The Sun.
London, England, 1863-06-13 00:00:00

admirable statement which he had made and the measure

he had introduced. (Hear, hear.) It had often been his
own duty to make statements complaining of the state of
the law, but never had he drawn so dark a picture of the
common and the statute law as that which his noble and
learned friend had just painted. His lordship cited several
cases in support of the views put forward by the Lord Chan-
cellor, and described the process of a bill through Parlia-
ment, to show the difficulty of passing statutes carefully
and uniformly. He should support the bill.
Lnrd CRANWORTH had listened with great interest to
the statement of his noble and learned friend. But as to
the measure which he preposed, and the plans which he laid
down, he (Lord Cranworth) considered that his noble and
learned friend had undertaken, with regard to the common
law, a simply impossible task. As to talking about the
difficulty of ascertaining what the law is, there was no such
difficulty whatsoever really existing. The real difficulty was
one which could never be got rid of; it was the difficulty of
making laws ante to meet cases to come thereafter. No
statute could provide for the shades of difference which
might arise subsequently in cases which might come before
the courts of law. The most complete code of laws that
probably was ever made was the Code Napoleon, and yet
under that code they found the judges differing in opinion,
revising judgments, and reversing decisions en appeal. And
they found the French courts even sometimes divided in
opinion, half the judges taking one view of the case and the
other half the opposite one. He, however, gave his best
wishes to the effort of his noble and learned friend to revise
and improve the statute law, and he gave him his best
thanks for the trouble he had taken and the lucid statement
which he had made.
Lord KINGSDOWN thought that the difficulties of
the proposal made by his noble and learned friend would be
found t ) be almost insurmountable. When difficulties arose
in the law, the Parliament could be applied to to rectify
what was wrong.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that he had guarded

himself very carefully against the use of the word " codifi •
cation." He had distinctly said that the English law was
not, as yet, fit for codification. He did not even propose to
use the word "consolidation." He merely proposed by his
bill the revision of the statute law.
The bill was then read a first time.
REDEMPTION OF RENTS (IRELAND) BILL.

This bill went through coraraittf e.
DUCHY OF CORNWALL MANAGEMENT BILL,
The adjourned debate on the report of the amendments
to this bill was resumed. The new clauses having satisfied
the Opposition the amendments were agreed to, and the bill
as amended was ordered to be reported next Monday.
LONDON COAL ANDNCE WINE DUTIES CONTINU-
A BILL.

This bill was read a second time, and ordered to be com-
mitted.
Their lordships adjourned at half-past 7 o'clock.
HOUSE OF COMMONS—Last Evening.
The SPEAKER took the chair at twenty minutes after
twelve.

NEW MEMBER,—KINSALE,
Sir George Coulthurst took the oaths and his seat. The
hon. member was introduced by Mr. Herbert and Mr.

Beamish.

THIRD READINGS.
The following bills were read a third time .—Elginshire
and Nairnshire Roads, Bridges, &c. ; Hadlow Railway ;
Waterford and Passage Railway and Ferry.
FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL.
Col. VANDELEUR said he understood that the right
Ron.. baronet intended on the second reading to make a
statement with respect to the purpose of the bill. It would
be doubtless exceedingly satisfactory to the Irish members
if he would do so on the present occasion.

Sir R. PEEL said he was quite prepared to do so ; but
he considered that the discussion that would to-day be
entered upon would fully answer the purpose of an expla-
natory statement. (Hear, hear.)
Col. ,VANDELEUrt expressed his satisfaction at the
statement of the right hon. gentleman.
Sir R. PEEL moved that the house shculd go into
committee on this bill.
Mr. SCULLY said if they were legislating for a new
country like New Zealand they would probably not permit
wiers and bag nets in the rivers, but it was impossible that
they could take away the rights of proprietors without
compensation. He did not altogether approve of the bill of
the hon. and learned member for Wexford (Mr. M‘Mahon),
but at the same time he did not like to see its chief features
plagiarised by the bill of the Government. He proposed in
regard to compensation that the value of the fishing rights
of the various parties interested should be estimated and
capitalised, and paid by annuity or in some other way.
The bill did not appear to him to make proper pro-
vision for compensation. No time ought to be lost in
Placing the law on a better footing. Anglers ought to
taxed about 4d. per lb. for each " individual " salmOn
they might because they materially contributed to lessen
reetilag of the fish. (Hear, hear.)
,a_StertiaßajCE
said there was no doubt that the bill of
Inceentihanerat."ll4ion 01;arned member for Wexford was one for the
the Act of 1842, .en t rights, confirmed and secured under
and
was simply a
aamprothatra. the bill of the right hon. baronet
°. He denied that the sea fisheries
were so injurious as bad
at
in the rivers that created the
greatted ;damage.was the sweep nets
Mr. BRUCE said any sea
fisheries within miles of the
mouth of rivers would be interfered
After a few words from Mr. Cog with'
and
and the
planation., the house went into committee, R.PEEL in
vaious ex-
planation,
amendments, occupying no less than closely printed
pages, and chiefly of a technical nature, was proceeded
with.
The discussion occupied the remainder of the sitting.

The house resumed at six o'clock.
DISTRESS IN THE WEST OF IRELAND.
Mr. GREGORY gave notice that, in the event of the
hon. member for the Queen's County bringing forward his
motion, he would, on going into committee of supply on the
19th, call the attention of the Chief Secretary
and with to the great
distress existing in the western portion of Irel the
view to the expediency of making g LABOUR.
rants for public works.
THE SUEZ CANAL—FORCED
In reply to a question from Mr, GRIFFMa esty's IGovern-
Viscount PALMERSTON said her
j
ment had not received the statement from M. Lesstheepmain
s al-
luded to by the hon. member. But with regard to
question, the prohibition of forced labour, the Sultan, who
had long prohibited forced labour in the other portionsc of
was
his
dominions, had an equal right to do so in Egypt, whih
part of his empire and no foreigner, whether engaged
rn-
in
;,
commercial speculation or an agent of a foreign Gove
was justified in obstructing the Sultan in carrying out
nisnencvhetla law. Of course her Majesty's Government would
t
the Sultan every support in carrying out that law.
PROTESTANTTxR PRISONERS IN SPAIN.
In reply Mr, WIIALLEY,
Mr. recounted the proceedings which took