JOINT COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 14 March 1892)

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
My Lords, I am anxious to explain to your Lordships the Motion that stands in my name, as I think it might perhaps have been misunderstood elsewhere. The work of Statute Law Revision has been going on now for 30 years, and, with the exception of one short period when I think some error was made in the work, the Statute Law Revision Committee has I think given great satisfaction. The object of it is to reduce, both in price and in bulk, the Statute Book to something like a reasonable compass. At present the bulky condition of the Statute Book is such that it is very difficult indeed for any person who is not a lawyer to find out what particular thing he wants in it; and if he does not possess a copy of the Statutes he must apply to some large library, because in its present form it is certainly not a book which would be a convenient addition to any small private library. My Lords, that this work should have given general satisfaction is not very wonderful; because those who have filled my office have from time to time appointed distinguished men who have been fit for the work, and willing to 731 undertake what is a somewhat thankless but absolutely gratuitous duty. But, my Lords, I wish particularly to refer to one short period when a view was entertained by some members of the then Committee which would perhaps have led to difficulty, and I am not surprised that public attention was called to the subject. Instead of being mere revisers for the purpose of striking out what was by law already repealed and therefore useless and cumbrous to a big book, some members of the Committee entertained the view that what in their judgment was useless and unnecessary, although not absolutely repealed, should be struck out also. That gave rise to a feeling, and I think very justly and properly, that that was beyond the functions or proper sphere of duty of the Statute Law Revision Committee. My right hon. Friend, Mr. Fowler, in the other House of Parliament, called attention to the subject, and my lamented friend, Mr. Smith, before his death, agreed I believe with Mr. Fowler that such a Committee, as I trust your Lordships will assent to on my Motion, should be appointed. I believe the effect of the appointment of such a Committee of both Houses to consider the whole question would be to add completeness to, and make the work of Statute Law Revision more popular than it has hitherto been; and it will, I hope, aid the Committee in putting their views a little more forward than they have been, so that the work may be comprehended in a very small compass indeed. Your Lordships are familiar with the French Code, with the bulk of it, and possibly with the price of it. A Frenchman can easily find out what his code of law is. I do not think we are very near that desirable object; but, at all events, if we can to some extent prevent the enormous extravagance of waste paper, ink, and time of Members of Parliament by reducing the Statute Book to those Statutes which are actually in line, and if the Statute Law Revision Committee will confine themselves to that object, I do not believe a single person will be found to quarrel with their work; on the contrary, I think everybody will be very grateful for such an undertaking. Under these circumstances, having sufficiently explained the reason of my Motion, which is made in pursuance of a pledge given by Mr. 732 Smith in the other House, I trust your Lordships will agree that the Motion ought to receive the sanction of this House. My Lords, I now beg to move the Resolution.

§ LORD THRING
My Lords, as I have been working for the last quarter of a century on this labour of Statute Law Revision, I wish to say a few words. The present Lord Chancellor has always assisted us so kindly and given us so much encouragement that I am almost afraid to say that I think he has a little misunderstood the course which the Committee have taken. Mr. Fowler complained that we had exceeded our jurisdiction. I do not admit it—or that we ever attempted to cut out anything that was not entirely obsolete. It was, I think, a misunderstanding on the part of Mr. Fowler, and I think that the Lord Chancellor has put our supposed excess of jurisdiction more strongly than it ought to be put. But that, my Lords, is really a question of very little importance. At all events, very little was done beyond cutting out matter which was obviously dead. My Lords, I hail with the greatest pleasure the Motion to submit our work, or rather the subject of our work, to a Joint Committee. I think, however, I am entitled to take a little credit for the work we have done; and, as it is very little known to the public, I think I may say this. In the 25 years (I admit it is a long time) we have published two editions of the work; and, as the Lord Chancellor still talks of the bulk of these Statutes, I should like to tell your Lordships what the bulk of those Statutes was before we began our labours. The first edition that we published came down to 1878 and compressed 106 volumes of Statutes into 18 volumes—that was a considerable step. In 1886 Mr. Howell proposed, and asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for leave to publish, a workman's edition; and that was referred to us. I think, my Lords, what we have done in respect to that workman's edition deserves consideration. We shall publish within a month or so the fifth volume of those Statutes; that fifth volume brings 733 down the Statute Law to 1st Victoria, and those five volumes of moderate size contain the contents of 75 volumes. Therefore, my Lords, at all events we have reduced the bulk of the Statutes from 75 to five volumes. Of course the reduction will not be so great in the future. But, again, when the Lord Chancellor most justly talks of the difficulty of ascertaining what the English law is, I think I am entitled to state that the Statute Law Revision Committee have published an Index, after very great labour and incessant care, which gives in the first part, in chronological order, an account of every Statute, telling whether it has been repealed, and, if repealed, when: and stating also any alterations in the existing Statute. In the second part of the Index there is a systematised arrangement of the whole of the Statute Law in force in England; and, although it may provoke a smile on the faces of some of your Lordships, I say without the slightest hesitation that any man of ordinary intelligence can, by buying that index, which is sold at cost price, ascertain in a short time what the Statute Law is on any particular subject. I do therefore claim for my Committee considerable praise for reducing the bulk of the law. Now, my Lords, with respect to the Code Napoléon I cannot help observing that short and simple as it seems it does not contain the whole of the French law, which, as a French barrister told me, has to be hunted up in innumerable commentaries,—in fact it is overwhelmed with commentaries, in the same way as our law is overwhelmed with reports. My Lords, with respect to what we hope to do, we hope this workman's edition will be complete in a comparatively small number of volumes, and will cost about seven or eight guineas—thereby bringing it really within the range of every workman's library. I daresay it will provoke a smile when I talk of workmen understanding the law. I am not so minded. I think that no people exercise a more intelligent criticism on the laws that concern them than some of the artisans; and I believe that if we can bring the knowledge of the law pecuniarily within their reach we shall be doing a great work. It will not be accomplished in my time; but I hope that in a few years the law of England, which is by far the best law 734 that there has ever been in any nation, in substance, will be so shaped that even in form it will surpass the Continental Codes, and every other Code that has been attempted, as much as I believe it now surpasses them in justice, in precision, and in every possible quality that can recommend it to a free people and to a constitutional Government.

§ LORD HERSCHELL
I desire, my Lords, to express my concurrence with what has been said by my noble and learned Friend (the Lord Chancellor) and by my noble and learned Friend behind me, as to the debt of gratitude which is really due from the public to those who have conducted the revision of the Statute Law. Their work has been extremely laborious; it is not work of an exciting or specially agreeable character; it necessitates a close examination of details, which cannot help being irksome and troublesome, and this has all been done without remuneration simply for the public good. My Lords, there can be no doubt that this revision of the Statute Law, by getting rid of obsolete provisions and making the Statute Law really a collection of the existing Statute Law, has been a very great advantage; and I think it is only fair and just, on an occasion like this when the subject comes before your Lordships, that those, who really know what the labours of those who have taken part in this revision have been, should bear their testimony and express their thanks, which I am quite sure will be shared by your Lordships, to those who have done this very useful public work.

§ LORD ESHER (MASTER OF THE ROLLS)
My Lords, I do not wish to say anything that is disagreeable, and I certainly do not mean to suggest that the working men, who have been spoken of, may not perfectly well understand the law of England by reading these excised Statutes. But I must say this: that whenever we have been called upon to consider the excised Statutes we could not find out what they meant without going to the old Statutes to see what the new ones meant to say.