Lords Sitting of 18 July 1859

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—la Marriages; Registration Acts Consolidation; Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes; Executors and Administrators, &c.; Aliens.

AFFAIRS OF ITALY.—AUSTRIA AND FRANCE.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, he had given notice to his noble Friend the President of the Council of his intention to ask a Question that evening with reference to the authenticity of an important despatch which had appeared in some of
1364
the public prints. It was stated to be a despatch written by Lord John Russell, on the 22nd June, to Lord Bloomfield, our Ambassador at Berlin. This was not the first time their Lordships had heard of this document; about a fortnight ago he quoted a speech made by Sir Charles Wood at Halifax, in which that right hon. Baronet referred to a despatch apparently resembling very much the one which was now alleged to have been sent to the Court of Prussia. When he formerly, remarking that despatch, described it as one giving strong advice to Prussia to prevent her interfering in the war then going on, he felt that in that despatch Her Majesty's Government had somewhat left that path of neutrality which he thought so desirable, and had taken on themselves the responsibility that all counsellors must undertake who give advice unasked. On that occasion the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Newcastle), in reply said:—
"My noble Friend has enjoyed within the last few days a privilege which has been wanting to me—I mean leisure to read election speeches. Until, therefore, he quoted just now the speech of my right hon. Friend (Sir Charles Wood), I was not aware of the words which are said to have fallen from him, and I am not able to state whether they are accurately reported. Probably the report is perfectly accurate. If so, I can only say that the despatch which must have been alluded to does not bear the construction which my noble Friend deprecates, and that whenever the papers are laid before the House it will be found that we have not exposed ourselves to the dangers which he has very rightly pointed out."
The danger which he (the Earl of Malmesbury) on that occasion pointed out to the House, and the danger to which he again desired to call attention, was—as he had just stated—that by giving counsel to Prussia, Her Majesty's Government made themselves responsible for the results which might arise, in case it were followed; because Prussia might hereafter say that the advice of Her Majesty's Government had prevented their taking the measures which they thought best for their own interests. Now, if the despatch which had appeared that day in the newspapers was correct—if that was really the despatch to which Sir Charles Wood alluded, and on which he had observed—he did think that the description which the noble Duke gave of it was not exactly a correct one, and he could not help thinking that his noble Friend could scarcely have perused it at the time he spoke. The despatch was a long one, and he thought he should hardly be justified in reading

1365
it in its entirety to the House; but he might say it was a despatch giving strong advice to the Prussian Government not to enter into the war. It argued against their doing so; it told the Prussian Government that there was no ground for their entering into the struggle; and it argued that the fortresses in the Venetian territory, which not merely the German States, but the German people looked on as the bulwark at that side of Germany, were not in reality so; that they were not necessary to the safety of Germany; that the apprehensions which they entertained were unfounded, and had not sufficient force to justify interference on their part in the war. The noble Lord in his despatch said:—
"The reasons adduced in favour of a war on the part of the German States thus being insufficient, very strongly resist so precipitate a course. The Prince Regent of Prussia will, in his wisdom, weigh the impolicy of exposing his country to be considered the champion of the maladministration of Italy. It cannot be necessary for the safety of Berlin and Magdeburg that the Government in Milan and Bologna should be bad. But in the eyes of the Italians, Prussia, should she appear in arms by the side of Austria, would be considered as a defender of everything Austria has committed and omitted."
But not only did the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office enter into the political argument of the question, but he addressed arguments ad verecundiam to the Government of Prussia, calculated to weigh on the Regent's mind, and stay him from hostilities. He went on to say—
"You are already sufficiently informed of Her Majesty's resolve, supported by the unanimous feelings of Her people to observe a strict neutrality. Her Majesty has kept this country free from all and every obligation that would interfere with her freedom of action. Her Majesty's Government entertains the hope that Prussia will adopt a course as nearly similar as the circumstances of Germany will permit."
He thought the noble Duke would now admit that this was advice given in as strong terms as one friendly Court could offer to another—that it was advice founded on arguments of different kinds, and that the despatch did bear the construction which he had suspected from the expressions of Sir Charles Wood. In his opinion the Government thereby made themselves responsible for the results, whatever they might be, which might have followed such advice if it were accepted. Peace had been happily concluded, and the time had therefore passed by when they might have
1366
become deeply responsible for the consequences of their counsel. But at the same time he thought it was requisite that their Lordships should be informed of two things—first, whether the despatch to which he had referred was authentic, and whether, being authentic, the Government had any objection to lay it on the table of the House; secondly, whether there would be any objection to state if an answer to that despatch had been received from the Prussian Government, and whether, in that event, the Government would object to state the purport of that answer to the House. Perhaps also the noble Duke would have no objection to explain his own view of the despatch, and the reply, if any, which might have been made to it. He could not help adding that he thought that Her Majesty's late Government had but done their duty in maintaining neutrality in this war; and he trusted that, though its objects might now be regarded in some sense as accomplished, Her Majesty's present advisers would not fail to maintain, with the utmost prudence, that neutral position which was still as requisite as ever. He alluded to the probability of a Congress being convoked to carry out the terms of the peace made between Austria and France. He could see no advantage to England, but, on the contrary, very great disadvantage, in entering into such a conference. He thought the subjects which would therein be discussed were not at all subjects sympathetic with the feeling of this nation and its immediate interests. They had the example of another Congress to warn them; for they were yet scarcely out of the difficulties in which they had become involved by entering with the best intentions possible, but he thought with very considerable imprudence, into the attempts to give a constitution to the Principalities. He sincerely trusted that they would not attempt a like course in Italy—that they would not attempt to meddle with the internal affairs of that country, or to give constitutions to the Duchies of Italy, to the Roman States, or to other portions of that country; for if they did they might depend on it they would be only heaping on their heads a mass of difficulties from which it would be an arduous task to extricate themselves hereafter. He made these few remarks, and hoped the Government would not object to answer the questions which he had put to them.
LORD WODEHOUSEsaid, the despatch

1367
to which the noble Earl had referred was the same in substance with that sent to Berlin by his noble Friend at the head of the Foreign Office, though it had been somewhat altered by translation and re-translation. He had no objection to lay it on the table, and then their Lordships would be able to judge for themselves. He must say he had heard with great surprise the censure cast by his noble Friend on the despatch sent by Lord John Russell to 'Prussia, recommending a course of strict neutrality. There could be no difficulty in defending the course taken by his noble Friend the Foreign Secretary; but if they wanted a precedent for what had been done they had only to refer to the course which i the noble Earl himself had "chalked out" for them when he was in office, for no one could have been more earnest than the noble Earl was in his advice to Prussia to observe a strict neutrality. He would read one or two passages from despatches written by the noble Earl, some of the words of which were almost identical with those employed by the present Foreign Secretary. The first he would refer to was a despatch by the noble Earl to Sir Alexander Mallet, our Minister at Frankfort, in which he said,—
"Her Majesty's Government trust, however, that the answer which I immediately returned to you by telegraph may have arrived in time to prevent any such ill-advised step on the part of the Confederation, and that the protest which I have instructed you to make against its adoption, and the warning that I have desired you to give, that if Germany should at this early stage involve herself, without a treaty obligation, in the present war, she would have no assistance to expect from England, and that without such assistance her coasts would be exposed to the ravages of hostile fleets in the Baltic, will deter the Diet from adopting so precipitate a course, which would at once extend to Europe the ravages of war, which every friend of humanity must desire to see confined, if possible, to the country in which it has broken out."—p. 365.
There was no form of words in which advice to be neutral could have been more strongly given than the noble Earl had here used. He then went on to say,—
"Her Majesty's Government know of no offence given directly by France to the States of the German Confederation as a body, and up to this time Austria has not been attacked even in her Italian dominions, and I have only to repeat that, under existing circumstances, Her Majesty's Government are resolved to maintain the severest neutrality."
Such was the language of the noble Earl's despatch to the Minister accredited to the Courts of Germany. But not satisfied
1368
with this the noble Earl also addressed a circular to all Her Majesty's representatives at the German Courts recommending neutrality—but that he would not read to their Lordships. In a despatch addressed to Lord Bloomfield the noble Earl said,—
"As far as England is concerned, there are no immediate interests which necessitate any direct action on her part; and Her Majesty's Government feel it to be their duty to maintain a strict neutrality between the belligerents. This is also the feeling of the people of England; and it is obvious that any other course at present would tend to complications which can scarcely yet be foreseen. Her Majesty's Government, therefore, deprecate any act which would unnecessarily extend the theatre of war, and they will be prepared to take advantage of any favourable opportunity that may be afforded to them of being the medium of restoring peace."—p. 402.
But his noble Friend, not satisfied with this, took a further step—he communicated with the French Government, in order that there might be no mistake whatever as to the meaning of the despatches he had sent to Germany. In a despatch to Lord Cowley, dated May 2, he said,—
"Upon hearing yesterday morning from Sir Alexander Malet of the intention of the Wurtemburg Minister to move to-day in the Diet that the Confederation should make common cause with Austria, I instructed Her Majesty's Minister strongly to protest against so impolitic a step, and to point out that if Germany involved herself in the war without a casus fœderis she must expect no assistance whatever from this country. Without such assistance her northern coasts would be exposed to maritime blockades and attack on the part of France, and probably on that of Russia also, and would be almost defenceless. But your Excellency, while mentioning this to Count Walewski, will observe that if the French Government really shares the desire of that of Her Majesty that the present war should, as far as possible, be localized, and not extended beyond the confines of Italy, it behoves France to discourage to the utmost all attempts to produce disturbance in Turkey."—p. 381.
Now, his noble Friend at the Foreign Office had merely repeated the advice of the noble Earl opposite, and for doing so was charged with a violation of neutrality. But was it to be said that because we determined to maintain neutrality during the war, therefore we were bound to stand with our arms folded and give no advice of any kind to any foreign Government. He understood neutrality to mean that we should not enter in any way into the war, but not that we were in no circumstances to express our opinions in the way of advice to another Government. Other Governments were independent of us, and were entitled to take or reject our advice as they pleased;

1369
but giving advice in a friendly spirit could not in any way imply on the part of the Government of this country a breach of the neutrality which all so earnestly advocated.
LORD BROUGHAMexpressed a hope that as, happily, we had nothing to do with the making of war or with the making of the most marvellous peace, so also, he hoped, advantage would he taken of our entire isolation, and that we should have nothing to do with what further might happen in Congress or otherwise.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURYwished to explain the difference that existed between the advice given by the late Government and that which had been given by the noble Lord now at the head of the Foreign Office. It appeared to him that there was a great difference between telling Prussia that if she entered on the war she would have no assistance from England and warning her accordingly, and going into political reasons, as Lord John Russell had done, to show why Prussia should not go into the war, and advising her not to do so. The late Government simply warned Prussia that she would not have the assistance of England; but the present Foreign Secretary advised Prussia, and be need not say that the advised sometimes came back upon the adviser.
THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, that as his noble Friend the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs had given an answer to the questions of the noble Earl, it was almost unnecessary that he should add anything. He wished, however, to refer to what had taken place in the House on a former occasion, when the noble Earl who had just spoken quoted a passage from a speech which had been delivered by Sir Charles Wood at Halifax, and expressed his apprehension that that speech afforded an indication that the Government had exceeded the bounds of neutrality in giving advice to Prussia. At that time he (the Duke of Newcastle) told the noble Earl that he felt assured such would not be found to he the character of the despatch which had been written by his noble Friend at the head of the Foreign Department, and it appeared to him to be quite evident, now that the despatch in question had been made public, that its tenor differed in no respect from that of many passages which were to be found in the despatches which had been written by the noble Earl opposite himself. He was, perhaps, not exactly correct in saying that no difference existed
1370
in the tenor of those despatches, for he thought their Lordships must perceive that some of the passages—and one especially—which had that evening been quoted by his noble Friend near him from the blue-book were of a nature not merely suggestive, but even minatory. Now, open to that remark the despatch of Lord John Russell certainly was not, since it took the simple form of advice to Prussia not to take a part in the war which would render it impossible to restrict it within the bounds of Italy.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: The noble Lord has not said whether he will lay upon the table the answer to the despatch of Lord John Russell.
LORD WODEHOUSE: As the noble Earl has not given notice for any further papers, I am not prepared to say I will do more than I have already promised.
EARL GRANVILLE, alluding to that passage in a despatch of Lord Malmesbury which had been quoted by Lord Wodehouse, and which was to the effect that if Prussia entered into the war she must not only not hope for assistance from England, but must expect to have her coast in the Baltic liable to be ravaged by hostile fleets, observed that advice could, in his opinion, scarcely be couched in stronger terms. It would be quite a different thing if the noble Earl had simply said to Prussia, "You seem to be on the point of going to war. We give you no advice in the matter. Pray act in accordance with your own interests, but do not look forward to assistance from England." The noble Earl was not, however, contented with taking that course, but warned Prussia against the consequences of resorting to a precipitate and ill-advised policy. So far he could see no distinction between the tone which the noble Earl had adopted and that which his noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs had assumed.

STATUTE LAW COMMISSION.—CONSOLIDATION BILLS.

  SEVERAL BILLS PRESENTED AND READ 1ª.
  LORD CRANWORTHrose, according to notice, to call the attention of the House to the Fourth Report of the Commissioners for Consolidating the Statute Law, and to inquire of the Lord Chancellor what are the intentions of the Government as to that Commission. He also proposed to lay upon the table certain Bills emanating from the Commission, and to ask their

  1371
  Lordships to read them a first time. The noble and learned Lord proceeded to say that since the time of Lord Bacon the consolidation of the statute law had engaged the attention of many learned persons, and the subject had, particularly of late years, been repeatedly brought before the attention of the Legislature. In 1816 a Committee of their Lordships' House recommended that persons should be appointed to revise and consolidate the whole body of the statute law, and a Commission was named in the year 1833, to consider the subject of the criminal law; and also to report as to the expediency of consolidating the whole statute law; but nothing further was done. In 1854, when he had the honour of holding the Great Seal, his attention was directed to the subject, and a Commission was issued for the consolidation of the statute law. One of the first steps was to consider the mode in which that could best be effected. It appeared to him and to others that the best way would be to get a number of statutes consolidated and then see what the result was. That was done. They soon, however, found that it would be necessary to deal with a more reduced body than the whole bulk of the statutes. The statute law was contained in no less than 41½ quarto volumes, of which 18 contained the statutes which were passed previous to the Union with Ireland, and 23½ contained the statutes passed since that date. It was impossible for any persons, who were not professional lawyers, to attempt to deal with such a mass of statute law. The Commissioners had first to consider what portion of these statutes it would be useful to consolidate—because there were statutes, or parts of statutes, which it would have been waste of time to attempt to consolidate. They thought it best to commence with the statutes relating to what he might term the permanent rules of civil conduct, and to commence on a lower foundation than they at first contemplated. It was felt to be necessary to draw up a register of all the statutes up to the beginning of the last century—that every statute should be examined, and a reference made in the register to the previous Acts to which it related. The work proved to be a more laborious one than was anticipated; but a register had been formed on that principle of all the statutes since the Union with Ireland up to the present time. That work had been printed and laid on their Lordships' table, and
  1372
  he ventured to think that their Lordships, as well those connected as those not connected with the law, would find it of considerable use. It sometimes happened that curious mistakes arose from want of knowing what statutes had in process of time been repealed. In 1842 a case came before the Queen's Bench as to the jurisdiction of the Crown, in which the question argued was whether a statute of Edward VI. did or did not apply to the case. The Court of Queen's Bench decided that it did not—and fortunately, for the register would have shown that that statute of Edward VI. had been repealed in the reign of George IV. So that the whole argument had been thrown away. It was not only in courts of justice that the utility of a register would be found; for in the Act abolishing the property qualification of Members of Parliament, passed last year, three statutes were repealed which had already been repealed by prior enactment. Then, as to classification, the utility of it was seen by a register. The first class related to Acts concerning the armed force of the kingdom—the Militia Acts, Mutiny Acts, and others of that character. Next, there were two classes which related to the revenue and finances, and then six classes for the permanent rules of civil conduct. In the first class were statutes relating to the United Kingdom; in the next, statutes which related to Ireland also; and then statutes which referred to England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively. They had then to see how many statutes passed since the Union came under these classes—because for practical purposes of consolidation this would be pretty much all that was necessary. Since the Union to 1858 there had been passed 6,887 statutes, and of these 1,836 were included in the class of permanent rules of civil conduct. The whole of these statutes were contained in 24 quarto volumes, and those relating to the rules of civil conduct formed about a fourth part. A large portion of them had also been repealed in whole or in part, so that but a small proportion was left to be consolidated. Having obtained this registry, their Secretary had been directed to classify these 1,836 statutes under the heads under which they ought to be consolidated; and accordingly they had been classified under 173 heads having reference to enactments relating to the same subjects. Of course this did not mean that they were to be consolidated into 173 statutes, because

  1373
  these heads often included enactments relating to the same subjects, but to different parts of the United Kingdom. For instance, there were 30 or 40 statutes respecting highways, but those related to England, to Ireland, and Scotland, and, from beginning to end, were essentially different. On the other hand, it might be possible on further examination to reduce somewhat the number of heads; and, upon the whole, the Commissioners came to the conclusion that the statute law regulating the conduct of Her Majesty's subjects in the United Kingdom might be comprised in 300 or 400 statutes, occupying, probably, from three to four volumes. He proposed to ask their Lordships to give a first reading to five Bills which had been prepared as samples of the mode in which the work of consolidation should be carried on. The subjects of those Bills had been taken at hazard and included the laws relating to aliens, to bills of exchange, to executors, to marriage, and to the registration of births, deaths, and marriages. They had carefully abstained from attempting to alter the law, except in cases where there were obvious clerical errors, and had cautiously avoided adopting any changes that might give rise to serious discussions in Parliament. Thus, in dealing with the Acts relating to marriage, they had left untouched the statute of Henry VIII. referring to marriages within the prohibited degrees. From what had been done they could form some idea of what would be the extent and bulk of the work when completed. He found that, excluding the Bill relating to marriage, which included an extraordinary number of statutes, the computation would be that the whole 1,336 statutes could be included in 274. With respect to bulk, the five Bills which he asked their Lordships to read a first time only occupied one-half the space of the statutes which they displaced. The next question to consider was whether any efficient mode could be recommended by which the work might be completed. The Commissioners had come to the conclusion that now that they had provided a foundation, and shown exactly what remained to be done, and how it could be done, they might recommend that, instead of the Commission going on without any avowed head, the whole should be put under the superintendence of some barrister of eminence, who should not practice at the bar while the work was in hand, and who might employ draughtsmen under him, and by their
  1374
  aid complete the work the Commissioners had begun. The question then arose, how soon this work could be accomplished? He saw no reason why the whole work should not be done in two years, even supposing there remained in round numbers 300 Bills to be consolidated. Having brought the subject before their Lordships, and shown how, in his opinion, this important work could be completed without difficulty and without delay, he should ask them to read one of his Bills a first time, and would only add a hope that his noble and learned Friend upon the woolsack would give his sanction to the course recommended by the Commissioners. The noble and learned Lord concluded by severally presenting the following Bills.
  A Bill to Consolidate the Statute Law of England relating to Marriages (Marriages Bill).
  A Bill to Consolidate the Laws relating to the Registration of Births, Deaths, and Marriages in England (Registration Acts Consolidation Bill).
  A Bill to Consolidate the Statute Law of England relating to Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes (Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Bill).
  A Bill to Consolidate the Statute Law of England relating to Executors and Administrators, and the Distribution of the Personal Property of deceased Persons (Executors and Administrators, &c., Bill).
  A Bill to Consolidate the Statute Law relating to Aliens (Aliens Bill).
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid he would bear willing testimony to the zeal and ability with which his noble and learned Friend had devoted himself to the business of the Statute Law Commission. There could, be no doubt that the consolidation of the statutes—an object they all had earnestly at heart—would he very much advanced by what the Commission had done. But, at the same time, he must say he did not think that that object would be facilitated by continuing the labours of the Commission. He believed his noble and learned Friend would make much more progress without a Commission than with the nominal assistance of all the noble and learned associates joined with him in the first instance. At first there were about thirty members named on the Commission, and they were all very eminent men, but their attendance was nominal, and they had no responsibility. This plan of consolidation could only be successfully carried out by Parliament placing implicit confidence in those who prepared the Bills. A better plan might certainly be adopted than by continuing the Commission. The register to which his noble

  1375
  and learned Friend alluded was most valuable, but it did not go beyond the union of England and Scotland, and he thought it was impossible to say that all the Acts were embraced, unless the register went back to Magna Charta. He believed that it would be far better to have a staff of lawyers, who should devote their attention to this business of consolidation, and who should be responsible for their labours, under the supervision of the Government for the time being. Moreover, by the establishment of a staff of professional men, an object which he had desired to see for many years would be accomplished, namely, a body of experienced men to whom Bills could be referred before they were introduced into the Houses of Parliament respectively. The legislation of this country would thus shortly be relieved from the disgraceful stigma to which it was too often subjected by the passing of hasty and ill-considered measures, which were introduced by Members without adequate reflection or consultation, and which in many cases it had been found necessary altogether to repeal. The matter was not mended by going into Committee, for really valuable clauses were often struck out and alterations made which were by no means improvements. The House would doubtless be glad to hear the other measures which the Government had it in contemplation to introduce. The first of these was a Bill with regard to proceedings in bankruptcy, which was a subject to which much attention had lately been directed; the Government would feel it their duty to propose a measure on this subject at the commencement of the next Session. Another object which they proposed to effect was an improvement in the law with regard to the transfer of real property. He was not one of those who believed that landed estates could ever be transferred as easily as Three per Cent Consols, but he felt convinced that the transfer of landed property was capable of great amendment, and might be rendered much more economical, much more simple, and much more satisfactory. A Bill on this subject was now in course of preparation by his learned Friend Sir Richard Bethell, who would introduce it in the other House at the beginning of another Session. Another improvement which the Government hoped to accomplish was in the mode of taking evidence in courts of equity, which at present was admitted to be most defective, and to inquire into which his noble and learned
  1376
  Friend (Lord Lyndhurst) had moved for a Commission. That Commission would be immediately issued, and he trusted his noble and learned Friend would be able to serve upon it, in which case there could be no question that great and important improvements would be effected in that branch of our jurisprudence. His hon. and learned Friend who had immediately preceded him in the office of Lord Chancellor was deserving of the utmost credit for the attention which he had bestowed on another subject, and whoever might be entrusted with the carrying out of this great object, it should be remembered with gratitude by whom it had been originated. He referred to the attempt which had been made to consolidate and to simplify the orders of the Lord Chancellor, which were now in such a state of confusion, that in comparison even the Statute Book was simplicity itself. The subject was now engaging the attention and undergoing the research of able and learned Gentlemen, and he hoped that by Michaelmas term their labours would be sufficiently advanced to admit of a Bill on the subject being proposed. The last and certainly one of the most important measures to which he had to refer was one which would be introduced with the object of assimilating the practice in courts of law and equity; so that suitors might no longer be subjected to the great expense and uncertainty of commencing suits in both Courts with the same purpose, and be subjected to the anomaly of succeeding in one and being defeated in the other. One trial, it was expected, would by this means set the question at rest, and thus a fertile source of expense and dissatisfaction would be done away with.
  LORD BROUGHAMhoped from the agreement that had been come to on both sides of the House on this subject that something practical would at last be attained. The state of things was this—that they must either forego consolidation altogether, or leave it implicitly in the hands of a few learned and able men in whom they had confidence. He did not mean to say their labours should not undergo discussion in Parliament, but to such men must be committed the great work of consolidation if they meant to achieve success. His noble and learned friend (Lord Lyndhurst) was very unwillingly absent from that discussion on account of indisposition. He was anxious to be present in order to do an act of justice to some of those learned

  1377
  gentlemen who had been employed either as Commissioners or in the service of the Commission. It was especially his duty, as Lord Lyndhurst also felt it, and authorized him to express, to bear testimony to the great ability and disinterestedness by which the labours of Mr. Bellenden Ker as a member of the Statute-Law Commission had been characterized. There were other able and learned men to be commended. Among these the three gentlemen mentioned in the Report, and Mr. Coulson, whose learning and abilities are well known to their Lordships. But Mr. Bellenden Ker had been attacked by ignorant or unreflecting persons, and it was therefore, both Lord Lyndhurst and himself felt it incumbent on them to bear testimony in his behalf. He (Lord Brougham) could in proof of his disinterestedness refer to matters within his knowledge while a Minister of the Crown. Mr. Ker was employed daily above a year as Commissioner and otherwise in the Reform Bill of 1831–2, to the serious injury of his profession as an eminent conveyancer. While others in the like circumstances claimed compensation and obtained professional preferment in consequence, Mr. Ker, whoso business very greatly exceeded theirs, and who had suffered in proportion far more than they had, never urged any claim whatever, but gallantly returned to his profession, and from his great skill and learning his practice became greater than ever. He (Lord Brougham) considered that Mr. Ker had been illused by promotion having been withheld from him. But he never heard oven a murmur of complaint from himself, and he now made this statement wholly without having even told Mr. Ker of his intention to render him justice, or having ever had any communication with him on the subject.
  LORD ST. LEONARDSwas understood to say, that consolidation and not codification was what was required, and the most useful description of consolidation was that which dealt with one particular class of offence or branch of law, for it would be both unwise and useless to attempt at once a consolidation of the laws of England; that one of the great difficulties by which the consolidation of the statute law was beset was that of finding a person on whose ability and general competency to examine the several statutes with a view to their classification reliance could be placed. The labour was one which the multifarious duties of his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack, as well as of the Attorney and
  1378
  Solicitor General, rendered it impossible that they could satisfactorily discharge. The necessity for consolidation and subsequent alteration would be much obviated if the Bills were originally more carefully drawn.
  LORD WENSLEYDALEagreed that the Commission, though it had done a great deal, was not the proper mode of accomplishing the work which remained to be performed. That task should not be delegated to a number of individuals whose other duties prevented them from paying it their undivided attention, but should be entrusted to one salaried officer whose whole time should be devoted to the work, and who should direct the labours of a competent staff of skilful draughtsmen.
  LORD CHELMSFORDwished to know whether his noble and learned Friend intended the Bills he had mentioned as simple specimens of the mode in which the Commissioners proposed to carry out the work of consolidation, or whether he intended to pass them through Parliament with the shape of Acts.
  LORD CRANWORTHsaid, he intended the Bills as specimens, and did not expect at present to pass them through Parliament. He was satisfied with the statement of his noble and learned Friend upon the woolsack. The Commissioners had recommended an undivided responsibility, and that he thought was best, but if his noble and learned Friend preferred a staff of two or three persons there could be no objection.
  The said Bills severally road la.
  House adjourned at half-past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.