gentlemen commenced their labours in the first week in
April, and ended them in July; when they made a
report, in which each commissioner stated his views as
to what appeared to him most advantageous to be adopted.
One of them made a digest of the law relating to distress for
rent. As to the course he intended to pursue, all that
could be done was to get competent persons to reduce the
statute-law into a consolidated and neat form; and then
to get the Lord Chancellor or some other competent person,
to propose that that condensed form should become law.
He contended that the mode adopted at New York could
never be listened to in this country. There, new matter
is introduced, and adopted by the legislature as new
law. In England, every clause would require to be
considered as if it were introduced for the first time.
At the beginning of last session, a bill framed on a
sketch by the Criminal Law Commissioners, and relating
only to one head—murder and injury to the person—
was introduced, referred to a select committee, and at
the end of the session was still an imperfect bill. He
referred to this to show, that if too much were attempted
they would attempt something which might be theoretically
right but impracticable. If his anticipations were
realised, he should retain the services of a certain
number of gentlemen at the bar, to constitute a sort of
unpaid commission to superintend the consolidation of
all the statutes. As Lord Brougham was not present,
the Lord Chancellor stated that he should postpone the
introduction of a measure relating to testamentary
jurisdiction until Monday.—Lord CAMPBELL was glad no
attempt would be made to codify the whole of the
statute and common law. All French law was not
contained in the Code Napoléon—no, nor one-twentieth
part; and there would be just as much reason and no
more justice in speaking of the Code Napoléon as a
codification of the laws of France as to speak of a code of the
laws of England. The excellent treatises on the great
heads of law, like those of Lord St. Leonards, answer all
the purposes of a code.—In reply to a remark by Lord
Lyndhurst, the Lord Chancellor observed that it would
be mere pedantry to say that the commissioners must
not in any case, or in the least degree, touch the
common law.

On Friday, February 10, in consequence of various
questions put to the government, there was much
conversation on matters connected with the Eastern
Question.—The Earl of CLARENDON stated that the counter-
project of the Emperor of Russia was not taken to
Vienna by Count Orloff, but had been previously
forwarded by the Austrian Minister at St. Petersburgh.
Lord Clarendon had no official papers on the subject of
Count Orloff's mission; but, so far as he was informed,
it had only reference to the relations and proposed
relations between Russia and Austria; and the answer
given to those proposals was such as it was fitting to be
given by an independent country.—In reply to further
questions respecting the neutrality of Sweden and
Denmark, and the selection by Sweden of ports to be closed,
Lord Clarendon said, that those states had communicated
their intentions with respect to neutrality; that
government approved of their policy, and took no
exception to the means of carrying it out; but that
Russia had taken great exception to the system which
Sweden has announced.—Pressed again with respect to
Count Orloff's mission, he promised to lay on the table
any papers that it may be proper to publish relating to
matters that do not concern this country.

Earl GREY having asked whether the New Reform
Bill would be introduced before the estimates, the
Earl of ABERDEEN said that the reform bill would be
introduced to the House of Commons on Monday. It
would not practically interfere with the necessary naval
and military preparations, as it would not be proceeded
with until after the consideration of the estimates. But
government considered its character staked on the
introduction of the reform bill. "Noble lords,"
continued Lord Aberdeen, "seem to think that we are
actually at war. Now, I must say, that not only is that
not the case, but I for one deny, although it has been
asserted in this house by various noble lords, that war
is inevitable. On the contrary, although I admit the
case is such as to require ample preparation to meet the
danger of war, yet I do not abandon all hopes of
maintaining peace." Ministers, Lord Aberdeen added, would
"make all preparations as if war were inevitable," but
ministers cannot admit the mere apprehension of war
to prevent them from redeeming their pledges.—
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE fastened on Lord
Aberdeen's statement that we are not at war, and twice
asked whether negociations are going on to stop the
hostilities referred to in the Queen's speech?—Lord
ABERDEEN made a general answer, which Lord
BEAUMONT thought unsatisfactory, and he renewed the
question—"Are any negociations now taking place, on
the part of this country, for obtaining peace?" Lord
ABERDEEN—"Certainly there are none."—Lord
BEAUMONT was continuing, when Lord GRANVILLE rose to
order, and commented on the irregularity of these
questions respecting the order of business in the House
of Commons.—Lord CLANRICARDE and Lord GREY
stood up for the regularity of asking questions on such
important subjects of public policy; protesting against
the rebuke administered by Lord Granville. Here the
subject dropped.

On Tuesday, Feb. 14, the Marquis of Clanricarde
moved for an address to the Queen, praying for information
respecting the Cessation of Diplomatic Relations
with Russia. Any quarrel, he said, which he had with
the government was not in consequence of their not
having engaged earlier in war; but in consequence of
their not having adopted more vigorous measures, having
on the contrary pursued a course of conduct which had
necessarily brought us into hostilities with the Emperor
of Russia. He believed that if our government had in
the first instance adopted a more bold and intelligible
course, we could have avoided the predicament in which
we now found ourselves involved. The great error
which he considered had been committed by the government,
after they had received a full report of the
preparations for war which Russia was making—the
menacing indications on the part of that power, and the
unmistakeable meaning of Prince Menschikoff's
demands—was in not having united with the French
government, when pressed by that government, with a
view of coming to a common understanding as to what
course of policy the Allied Powers should pursue.
After some details in support of these views, he adverted
to the present posture of affairs. All negociations had
ceased, most extensive preparations were being made
against Russia both by land and sea, and yet no one
could say, not even the prime minister himself, whether
we were at peace or war; nay, instead of the government
making any communication to parliament on the subject,
it had been left to him, an humble member of their
lordships' house, to move for an address to the Crown.—
The Earl of CLARENDON in defending the course
pursued by the government, gave the following explanation
of its quiescence when a vigorous policy might have
checked the contemplated aggression of Russia on
Turkey:—"My noble friend seems to think that the
mission of Prince Menschikoff to Constantinople was, in
itself, sufficient to have created alarm in the minds of
her Majesty's government, and that they ought to have
acted upon that apprehension. Now what are the facts?
As soon as information reached us on the subject of
Prince Menschikoff's mission, we immediately demanded
of the Russian government, without a moment's delay
—we asked in distinct and explicit terms—what were
the real objects of that mission? To that inquiry we
received a most distinct and explicit answer. My noble
friend has stated, and stated with truth, that there are,
of course, certain communications that pass between the
two governments which cannot properly be made public
—which cannot be imparted to the house at this moment.
But, my lords, I am free to observe, that fully
concurring in the remark of my noble friend, these
communications were far stronger in repudiation of aggressive
intention on the part of Russia than any of those which
we have thought it our duty to publish. Indeed, I may
say, they placed the question upon grounds which it was
then impossible to doubt, and I should as soon have
dreamed of doubting any of your lordships who rose in
his place in this house, and affirmed a fact upon his
honour, as I could doubt these assurances of Russia.
From the assurances we received, therefore, my lords,
it was impossible not to credit the honourable intentions