session and to put into his own possession as a
thief. Special acts also were passed for protection
of property at the Post-office and Bank of
England. But after all that had been done in
the way of patch and darn in the last year of
the last century, it was held that no sort of
interpretation would make it felony in a banker's
clerk to put into his own pocket a bank-note
paid to a customer's account across the counter.
This difficulty was met by a special statute of
embezzlement, which led to the acquittal of
many persons obviously guilty of embezzlement,
because they had been indicted for theft. Twelve
years ago, this new difficulty was met by another
act for the suppression of such quibbles, which
has, after all, only shifted the ground of
difficulty. By the new arrangement, if a man guilty
of theft be indicted for embezzlement, he can
be convicted of theft. But if it can be then
shown that his crime was, after all, embezzlement,
the conviction is quashed, and the man goes free.

And all this course of legislation to correct
an elementary and very simple fault in the first
definition of theft, was only designed to meet
one sort of difficulty. Fifty years ago, it was
for the first time discovered that there was no
check upon dishonesty in factors, agents, and
bankers. A stockbroker, named Benjamin
Walsh, was tried at the Old Bailey for stealing
from Sir Thomas Plumer, eleven thousand five
hundred pounds, part of the proceeds of a cheque
given him for the purchase of Exchequer bills.
It was held that the indictment could not be
supported, "because there was no fraud or
contrivance to induce Sir Thomas Plumer to give
the cheque; because it could not be called his
goods or chattels, and was of no value in his
hands; because he never had possession of the
money received for it at the bankers, so that it
could not be called his money; and because the
bankers were discharged of the money by paying
it on the cheque, so that they were not
defrauded, and it could not be said that the
money was stolen from them." This sort of
case was also met by a special enactment, which
still left unpunished all fraudulent breaches of
trust, except those committed by bankers,
merchants, brokers, attorneys, or other agents, in
violation of express written directions. The
scandal of a fraudulent trustee led afterwards,
and not very long ago, to more special
enactments for including more cases of breach of
trust. But still the original defect of an
imperfect definition of theft was not cured. A
clergyman, treasurer to a local missionary
society, pocketed money that he ought to have
paid to the central committee. The trustee of
a friendly society pocketed forty pounds that
he was directed by a resolution of the lodge
to take to a bank and pay in. In each case
the law said that the offender was no thief,
because he was not obliged to pay the
identical coins received, and therefore did not
come under the act that covers larceny by a
bailee.

The confusion and injustice thus produced, as
the needs of civilised society outgrew a legislation
fitted for much ruder times, and while fresh
legislation consisted wholly in the patching and
darning of the holes and rents in the old
garment, were denounced at the end of the last
century by Jeremy Bentham. During the last
forty years, great efforts have been made to
reduce the law to order, and in these no man
has laboured more patiently, discreetly, and
successfully, than the veteran reformer Lord
Brougham. There have been in criminal law,
already three successive sets of Consolidation
Acts. The last set was passed only two years
ago. They repeal all former acts on the subjects
to which they refer, and contain the pith
of what is now the working criminal law of the
land.

WOUNDED SOLDIERS.

THE benevolent author of A Souvenir of
Solferino* has the satisfaction of seeing his good
work prosper. Three thousand copies of his book
have been sold, and a fourth edition is about to
appear. It has been translated into German,
English, Dutch, and Italian; a Swedish version
is near completion. Whether an European war
is to be avoided or not, a few months, or weeks,
will show; but if ever war be excusable, it is
surely when waged against monsters who make
parents suffer for children, and children pay the
penalty of parents; who indiscriminately imprison
young and old; who burn human beings alive,
thrusting them back when they escape from the
flames; who inflict ineffable horrors on widowed
women; who hang girls of seventeen, and venerable
priests for carrying lint to the wounded and
giving absolution to the moribund. Even in an
unjust war, the soldier, the irresponsible agent of
another's will, merits our pity when maimed and
suffering; how much more will he deserve our
active sympathy if, as is only too possible, he
suffer in fighting against such a dismal, dreary,
and abominable system?

* See page 283 of the present volume.

M. Dunant's charitable idea has already received
the countenance of several governments.
Several sovereigns have declared that they will
take under their immediate protection and
personal patronage, the societies which shall be
formed for this benevolent object; and several
other potentates—those of Baden, Belgium,
France, Hesse, Holland, Italy, Prussia, Spain,
Sweden, and Wurtemberg—have also expressed
their good will and approbation.

In each country the leading idea has naturally
assumed a special form, in accordance with the
circumstances of the nation. In Holland, for
instance, Prince Frederic is at this moment causing
inquiry to be made how far the task of
International Societies for aiding wounded soldiers
can be combined with (and receive an immediate
commencement of execution, for the countries
of the North) the office and the new regulations