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Act of the 9 Geo. 4, like the English Acts, contained summary offences; but all the provisions relating to them were repealed in the 13 & 14 Vict., and two Acts passed, one embodying the provisions relating to summary offences; the other containing provisions similar to Jervis' Act,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 These Acts were repealed, but re-enacted and amended, by the 14 & 15 Vict.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 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 alteration effected by them in the law of Ireland is 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.

The bills framed in the manner I have described, were:-1. Offences against the Person; 2. Larceny; 3. Malicious Injuries; 4. Forgery; 5. Coin; 6. Libel; 7. Deer, Game, and Rabbits; 8. Accessories; 9. A Repealing Bill. The five first bills were framed on the similar Acts of Sir R. Peel and his successors, and included all the matters contained in those bills, together with such enactments relating to the same subjects as had been subsequently passed. The Libel, and the Deer, Game, and Rabbits Bills were not confined like the others to criminal matters, but contained all the statutory provisions on these subjects, and in the latter bill, the provisions as to deer, hares, and rabbits in the 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, were included with the view of making the Larceny Bill less difficult to extend to Ireland. The Accessories Bill contained the same old enactments as the present Act on that subject. Of these bills, Coin extended to England, Scotland, and Ireland; Libel and Accessories to England and Ireland; but the rest were confined to England.

These bills were very carefully examined by Lord Cranworth, C.; and that great and good judge, Sir John Patteson, whose loss we have all so much reason to deplore, did me the especial favour to examine the Offences against the Person, and Larceny Bills, and most of the amendments contained in the present Acts on these subjects had his entire approval.

The bills so prepared were introduced into the House of Lords in the summer of 1857, passed that House, and were read a first time in the Commons; but were not further proceeded with.

In the autumn of 1858, Lord Derby's Government determined to proceed with the consolidation and amendment of the Criminal Law, and one great object in so doing was, if possible, to extend all the bills to Ireland as

well as England; and the present Mr. Justice Hayes, Mr. Whiteside, then Attorney-General, and several other Irish barristers, were engaged in preparing bills for that purpose, and when these bills were prepared, they were forwarded to me to be examined, and they were afterwards to be settled by Sir F. Kelly, Attorney-General, and myself, preparatory to their introduction into the House of Commons. These bills to a great extent followed the bills of 1857, and contained many very valuable improvements in the law; but they were objectionable in several respects, especially in defining some offences, making far too great alterations in punishments, and extending some enactments to England, which could only be warranted in Ireland by an extraordinary state of circumstances. These bills also differed from the bills of 1857 in this material respect; no punishment for any offence was contained in the clause creating it, or indeed in the same bill: but there was to be a separate bill containing a class of punishments, and each clause creating an offence referred to this class for the punishment of it. Offences against the Person Bill, and some other of these bills I carefully revised, and in doing so the course I adopted was as follows; as the bills of 1857 had not only been settled with great care by the persons I have mentioned, but had passed the House of Lords, it was obvious that it was highly expedient to adhere to these bills as nearly as might be; for they were then much more likely to be favourably received by the Houses of Parliament. Accordingly I restored the bills as nearly as might be to the bills of 1857; but at the same time every amendment which appeared to be really beneficial was adopted. As to the punishments, the Committee of the Lords in 1853 having refused to sanction a schedule of punishments even in the same bill, which was referred to by each clause creating an offence, as already mentioned, it seemed vain to expect that a separate punishment bill would ever pass the House of Lords, and it therefore

The

became necessary to adopt some other plan. I had strongly felt the repetition of each punishment at the end of each section to be objectionable, and therefore I endeavoured to devise some plan by which each of these objectionable courses might be avoided, and the following is the plan which appeared to me fully to answer this object. At the end of each clause the maximum punishment only was to be stated, and each bill was to contain a general clause pointing out how that maximum punishment might be mitigated, or rather what minor punishments it contained. Penal servitude under the then existing Acts comprehended penal servitude for life or for any term not less than three years, and where penal servitude might be awarded, imprisonment for a certain term with or without hard labour might be awarded as a lesser punishment. My plan then was this; to state at the end of each clause the maximum penal servitude that might be allotted to the offence, and then the general clause would authorise the Court in any case where penal servitude might be inflicted to award any term of penal servitude less than that specified in the particular clause, but not less than three years, or any term of imprisonment not exceeding two years, with or without hard labour, and with or without solitary confinement. It struck me that this provision was so simple that any one who read it would at once understand in what manner penal servitude might be mitigated, and that when he saw any particular term of penal servitude at the end of any clause he would at once know what lesser sentence might be passed. It is true that wherever any special punishment occurred, it must be stated; but it appeared that very few such need exist, and one strong recommendation of my plan was, that by it a great simplification in punishments might be effected. I altered the Offences against the Person Bill according to this plan, and Sir F. Kelly approved it, and very shortly before the dissolution of Parliament in the

spring of 1859, Sir F. Kelly introduced this bill, which was the only one there had been time to settle, into the House of Commons, and several other bills were also laid on the table of the House in the state in which they had been prepared in Ireland.

In the same year, after Lord Derby's ministry had quitted office, the bills just mentioned, together with several others that had afterwards been prepared in Ireland, were introduced by Mr. Whiteside into the House of Commons, but not proceeded with.

In the autumn of 1859 the present Government determined to proceed with the Criminal Bills, and Mr. Pigot and Mr. M'Blaine were instructed to examine the bills of 1857 and Mr. Whiteside's, and to report upon them, and they did so, and at the same time I reconsidered all those bills, and reported upon them also, and these reports were mutually interchanged and considered, and ultimately Mr. Pigot came to England, and he and I went through all the present bills and two others, and fully considered every clause contained in them. All the amendments in Mr. Whiteside's bills that appeared to be really and practically useful were adopted, together with sundry other amendments that were suggested by Mr. Pigot and Mr. M'Blaine, and ultimately the bills were settled so as to extend to England and Ireland, in all the cases contained in them, and in the case of Coin to Scotland also. Nor let it be supposed that the task of effecting this was an easy one. On the contrary, it was fraught with very considerable difficulties, and had it not been that Mr. Pigot brought to the task not only a very accurate knowledge of the criminal law, but also a mind peculiarly candid and impartial, and sincerely bent on accomplishing the object in view, I doubt whether those difficulties would have been surmounted as they were, and the bills have passed through Parliament with so little opposition as they did. I have thought it right to say thus much; for I alone know how very materially Mr.