[1] 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.
[2] 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."
[2] 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.
[2] The work of the Commission faced wide criticism from politicians, legal academics and commentators, who focused on the high expenditure of the committee, especially on the salary and motivations of the Commissioners and draftsmen, including Charles Henry Bellenden Ker, the proposed approach taken by the Commission to proceed with consolidation before expurgation, and the lack of results to show for it.
[17] The first report accidentally included in the appendix criticism by Charles Henry Bellenden Ker of the resolution of the House of Commons decision to print an expurgatory list of statutes and a later resolution to bring forward a Bill to expurgate the statute book of those acts, as well as criticism of the Personal Estates of Intestates Bill after it had been passed by the House.
[18] This was acknowledged in Parliament on 2 August 1855 which did not object to the production of copies of replies to the appendix by Thomas Chisholm Anstey and George Coode.
[19] The matter was raised again by Peter Locke King MP on 11 April 1856, eliciting an apology from one of the Commissioners, Spencer Horatio Walpole.
[18] On 8 May 1856, following criticism by Peter Locke King MP, the House of Commons ordered for returns showing a breakdown of expenditure of the Commission and a list of names and fees paid to each draftsmen of the proposed Consolidation Bills.
[21] A motion to authorise the commissions expenditure closely passed on 2 June 1856, but was objected to by Peter Locke King MP who criticised the annual salary of £1,000 to Charles Henry Bellenden Ker (£600 for other Commissioners) and the £1,051 5s.
The debate ultimately rejected a motion moved by Peter Locke King MP to establish an alternative approach through a select committee.
Following the Commission's second report, which recommended the appointment of an officer or board to revise and improve current legislation, the House of Commons resolved on 25 April 1856, requesting a "Copy of the Memorandum of the Attorney-general as to the plan of proceeding in Consolidation of the Statutes".
[20] Attorney General, Alexander Cockburn, proposed a plan of proceeding for the consolidation of the statutes, remarking that:[21]"In order to form a correct judgment as to the course of proceeding which it is expedient to adopt in the Consolidation of the Statutes, it is, in the first place, necessary to have a clear view of what is the true nature and extent of the work which the Commission is called upon to execute.
Partly written, partly unwritten, that part of our law which is unwritten, is to be gathered from the decision sand dicta of judges, dispersed over many hundreds of volumes of reports, or from the opinions of text writers, of various degrees of authority, contained in innumerable works; while the written law is scattered over thousands of statutes, strung together without any attempt at order or arrangement, and forming no less than forty ponderous volumes; the whole body of the law thus consisting a chaotic mass, to which the 'many camel-loads' of jurisprudence, of which the Roman jurists complained, hardly afford a parallel.
In April 1859, the Attorney General, Sir Fitzroy Kelly, introduced a series of bills to consolidate the criminal law, which had been prepared by the Commission.
[2] On 18 July 1859, Robert Rolfe, 1st Baron Cranworth, drew attention Fourth Report of the Commissioners, arguing that they had successfully catalogued and classified 6,887 statutes passed since the Union with Ireland, identifying 1,836 related to permanent rules of civil conduct.