Statute Law Revision Act 1890

[1] The act was the first Statute Law Revision Act to pass both Houses of Parliament with opposition, on the ground that it sought to repeal enactments of the present reign without the authority of a select committee of the House of Commons.

[2] 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.

[1] 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."

[1] The Board issued three reports, recommending the creation of a permanent body for statute law reform.

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.

Wood to expurgate the statute book of all acts which, though not expressly repealed, were not in force, working backwards from the present time.

c. 63) was passed, which generalised definitions used in acts of Parliament and provided rules of statutory construction.

[6] The bill was withdrawn in the last week of the session, on 16 August 1889,[6] following opposition on the ground that it sought to repeal enactments of the present reign without the authority of a select committee of the House of Commons.

[7] On 14 February 1890, the Attorney General, Richard Webster MP, confirmed the intention of the government to re-introduce the bill.

[10] The select committee reported that:[1][11] ...they desire to express their sense of the great caution and accuracy with which the Bill has been prepared, and their opinion that the Statute Law Committee and its assistants have fully justified the confidence which has been shown in them by both Houses of Parliament.In examining the statutes in order to consider the verbal amendments proposed, your committee came to the conclusion that the process of revision might be safely made much more extensive and valuable by the repeal of such of the preambles of these Acts as, having regard to the provisions of the third section of this Bill, were not required for the purpose of explaining or interpreting the Acts to which they were prefixed, and were not of any such historical interest and importance as to make it desirable that they should be reprinted in future and revised editions of the statutes.

"The select committee supported removing unnecessary formal language and eliminating historically unimportant preambles from the revised edition of the statutes.

[10] During debate, an objection to the third reading made by Dr Charles Kearns Deane Tanner MP was rejected.

[10] The repeals of preambles by section 1 of the act was criticised by legal writers after the passing, who described the "slaughter" as "quite unwise".