Well, whiles I am a beggar, I will rail And say there is no sin but to be rich; And being rich, my virtue then shall be To say there is no vice but beggary.

Does he go to the museum in order to steal the Mona Lisa if it is there and unguarded; or does he go there anyway, but will seize the chance if it presents himself? … Insofar as his intention to steal is not given concrete actualisation, as the meaning or pattern of his actions, its culpability is (like its existence) aetiolated; but I see nothing problematic in saying that he is culpable for forming, maintaining and acting on a wrongful intention.

A grain of musk will scent a drawer for many years, and still lose nothing appreciable of its original weight.

The object of the court in interpreting legislation is to give effect so far as the language permits to the intention of the legislature. If the language proves to be ambiguous I can see no sound reason not to consult Hansard to see if there is a clear statement of the meaning that the words were intended to carry. The days have long passed when the courts adopted a strict constructionist view of interpretation which required them to adopt the literal meaning of the language. … I cannot agree with the view that consulting Hansard will add so greatly to the cost of litigation, that on this ground alone we should refuse to do so. Modern technology greatly facilitates the recall and display of material held centrally. I have to confess that on many occasions I have had recourse to Hansard, of course only to check if my interpretation had conflicted with an express Parliamentary intention, but I can say that it does not take long to recall and assemble the relevant passages in which the particular section was dealt with in Parliament, nor does it take long to see if anything relevant was said.