Board for the Revision of the Statute Law

Board for the Revision of the Statue Law

Royal Commission overview
Formed	11 March 1853 (1853-03-11)
Preceding Royal Commission	Royal Commission on Revising and Consolidating the Criminal Law
Dissolved	2 June 1854 (1854-06-02)
Superseding Royal Commission	Royal Commission for Consolidating the Statute Law
Jurisdiction	England and Wales
Royal Commission executives	Charles Henry Bellenden Ker, Commissioner George Coode, Sub-Commissioner Thomas Chisholm Anstey, Sub-Commissioner Matthew Brickdale, Sub-Commissioner William Rogers, Sub-Commissioner
Key documents	First Report (18 August 1853) Second Report (31 January 1854) Third Report (2 June 1854)

The Board for the Revision of the Statute Law (also known as the Statute Law Board) was a commission from 1853 to 1854 to consolidate a significant portion of the statute law of the United Kingdom.

The Board issued three reports and was superseded by the Statute Law Commission of 1854.

Background

In the United Kingdom, Acts of Parliament remain in force until expressly repealed. Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, published in the late 18th-century, raised questions about the system and structure of the common law and the poor drafting and disorder of the existing statute book. By the start of the 19th-century, it was widely recognised that the criminal law stood in need of the greatest reform.

In 1806, the Commission on Public Records passed a resolution requesting the production of a report on the best mode of reducing the volume of the statute book. From 1810 to 1825, The Statutes of the Realm was published, providing for the first time the authoritative collection of acts. In 1816, both Houses of Parliament, passed resolutions that an eminent lawyer with 20 clerks be commissioned to make a digest of the statues, which was declared "very expedient to be done." However, this was never done.

The Royal Commission on the Criminal Law was established in 1833 and issued its final report in 1845, proposing a draft bill digesting criminal law and procedure. However, the ambition for such a comprehensive legal was dissipating. Lord Brougham introduced a bill embodying the digest, but it was withdrawn on an undertaking by Brougham's opponent, Lord Lyndhurst, that a second Commission would be appointed to revise it.

The Royal Commission on Revising and Consolidating the Criminal Law was established in 1845 and issued its final report in 1849. In autumn of 1852, the Lord Chancellor, Edward Sugden, 1st Baron St Leonards, directed James John Lonsdale and Charles Greaves to prepare Bills for the codification of criminal law based on the reports of the Criminal Law Commissioners. Two major Bills based on the work of the Commission covering offences against the person and larceny were introduced in 1853 and continued under Lord Cranworth. The bills made no progress, principally because of the unanimously unfavourable judicial reaction to the prospect of the common law being embodied in statutory form.

At the start of the parliamentary session in 1853, the Lord Chancellor, Robert Rolfe, 1st Baron Cranworth announced his intention to the improvement of the statute law.

On 18 February 1853, Lord Cranworth wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, William Gladstone, requesting authorisation to employ Charles Henry Bellenden Ker, Commissioner for £1,000 a year and four barristers for £600 a year. This request was granted on 7 March 1853 and communicated to the Commissioners on 11 March 1853, with work expected to begin from April 1853.

Terms of reference

In March 1853, the Board was appointed by the Lord Chancellor, Lord Cranworth. The Board's terms of reference were:

1. The revision of the Statute Book by the expurgation of defunct Acts
2. The consolidation of statutes in actual operation.

The Board consisted of barristers and law reformers, to serve for one year:

• Charles Henry Bellenden Ker, Commissioner
• George Coode, Sub-Commissioner
• Thomas Chisholm Anstey, Sub-Commissioner
• Matthew Brickdale, Sub-Commissioner
• William Rogers, Sub-Commissioner

Proceedings

The Commissioners were tasked with identifying which statutes remained to be consolidated, focusing on general or public statutes still in force, rather than repealed, obsolete, or temporary laws.

The Board met for the first time on 2 April 1853. By 20 May 1853, Anstey and Rogers began with the earliest statutes, whereas Coode began with the most recent to cross-check their work. Brickdale produced a digest of statute law and whole law (i.e., both statute law and common law)

The Board made three reports dated 18 August 1853, 31 January 1854 and 2 June 1854. The Commissioners found that, out of 16,442 public statutes passed since Magna Carta, only about 3,900 were still in force. After excluding Scotland-only, Ireland-only, and colonial statutes, less than 2,500 public statutes applicable to England and the UK remained.

First report

The Board issued its first report on 18 August 1853. The report consisted mainly of papers by the Sub-Commissioners, including practical suggestions from Coode, a classification of existing statutes and an expurgatory list of defunct statutes from Chisholm Anstey and commentary on the law of distress from Brickdale.

Second report

The Board issued its second report on 31 January 1854. In it, Ker argued against the policy of statute law revision, instead suggesting the preparation of a number of consolidation Bills.

"So far from its being any part of the duty of the legislature to pass a declaratory statute as to expired and defunct Acts, such a measure would at best be nugatory, and perhaps mischievous. Besides, such a statute, with its thousands of entries, would be impossible to pass"

Third report

The Board issued its third and final report on 2 June 1854.

In it, Ker maintained his opinion in his second report and argued for a permanent Statute Law Board for:

1. The gradual consolidation or rewriting of statute law
2. Preparing or settling bills for the Government and such other parties as should choose to apply for them, and reporting on Bills referred to them
3. Watching Bills in their progress through the two Houses, and reporting on alterations which might appear to make the enactments inconsistent with themselves or with other branches of the law

Chisholm Anstey argued for a general expurgatory Bill as preliminary work to consolidation, submitting drafts of Bills for consolidating enactments relating to the National Debt, the Consolidated Fund and certain public officers, and pensions, as well as a Bill for the interpretation of enactments.

Brickdale submitted drafts of Bills concerning wills and apportionment and a paper containing considerations on the propriety of extending the principles of the Consolidated Clauses Acts and interpretation clauses, amongst other things.

Rogers submitted a draft of a proposed Labour Act to consolidate enactments relating to employers and workers.

Criticism

The Board was criticised in Parliament for being referred to as a Board or Commission, despite not having official status as such. Edward Sugden, 1st Baron St Leonards argued expressed concern about this informal arrangement, suggesting it was not an appropriate way to approach such an important task of law reform.

The Board incurred expenses of £3,690, which was subject to criticism by Peter King MP and George Hadfield MP as part of an 1869 resolution criticising the expensive process of legal revision that had taken place over 36 years, costing the country over £80,000 without yielding substantial results.

Legacy

On 29 August 1854, the temporary Statute Law Board was superseded by the Royal Commission for Consolidating the Statute Law. Ker remained on the Commission and Brickdale as Secretary. Ker was the only paid member of the commission, receiving a salary of £1,000. Recommendations made by the Commission were implemented by the Repeal of Obsolete Statutes Act 1856 (19 & 20 Vict. c. 64), the Statute Law Revision Act 1861 (24 & 25 Vict. c. 101) and subsequent Statute Law Revision Acts.