The Press.
London, England, 1855-07-28 00:00:00

INIV!`."

703

appointed for the purpose of merely reclass-
ing them; and this committee reported that
the duty ought to be delegated to a staff of
barristers, with not less than twenty clerks.
As to codification, or such a consolidation as
to include not alone the Statute Law, but also
that which BENTHAM termed "judge-made "
law—i.e., those decisions by which, quoted as
precedents, the statutes are interpreted—thir-

teen blue-books had been published on crimi-
nal legislation alone ; and yet, after all this
investigation, nothing had been effected. To
codify the entire law, Lord Sr. LEONARDS said,
was a work of which no man living could hope
to see the end. The CHANCELLOR did not deny
this, but dwelt on the importance of making a
beginning, and thought his reforms would be
valuable as far as they went. And when,
towards the close of the Parliamentary year,
he was called upon to say what had been the
result of his Commission, he summed up their
labours thus :

Of statutes passed from the date of Magna
Charta down to the present time it had been
found that there were 16,442. Of these there
were actually repealed, 2,700 • and virtually re-
pealed by the enactment of other statutes, 2,600
more. Deducting further the number actually
obsolete, about 7,000, there remained a resi-
duum of 3,900, which might fairly be pro-
nounced still in force. But of these, again,
600 related only to Ireland, 420 to Scotland,
and 400 to the Colonies ; thus leaving only
2,500 with which it was necessary to deal. On
the mode of operation henceforth to be
adopted Lord CRANWORTH was not clear. He
suggested only as desirable the throwing toge-
ther of such statutes as related to single and
isolated subjects—such as poor law, railway
law, statutes relative to public works, to the
National Debt, and the like. On this not
particularly definite statement no comment
ensued, and the question of law reform was
laid by for the year.
In 1554 a new Board was constituted on a
plan more extensive, and including names
more professionally eminent than the last.
Lords CRANWORTH, BROUGHAM, LYNDHURST,
WROTTESLET, and CAMPBELL ; Sir J. JERVIS, Sir
F. POLLOS:K, Sir J. PARKE, the LORD ADVOCATE ;
Messrs. WALPOLE, NAPIER, BELLENDER KER,
KEOGH, BREWSTER, and CRAITTURD ; Sir W. PAGE
WOOD, Sir A. COCKBURN, and Sir R. Bynum.,
composed this body of functionaries. Their
commission dates August 23rd, 1H54, and is
extended by a later document of December
15th in the same year. It embraces both
Common and Statute Law, and includes the
following directions:-
1. To consolidate the statutes where cow
veniently possible, including therein such
parts of the Common or Unwritten Law as they
may think fit.
2. To devise rules for greater simplicity and
uniformity hereafter.
A secretary to be appointed, and any
wlearned and skilful" persons to be employed
hom the Commissioners may think fit. Re-
ports to be made from time to time.

Previous to the meeting of this body a
memorandum was addressed to its members
by the LORD CHANCELLOR, stating what had
been done, or attempted, during the previous
year, and indicating the method according to
which future operations should be conducted.
He recommended that no permanent Bub-Com-
missioners should be employed, but that drafts
should be drawn when required, as by private
individuals, the remuneration being in each
case proportioned to the service. For this
course the reasons assigned were :-1. The
difficulty of securing in any other way the
services of the ablest professional persons. 2.
The impossibility of finding any one equally
familiar with all parts of the law. 3. The,
probably, temporary nature of the occupation,
for which individuals successful in their pro-
fession would not be inclined to abandon it.
He advised also an immediate selection of
subjects on which bills should be prepared
under the direction of the Board. And he
subjoined a list of statutes, or rather of groups
of statutes, needing consolidation, where one
bill might be usefully made to represent many—
e.g., " Election of M.P's., 185 Acts:" " Excise,
120 ;" Stamps, 130 ;" Poor Law, 120 ;" " High-
ways, &c., 71," "Municipal Corporations 00;"

•1••••••NommiiMINIIIII

704.

with many more. Lastly, he suggested the
formation of a permanent sub-committee to
obviate the inconvenience attending the assent
blage of so numerous a body as the Board
itself.

The first meeting was held November 13,
1854, but seems to have ended without result.
On the 15th November, the CHANCELLOR being
present, the Board determined to divide itself
into Sub-Committees; each of these to under-
take a particular department of labour. The
subjects chosen were, (1) Criminal Law, (2)
Charities, (3) Insurance, (4) Law of Masters
and Workmen, (5) Real-Property Law. Be-
sides the above some minor topics were
reserved for consideration. At this stage of
the proceedings an interesting and important
discussion arose respecting the style which
should be used in the,new Consolidating Acts—
How far should words which were familiar to
lawyers, which by use had acquired a certain
definite meaning, and on which many judicial
decisions had been based, be retained, and to
what extent should a license of alteration be
allowed ? Alteration of some kind there must
be, else the consolidation became a mere
copy with abridgements—a task laborious, fit
only for clerks, and very little better than use-
less. But if large departures from the text
of the old statutes were allowed there was
risk lest the law-corrector should assume the
functions of an independent legislator. On
the whole it was thought best that a consider-
able discretion should be vested in the
draftsmen, they being under the orders of, and
in direct communication with, the Sub-Com-
mittee of the Board itself. On the question of
legal style Lord CRANWORTH writes thus.
Buoting with approval the opinion of Lord
ROUGHAM'S long defunct Commission. No
legislative interference, he says, is wanted to
remedy the verbal faults so generally com-
plained of. They are purely literary faults.
" All that is wanted is, that persons drawing
acts of Parliament should use a plain and
concise style, should choose with care the
0 proper words to express their meaning, and
" never use a word that is not wanted. Above
all, they should assume that they are writing
for persons of ordinary candour and intern-
" hence, and not, as now the practice, think it
" necessary to provide in terms against every
"foolish or unworthy quibble that unfair or

persons may possibly suggest."

Various other technical suggestions of more
or less importance are contained in this note
of Lord CRANWORTH. He would limit, but
not wholly exclude, those symbols, or words
used in a peculiar and restricted sense, whidh
render interpretation clauses necessary. He
objects to the incorporation of part of an old
act with a new one, or to the repeal of only so
much of an old act as is inconsistent with the
new. Such proceedings only tend to perplex;
all the law relative to a particular subject
should be, as far as possible, embodied in a
single statute. Preambles are often inserted
in bills, and allowed to remain in the act,
which contain, not a statement to render the
enactment intelligible, but a statement of the
reasons which make it necessary or expedient
to pass the bill. This, though useful while
the measure is under discussion, becomes
manifestly superfluous afterwards. Hard-
ships arise from bringing new acts suddenly
into force ; and Lord CRANWORTH suggests that
a day, or two days, should be fixed in every
year whereon all such new acts should come
into operation.
Farther, he proposes that all acts should be
classed in one series, instead of, as at present,
in three : the " Public " Local and
Personal (Public)," and " Private "—a distinc-
tion more nominal than real, for many acts
entitled " Private" relate to matters of large
and national importance ; while the " Local
and Personal (Public)" series includes as
many whose objects are merely private. "In
" fact, the division is not founded on the
" nature or subject of the acts at all, but on
" the parties by whom the bill is applied for,
" and the forms and rules of the House
" respecting its introduction." It may be use•
ful to retain this classification while the bills

are before the House, but farther it ought not
to be carried. Besides its merely arbitrary
nature, confusion is thereby produced, as in