and its punishment to the latter. Nor is this all. The introduction of such offences in the Criminal Acts would lead to great confusion in legislation. Suppose these bills had passed last year with bankruptcy offences in them, the late Bankrupt Act would necessarily have repealed them. This affords an additional reason why such offences should always be contained in the Act relating to their subject matter, and then whenever that Act is repealed and a new one passed, the whole may be re-enacted in it with such alterations as may seem expedient.

It seems quite unnecessary to add any other objections to the mere consolidation of indictable offences. It is sufficient to say that I pointed out to Lord Cranworth, C., in the spring of 1857, the strong objections there appeared to me to exist to that consolidation, and that at a meeting of the Statute Law Commissioners, on the 13th of May, 1857, Lord Cranworth said, that "in revising some of the criminal bills with Sir F. Kelly, Mr. Greaves, and Mr. Ker, in the Easter Vacation, he had come to the conclusion that the restrictions imposed on the draftsmen, by requiring that no alteration should be made in the law and as little as possible in the language of the statutes consolidated, and that the bills should be confined to indictable offences only, had produced some inconvenient results; that it would be an unsatisfactory course to introduce these bills without taking the opportunity of correcting and supplying the admitted imperfections and omissions in the law at the same time, and that it would be more advisable that such other offences, though not indictable offences, as are now found in 'Peel's Acts' and other existing statutes in connection with indictable offences, and also those offences which have been made originally punishable on summary conviction, with a provision that a second or third offence shall be felony or misdemeanor, should be introduced into these bills, as they would otherwise be fragmentary and imperfect." And it was thereupon resolved by the Statute Law Commissioners,

that the bills should be altered in accordance with these views.

In pursuance of this resolution it became necessary to consider what the new bills should be. It had been found that treason could not be consolidated, and that there were also many offences, some of which have already been alluded to, that were much better left in the Acts containing the subject matter to which they related, and above all it appeared that in Peel's Acts, and the other Acts passed before the first Criminal Law Commission issued, a systematic course had been adopted, and that those Acts, though altered in some parts by subsequent Acts, had worked extremely well, and it was therefore determined to frame as many of the new bills as could be in accordance with these Acts. The course adopted in those Acts was to select some particular subject, Larceny or Malicious Injuries for instance, and carefully to consider all the then existing enactments on that subject, to reject all that were objectionable, and to add all necessary amendments to those which were considered useful, and to frame a new Act containing all the provisions that were approved of in the best and most consistent language, and to insert in it not only all indictable offences, whether felonies or misdemeanors, which properly fell within that subject, but also all such minor offences as were of a cognate character, and might be dealt with summarily, and then to add all such provisions as seemed appropriate for the purpose of giving full effect to the prosecution of the offences created by the Act. And the more the subject is considered, the more clear will it be that this course was the most expedient. None can be found so practically convenient to every one who has to ascertain what the law on the subject is; for in one and the same Act he will find all the provisions relating to it.

There were, however, certain subjects partaking partly of a civil and partly of a criminal character, which could not be dealt with in the same manner, but if the whole

statute law relating to them were consolidated in one bill, the result would be a very useful Act, and if the civil were separated from the criminal, two imperfect bills would be produced. In these cases, therefore, it was determined to include both the civil and criminal clausesin the same bill.

The Select Committee of the Lords in 1853 having approved of sundry amendments of the law in the Offences against the Person Bill, as I have already stated, the greater part of these amendments were introduced into the new Offences against the Person Bill. In the other bills, which had been prepared by Mr. Lonsdale and myself, we had introduced many amendments, some of which were founded on the recommendation of the Criminal Law Commissioners, and others were suggested by cases that had occurred. These amendments were carefully reconsidered in 1857, and such of them as appeared to be clearly expedient were introduced into the new bills. In other respects the enactments, which had been revised by Lord Wensleydale, C. J. Jervis, Sir F. Kelly, and myself, were introduced in the bills of 1857 in the same terms as nearly as possible as in the bills of the previous year.

As these bills were to include summary offences, it became necessary to consider the summary offences clauses in Peel's Acts, together with the alterations that had been made respecting summary offences by subsequent statutes either in England or Ireland. Jervis' Act, 11 & 12 Vict. c. 43, had made many very useful alterations in the procedure in summary cases in England; but it had appeared to me that a great improvement might be effected in the law if that Act were repealed and re-enacted and extended, so as to include appeals from summary convictions and the proceedings in them, as well as many other provisions relating to summary offences; as by that means a complete. Act might be framed to regulate all the proceedings in summary cases; and, if such an Act were passed, it would render it quite unnecessary to insert such provisions in

any Act for the future, and all that would be necessary would be simply to create the summary offence, and assign the punishment to it, and then all proceedings relating to it might be taken under the general Act. Lord Cranworth, C., agreed in these views, and such an Act was directed to be prepared for the Statute Law Commission. However, I had to frame the bills without any such Act having been passed, and it was necessary therefore to deal with the clauses in the Acts referred to as well as might be under the then existing circumstances, and in doing so to make as little alteration in the law as possible, in order to avoid any objections, which were almost certain to be raised to any alteration, however trivial. Accordingly Jervis' Act was carefully compared with the Larceny Act, 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, and the Malicious Injuries Act, 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 30, and as many clauses were omitted in these Acts as I thought I could safely venture to do; but wherever there was a doubt whether the clause should be omitted or not, I let it remain, as my experience in passing bills has taught me that it is always best to leave a doubtful clause in a bill, and let the Committees of the Houses decide on its retention, especially as it is very much less trouble, and leads to less chance of error, to strike out a clause than to insert one. This will account for the clauses in the Larceny Act and Malicious Injuries Act, which are similar to, but not identical with, some of the clauses in Jervis' Act, and their retention can lead to no practical difficulty, for, in the case of any summary offence against either of these Acts, the provisions in these particular clauses are to be followed, as far as they extend, and the provisions in Jervis' Act are to be followed in all other respects.

Neither the Larceny nor Malicious Injuries Bill of 1857 extended to Ireland, and therefore no means of dealing with the summary offences against these Acts in Ireland was then devised, but as such a mode has been provided by the present Acts, it may be as well, whilst attention is drawn

to the subject, to explain what has been done in that respect. The Irish Larceny and Malicious Injuries Act of the 9 Geo. 4, like the English Acts, contained summary offences; but all the provisions relating to them were repealed in the 13 & 14 Vict., and two Acts passed, one embodying the provisions relating to summary offences; the other containing provisions similar to Jervis' Act, but extending very much further. These Acts were repealed, but re-enacted and amended, by the 14 & 15 Vict. cc. 92, 93. In this state of things there was considerable difficulty in again introducing the summary offences into the Larceny and Malicious Injuries Bills. The Summary Offences Act, 14 & 15 Vict. c. 92, and the Procedure Act, c. 93, appeared to be extremely popular in Ireland, and it was considered very desirable that they should not be unnecessarily altered. However, at length this difficulty was surmounted and the summary offences introduced in these bills, and such an assimilation made, principally through Mr. Pigot's assistance, that the clauses relating to them passed without any opposition; and it appears to me that the alterations effected by them in the law of Ireland are in many respects beneficial.

This, however, was not the only difficulty. Summary procedure in Ireland had to be provided for, and this was effected by applying the provisions of the 14 & 15 Vict. c. 93, in all respects, to summary offences against these Acts: so that no alteration is made in summary procedure in Ireland.

Lastly, it was thought objectionable to give one magistrate summary jurisdiction in Ireland, and as that jurisdiction could not be taken away from a single magistrate in England, in the cases where it already existed, the difficulty was solved by leaving all the summary clauses unaltered in these Acts, so that whenever one magistrate is authorised by them to act, he may do so in England, and by providing that in Ireland summary offences may be prosecuted before two or more justices of the peace.