« PreviousContinue »
Falconer, judge of the county courts of Brecknockshire, and Mr. Yates, judge of the county courts of Cheshire, there were blanks (19 & 20 Vict., c. 108, s. 81).
An error of a somewhat more serious nature occurred in the act 9 Geo. IV., c. 55, which consolidated the laws in Ireland relating to larceny. The 46th section of that act recites, that a failure of justice arises from the subtle distinction between larceny and fraud, and enacts that the obtaining of property by any false pretence, and with intent to defraud, shall be treated as a misdemeanour. Then follows the following proviso :-“Provided always, that if, upon the trial of any person indicted for such misdemeanour, it shall be proved that he obtained the property in question in any such manner as to amount in law to larceny, he shall by reason thereof be entitled to be acquitted of such misdemeanour.” Six years after the passing of this act, it was amended by the 5 & 6 Will. IV., c. 34, which enacted that the act in question should be construed as if the word “not” had been originally inserted between the words “shall” and “ by.” Is it possible to imagine any thing more careless than the mistake, or more clumsy than the amendment ?
It was reserved for Lord Palmerston, in his gay and cheerful manner, to call the attention of the House, a year or two ago, to a bill in which, by a grammatical error, the case of Good Friday falling on a Sunday was carefully and religiously provided for!
But it is in the composition of " titles” and “ short titles” to acts that the draftsman usually displays his ingenuity, the flexibility of the English language, and his philological learning. How marvellously happy are some of the curious combinations we find spread over the statute book! For instance, “The Companies Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845,” is a combination of words which is surpassed only by that in the title, “ Lands Clauses Consolidation Scotland Act, 1845.” Then again, “An Act to amend the Smoke Nuisance Abatement Metropolis Act, 1853," is an elegant, though not purporting to be a “short” title. Dublin and other Roads Turnpikes Abolition Act, 1855,” is very good; but there are two specimens quoted by the com.
Failure and Fate of the Statute Law Commission.
missioners as being “very unlike pure English,” which far excel any we have yet mentioned; these are, “The Metropolitan Improvements Repayment out of Consolidated Fund Act 1853," and “The Great Southern and Western Railway Ireland Extension Portarlington to Tullamore Act 1847.”
These specimens are taken quite at random ; hosts of titles of a similar nature may easily be found. In the last session a bill was introduced "To amend the drafts on the Bankers' Law Amendment Act, by repealing the fourth clause of the said act;" and an act was passed, the short title to which is, as observed by Mr. Toulmin Smith in his useful “Parliamentary Remembrancer," a curious misnomer. The act in question repeals the acts ordering certain days to be kept, one with fasting and humiliation, and the others with thanksgiving; but these acts did not require, or even authorize, any peculiar forms of prayer, and yet the repealing act has for its short title, “ The Occasional Forms of Prayer Act !
Three years have now elapsed since the commissioners advised the appointment of a revising officer or board; but their advice has received no attention beyond that which we have already mentioned. There appear to be difficulties in the way; some think parliament would be delegating its powers by allowing any officer or board to meddle with the wording of a bill. Others, again, think that a large staff of assistants would be required, who would have enough to do during the sitting of parliament, but who would be idle during the rest of the year; and the chancellor of the exchequer, no doubt, thinks of the expense. On the other hand, it is urged that private bills are now submitted to standing committees; that the chairmen have their counsel who advise them; and therefore there can be no reason why public bills should not be submitted to similar standing committees, or why the chairmen of these committees should not be advised by the proposed officer.
There cannot be any objection to this mode of proceeding, and, the fear of expense ought not to deter parliament from taking this matter seriously into consideration. To a country like ours, a few thousands a year expended with the view of attaining something
like sensible legislation, are unworthy of consideration; and we trust that in the grand scheme for consolidation, which we are led to expect will be completely unfolded in the next session of parliament, current legislation will not be forgotten.
One word more : Mr. Bellenden Ker, in his evidence before the committee of the House, expressed his horror at the very notion of a revising board. We have as much horror of boards as Mr. Ker; but how is it that the commissioners, in so very simple à question as this, could not decide whether the revision of bills ought to be intrusted to a single officer or to a board? Why did these twenty learned men leave this knotty point still to be decided by Her Most Gracious Majesty, whom they were called upon to advise ? To the indecision of the commissioners on this, as on all other points, may principally be attributed the neglect with which their second report (the best of the three) has been treated, the indifference and incredulity with which proposeil future efforts are now met, and the discredit to which this important branch of law reform has unhappily attained.
Art. X.-On Poisons, in relation to Medical Jurisprudence and
Medicine. By ALFRED SWAINE TAYLOR, M.D., &c. Second Edition. London: Churchill. 1859.
SOME of our readers might suppose that the word Poison was
that the word Poison was so clear in its meaning that no difficulty would arise from its use in common or scientific language. And yet so far is this from being the case, that we have never seen an adequate definition of the word. M. Bernard (in his “Leçons sur les Effets des Substances Toxiques,”) says, a correct definition is impossible; but adds, that here, as in other instances where definition is most difficult, it is least requisite. The like reflection may have consoled Dr. Johnson when he asked the pert midshipman what “poplolly” was, and obtained for reply, that
VOL. VII. NO. XIII,
it was "what the poplolly man put into the poplolly locker.” The medical practitioner at least will be aware that the same incapacity for definition belongs to the word “medicine.” “No one,” says Dr. Taylor, can draw a definite boundary between a poison and a medicine" -a fact to which they who have been much physicked can give ready credence. The greater number of poisons are useful medicines when properly employed, and “ nearly every substance in the catalogue of medicine may be converted into an instrument of death, if improperly administered." The old proverb, indeed, that “what is one man's meat is another's poison,” also confirms this view.
The popular notion of a poison is obviously too imperfect for scientific consideration; for that is commonly supposed to be a poison which, when administered in small quantity, tends to destroy life or health. However, a small dose of certain substances for instance, tartarized antimony—is a medicine, while it is a poison when a large dose is administered. Let us take another instance-that of common salt. In the small doses in which we all indulge, this substance is a food, and one which it would be cruel persecution to deprive us of; but if, like a selfdoctoring young lady whose case is recorded, we were to swallow half-a-pound thereof, in a few hours later the coroner would sit on our bodies, and our heirs, executors, administrators, or creditors, as the case may be, would enter upon our estates.
The nature of various substances, in a toxicological point of view, and the loose use of the term poison generally, is of no small practical importance. It is by no means uncommon for the counsel for the defence, in a charge of poisoning, in the cross-examination of a medical witness, to press upon him the question whether the material alleged to have been fatally used was strictly poison. Thus, in a case mentioned by Dr. Taylor, a woman named Whisker administered to a female, for a specific purpose, some white hellebore. Now this vegetable one medical witness hesitated to rank as a poison, because, though it was noxious to the human system, he knew of no case where it had
produced death! So an objection was taken to the indictment that hellebore was not poison. The judge thereupon is reported to have laid down the law to the jury, that what was in ordinary language understood to be a poison, was to be legally held to be such. The jury very properly found that white hellebore was a poison, and the prisoner was convicted. Thus, although it is a question for the jury to consider as to whether a particular drug or other substance is a poison, yet their verdict must be derived from the medical evidence. The mere question of a poison or medicine, may be illustrated by the case of a wretched woman called Rodanbosh, who, in 1856, was indicted for administering oil of turpentine to her infant. The defence was, that she thought it would cure its cough !-probably just as the guillotine is said to be a perfect remedy for squinting. Here the jury acquitted the prisoner. Again, in another case, emanating from that great poisoning county Essex, a woman escaped conviction because white precipitate was not proved on the trial to be a “poison or destructive thing," although it undoubtedly is both.
Although, as we have seen, it will be occasionally difficult for a medical man to say, abstractedly, that a certain drug or substance is poison, yet he will surely find it impossible to affirm that such has or has not "poisoned” a particular individual, or been destructive of his life. Thus, certain metals are not “poison ”-iron or silver, for example; yet their introduction into the human body may be very "destructive to life.” One recent instance is on record (Med. Soc., Lond., 1856), where a greedy boy, having been told to “take a spoon,” did so_by swallowing a silver one seven inches long. Although, on all chirurgical grounds, this enfant terrible ought to have died, yet his life was preserved, and he was enabled, after a lapse of two years, honestly to restore to his anxious parents' plate-basket the article he had thus curiously appropriated and secreted. This instance ought not to be taken as a precedent for swallowing metal substances indiscriminately; for pieces of metal of much less size and importance are often destructive of life, e. g., copper coin, needles, and pins. The latter are used especially for the