The Sun.
London, England, 1864-02-16 00:00:00

of the late court martial at Aldershot were to be paid,
whether the house would be asked to grant money for that
purpose ; and, if so, when such grant would be prc posed ?
The Marquis of HARTINGTON said it would not be
necessary to lay any particular items in reference to that
court-martial on the table, but they would be spread over
different votes that would be submitted to the house.
COLONIAL REFORM.
Sir G. BOWYER asked the Under Secretary of State
for the: colonies whether her Majesty's Government had
received an important petition from Malta, asking for re-
form in the Colonial Government?
Mr. C. FORTESCUE said that the document in
question had been only just received, and it would meet
the careful consideration of the Government.
THE ALLEGED ARMISTICE.
Mr. DISRAELI asked if the armistice which he under.
stood from the First Lord of the Treasury on Friday last had
been proposed by the Government had been accepted by the
contending powers. _ _

Mr. LA..YARD said that an answer had been received
by her Majesty's Government, from which it appeared that
the proposal was not likely to be accepted.
INSANE PRISONERS ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
Sir G. GREY moved the second reading of this bill.
Mr. HARDY, in objecting to the provisions of the bill,
entered into the circumstances connected with the case of
the convict Townley, which he said would not be met with
in the bill. He would suggest, therefore, that the bill
should apply to all persons sentenced to imprisonment or
penal servitude; but that in the case of a person sentenced
to death, if it should appear to the visiting justices that he
was insane, they should make a representation to the Home
Secretary, who should thereupon issue a commission of in-
quiry, to be judicially conducted, and the report of which
should be published and be binding on the Secretary of
States, without however affecting the prerogative of the
Crown. He also suggested that such commission should
include medical men, or that medical men should be brought
in evidence before it, and that it should be to all intents and
purposes an independent tribunal.
Mr. MACDONOGH thought the effect of passing the
bill would be to give an assent to the construction put upon
the words of the existing law by the Secretary of State, and
to render the words "it shall be lawful" absolutely manda-
tory; and this in principle would be wrong.
Sir C. O'LOGHLEN supported the bill, but regretted
that it was confined to England, instead of being extended
to the whole of the United Kingdom.
Mr. SCOURFIELD also approved of the bill, because
it concentrated the responsibilityZof the Home Office, and
did away with all concurrent jurisdiction.
Mr. D. SEYMOUR noticed, as an omission from the
bill, that there was no provision to meet the case of the
prisoner who had become insane after sentence of death and
subsequently recovered. 1
Mr. HUNT was of opinion that the only case in which
an investigation as to the state of mind of a prisoner was
necessary was where it had been represented that he had
become insane subsequent to the passing of the sentence.
Sir G. BOWYER said that Mr. Harwood, one of the
medical practitioners who signed the Townley certificate,
was not a registered practitioner under the Medical Act,
and yet the Lord Chancellor, on being applied to by the
Secretary for the Home Department on the subject, held
that the certificate was perfectly valid, although the 27th
section of the Medical Act provided that no certificate re-
quired by any act of Parliament from a medical practitioner
should be valid unless the person signing the same were re-
gistered under that act. Now, which was right, the act of
Parliament or the Lord Chancellor? His (Sir G. Bowyer's)
opinion was that medical men should not be required to act
as judges, but that they should be produced as experts to
give their opinion in answer to questions that might be put
them. He understood the common law to be that if a man,
after the sentence of death, fell into that state of mind in
which he was not responsible for his actions, in which if he
had been at the time of the commission of the act the law
would have acquitted him on the ground of insanity, then
he had the benefit of the exemption from punishment which
the law gives to persons in that unfortunate condition,
which had been said by a great authority to be a sufficient
punishment. That was the legal idea of insanity, but if
they joined the lawyers and doctors together they would be
at cross purposes. It occurred to him that a commission
should be formed, certainly not of medical men, but of
persons accustomed to the performance of judicial func-
tions ; and he was inclined to think that the suggestion
that the question of a prisoner's insanity should be tried by
a jury was the only sound constitutional suggestion that
had been made. But whether tried by a jury or by com-
missioners, he contended that medical men should not be
judges, but only witnesses as experts in such questions. It
seemed to him to be a great defect in the law that when
medical men were produced before a judge and jury to give
evidence with regard to the insanity of a prisoner they ap-
peared in fact as advocates, receiving fees on one side for
the prosecution and on the other side for the defence. The
medical men in these cases ought to be called by the judge
or by some person who had nothing to do or to desire,
but to ascertain the truth. They ought not to appear as
advocates to make out particular doctrines. (Hear, hear).
Sir "W. JOLLIFFE readily admitted that the bill would
be sufficient to meet ordinary cases of imprisonment; but
he did not believe that it would either extricate the Secre-
tary of State from his difficulties or satisfy the public in the
cases of persons who were under sentence of death. He
recommended that the measure should be so framed that an
inquiry should be taken in those cases only where insanity
had supervened upon conviction.
Sir F. KELLY hoped that capital cases would not be
included in the bill at all, and that in any case where in-
sanity was suggested it should be sufficient to report or
reprepresent to the Secretary of State or the justices that a
prisoner was supposed to be insane, in urder to secure a
proper inquiry.
Sir G. GREY said he wished, before replying to the
suggestions which had been made, to express his sense of
the fairness, candour, and generosity which had marked
the discussion. (Hear, hear.) With reference to what
had been suggested about capital cases not being brought
under the same rule as other cases, he should consider
that and some other legal suggestions before the next
stage of the bill. It had occurred to him that it was
right to include all classes of prisoners ; for the object of
the Act of George IV. was to remove all insane prisoners
from prisons to lunatic asylums, in order that they
might receive proper care and treatment. It was said
that the certificate had the effect of setting aside the ver-
dict of a jury. But the verdict of the jtuy only found
that at the time of the commission of the offence the
prisoner was in a state of sound mind. The question as
to whether he was of sound mindwas not raised in Town..
ley'scase. What weighed on the mind of the judge was the
evidence given by the two medical men at the trial had no
reference to the state of Townley's mind when the offence
was committed, but at the time they saw the prisoner. The
judge accordingly, in a most marked way, had called his
attention to the fact that the prisoner might have become
insane since, although the verdict was right, which pointed
only to the time of the offence. A still stronger case than
this had occurred two or three years ago at Newcastle,
where, although the prisoner was sane at the time of the
offence, yet, owing to his demeanour while the trial was
proceeding, the judge entertained a belief that the prisoner
had become insane subsequently to the commission of the
crime, which turned out to be actually the case. Ho was
still of opinion that it, was a wise provision to authorise the
visiting justices to call in two medical men and institute a
solemn inquiry, in order to set the Secretary of State in
motion. Taking all the circumstances into account, he
thought it was better to leave the increased responsibility
upon the Secretary of State of directing further inquiry in
all cases of doubt, so as to satisfy himself whether he would
be justified in interfering with the execution of the sentence
or not. In reference to the difficulty started by the hon.
and learned member for Southampton (Mr. D. Seymour),
he had no hesitation in saying that the words of the bill
were quite strong enough to justify the execution of a pri-
soner under the circumstances of Townley on his restora-
tion to sanity. They had not proposed its extension to
Ireland and Scotland, as that would have necessitated the
consolidation of a great number of statutes, besides which
there were no visiting justices in Ireland. At the same
time he admitted that the whole subject of criminal lunacy
was in a very unsatisfactory state, and that a review of the
law was most desirable. (Hear, hear.)
The bill was then read a second time, and ordered for
committal on Friday.
CONVEYANCERS, &c , (IRELAND) BILL.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND moved
the second reading of this bill, the object of which is to
render it necessary for conveyancers in Ireland to obtain
an order from the benchers of the King's Inn, in Dublin,
before they can be permitted to practise. At present they
obtained a certificate of practice simply upon payment of a
sum of money to,the Stamp-office; while in England no one
could practise as a conveyancer without the certificate of the
benchers of the inn to which the candidate belonged,
Mr. M'MAHON hoped a clause would be inserted in the
bill enabling English conveyancers, special pleaders, equity
draughtsmen,
and barristers to practise in Ireland, and vice
versa,

Mr. GEORGE eulogised the proposal.
The bill was read a second time.
MALT FOR CATTLE BILL.
On the order of the day for the second reading of this bill,
Sir U. STRACEY, whilst supporting the measure as
harmless and innocent in itself, said he could not discover
in it anything in respect of which the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer was entitled to gratitude. He regarded it, in short,
as a mere sop to close the mouth of the farmer, who justly
complained of the burdens on land, and as intended for little
else than to curry favour with agricultural constituencies
in view of a coming election.
Mr. BRISCOE considered the measure would boa great
boon, for ho btlieved that farmers would fatten three oxen
where they only fattened two now, and five sheep in lieu
of three.
E said that, when the heavy charges on the
land
wererA etakenK into account, the bill could only bo looked
upon as a mere trifle.
Mr. P. URQUIIART declared himself in favour of a
total repeal of the malt tax, as the only measure which
would give satisfaction to the farmers.
Mr. BENTINCK also observed that what was wanted,
as soon as it could be obtained, was total repeal, and any-
thing which inrerposed to prevent that result, as this bill
did, was a hostile proceeding.
Sir E. DERING said the effect of the bill would be to