and practically useful; and it cannot be doubted that these Acts do contain a very large number of really and practically useful amendments. Of this any one may easily satisfy himself if he will only turn over the pages of this volume, and refer to the parts that are printed in italics. It would quite exceed the limits of this preface to point out even the greater part of these amendments, and as they are noticed whenever they occur in the Acts, it is unnecessary to do so. A few, however, of the greatest of them may well be mentioned here.

Hitherto the usual system of framing criminal Acts has been to specify each and every act intended to be subjected to any punishment; such a course has the advantage of calling direct attention to all the acts that are made penal; but such a course is open to this objection, that it often leaves offences of equally great criminality unprovided for, and thus affords the artful a chance of evading punishment. Several courses may be adopted to remedy this defect. A clause may be framed in such general terms as to include all cases of the same kind within it. This is the simplest, and, perhaps, the best course; and it leaves the judgment of the Court entirely unfettered as to the punishment in every case. It is so perfectly impossible to foresee all the circumstances that may happen to mitigate or aggravate any offence, that it is very advisable to leave a very wide discretion to the Court, and where, as in attempts to murder, the same punishments may well be awarded by the statute to all cases, it would seem better to have only one general clause; and, had I been able to follow my own judgment, sec. 15, in the Offences against the Person Act, post, p. 28, would have been made so general as to include all attempts to murder, and consequently all that are particularly enumerated in the preceding sections, and those sections would have been omitted. And this course would place the enactments on a footing precisely similar to all common law offences; for in them every offence of the

class, however aggravated or venial, is included; of which manslaughter affords as strong an example as any that can be mentioned; for in it the highest degree of criminality next to murder, and the lowest possible culpable homicide, are included, and the Court has a discretion as to the punishment, which ranges from penal servitude for life to the lowest possible fine.

But where it seems advisable to specify the several acts that are intended to be made criminal, or to assign different degrees of punishment to offences of a similar character, this may well be effected either by placing a general clause with the same or a minor punishment first, and other clauses afterwards with the same or a heavier punishment for the offences therein particularly specified, or, by reversing this course, and placing the general clause last. It seems to be quite immaterial which of these courses is adopted. In the Offences against the Person Act the special clauses relating to attempts to murder come first, with a general clause following them with the same punishment. In the Malicious Injuries Act, both with reference to buildings and malicious injuries in general, a similar arrangement is pursued, but the general clauses award minor punishments. See s. 6, post, p. 164, and ss. 51, 52, post, pp. 199, 200. The effect of these general provisions is, that, in the former case, no attempt to murder, and in the latter, no malicious injury whatever, whether committed on an existing subject matter, or on one that may hereafter be created, can escape punishment. It may be that that punishment may in some instances of malicious injuries be inadequate to the offence; but at all events no case can occur, for which no punishment can be awarded. By introducing these provisions every attempt to murder is made liable to the same punishment, instead of some such attempts being felony and liable to penal servitude for life, whilst others were only misdemeanors, liable to imprisonment and hard labour, although the danger to the

person attacked, and the malice of the offender, might be quite as great as in the former cases. So, by the Malicious Injuries Act, all public and other buildings are protected, instead of being wholly unprotected, or only protected by an indictment at common law for setting fire to a building within a town, or so near to other houses as to cause danger to them.

I have been the more particular in adverting to this subject, because it cannot be doubted that very great benefit will result from the course adopted with respect to it in these Acts, and also because it is to be hoped that a similar course will be taken in future, not only in criminal, but in civil legislation. I am very strongly in favour of general clauses wherever they can be used without any others. They are not only clear and simple; but, if I be not very much mistaken, would reduce the length of our statutes to a greater extent than any other plan that could be devised. Let it be considered what might be effected in forgery alone. No satisfactory reason can be given why the forgery of every written instrument should not be included in a single clause, and subjected to penal servitude for life, &c. That clause might be so framed as to include all existing and future instruments; and, as no forgery can be tried by any Court of Quarter Sessions, there is no reason why the same wide discretion as to punishment should not be given to the Court as in cases of manslaughter.

The Malicious Injuries Act affords the best specimen among these Acts of specific clauses followed by general ones. The old Act had one general clause; but that was confined to awarding compensation only, and the amount thereof could not exceed 57.; so that all the more serious cases which happened not to be specially mentioned in the Act were wholly unprovided for. The present Act provides for all such cases where the injury done amounts to 57. There was a difficulty as to this clause; if the limitation of value had been applied to the thing injured,

the clause would have included many malicious injuries of far too trifling a nature to be made the subject of indictment; but if the limitation had been applied to the amount of injury done, cases might occur where the injury was less than the amount fixed, though the intent might be very malicious, and the injury liable to be caused very great. But, on the whole, it was considered better to adopt the latter alternative, especially as the next clause provided some punishment, at least, for any offence not falling within this clause. Probably those cases may be few, and it is conceived that this Act will be found very effectually to answer the ends to which it is directed, and to be a very great improvement, indeed, of the former Law.

The Offences against the Person Act, also, by the introduction of the clause, including all attempts to murder not otherwise provided for, and other amendments, would have been a very complete Act but for the alterations made by the Committee of the House of Commons; however, it is much better than the former Acts; and as it provides for all assaults, for assaults occasioning actual bodily harm, and for maliciously wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm, very few offences against the person can be committed which will not fall within its provisions.

The Larceny Act also contains very great improvements of the former law. The provisions for breaking into houses with intent to commit a felony; for entering houses by night with like intent, and the other alterations made under the head of "Sacrilege, Burglary, and Housebreaking," have placed the law on these subjects on an excellent footing, and have thrown a protection round the dwelling-house, which has long been wanted, and will prove highly beneficial. The clauses also providing against the inducing persons to make or execute instruments by force or fraud are great improvements. The bill, however, was damaged by the clauses already alluded to, which were struck out by the Committee of the Commons.

The Forgery Act contains many new and valuable pro

visions, and many of the provisions in it are so framed as to include documents which may hereafter come into existence.

The Coin Act contains all the improvements which the experience of the former Solicitor to the Mint (Mr. Powell), or of the present Solicitors of the Treasury, could suggest, or which were derived from other sources, and not the least of them are the provisions as to the form of indictments and the evidence in cases of subsequent offences.

The Accessories Act contains few alterations, as the law as to them needed little amendment. The new provisions relate to the place of trial of accessories, and to accessories within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty.

I have long wished that all punishments for offences should be considered and placed on a satisfactory footing with reference to each other, and I had at one time hoped that that might have been done in these Acts. It was, however, impracticable. Two things, however, are done by these bills. There were numerous offences punishable, some by fifteen, others by fourteen years' penal servitude. In all these cases fourteen years is adopted in these Acts. There were also numerous cases, in which the term of imprisonment varied without any reason. In some cases it was four years, in others three, and in others two. In these Acts, the minimum penal servitude being three years, the maximum imprisonment has been uniformly fixed at two years. The bills were introduced in this state in the House of Lords; but the Committee of that House substituted three years' imprisonment wherever three years' penal servitude was the maximum punishment, on the ground that it was the more severe punishment of the two. The Select Committee of the Commons, however, restored the bills to their original state, on the ground that so long a sentence of imprisonment as three years would never be awarded.

I have long hoped that some broad and plain distinction might be fixed between felony and misdemeanor, but I