Statute Law Revision and Civil Procedure Act 1883

In the United Kingdom, acts of Parliament remain in force until expressly repealed.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.{{Cite journal |last=Farmer |first=Lindsay |date=2000 |title=Reconstructing the English Codification Debate: The Criminal Law Commissioners, 1833-45 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/744300 |journal=Law and History Review |volume=18 |issue=2 |pages=397–425 |doi=10.2307/744300 |jstor=744300 |issn=0738-2480}}

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.{{Cite book |last=Ilbert |first=Courtenay |author-link=Courtenay Ilbert |url=https://archive.org/details/legislativemetho00ilbeiala/page/56 |title=Legislative methods and forms |publisher=Clarendon Press |year=1901 |location=Oxford |pages=43–76 |language=en |access-date=9 September 2024}} {{Source-attribution}} 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 statutes, which was declared "very expedient to be done." However, this was never done.{{Cite Hansard|title=Consolidation Bills|jurisdiction=Parliament of the United Kingdom|house=House of Lords|date=5 June 1967|volume=283|url=https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/1967-06-05/debates/bf2ce8b2-4c99-4e79-8f57-fa6c8a9a2c05/ConsolidationBills|column=179|speaker=Gerald Gardiner, Baron Gardiner}}

At the start of the parliamentary session in 1853, Lord Cranworth announced his intention to the improvement of the statute law and in March 1853, appointed the Board for the Revision of the Statute Law to repeal expired statutes and continue consolidation, with a wider remit that included civil law. The Board issued three reports, recommending the creation of a permanent body for statute law reform.

In 1854, Lord Cranworth appointed the Royal Commission for Consolidating the Statute Law to consolidate existing statutes and enactments of English law. The Commission made four reports.

An alternative approach, focusing on expunging obsolete laws from the statute book, followed by consolidation, was proposed by Peter Locke King MP, who was heavily critical of the expenditure of the Commission and the lack of results.{{Cite hansard|title=Supply—Miscellaneous Estimates|jurisdiction=Parliament of the United Kingdom|house=House of Commons|date=2 June 1856|volume=142|url=https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1856-06-02/debates/941919a6-49da-4d77-862d-180d89f77c54/Supply%E2%80%94MiscellaneousEstimates|column_start=865|column_end=880}} This approach was taken by the Repeal of Obsolete Statutes Act 1856 (19 & 20 Vict. c. 64), considered to be the first Statute Law Revision Act.

On 17 February 1860, the Attorney General, Sir Richard Bethell told the House of Commons that he had engaged Sir Francis Reilly and A. J. Wood to expurgate the statute book of all acts which, though not expressly repealed, were not in force, working backwards from the present time.

The Statute Law Revision and Civil Procedure Bill had its first reading in the House of Lords on 3 August 1883, introduced by the Lord Chancellor, Roundell Palmer, 1st Baron Selborne.{{Cite book |last=Parliament |first=Great Britain |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=H8c4AQAAIAAJ&pg=PA433 |title=Journals of the House of Lords |date=1883 |publisher= |volume=115 |pages=377; 384; 391; 402; 426; 433; 439; 564 |language=en}} The bill had its second reading in the House of Lords on 7 August 1883 and was committed to a committee of the whole house, which met and reported on 9 August 1883, without amendments. The bill had its third reading in the House of Lords on 13 August 1883 and passed, without amendments.

The bill had its first reading in the House of Commons on 14 August 1883.{{Cite book |last=Commons |first=Great Britain House of |url=https://assets.parliament.uk/Journals/HCJ_volume_138.pdf |title=The Journals of the House of Commons |year=1883 |volume=138 |pages=443; 454–455; 462; 464–465; 470; 486; 491 |language=en |access-date=29 October 2024}} The bill had its second reading in the House of Commons on 16 August 1883 and was committed to a committee of the whole house, which met and reported on 18 August 1883, with amendments. The amended bill had its third reading in the House of Commons on 18 August 1883and passed, without amendments.

The amended bill was considered and agreed to by the House of Lords on 23 August 1883.

The bill was granted royal assent on 25 August 1883.

The repeal of the Court of Chancery (England) Act 1850 (13 & 14 Vict. c. 35) was commented on. While this statute was ostensibly repealed, Order XXXIV, rule 5 of the New Rules specifically preserved its procedural aspects. This created an unusual situation where, despite the formal repeal, the practical effect remained largely unchanged, as the new rule maintained the same procedure for stating special cases as had existed under the original statute.{{Cite book |last1=Indermaur |first1=John |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=2ZADAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA173 |title=The Law Students' Journal |last2=Thwaites |first2=Charles |date=1883 |publisher=G. Barber |language=en}}

The repeal of enactments mentioned in Part II of the schedule to the Civil Procedure Repeal Act 1879 (42 & 43 Vict. c. 59) by section 4 of the act was criticised for their complexity, specifically where multiple enactments served the same purpose, serving to "incumber the Statute-book".{{Cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Hy9CAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA359 |title=The Law Times |date=1890 |publisher=Office of Law Times |language=en}} For example, the Supreme Court of Judicature received powers under the Insolvent Debtors Relief (No. 2) Act 1728 (2 Geo. 2. c. 22) and the Set-off Act 1734 (8 Geo. 2. c. 24) that established the right of set-off for mutual debts in legal actions, through the Rules of Court 1875, and the County Court through the County Court Rules in 1876. These acts were affected by the Civil Procedure Repeal Act 1879 (42 & 43 Vict. c. 59) and these provisions were further extended to the Court of the County Palatine of Lancaster and other inferior civil courts by section 7 of the act.

There were significant challenges following the passing of the act, leading to several court cases.{{Cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=BURHAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA258 |title=The Law Times |date=1885 |publisher=Office of The Law times |language=en}}{{Cite book |last=Courts |first=Great Britain |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=SaAyAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA6793 |title=The Law Reports of the Incorporated Council of Law Reporting for England and Wales: Digest of Cases Decided by the House of Lords, Privy Council, Superior Courts of Common Law and Equity, Admiralty and Ecclesiastical Courts, Courts for Probate, Divorce, and Matrimonial Cases, and for Crown Cases Reserved, by the Court of Appeal, the Several Divisions of the High Court of Justice, the Chief Judge in Bankruptcy, and the Railway and Canal Commission, Together with a Digest of the Important Statutes from the Commencement of Michaelmas Term, 1865, to the End of Trinity Sittings, 1890 |date=1892 |publisher=Printed and published for the Council of law reporting, by W. Clowes and sons, limited |pages=6794 |language=en}} As to the preamble, see Hanak v Green.Hanak v Green [1958] [https://books.google.com/books?id=AcRMAQAAIAAJ 2] QB 9; [1958] 2 WLR 755; [1958] [https://books.google.com/books?id=CV8yAAAAIAAJ 2] All ER 141 As to section 6, see Buckley v Hull Docks.{{Cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=IxhHAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA347 |title=The Law Times Reports of Cases Decided in the House of Lords, the Privy Council, the Court of Appeal ... [new Series]. |date=1894 |publisher=Butterworth |pages=347 |language=en}} As to the effect of the act on Lord Cairns' Act (21 & 22 Vict. c. 27), see Leeds Industrial Co-operative Society v Slack.[1924] AC 851 [https://books.google.com/books?id=7KFMAQAAIAAJ]; (1924) [https://books.google.com/books?id=3iwyAAAAIAAJ 131] LT 710 ; [1924] All ER Rep 259 [https://books.google.com/books?id=KFUyAAAAIAAJ]; [1924] [https://books.google.com/books?id=Kk0yAAAAIAAJ 93] LJCh 436. See also (1924) [https://books.google.com/books?id=rtkwAQAAIAAJ 157] The Law Times 473 (7 June). In Snelling v. Pulling (Law Times, Jan. 31, 1885), statutes marked as "repealed" remained effectively in force for certain purposes.{{Cite book |last1=Wilson |first1=Arthur |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=5goaAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA125 |title=Wilson's Practice of the Supreme Court of Judicature: Containing the Acts, Orders, Rules and Regulations Relating to the Supreme Court. With Practical Notes |last2=Burney |first2=Charles |last3=Muir-Mackenzie |first3=Montague |last4=White |first4=Charles Arnold |date=1888 |publisher=Stevens |pages=125–127; 1, 15, 25, 36, 38, 39, 55, 56, 59, 62, 63, 65, 68, 74 to 76, 80 to 82, 86, 88, 89, 91, 94, 113, 122, 128*, 130, 153, 154, 277, 284, 376, 434 and 515 |language=en}} For example, despite the Civil Procedure Acts Repeal Act 1879 (42 & 43 Vict. c. 59), which was meant to repeal earlier procedural rules, the court determined that some prior legal principles maintained their binding effect. A similar issue arose in Sargant v. Collyer (51 L. T. Rep. N. S. 723), where the Court of Appeal emphasized that despite the formal repeal of Lord Cairns' Act (21 & 22 Vict. c. 27) by the act, certain jurisdictional powers were preserved through section 5 of the act.{{Cite book |last=Jacob |first=Ephraim Arnold |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=h1dHAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA17833 |title=An Analytical Digest of the Law and Practice of the Courts of Common Law, Divorce, Probate, Admiralty and Bankruptcy, and of the High Court of Justice and the Court of Appeal of England: Comprising the Reported Cases from 1756 to 1878, with References to the Rules and Statutes, Founded on the Digests of Harrison and Fisher |date=1886 |publisher=John C. Remick |pages=17833 |language=en}}{{Cite book |last1=Jenks |first1=Edward |url=https://archive.org/details/cu31924021650597/page/376/mode/1up |title=A Digest of English civil law |last2=Geldart |first2=William |last3=Holdsworth |first3=William Searle |last4=Lee |first4=R. W. (Robert Warden) |last5=Miles |first5=John Charles |date=1921 |publisher=London : Butterworth |others=Cornell University Library |pages=377; 389}} This created confusion particularly regarding the Palatine Court of Lancaster and other local courts.

The preamble, section 2 from "It shall" to the end of the section, section 4, section 5, section 6(a) and section 6(b) and the schedule to the act except the entries as to the Perpetuation of Testimony Act 1842 (5 & 6 Vict. c. 69) and Chancery Amendment Act 1858 (21 & 22 Vict.) c. 27 was repealed by section 1 of, and the schedule to, the Statute Law Revision Act 1898 (61 & 62 Vict. c. 22).

Section 2 of the act provided that the act did not extend to Scotland or Ireland and would commence on 24 October 1883.

Section 3 of the act repealed 19 enactments, enactments in the schedule to the act, across six categories:{{Cite book |last=Commons |first=Great Britain Parliament House of |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=BVITAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA14-PA1 |title=Public Bills |date=1881 |language=en}}{{Efn|The Note of the bill, unlike the schedule, gives commentary on each act, noting any earlier repeals and the reason for the new repeal.}}

• Expired
• Spent
• Repealed in general terms
• Virtually repealed
• Superseded
• Obsolete

Section 4 of the act repealed the enactments mentioned in Part II of the schedule to the Civil Procedure Repeal Act 1879 (42 & 43 Vict. c. 59).

Section 5 of the act included several safeguards to ensure that the repeal does not negatively affect existing rights or ongoing legal matters. Specifically, any legal rights, privileges, or remedies already obtained under the repealed laws, as well as any legal proceedings or principles established by them, remain unaffected. Section 5 of the act also ensured that repealed enactments that have been incorporated into other laws would continue to have legal effect in those contexts.{{Cite book |last=Britain |first=Great |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=sneuAAAAMAAJ&pg=RA16-PA3 |title=Public General Statutes |date=1883 |publisher=H.M. Stationery Office |pages=225–227 |language=en}} This was included to prevent an accidental repeal of a power which ought to be preserved, that Lord Cairn's Act is still in force and that the Court Division can award damages in lieu of injunction.{{Cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=KEAya_8GqYoC&pg=PA114 |title=The Annual Practice |date=1884 |publisher=Sweet and Maxwell |pages=114–117 |language=en}}

Section 6 of the act provided that:

• Any repeals would not revive any former rights, offices, or jurisdictions that had already been abolished.
• No enactment repealed by section 33 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 77) shall be revived by reason of the annulment or alteration by any new Rule of Court of the rules contained in the First Schedule to that Act. This ensured that matters abolished by the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 77), including local venues, bills of exception, proceedings in error etc., remained abolished.
• Enactments relating to making of Rules of Court, contained in the Judicature Acts, shall be deemed to extent and apply to the matters contained in and regulated by the enactments repealed by the Act. This ensured that the Rules of Court passed under repealed acts would remain valid and not be ultra vires.

Section 7 of the act provided that repealed enactments shall be construed as if they were contained in a local and personal act relating to the Court of the County Palatine of Lancaster or any inferior court of jurisdiction.

Section 8 of the act provided that the monarch had power by order in council to extend any provisions of the Judicature Acts to inferior courts of civil jurisdiction, in the same manner as provisions under the Common Law Procedure Act 1852 (15 & 16 Vict. c. 76), the Common Law Procedure Act 1854 (17 & 18 Vict. c. 125) and the Common Law Procedure Act 1860 (23 & 24 Vict. c. 126) were extended to any such court.

• Statute Law Revision Act

{{Notelist}}

• Thomas Snow, Charles Burney and Francis A Stringer. The Annual Practice 1909. Sweet and Maxwell. Stevens and Sons. London. 1909. Volume 1. Pages [https://books.google.com/books?id=EpxLZajVmeAC&pg=PR293 ccxciii], 7, 52, 159, 198, 459, 463, 469, 515, 520, 526, 528, 540, 617, 642, 647, 650 to 653, 668, 669, 709, 712 and 803. Volume 2. Pages 530, 560, 588, 587 and 1005.
• Powell. Roscoe's Digest of the Law of Evidence. Sixteenth Edition. 1891. [https://books.google.com/books?id=m_lKAQAAMAAJ&pg=PR1 Volume 1]. Pages 9, 228, 310, 716, 732, 880, 990, 991, 998, 999.

{{Reflist}}

{{UK legislation}}

{{Wikisource}}

{{Authority control}}

Category:United Kingdom Acts of Parliament 1883

Category:Repealed United Kingdom Acts of Parliament

Category:Statute Law Revision Acts