that railway companies are not liable for any unlawful
acts done by their servants. Persons travelling by railway
are frequently imprisoned at stations and
barbarously treated; but when they bring an action, the
company say, "we gave no orders to warrant the
proceeding," and the plaintiff is non-suited, although it
might be proved that the offending policeman or porter
had acted under the orders of the station-master. The
second point relates to contracts. When an action on a
contract is brought against a railway company, they say,
"As a corporation we can only contract under our
corporation-seal, and unless you can show that the contract
is under that seal, you must be nonsuited." Such (said
Lord Campbell) is the law. It may be applied to all
corporations, with one convenient if not necessary
exception—municipal corporations can hire cooks
without contracting for their services under the
corporation-seal!

The Earl of HARDWICKE called attention to the
state and conditions of the Navy-list. He disclaimed
all intention of giving offence, and said he would not
mention a single name. There were twenty-two
Admirals on the "active" list, the youngest of whom
was seventy-five years of age; the youngest of the vice-
admirals, was sixty-nine; and of the rear-admirals
nine or ten were fit for service. This state of things
was the result of orders in council and regulations.
The first order in council affecting the list was issued
on the 30th of June, 1827; it provided that captains
who had by seniority reached the head of the list,
should be deemed eligible to be superannuated with
the rank of retired rear-admiral; that captains should
he eligible for flag appointments who had commanded
one or more rated ships during the war, or during six:
complete years of peace, or five of peace and war; and
that commanders and lieutenants should serve one
year and two years before they were eligible for the
rank of captain and commander. On the 10th of
August this order was repealed by another; but
in 1851 the government reverted to the former
system, and ordered that officers on the active
list who had not served for their flags under the
order of 1827, should be removed to the reserved, in
fact to the retired list. Having taken by chance
sixteen on the reserved and sixteen on the active list,
he found the united ages of the former amounted
to 1027, those of the latter to 1038. The absurdity
was, that practically the spirit of the orders
in council was not adhered to; for when an
officer arrived at a certain point, he found the door of
promotion shut in his face. While a captain was
rejected because he had not served his full term of
six years, government would take an officer and give
him a magnificent ship, with a broad pendant, who
had never before commanded anything but a small
vessel. Lord Hardwickc suggested that an
opportunity should be given for officers to purchase their
commissions, upon the fair calculation of the value of
their pay. He moved for a select committee to inquire
into the subject.—The Earl of ABERDEEN, sympathising
with the object of the motion was bound to oppose
it, from a sense of duty to the service and the public.
It was remarkable that not one of the Boards of
Admiralty since 1827 had thought proper to deal with
the regulation then framed by Sir George Cockburn.
Not a single officer had been promoted who had not
complied with the conditions of that regulation. Cases
of individual hardship must occur, and he regretted
that it was so. Lord Hardwicke himself, and others
in a similar condition, might think an alteration necessary;
but to be of use, a regulation must be invariably
adhered to. Lord Aberdeen said he had conferred
with Sir James Graham, and it was his opinion that
no fairer mode to preserve efficiency could be adopted
than to require a reasonable qualification on the part
of the officers to be promoted. Any relaxation of the
rule would put an end to that equitable proceeding
which has hitherto characterised the conduct of the
Crown. He had therefore come to the conclusion that
the present system is the most just, and advantageous
to the service that had yet been proposed.—The Earl
of ELLENBOROUGH said, no doubt the rule was a just
rule, but it would be desirable to reconsider the details
of the orders in council. There was something
contrary to reason in saying that an officer should.be
qualified for a flag after having served six years in a
rated ship, yet not qualified by having served in another
ship, where equal or even superior experience might be
acquired. The service in rated ships was a service
betore the discovery of steam; and practically, the
order tended to give to the country men not the best
acquainted with the service as it is, but as it used to be.
No man in the navy was more deservedly esteemed
than Sir George Cockburn, yet their lordships must
consider the difference between the service in 1827 and
the service in 1853. In 1827 many years had not
elapsed since the war when captains had not to wait
long for promotion; but now, at the end of forty years
of peace, the rule is exclusion, not promotion. He
recollected that, in 1816, Sir Robert Peel, on behalf of
the Crown, claimed the power of promoting any officer
to any rank in the navy. That is a power that
should never be confided to the Admiralty. It has
been rightly reserved to the Crown; and as the
whole merits of any officer to be promoted would be
brought before the whole cabinet, there was ample
guarantee that the power would not be improperly
exercised.—The motion was withdrawn.

On Thursday, February 9, Lord LYNDHURST asked
the Lord Chancellor what progress had been made
by the commission for the Consolidation of the Statutes,
and what course the government intended to pursue.
After giving a statement of the various attempts to
accomplish this object, and of what had been
accomplished in the United States, he urged the necessity
of the measure. The mass of absurdities in the statute-
book (he said.) would astonish their lordships. When he
held the great seal, he introduced an act for the purpose
of removing some of the absurdities to be found in the
statutes directed against Roman Catholics. The
absurdities were so apparent that the act was carried with the
unanimous consent of both houses. The absurdities thus
removed were only a sample of those which remain
behind. Their lordships would hardly believe that
there is in the statute-book an act which prohibits an
Irish bishop from bringing an Irish servant into this
country under a severe penalty. It would interest a
noble duke (Buccleuch) who was not then in his place,
to know that by another act of parliament no person is
allowed to have more than 3000 sheep, under very heavy
penalties. These are but samples of the rubbish and
nonsense which disgrace our statute-book. There are,
altogether, 16,000 public general statutes; and of these
nearly 11,000 might be swept away without the slightest
inconvenience, while the remainder might be reduced to
moderate compass by the process of consolidation. Lord
Lyndhurst pointed out the best mode of proceeding: to
strike off obsolete nonsense, to consolidate the remainder
under distinct heads, to amend them where amendment
is required, and when the common law cannot be
separated, to incorporate it with the statute law. At
present it is impossible to wade through the statute-
book in order to find out and examine every statute
relating to the same subject. Lord Lyndhurst concluded
by asking what course the Lord Chancellor intends to
pursue respecting the reports of the revision of the
statutes?—The LORD CHANCELLOR said, the country
would feel indebted to Lord Lyndhurst for having
brought the subject forward. On the 31st of March last
year, he instructed the commissioners to ascertain what
statutes are in force, what have been repealed, what
have become obsolete, and to consolidate those in full
force. The commissioners ascertained, that out of
nearly 17,000 statutes, 2500 only were living acts of
parliament; and these were then proceeded with in the
work of consolidation by two of the gentlemen associated
with Mr. Bellenden Ker. Other gentlemen, he believed,
were employed to consolidate the law upon particular
subjects. At all events, the three different plans
suggested by Lord Brougham's commission were
attempted to be carried out. One of these plans was
merely to consolidate the law in the language of the
existing statutes; another was to consolidate the law
with a view to its being amended; and the third plan
was to consolidate the law on the particular subject, both
as it was at common law and as it was by statute. These