integrity occasioned them to be put into the lists of the majo rity of juries named, where the parties, in striking the lists, gladly suffered them to remain. These advantages appear to be still retained under the new law, which provides that, by consent, the parties may have their juries named, according to the old practice, on signifying their wish to the officer; but we think, on the whole, that no system but one of absolute chance in the nomination would ever be satisfactory to the country, and conclusive against suspicions and imputations of partiality.

The alterations made by Mr. Peel in the ordinary style and diction of legislation are not the least important or remarkable features in his new acts. None but those familiar with the nice questions arising on the precise meaning of words and phrases, on which the property, and liberties, and often the lives, of individuals depend, can appreciate accurately the great difficulty of being at once clear and comprehensive in legal phraseology; of at once attaining perspicuity and brevity in the language of an act of parliament. Brevis esse laboro obscurus fio,'-here are opposite evils, which certainly the legislator finds as much danger of falling into as the poet. Those who, like Mr. Uniacke, propose to turn the language of legislation into the style of ordinary compositions, discarding all technicality, and laying down general, vague, and succinct rules, instead of finding apt terms, generic and specific, at once to describe a general purpose, or object, and to indicate particular cases, in fact only evade a difculty which they cannot meet, and which they erroneously attribute to the peculiar style adopted by our legislators; whereas it is inherent, and necessary in the very nature and end of the subjects of legislation. If the legislator confined himself to general injunctions and prohibitions, such as might be framed in elegant and familiar English, the Statute Book might easily be reduced in bulk and rendered less repulsive reading to young ladies; but the consequences must be an unlimited discretion exercised by the judges in its construction, an endless conflict as to the precise meaning of general expressions and vague phrases, and an intolerable uncertainty as to what acts were innocent and what were criminal. Although, however, much of the lengthened enumerations, and wearisome particularizings of our statutes, are to be ascribed to the wise desire of providing for possible cases-of framing rules so definite, that no judge shall abuse, and so comprehensive, that no knave shall elude them-we admit that the difficulty has not been met judiciously or adequately by the generality of legislators, and that the statute book is disfigured by much bad English, verboseness, and tautology, which might be removed without endangering any salutary object. To remove these, how

ever, with success and advantage is a task of much nicety, and requiring no small degree of labour and of judgment. We are convinced the verbosity and particularity of detail, even in the excess to which our lawmakers have generally carried them, are evils attended with less mischief than the vague and inaccurate laxity of style which fastidious reformers would substitute for them. Mr. Peel and his able legal coadjutors have been too wise, rashly to introduce a novel style into legislation; but they have judiciously endeavoured to improve upon that already established.

That they have done so in point of brevity and simplicity, any one who compares their neat and readable productions with almost any set of statutes to which he can accidentally turn, must be satisfied. They appear to have hit upon the due medium between that vague brevity which belongs to a synopsis rather than to a law, and that perplexing prolixity which would supply the place of perspicuous expressions by an accumulation of all the possible phrases in any degree connected with the legislator's meaning.* That these improvements in diction and arrangement have been attained consistently with the higher ends of certainty and precision of meaning, and a comprehensive inclusion of every case intended to be brought within the law, it would be the height of rashness in us at present to pronounce; and we have no desire to start doubts, which, if there is room for them, will soon be raised by acute advocates and parties interested in urging them. Nothing but the results in practice, and the settled construction of the courts, can place the stamp of soundness and wisdom on acts of legislation. But this we may venture to say, that every clause of the new acts bears the marks of that painstaking and deliberate consideration, which are so often wanting in the framing of our laws, and which certainly afford the best securities for their practical utility and safeness. Where other statutes have used, for describing an offence, a multitude of specific terms, and tautologous epithets and verbs endeavouring to enumerate every species of particular goods or property, or persons, or acts, or other matters, within the view of the legislator, in which attempt there is generally a failure, Mr. Peel commonly uses generic terms, carefully selected and generally sufficient to embrace the whole class. Where one section enacts the amount of transportation, length of imprisonment, &c., to be visited on any offence, subsequent clauses, inflicting

For an unsuccessful attempt at abbreviation of a law, see Mr. Uniacke's proposed amendment of the 10th section of 6 Geo. IV. c. 16. (the new bankrupt act,) in which a long and intricate clause is reduced to a few lines by a very cheap mode-of omitting many of the essential components of the provision, and mistaking others. (Letter, &c p. 18.)

the

the same punishment on other crimes, judiciously (though contrary to legislative practice) refer to the punishment last mentioned,' instead of going over the detail again. Some few of the new clauses, however, appear to us to be expressed with a generality, and sometimes a laxity of phrase, hardly suitable in acts of parliament, and calculated to give rise to doubts in their construction. For example-the clause, 7 and 8 Geo. IV. c. 29, s. 34, 'if any person shall unlawfully and wilfully take or destroy any fish in any water which shall run through or be in any land adjoining or belonging to the dwelling-house of any person being the owner of such water,' &c. seems vaguely worded; it is difficult to affix a precise meaning to the words adjoining or belonging to the dwelling-house,' &c. Again-in the proviso in 7 and 8 Geo. IV. c. 29, s. 18, 'Provided always that when articles of small value shall be stranded or cast on-shore, and shall be stolen without circumstances of cruelty, &c. it shall be lawful to prosecute the offender as for simple larceny ;' the words 'small value' are very indefinite: they are taken from a repealed act of Geo. II., but in that act the making the offence simple larceny necessarily limited the value to less than 18.; whereas, the distinction of grand and petty larceny being now abolished, there now remains nothing to fix any precise sum. We do not very much admire in an act of parliament such language as, and that the punishment of offenders may be less frequently intercepted in consequence of technical niceties.' We should prefer the old established phraseology, 'that offenders may not escape punishment through defects of form,' &c. as being at once more definite and more simple,-and we think the phrase in 7 and 8 Geo. IV. c. 29, s. 65, 'hear and determine a case ex parte,' is somewhat lax in a statute. We might mention other instances of a similar kind.

The brevity of the new clauses, in comparison with the ordinary style of acts of parliament, is truly remarkable. The following simple provision (7 and 8 Geo. IV. c. 29, s. 25,)—

Be it enacted, That if any person shall steal any horse, mare, gelding, colt, or filly; or any bull, cow, ox, heifer, or calf; or any ram, ewe, sheep, or lamb: or shall wilfully kill any of such cattle, with intent to steal the carcase, or skin, or any part of the cattle so killed, every such offender shall be guilty of felony, and being convicted thereof, shall suffer death as a felon❜

was to be sought for in its substance in not less than four statutes of Henry VIII., and Elizabeth, and George II., containing considerably above one hundred lines; and yet we are not able to see that the substance of the former enactments has been lost or injured in the compression. By way of an example of the concise style of Mr, Peel's clauses, as contrasted with those of other

acts,

acts, even of modern days, we give his consolidation of the laws making it felonious to steal cotton and other goods while in the progress of manufacture. The old law on the subject was in two statutes-the 22 Car. II. c. 5, and the 51 Geo. III. c. 41. The former was as follows:

'Whereas many evil-disposed persons have of late, more frequently than in former times, used and practised the cutting of cloth and other woollen manufactures, in the night time, off from the racks or tenters, where the said cloth is put for the drying thereof, and feloniously steal and carry away the same, to the utter undoing and impoverishing of many clothiers, and the great hinderance in the trade of clothing:

[And whereas by an act made in the one-and-thirtieth year of the reign of the late Queen Elizabeth, it is, amongst other things, enacted, That if any person, having the charge or custody of any armour, ordnance, munition, shot, powder, habiliments of war of the said queen, her heirs, or successors, or of any victuals provided for the victualling of any soldiers, gunners, mariners, or pioneers, shall, for any lucre or gain, or willingly, advisedly, and of purpose to hinder or impeach her majesty's service, embezzle, purloin, or convey away the same armour, ordnance, munition, shot, or powder, habiliments of war, or victuals, to the value of twenty shillings, at one or several times; that then every such offence shall be adjudged felony, and the offender therein to be proceeded on and suffer, as in case of felony ;] unto the committing of which several offences many persons are the more emboldened, in respect that in those cases the benefit of clergy is allowed by law:

Be it therefore enacted by the king's most excellent majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal, and the commons in this present parliament assembled, and the authority thereof, That no person or persons who shall, from and after the five-and-twentieth day of May, in the year of our Lord one thousand, six-hundred, and seventy, be indicted for feloniously cutting and taking, and stealing or carrying away of any cloth or other woollen manufacture from the rack or tenter, in the night time, [or for any offence committed against the first recited act, made in the said oneand-thirtieth year of Queen Elizabeth; or shall feloniously steal or embezil any of his majesty's sails, cordage, or any other his majesty's naval stores, to the value of twenty shillings,*] and be thereupon found guilty by verdict of twelve men, or shall confess the same upon his or their arraignment, or will not answer directly to the same, according to the laws of this realm; or shall stand wilfully or of malice and obstinately mute, or challenge peremptorily above the number of twenty; or shall be upon such indictment outlawed: shall and after the five-and-twentieth day of May, not be admitted to have the benefit

* We have given the whole act, though the parts marked within brackets, it will be seen, do not relate to the offence of stealing manufactured goods it affords another instance of the heterogeneous composition of old acts of parliament.

of

of his or their clergy, but utterly be excluded thereof, and shall suffer death in such manner and form as they should if they were no clerks.

• Provided always, and be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That it shall and may be lawful for the judges or justices of the court before whom such offender shall be arraigned and condemned, at their discretion, to grant a reprieve, for the staying of execution of such offender, and to cause such offender to be transported to any of his majesty's plantations beyond the seas, there to remain for the space of seven years, to be accounted for the time of such transportation, and during all that time there to be kept to labour. And if such offender shall refuse to be so transported, and after such transportation shall return or come again into this kingdom of England, or the dominion of Wales, or town of Berwick-upon-Tweed, within the times aforesaid; that then and in every such case, the person so returning shall be put to execution upon the judgment so given and pronounced against him.'

The above statute did not apply to linen goods, which gave occasion to the following verbose enactment :-51 Geo. III. c. 41. 'Whereas, by an act passed in the eighteenth year of the reign of his majesty King George the Second, entitled " An Act for the more effectual preventing the stealing of linen, fustian, and cotton goods and wares, in buildings, fields, grounds, and other places used for printing, whitening, bleachiug, or drying the same;" it is, amongst other things, enacted, That every person who at any time after the first day of June, one thousand, seven hundred, and forty-five, shall by day or night feloniously steal any linen, fustian, calico, cotton cloth, or cloth worked, woven, or made of any cotton or linen yarn mixed; or any thread, linen, or cotton yarn; linen or cotton tape, incle, filleting laces; or any other linen, fustian, or cotton goods or wares whatsoever, laid, placed, or exposed to be printed, whitened, bowked, bleached, or dried, in any whitening or bleaching croft, lands, fields, grounds, bowking-house, drying-house, printing-house, or other building, ground, or place made use of by any calico-printer, whitster, crofter, bowker, or bleacher, for printing, whitening, bowking, bleaching, or drying of the same, to the value of twenty shillings; or who shall aid or assist, or shall wilfully and maliciously hire or procure any person or persons to commit any such offence; or who shall buy or receive any such goods or wares so stolen, knowing the same to be stolen as aforesaid; being lawfully convicted thereof, shall be guilty of felony, and that every such offender shall suffer death, as in cases of felony, without benefit of clergy. And whereas the said act has not been found effectual for the prevention of the crimes therein mentioned; and it is therefore expedient that so much of the said act as is hereinbefore recited should be repealed: and whereas it might tend more effectually to prevent the aforesaid crimes, if the same were punishable more severely than simple larceny: Be it therefore enacted by the king's most excellent majesty, and with the advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal, and commons

in