ed out that two out
of the three had not been strong enough; and that, had they alone been
used, the fish must have escaped.

Let us see how the new rule laid down by the House of Lords will operate
in future, in such a case as the one above supposed; bearing in mind
that it will have to be acted upon, not merely by the judges of the
superior courts at the assizes, but by the chairmen--the _lay_
chairmen--of the courts of Quarter-Sessions. Let us imagine the
indictment to be a long one, and each count necessarily complicated in
its allegations and refinements, to meet very doubtful facts, or very
doubtful language in an Act of Parliament. A great number of prisoners
are to be tried; but, nevertheless, the judge (lay or professional) has
mastered the formidable record, and points out to the jury two bad
counts, A and B, as either not hitting the facts of the case or the
language of the act--possibly neither. He orders them to be quashed, or
directs a verdict of not guilty upon them. He then has the verdict and
judgment entered accordingly on count C, (the count which he considers
good.) The record is afterwards made up; a writ of error brought; the
only count on which the judgment is given being C, the court of error
_decides that it is bad_, reverses the judgment, and the prisoner is
discharged; or the country is put to the expense and trouble of
bringing, and the prisoner unjustly harrassed by, fresh proceedings,
which may, perhaps, end as disastrously as before!

To escape from these serious difficulties, it is proposed by Lord
Denman,[18] to leave the legal sufficiency of the counts for discussion
before a court of error, and to pass, not one sentence, but three
distinct sentences on each count respectively, apportioning to the
offence thereby apparently charged, the degree of punishment due to the
guilt disclosed. Keeping his eye on the alarming possibility of a
reversal of judgment, what difficulties will not beset the path of the
judge while engaged on this very critical duty? And why may not the
indictment, for _necessary_ caution's sake, contain, as there often are,
ten, fifteen, or twenty counts? we shall then have ten or fifteen
distinct sentences delivered in open court--engrossed on the record--and
dangling at once around the neck of the astounded and bewildered
prisoner. Is _such_ a method of procedure calculated to secure respect
for the administration of justice, even if, by means of such devices,
the e