The decision in the case of Cawthorne v. H.M.A. is reviewed. Cawthorne has rightly been regarded as an authoritative statement of what may constitute the crime of attempted murder. However, it is not entirely clear whether that decision was, in effect, making new law or merely restating what had always been the law. Although they are inconsistent on some points of the case, all the opinions in Cawthorne agree that if a person commits an act which would have been murder had the victim died, the person will be guilty of attempted murder if fortuitously the victim survives. In general, the Scottish law of murder is not clear in the case of attempted murder. The consequences of the decision in Cawthorne are discussed, and several problem issues are raised. Treatment of these laws in England, Wales, Australia, Canada, and the United States is outlined briefly. Finally, the views of consultees are sought on whether the present law of attempted homicide is satisfactory. Several possible reforms are suggested. Footnotes and questions consultees were asked are provided: a paper by Mr. H.D.B. Morton is appended.