Page images
PDF

one thing, that these lawes are to remain in case as they be. Item, that all the actes be digested into titles, and printed according to the abrdgment of the statutes. Item, where part of one acte standeth in force and another part abrogated, there should be no more printed, but that that standeth in force. The doeing of these things maie be committed to the persons hereunder written, if it shall so please her Majestic and her counsell, and daye wolde be given to the committees until the first daie of Michaelmas Terme next coming for the doing of this, and then they are to declare their doings, to be considered of by such persons as it shall please her Majestic to appoint." A list of twenty committees, each consisting of four persons, is then given, and to each committee it is proposed that a division of the statutes should be referred. The subject, so far as related to the penal laws, was again taken into consideration in the years 1585, 1593, 1597, and 1601, but none of these efforts led to any result.

The next step was taken by James I., who, upon his accession to the throne of England, recommended to parliament a reform of all the statute law, and particularly of the penal laws. In 1610, the House of Commons, in their treaty with this king for the abolition of the Court of Wa1'ds, made it a part of their claim, “that all penal statutes be surveyed; such as are obsolete and useless repealed ; and such as are profitable concerning one matter may, for the better ease and certainty of the subject, be reduced into one statute, to be passed in parliament.“ In the same reign, Sir Francis Bacon, Lord Chief-Justice Hobart, Serjeant Finch, Noye, and others, by the king’s command, made considerable progress in reforming and recompiling the statute law; but it is supposed that the distractions of the government in what related to parliament, caused the failure of those measures.

During the Commonwealth the matter was resumed. In 1650 a committee was named “to revise all former statutes and ordinances now in force, and consider as well which are fit to be continued, altered, or repealed, as how the same may be reduced

into a compendious way and exact method, for the more ease and ‘ See History of England, Cabt. Cyc1., vol. iv., p. 214.

clearer understanding of the people.” And the committee was empowered “to advise with the judges, and to send for and to employ and call to their assistance therein, any other persons whom they should think fit, for the better effecting thereof; and to prepare the same for the further consideration of the House, and to make report thereof.” N o such report, however, is extant. In 1651-52, ltlatthew Hale (afterwards Lord Chief-Justice), Cooper (afterwards Lord Shaftesbury), and Rushworth, with other persons out of the House, were appointed to report upon the inconveniences of the law ; and a revised system of the law was reported to the House in the same year. The work was afterwards transferred to other hands, but was not abandoned; and, in 1653, a committee was appointed to consider of a new model or body of law. N 0 proceedings of this committee have been discovered.

After the Restoration, namely, in 1666, a committee, consisting of Finch (afterwards Lord Nottingham), Maynard, Atkins, Prynne, and others, was appointed “to confer with such of the lords, the judges, and other persons of the long robe who have already taken pains and made progress in perusing the statute laws; and to consider of repealing such former statute laws as they shall find necessary to be repealed; and of expedients for reducing all statute laws of one nature, under such a method and head as may conduce to the more ready understanding and better execution of such laws.” This attempt was as ineffectual as all former ones.

There now appears to have been a. pause for some years, but in 1796 and 1803 reference seems to have been made to the subject in the reports on the Promulgation of the Statutes, and on temporary laws.

In 1806 the Commissioners on Public Records resolved, “ That Francis Hargrave, Esquire, should be requested to consider and report to the Board as to the best method of reducing the statute law into a smaller compass and more systematic form, and of revising or amending the same, in the whole or in part; repealing what is obsolete, and consolidating what consists of needless repetition ; specifying the general heads of the statute law most necessary to be dealt with in either way; the best method of rendering the style of our future statutes more correct, concise, and uniform in their forms of expression, and, at the same time, more perspicuous in the arrangement of their enactments and provisions; with a statement of such practical rules as appear to be most effectual for this purpose.” Mr. Hargrave did not make any report on the subject ; but the Commissioners of 1833 say that this very learned gentleman is supposed to have made considerable collections towards enabling him to perform the task so “judiciously” intrusted to him. Judging from the result, it might be doubted whether the selection of Mr. Hargrave was so judicious as the Commissioners of 1833 seem to have thought.

In 1816, the Lords and Commons resolved that it was highly expedient that effectual measures should be taken for the arrangement of the statuteilaw under distinct heads; but this again led to no result. Then came the Commissions of 1833 and 184-5 for the consolidation of the criminal law, and generally for inquiring into the expediency of consolidating other branches of the statute law ; these two commissions absorbed between them about £50,000 of the public money, but did little else.

In the beginning of the year 1853, Lord Chancellor Cranworth announced in the House of Lords that the consolidation of the statutes was forthwith to be proceeded with under his own immediate superintendence. Royal and Parliamentary statute commissions and committees had failed ; the Lord Chancellor would now try what a working statute board, nominated by himself, could do. Accordingly, he obtained the services of Mr. Bellenden Ker as head of the board, at a comfortable salary of £1000, and of four other gentlemen as assistants, at salaries of £600 each. The board was but an experimental one ; its labours were confined to so much as could be done in one year, and the several appointments were expressly limited to that period. The scheme, however, never had the confidence of the profession nor of the public, and it turned out, as it was evident to all but the chancellor and the chief commissioner it must turn out, a. signal

failure.

Lord Cranworth’s experimental board was thereupon superseded by the present, or, as we hope we must now call it, the late Statute Law Commission. This commission was issued on the 22nd August, 1854, for two purposes; first, for consolidating the statute laws of the realm, or such parts of them as the commissioners might find capable of being usefully and conveniently consolidated, combining with that process, if thought advisable, the incorporation of any parts of the common law; and secondly, for suggesting rules to ensure simplicity and uniformity in future statutes.

The commissioners appointed were, the Lord Chancellor, Lords Lyndhurst, Brougham, and Wrottesley; the chiefs of the Queen’s Bench, Common Pleas, and Exchequer; Baron Parke, ViceChancellor Page Wood, Mr. Walpole, Mr. Napier; the lawolficers of the crown for England, Scotland, and Ireland; and Mr. Bellenden Ker as paid commissioner. To these were added, by a second commission, dated the 15th of December in the same year, l\Ir. Coulson, the standing counsel to the Home Office; and by a third commission, dated the 6th February 1856, Mr. Baines, Mr. J. D. Fitzgerald (then solicitor-general for Ireland), Mr. Maitland (then solicitor-general for Scotland), and Sir Fitzroy Kelly. Lord Stanley, Mr. Greaves, Mr. Stuart Wortley, Sir H. S. Keating, and Lord John Russell, also joined the Board at various times.

Here, then, was a goodly array of commissioners, from whose labours much might be expected; but, unfortunately, it is one thing to name commissioners, and another to persuade them to meet and work. The board met for the first time on the 13th November, 1854, and from that day up to the 9th December, 1857, both inclusive, there were altogether but forty-eight meetings. The minutes of the proceedings of the commissioners during these forty-eight meetings are published, but we believe that the subsequent minutes are not; at any rate, the period between the first and forty-eighth meetings may fairly be taken as the working period of the board. From six to seven members, on an average, attended each meeting; and the_fo1lowing table, which we have compiled from the published minutes, will show the number of times each member of the commission attended , the board from the time of his joining it :—

[ocr errors][merged small]

Commissioners appointed 23d Aug. 1854. Out of 3. _ Out of ll. Out of 34.

The Lord Chancellor -
Lord Lyndhurst - -
Lord Brougham - -
Lord Wrottesley -
The Lord Chief-Justice
Lord Chief-Justice Jervis
The Lord Chief Baron -
Baron Parke - -
Mr. Moncrieff - -
Mr. Walpole - -
Mr. Napier - -
Vice-Chancellor Wood
Sir A. E. Cockburn -
Sir R. Bethell - -
Mr. Brewster - -
Mr. Keogh - -
Mr. Craufurd - -
Mr. Bellenden Ker -

Additional Commissioner appointed
15th Dec. 1854.

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]
[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][subsumed]

Lord Stanley and Mr. Greaves took their seats at the board for the first time on the 4th of June, 1856 ; the former attended ten, and the latter twenty-one, out of twenty-four of its meetings. Mr. Stuart Vlrortley, Sir H. S. Keating, and Lord J. Russell, who severally joined the board still later, had no opportunity of displaying their diligence.

_ From these particulars it is clear that the board comprised but few really working members, and Lord Cranworth, it must be

« PreviousContinue »