the search for gunpowder and other destructive substances, and many similar subsidiary clauses are to be found in the old Acts, and by consolidating these Acts, so far only as they related to indictable offences, all these provisions would have fallen to the ground, as they were by their terms confined to the offences mentioned in those Acts alone. It is true that some of these provisions might well have been included in a bill relating to criminal procedure, but there were many others that could not have been included in such a bill, and could not have been inserted in any place so well as in immediate connection. with the offences to which they related.

In some instances offences were punishable either on indictment or summary conviction. In these cases the consolidation of indictable offences alone would have made it necessary for the same offence to be repeated in two different Acts; in one as an indictable offence, in the other as a summary offence; and unless each Act had a reference to the other, it is easy to conceive that any one looking at one of the Acts might suppose that that was the only provision on the subject. In other instances an indictable offence depended on one or more previous summary convictions for the like offence. In these cases the consolidation in question would have made it necessary on every trial for such an indictable offence, to refer to two different Acts, one relating to the summary and the other to the indictable offence.

Many offences are not only created by statute, but their whole subject matter is statutory also, and to separate the one from the other would render it necessary, in any prosecution for such offence, always to refer to two Acts instead of one. Bankruptcy and insolvency may serve as examples of this. What could be more practically inconvenient than to take all the indictable offences out of the Bankrupt Act and place them in a consolidation of Criminal Law? For the meaning of the term "bankrupt," and almost every other term used in creating

the offence, reference must be made to the former, but for the offence 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Suppose these bills had passed last year with bankruptcy offences in them, the late Bankrupt Act would necessarily have repealed them.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 clauses in 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 there. fore 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

C