and Mr. Cox's Edition of the statutes, p. 97, where he starts the additional objection, that 'the section contains new and very extensive powers.' Surely Mr. Saunders cannot but know that the power to fine and require sureties for keeping the peace and being of good behavior on a conviction for misdemeanor is one of the oldest powers known to the common law. Then Mr. Saunders says, 'it may well be questioned whether when a criminal has suffered his appointed punishment, it is judicious to impose upon him the further inconvenience of providing bondsmen for his future good behavior.' It would be enough to answer that such has been the case in common law misdemeanors from time immemorial, and no one ever heard a complaint against it; but it may be well to add, that neither fines nor sureties are ever awarded when a criminal has suffered his appointed punishment; on the contrary, the court always considers them as part of the punishment, and this power is always used in mercy towards the criminal, and a less term of imprisonment awarded, where it is exercised. In fact, instead of the clause being open to this objection, it is a most humane and merciful provision founded on that 'nursing mother,' the common law."

"Mr. Saunders again returns to the charge, p. 244, with the further objection that this clause 'in effect amounts to a bestowal of unlimited powers of mitigation of punishment, and when we find that unlawfully and maliciously wounding, etc., are all misdemeanors, the powers thus given to impose a fine in lieu of any other punishment, looks very like jesting with criminal punishment.'-Had Mr. Saunders forgotten that by sec. 5 of the same act any person convicted of manslaughter (a crime infinitely greater in many cases than misdemeanor) may be sentenced to pay a fine either in addition to or without any other punish

ment? So under the 9 Geo. 4, c. 31, s. 9, the court might have awarded a fine on a conviction for manslaughter, without any other punishment."-Greaves' Cr. Acts, 6.

34. The punishment of solitary confinement or of the pillory shall not be awarded by any court.-32-33 V., c. 29, s. 81.

The pillory was a frame erected in a public place on a pillar, and made with holes and moveable boards, through which the heads and hands of criminals were put. The punishment of the pillory, which had been abolished, in England, in all other cases, by 56 Geo. III., c. 138, was retained for the punishment of perjury and subornation of perjury, but it is now altogether abolished by 7 Wm. IV., and 1 V., c. 23:-1 Chit. 797; Wharton, Law Lexicon, Verb. Pillory.

DEODAND.

35. There shall be no forfeiture of any chattels which have moved to or caused the death of any human being, in respect of such death. -32-33 V., c. 29, s. 54.

By the common law, omnia quæ movent ad mortem sunt Deo danda. Hence the word "deodand," which signified a personal chattel which had been the immediate occasion of the death of any reasonable creature, and which, in consequence, was forfeited to the crown, to be applied, to pious uses, and distributed in alms by the High Almoner. Whether the death were accidental or intended, whether the person whose chattel had caused the death participated in the act or not, was immaterial. The cart, the horse, the sword, or anything which had occasioned the death of a human being, or the value thereof, was forfeited, if the party died within a year and a day from the wound received. And for this object, the coroner's jury had to inquire what instrument caused the death, and to establish

the value of it. But the jury used to find a nominal value only, and confine the deodand to the very thing or part of the thing itself which caused the death, as, if a waggon, to one of the wheels only.-R. v. Rolfe, Fost. 266; 1 Hawkins, 74; 1 Blackstone, 300. This forfeiture, "which seemeth to have been originally founded rather in the superstition of an age of extreme ignorance than in the principles of sound reason and true policy," Fost. 266, was abolished in England on the 1st day of September, 1846, by the 9-10 V., c. 62.

ATTAINDER.

36. Except in cases of treason, or of abetting, procuring or counselling the same, no attainder shall extend to the disinheriting of any heir, or to the prejudice of the right o title of any person, other than the right or title of the offender during his natural life only.-32-33 V., c. 29, s. 55.

37. Every one to whom, after the death of any such offender, the right or interest to or in any lands, tenements or hereditaments, should or would have appertained, if no such attainder had taken place, may, after the death of such offender, enter into the same.-32-33 V., c. 19, s. 56.

By the common law, a man convicted of treason or felony stands attaint. By this attainder, he loses his civil rights and capacities, and becomes dead in law, civiliter mortuus.-1 Stephens' Comm. 141. He forfeits to the King all his lands and tenements, as well as his personal estate, his blood is corrupted, so that nothing can pass by inheritance to, from or through him.-4 Blackstone, 380, 387; 2 Hawkins, 637. But the lands or tenements are not vested in the crown during the life of the offender, without office, or office-found which is finding by a jury of a fact which entitles the crown to the possession of such lands or tenements.- Wharton's Law Lexicon,

verb. "Inquest of office," "office-found."-3 Stephens' Comm. 661; though this formality is not necessary in cases of treason, where, by 33 Hen. VIII. ch. 20, sec. 2, goods and chattels become the property of the crown without office.

The aforesaid sections of the Procedure Act are taken from the 54 Geo. III., c. 145, of the Imperial Statutes; they have the effect to abolish the corruption of blood in felonies. They seem to exclude cases of treason, or rather to assume that corruption of blood exists in treason; but, in these cases, corruption of blood never existed in this country, not being part of the criminal law of England, as introduced here, it having been abolished in England, by 7 Anne, c. 21, sec. 10, suspended by the 17 Geo. II., c. 39, sec. 3, till not only the Pretender, but also his eldest, and all and every his son and sons, should be dead, an event long ago accomplished.

The 39 Geo. III., c. 93 (Imperial), repealed these last mentioned statutes, but it is not law for us.-1 Chitty, 734, 741; 4 Stephens' Comm. 455.

This view, on this part of the law, seemed to bear such incongruous consequences, that we thought it better to have upon it the opinion of the learned Mr. Wicksteed, law clerk of the House of Commons, the framer of the above clauses.

Mr. Wicksteed had the kindness to write as follows:

"Sections 55 and 56 of the 32-33 V., c. 29, are taken from the statute of U. C., 3 Wm. IV., c. 4, and, I think, should be read, and should have been printed as one section, as they are in the U. C. statute. Why the U. C. Legislature supposed that it was desirable to pass that act, I do not exactly know, but suppose that, after the passing of the Imperial Act, 54 Geo. III., c. 145, An Act

to take away the corruption of blood save in certain cases,' which does not in any way refer to the prior acts of William III., Anne, or 39-40 Geo. III, but simply enacts that, no attainder for felony which shall take place after the passing of the act, save in the cases of high treason, petty-treason or murder, or abetting or procuring or counselling the same, shall extend to disinheriting any heir,' &c., they thought that the operation of the acts of Wm. III., and Anne was at any rate doubtful as to high-treason, and not at all doubtful as to petty-treason and murder, and they, therefore, passed an act identical with that of the Imperial Parliament, as to high-treason, but extending the exemption to all other cases of felony, except high treason. And it is well to observe that the act 39-40 Geo. III., c. 93, which is supposed to have repealed the acts of Wm. III. and Anne, does nothing of the kind, but merely regulates the mode of indictment and trial in cases where the overt act of treason consists in a direct attempt on the life of or bodily harm to the Sovereign, and provides that, after conviction in such cases, judgment shall be nevertheless given and execution done as in other cases of high-treason; nothing is said of the consequences of the attainder, and the act is entitled 'An act for regulating trials of high-treason and misprison of treason in certain cases.' I do not see that this act repeals the two foregoing statutes, (William and Ann) or restores the old law if it was repealed by them, and the Imperial act 54 Geo. III., c. 145, seems to assume that the old law existed, notwithstanding the three former acts, or it ought to have repealed them. It goes to work in a better way, for they, if in force, would have abolished corruption of blood in hightreason, and left it in other felonies of minor degree. And the U. C. Stat. and our present one go still further and