the vigour and acuteness of his intellect—(hear)—but it went on to state that for the last year he had been . totallyeleprived of sight. He be lieved they might read for " last yOsr," the " last three years." ,At the present moment s however, that'venerablo man was struck with total blindn'ess. Was it possible for a blind man to execute properly the duties of a judge ? One of the first duties of a hedge at atrial was to take correct notes of the proceedings. e In cases of handwriting a judge should be able to compare the different styles. and yet this could not be done. Those, domeerned in ends cf justice knew there was nothing more important then taking evi dence,caets theylur ne d u p on th e ev id enc e n ofconversations, and it was very imp o rtant end reports fo in many that judges should be able to take it down, an d y e t this, could not be done. How often had it happened that a jell had been bewildered by the counsel on both sides, and had called upon the judge to explain the evidence, and yet this could not be done as regarded one of the judges to whom by referred.' lie might brintoiany instances to show the inconveniences which' had acquired in consequence of the misfortunes of this venerable man. At the spring assizes last year a man was indicted before Baron Pennefather for writing a threatening letter, and' there was a difficulty in obtaining a conviction because of want of prod of the handwriting. The whole question turned upon the hand writing, but in this case the judge could not assist the pri soner at all, who said to his lordship that if "he would exa 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, eisel was now. undergoing term of imprisonment. Heewould ask whether that was a state of things which ought to exist. (Hear.) The next case was that of Fitzgerald v. Hammond, in which were involve I 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 thesignature In this case, also, the 'j u d ge could give the jury no mild ante, and m 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 in such a state that he could afftri the ju;y7noassi;ta,nce." This involved the character of a man in .high position,. and he .(Sir J-Shelley) would say that the judge could not do justice between the parties. He would mention that the , spring. circuits had been struck, . and Baron Penn efather bad selected the north-west cir cuit, on which some important cases of murder and other charges, amongst others that of the persons indicted for the murder of Miss Hind, would have to be tried. Now, in the event 0 thole peze9na appealing against king tried!), ~,,.'" • t i .~