the assimilation of the law as to this offence was rendered feasible.

A strong obstacle to the assimilation of the Irish Malicious Injuries Act arose from the landlord and tenant clauses in the 9 Geo. 4, c. 56, s. 24 et seq.; all these clauses except the first were repealed by the Irish Landlord and Tenant Act of last year, and the law on that subject incorporated in that Act, and it was practicable so to alter the first clause as to extend it to England, though even then it did not pass the Committee of the Commons without strong opposition.

No one entertains a higher respect for Mr. Napier than I do, but it seemed to me that it was nothing but right that the assimilation of the law effected by these Acts should be placed in its true light, and that it should be shown how it came to pass. The truth is, these Acts do assimilate the law of the two countries as to all the offences they contain, but no further.

Whenever the question of the assimilation of the law of the two countries shall be considered, it may be well to bear in mind, that there are special and particular circumstances in the different parts of the British Empire which require particular enactments with respect to them, and that there is, in fact, hardly a large town in England itself which has not a local Act containing provisions applicable to its own particular circumstances; nay more, that on occasions of public disturbances and seditious assemblies Acts have been passed specially for England alone.

There therefore is certainly no ground for the outcry that is sometimes raised that Ireland is unfairly dealt with because the laws are not made altogether the same in both countries; and it is at least not unworthy of notice that it is difficult to conceive any argument that can be adduced in support of making the laws of England and Ireland identical that will not apply with the same force to Scotland; and yet the gentlemen, who framed Mr. Whiteside's bills, seem never to have contemplated the extension of

any of those bills except the Coin Bill to Scotland. After all, the real question in every case is, whether in any particular part of the vast empire of Queen Victoria the state of things be such as to make it expedient to enact or retain special provisions as to that particular part; and by that question every case ought to be determined, and it is bad policy to stretch any enactment for the purpose of creating uniformity where the state of things does not fully warrant that course. Mr. Whiteside's bills exhibited a strange state of things in some respects in Ireland; for whilst the punishment for larceny was reduced below two years' imprisonment, new clauses were introduced to make persons who stole a pig, or an ass, or an agricultural implement liable to penal servitude for three years. It is to be hoped, however, that the present rapid improvement in Ireland may, in a short time, render it safe to repeal the enactments which cannot be assimilated with the law of England.

One remark as to the Repealing Act. There are sundry Acts in the schedule which have the words "the whole " placed opposite to them, and which had been partially repealed before. If the parts repealed by this Act had been specified, any one looking at the schedule might have supposed that the other parts remained in force, and could only have ascertained by a search that they had previously been repealed; but by the course adopted any one at once sees that the whole Act is repealed; and, in addition there is one instance at least where previous imperfect repeals are corrected by means of the course thus adopted.

I have shown that codification is out of the question, and that mere consolidation is impracticable, and as in these Acts we have a specimen of consolidation accompanied by amendments, it may be well to say a few words on that mode of legislation, especially as these Acts probably afford as good a specimen at least as any could, and that on several grounds. The enactments consolidated are generally not more than forty years old; the clauses

are much more independent of each other than is usually the case in Acts of Parliament, as each clause generally comprises a single subject, and completely deals with it : the amendments are confined to such as are plainly reasonable and necessary. Now, the advantages of this system are that each old enactment may be pointed out by printing it in common type, and each amendment may be shown by printing it with lines under it or in Italics, or where it is made by omitting or transposing any part, that may be shown by a note. This certainly affords any one the easiest and best mode of forming a judgment upon the amendments whilst the bills are passing the Houses, and it much facilitates their passing with all who are satisfied with the existing state of the law; for they at once assent to the old enactments, and confine their attention to the amendments, and this was found to be generally the case with all the members of the Committees of both Houses on these bills. But this plan, by pointing out every alteration, unavoidably affords persons opposed to a bill the readiest possible means of attack, and it always appeared to me that these Acts ran considerable risk from the amendments being pointed out. When the Acts have passed, the advantage seems to be confined to the old enactments being repeated in their terms: but this is met by the disadvantage of having a number of clauses, framed at different times and in different phraseology, placed together in one Act; and though I am strongly disposed to think that in these Acts this may lead to no inconvenience, I extremely doubt whether in Acts relating to other subjects great inconvenience may not arise; for it is to be remembered that as regards the re-enactment of old clauses, the bills framed on this system would stand very much in the same position as mere consolidation bills, and cousequently would be liable to the like objections, and as to them, nothing requires to be added to what has been already said. The conclusion to which I have come

is, that it would turn out that the advantages of this system would be more than counterbalanced by its disadvantages.

Lastly, I may state what, after very much consideration, seems to me to be clearly the best plan to adopt. Select a particular subject; say landlord and tenant. Collect every existing enactment on the subject. Make an abstract of every clause-omitting every provision that upon consideration it seems inexpedient to retain. Carefully examine all the decisions that have taken place on the subject. Note any amendments or alterations in the law that the cases seem to require, and add to them any amendments and alterations that experience may have shown to be necessary-confine all the amendments to such as are really and practically necessary. Then frame a new bill from these materials in the simplest and plainest language, and in the best order as to its provisions. If such a bill be framed with proper care, it will be the best bill that can be framed on the subject, and my opinion. clearly is that every bill ought to be made as good as it possibly can be before it is introduced into Parliament. A bill so framed would in all probability be consistent in its provisions and language, and though it might not pass through Parliament quite so readily as a consolidation and amendment bill, it would be far better when passed, and would really be a step in advance.

If such a course were adopted several such bills might be prepared and passed every year, and it would be well to begin with those branches of the law that are in the most frequent use, so that the public might reap the greatest benefit at the earliest time.

In adopting such a course attention ought to be paid to the number of bills that it is reasonable to suppose there is a fair chance of passing each session, and it is very advisable that the bills should relate to different subjects, so that one may not be affected by the abandonment or failure of another.

d

With regard to the length of the bills, I am most clearly of opinion that the shorter each bill is the better it is. It is much less liable to inconsistencies in framing; it is much less liable to injury in passing, whether from alterations in its clauses, or from the introduction of new clauses, and it is much more likely to give less trouble to the courts, and to be better interpreted by them than a long bill.

It is very true that the course I am advocating holds out no hopes of a very speedy riddance of the present statute-book. That I am satisfied is a hopeless matter. But this course, if steadily pursued year after year, would in a few years give us excellent statute laws on all the subjects which ordinarily affect the members of the community, and every bill that passes will be so much clear gain; and my impression is that after this course had been pursued for a few years, each bill would pass more readily through Parliament, and consequently the number of bills might be increased session after session, and thus the work might proceed more rapidly hereafter than it would at first.

Each bill ought to be accompanied by a repeal of all the old enactments relating to the subjects embraced in it. By this means the statute-book would gradually be cleared of the old enactments.

Then comes the important question-by whom ought such bills to be prepared? And I am clearly of opinion that a Board ought to be appointed to superintend the whole course of legislation in both Houses. The House of Commons passed a resolution to that effect, on the motion of Mr. Napier, a few years ago, and it is much to be regretted that the Government did not follow up that resolution by introducing a bill for the appointment of such a Board.

At the present time the manner in which Acts of Parliament are framed is a disgrace to the Legislature. Not only are the Acts so worded that it is manifest that