STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL [LORDS].—(No. 179.) (Hansard, 17 March 1890)

§ (4.28.) MR. T. M. HEALY
This Bill differs materially in many respects from the Bill which the House was asked to pass last Session. No Victorian statute is included in the present measure, and there were many pre-Victorian Acts in last Session's Bill which 1013 no longer appear. Last year the House of Lords passed a bulky measure proposing to repeal a great number of ancient Statutes which we were asked to agree to practically on the assurance that all was right. We now find that the present measure materially differs from its predecessor, and the House, I think, has some reason to complain of being asked to pass a Bill like this without one word of warning. It is remarkable that the Statute Law Revision Committee should have practically receded from their position in regard to the pre-Victorian Statutes. It will be somewhat startling to the historically-minded to find that one of the Acts which we were asked to repeal last year was Magna Charta. There is great confusion in this matter, especially as regards Lord Campbell's Act and other Acts affecting newspapers. For example, an English newspaper is obliged to give the name of the publisher and place of publication. It requires great research and trouble to find out whether this and other enactments apply to Ireland as well as to England, and after all this labour one finds that this particular provision did not apply to Ireland. I would urge the necessity of the Committee's compiling an index of local and personal Acts.

§ (4.30.) MR. WARMINGTON (Monmouth, W.)
I very much doubt the wisdom of giving the Local Government Board power such as this Bill will give them in the matter of Turnpike Trusts, namely, to say when they shall become inoperative or be altogether wound up. The Bill provides for the repeal of certain Acts in the 2nd schedule, but I submit that such a power should be reserved to Parliament itself and not carried out by a Certificate issued by the Local Government Board. I do not think that such important matters as these should be delegated to the Statute Law Revision Committee.

§ (4.32.) THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,) Isle of Wight
With reference to the observations of the hon. Member for Longford, I think they have been directed to points which are well worthy the attention of the House. The reason that there are now two Bills dealing with the subject is because it is desired to facilitate the early publication of another volume of the Revised Statutes; and it is hoped that the first 1014 Bill may be rapidly passed, it having been fully considered last year and containing no debatable matter. It only applies to Bills which it is absolutely necessary to repeal. I understand from the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury that if it is so desired this Bill shall go before a Committee upstairs. The second Bill will also go before the Select Committee, which will have the assistance of experts in its deliberations. The suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Longford, which deals with the desirability of having an index to the Local and Personal Acts prepared, shall receive my attention. I was under the impression that there was an index down to a recent date; but I have no doubt the hon. Member has inquired into the matter, and I will promise to draw the attention of the Statute Law Revision Committee to it. In reply to the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Monmouth, I think it is rather late in the day to complain of the delegation of this work by the House to a Committee. Neither do I think that his objection to the power proposed to be given to the Local Government Board to wind up certain Turnpike Trusts is well-founded. Many of these Trusts became practically obsolete 20 or 30 years ago, and I think the matter can best be dealt with by the Local Government Board, which will be in a position to make local inquiries and decide when the Trusts shall come to an end.

§ (4.35.) MR. T. M. HEALY
I hope the Committee will consider the desirability of repealing certain Acts in Ireland which have already been repealed in England.

§ * MR. H. H. FOWLER (Wolverhampton, E.)
I did not quite understand the Attorney General to say that both Bills would be referred to a Select Committee.

§ SIR R. WEBSTER
Yes.

§ *(4.36.) MR. H. H. FOWLER
I desire to express my objection to the practice of allowing any Body such as the Statute Law Revision Committee to deal with so important a matter as that of repealing Acts of Parliament, the effect of which may in some cases be to materially alter the general law. This is really the work of Parliament, and should be undertaken by Parliament. No doubt, as a result 1015 of the labours of the Statute Law Revision Committee, we shall get a cheap edition of the Statutes; but not even to gain that end ought we to run the risk of repealing legislation in this way. Upon the understanding that this Bill will go before a Select Committee and that its provisions will be thoroughly investigated by the Committee, aided by experts and by the Law Officers of the Crown, I am willing to consent to the Second Reading.