The Press.
London, England, 1856-02-23 00:00:00

DISPUTES BETWEEN MASTERS AND
OPERATIVES•

Mr. MACKINNON, on Tuesday, moved for a select
committee to inquire into the expediency of establish-
ing equitable tribunals for the amicable adjustment
of diderences between masters and workmen. The
hon. member observed that his object was to
establish tribunals analogous to the Conseils des
Prud'hommes in France, which had been found to
answer admirably. Those councils consisted of an
equal number of masters and operatives, and their
aim was, not to fix a maximum or minimum ot wages,
but to effect an amicable settlement of the disputes
which arose from time to time between masters and
workmen. As the law stood, in case of dispute, an
amicable adjustment by lair and mutual concessions
was scarcely attainable. The inquiry, he thought,
could do no harm, and a committee composed ot
master manufacturers and gentlemen who bad
turned their attention to the matter might decide
whether or not such a tribunal was likely to be bene
flcial to the country.
Sir GEORGE GREY had no objection to such an in-
quiry, provided it was undertaken with a lull know-
ledge cl the functions of the Conseils des Prnu'lioni-
mes. He thought it desirable that such tribunals
should be established, but it was an error to suppose
that they could ever regulate what was a mere matter
of agreement—the rate of wages.
The motion was agreed to.

COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES.
The Lords met on Monday as a Committee of
Privileges.
The LORD CHANCELLOR read a letter from Lord
Wensleydale, stating that be declined to attend by
counsel before the committee.
The search for cases through the Rolls and Records
not having been completed, Lord Liainnuawr ques-
tioned the officers of her Majesty's Records in attend•
ance upon the precedents found having reference to
the question. Atter some discussion, the Loan
CHANCELLOR declined to state whether he was satis-
fied with the cases already seam._ ed out.
The Earl of DERBY thought that if there were
delays, they were not to be attributed to Lord Lynd-
hurst, but rather to those who had expressed so
great an anxiety to expedite the inquiry.
After some further discussion, the Earl of DEBBY
proposed that the committee should adjourn till
Friday next, when the examination of the documents
would be completed.
Lord LYNDHURST gave notice that on Friday lie.
should move a resolution, stating as the opinion of
the committee that neither the patent to Sir J.
Parke, nor the writ of summons issued in pursuance
of it, could entitle him to sit and vote in Parliament.
Lord GRANYII LE, in riply to the Earl of Derby,
promised that if any amendment were moved, due
notice should be given.
REVISION OF THE STATUTES.
Mr. LOCKE KING, on Tuesday, moved that there
be prepared, under the direction of the Clerk of Fax-

FEBRUARY 23, 1856.

liaments, an edition of the statutes at large, for the
Use of the House, including all public general statutes
and parts of statutes in force, and omitting all such
statutes and parts of ststutes as are expired or have
been expressly repealed; and that, in the place of the
statutes or parts of statutes repealed, there be
inserted the titles of the statutes repealed, the
respective numbers and abstracts of the clauses re-
pealed, with a reference in the margin to the statutes
by which they are repealed. The hon. member, iu a
brief speech, pointed out the inevitable necessity of
a thorough revision of the Statute Law, and cited
various authorities in support of the object of his
motion, appealing to the example of New York, and
arguing that, as neither our Government nor its
Statute Law Commission seemed inelinet to take
any active steps in the matter, the work should be
a mlmenced at once as he proposed.
Mr. EwART seconded the motion, and thought
that the work should be prepared, not only for the
house, but for the country. It was of the utmost
importance that the law should be known. But he
despaired of seeing anything done until we had a
Minis.er of Justice.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL hoped that the resolu-
tion would not be pressed. The expurgation of the
statute-book was much too vast and onerous a duty
to be lightly assigned to a single person, whose time,
moreover, was already much occupied. He doubted
also whether that house had any right to impose such
a task upon an official whose attributes were really
derived from another branch of the Legislature.
Sir F. KELLY, upon similar grounds, also opposed
the motion.

Mr. S. WORTLEY said the hon. member confounded
legal reform with the compilation of a pocket edition
of the statutes. He doubted whether the Clerk of
Parliaments was a proper functionary to undertake so
serious a responsibility as that of consolidating and
expurgating the statutes at large.

After some remarks from Mr. WATSON and Mr. G.
Bun,

Mr. R. PHILLIMORE suggested an amendment by
which the preparation of a new edition of the statute-
book should be enjoined without particularising
the ezecutant into wh se hands the task was to be
consigned.
This amendment was supported by Mr. M.
CHAMBERS, and accepted by Mr. L. lino, and the
house then divided on the motion so modified:—aye.,
63 ; Noes, 164-101. Tne motion was consequently
negatived.