wives than one; eo quod leges Britannorum bucufque id nunquam probibuiffent, for that the laws of Britain had not yet forbidden

it.

Marriage, it must be allowed, on the footing of its prefent inftitution, is an engagement of the most folemn nature, and the facred pledge of mutual conftancy given at the altar, cannot be violated by any who have a due sense of religion and morality. It is, therefore, highly juft, that the law should punish fuch violation; but it must be confeft, that there is great difficulty in pointing out the most effectual means of anfwering the purposes which the law ought to have in contemplation in this reípect.

If the offending party be the husband, and he has any property to forfeit, does it not feem juft and expedient that a great part of it fhould be allotted to the feparate ufe of the innocent wife; or, in cafe he derives that property from his marriage, that it be refunded to the wife. Again,

If the wife be the offender, and poffeffed of property, which the Law vefts in the hufband, might not the guilty wife be punished with imprisonment, and a lefs allowance for provifion, &c. than her rank and condition intitled her to? And in all cafes where the offenders have no property, might they not be obliged to labour for the benefit of the injured parties, as likewife for a fine to the Fisk?

5.

W1

SECT. V.

Of Mayhem.

ITH regard to Mayhem, indeed, the Law does not appear to be too fevere: For in the Statute which makes it capital, there is a juft and prudent provifo, that there fhall be no corruption of blood, lofs of dower, or of lands, goods, or chattels, of the offender.

The Statute respecting Mayhem is 5 Hen. IV. chap. 5. Before the making of this act,

fays

fays lord Coke, when any one had been beaten, wounded, maimed, or robbed, &c. the mifdoers, to the end that the party aggrieved might not be able to accufe them, did cut out their tongues, or put out their eyes, on pretence that the fame was no felony.

To prove malice in this crime, the act must be voluntary and of fet purpose, though done on a fudden occafion; and then the Law will imply malice.

We read in Bracton, that the cutting off a man's privy members was felony by the Common Law: For he faith, Quid dicitur fi quis alterius virilia abfciderit, et illum libidinis caufa, vel convitii caftraverit? Tenetur five boc volens fecerit vel invitus, et fequitur pæna aliquando capitalis, aliquando perpetuum exilium, cum omni bonorum ademptione. Fleta faith, Siquis caftrata fuerit, talis pro mahemiato poterit adjudicari.

With this account, old Juftice Sennal, in the Mirror, agrees, and fo the Law is held

held to be at this day; and in the appeal and indictment of Mayhem, it is faid, felo- nicê maybemavit. Cutting off ears is no felony, as appears by the Statute 37 Hen. VIII. vide Staundf. pl. coron. cap. 27: The offender fhall have the benefit of his clergy, 3 Inft. ch. 13.

СНАР. Х.

Of Private Felonies against the Goods of the Subjett.

PRIVATE Felonies against the goods of the fubject may be committed, by 1. Simple Larceny. 2. Mixt Larceny. 3. Pi1 racy:

SECT. I.

Of Simple Larceny.

1. SIMPLE Larceny is of two forts. 1. Grand Larceny. 2. Petit Lar

ceny.

1. Grand Larceny is a felonious and fraudulent taking and carrying away, by man or woman, the mere perfonal goods of another, above the value of twelvepence; not from the perfon, or by night in the house of the owner. This offence is ca-pital.

2. Petit Larceny is where the goods ftolen do not exceed the value of twelvepence. If one is indicted for ftealing of goods of the value of forty fhillings, and the jury find specially, as they may, that the value is but ten-pence, it is but Petit Larceny, punishable with forfeiture of goods and chattels, tranfportation, whip

ping,