HAVING thus endeavoured to obviate the Objections which have been made to the Validity of several Acts printed in former Collections, and continued in this, it may be proper to take Notice of a Complaint, frequently made concerning the vast Multiplicity of our Statute Laws, which has been deemed the Occasion of such Confusion and Perplexity, that a Proposal to reduce their Bulk, was long since recommended to the Parliament from the Throne itself,[1] at a Time when the Statute Laws of this Kingdom, were not an Eighth Part so voluminous as they are at present.
It hath been observed,[2] that in early Times former Laws were considered no longer in Force, than as they were preserved in the last Publication; and by this Means, it is said, the Laws were kept within narrower Bounds, until they were greatly enlarged, both in Number and artificial Construction, by King Edward I.[3] .
This Method, it may be allowed, was well adapted to prevent the Statute Code from swelling to an inconvenient Size; but it may be worth while to consider, whether, had this Practice been continued, it might not, in some Respects, have proved of Prejudice to Posterity.
If, upon the Promulgation of a new Law, all former Laws thereby superseded, had been consigned to Oblivion, how many curious and useful Pieces of Antiquity would have been lost; and how many Lights to Jurisprudence would have been utterly extinquished! If all the Laws which have been altered or repealed by subsequent Acts, or which, being grown old by the Introduction of new Habits and Customs, do not agree with the present State of the Times, were to be left out of our Statute Books, how greatly would Posterity be at a Loss to account for several Institutions, which are only to be explained by Reference to those venerable Relicts of Antiquity!
It may be a Question therefore, whether an Attempt to contract the Bulk of our Statute Code by such Expedients, might not prove an Innovation more dangerous than useful; there being many repealed and obsolete Acts, which though they do not govern, are yet very proper to guide; as they frequently contain Matter of
- ↑ King James I. in one of his Speeches to Parliament, expresseth himself in the following Terms. "There be in the Common Law divers contrary Reports and Precedents; and this Corruption doth likewise concern the Statutes and Acts of Parliament, in respect that there are divers cross and cuffing Statutes, and some so penned, as they may be taken in divers, yea, contrary Senses: And therefore would I wish both those Statutes and Reports, as well in the Parliament as Common Law, to be once maturely reviewed and reconciled, and that not only all Contrarieties should be scraped out of our Books but even that such Penal Statutes as were made but for the Use of the Time (from Breach whereof no Man can be free) which do not now agree with the Condition of this our Time, ought likewise to be left out of our Books, which, under a tyrannous or avaritious King, could not be endured; and this Reformation might, methinks, be made a worthy Work, and well deserves a Parliament to be sat of Purpose for it." See Lord Coke’s Remarks on this Speech, in his Pref. to 4 Report.—☞ The same Proposal was made in a Speech by Sir Francis Bacon, Lord Keeper in Queen Elizabeth’s Time—And again, in an Address to the long Parliament.
- ↑ See Mr. Cay’s Preface,—and Mr. Serjeant Hawkins, upon the Statute of 44. H. 3. Vol. 7. fol. 622. Appendix, No. 1.
- ↑ The narrow Bounds of the Statutes, in those early Times, were not perhaps altogether owing to the Means here spoken of, but to the low State of Trade and Commerce, and the little Attention paid to the Rights of public Liberty.
curious
