The Sun.
London, England, 1852-03-31 00:00:00

LONDON,

WEDNESDAY EVENING, MARCH 3l, 1852.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, March 30.
ROYAL COMMISSION.
The Royal Assent was given by Commission this day,
at Four o'clock, to the Consolidated Fund Bill.
The Lords Commissioners were the Lord Chancellor,
the Earl of Lonsdale, and the Marquis of Salisbury.
Their Lordships then adjourned during pleasure.
At Five o'clock the LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat
on the Woolsack, and the House resumed.
TREATMENT OF LUNATICS.
Lord BEAUMONT presented a petition from the
Alleged Lunatic Friends' Society, praying for improve-
ments in the present system of the administration of
justice in cases of lunacy.
THE CRYSTAL PALACE.
Lord CAMPBELL rose to put a question to the
Noble Earl (Derby) opposite with respect to
the Crystal Palace. No man more admired
that beautiful edifice, or better appreciated the
talent of Sir J. Paxto❑ than ho had; but he thought
that the time was arrived when, having satisfied the
purposes for which it was erected, it should now dis-
appear. A Commission had been appointed to inquire
into the subject, and he believed that its report had been
unfavourable to its retention. Ho therefore wished to
know what wore the intentions of her Majesty's present
Government with regard to the Crystal Palace ?
The Earl of DERBY said that the views of her
Majesty's Government, after due consideration, were
in accordance with the recommendation of the Commi::-
sion, that this beautiful building, after having answered
the purposes for which it was erected, should now dis-
appear.

etanee to the Lord Chancellor, and he Mentioned the Lord
Chancellor, not in his capacity as such, but as having a war-
rant under the sign manual giving him jurisdiction in all these
matters. The commissioner made his report o❑ the petition ;
after this the order was made. This was a course of proceed-
ing attended with great expense. In a recent case, where an
estate of 501. was in question, it cost from 601. to 70/. to
make an application and obtain permission to grant a lease.
It was the same when repairs were in question; nothing
could be done without the consent of the Lord Chancellor,
and permission to effect repairs of some 301. cost upwards of
601. for application. What he recommended was, that, as in
the Winding-up Acts and in the Irish Chancery Act lately
passed, this circuitous course should be put an end to; and
he proposed, accordingly, to make these applications, not to
the Lord Chancellor, but to the officer known as the master
of the lunatics, and that the order of this officer should be
binding, unless an appeal was made against it within seven
or ten days. This would cause an enormous saving ; and
he, therefore, hoped his Noble and Learned Friend would
accede to the proposition. There was another point most
material as connected with the administration of the estates
of lunatics. lie considered that the commission in many
instances was nqt necessary to be issued at all. In cases of
bankruptcy the commission was dispensed with, and the fiat
of the Lord Chancellor substituted in its stead This prece-
dent, he proposed, should be adopted in those instances, for
the purpose of saving expense to the estate. But an expense
much more inconvenient was that of the grant for the cus-
tody of the personal estate of a lunatic. This passed under
the Great Seal, and usually cost 25/. What he proposed
was, that the order under which the Great Seal was

affixed should be held the same as affixing the Great Seal
itself, and have the same effect. This would be a consider-

- „
able saving of money. He came next to inquiries into sound.
ness or unsoundness of mind under a commission of lunacy.
These inquiries sometimes ran to very great lengths, aris-
ing from the conflict of evidence. The course of proceed-
ing on them was the most simple imaginable. The counsel
for the commission opened the case as for the Crown, and
called witnesses in its support; the counsel for the lunatic
answered that statement, and called witnesses also to rebut
the case. It was the same as a trial at the assizes. The
cost attending these inquiries arose from the number of wit-
nesses, especially the medical witnesses, on both sides. This
could not, however, be interfered with without producing
great injustice—he spoke of cases fairly conducted, of course.
But what might be interfered with was the circumstance by
which the inquiry was not confined to one particular day,
but extended backward over a very considerable period. It
always appeared to him that a very inadequate advantage
accrued from this extension of the inquiry; it was his
opinion, on the contrary, that little or no good resulted
from entering into long past transactions. It did not

compensate for the expe;seoccasioned by prolonged inves-
tigation ; and he should submit to his Noble and Learned
Friend whether it would not be advisable to bring such in-
quiries within limits, either fixed by law, or left to the dis-
cretion of the commissioner. There was another circum-
stance relating to the execution of the commission. It

sometimes happened that under colour of interest in the
cause, and ostensibly for the protection of the lunatic, per-
sons carried on a defence against the commission for their
own costs in the inquiry. He proposed, therefore, to give
the commissioner absolute and entire discretion in such
cases to award such sum in the shape of costs as in his
judgment he should think met the justice of the case. An
impression had gone abroad that the length of the in-
quiries was intolerable; he had, however, made some in-
quiries into the facts, and he found that for the last ten
years not more than nineteen out of the groat mass of those
inquiries had occupied more than one day, and not more than
five had occupied two days. The cases which had been
complained of, therefore, should be looked upon as ex-
ceptions. Length of inquiry was not confined to lunacy
alone—it was caused by the conflict of evidence Not long
since there was an inquiry before one of the Vice-Chancel-
lors which lasted fifteen days; another occupied a similar
period of time.
Lord BROUGHAM—" Small and Attwood."
Lord LYNDHURST then referred to various cases in
which commissions had been issued, and verdicts returned
of unsoundness of mind, which verdicts were subsequently
set aside or confirmed by other commissions. Among
them was that of the late Mr. Dyce Sombre, who had been
examined by himself, and whose delusion was that he
would be very well if be was not exposed to overtures
from certain ladies of high rank. Another case was that
in which the individual had sent a challenge to the Arch-
bishop of Canterbury to meet him on a white charger in Hyde
Park, he being mounted on a black charger. Ile made re-
ference to these facts to show that where there was a conflict
of evidence in a case it should be heard through, and could
not be abridged. With respect to another point—namely,
the expense of the jury, he should offer a suggestion. Twenty-
, four jurymen were now summoned; the jury was, in fact,
in the nature of a grand inquest or grand jury. He pro-
posed that, unless notice was given of the intention to
require a jury, no jury should be summoned as of course,
but that the master of the lunatics should decide the ques-
tion as of himself. He also thought that even where a jury
was required less than twenty-four might be summoned.
He would not state any particular number, but that would
be an object of inquiry. It had been suggested that it would
be better to have no jury at all, but that the decision should
be left to the commission ; this, however, he had a strong
objection to. The lunatic had a right to a public investiga-
tion if it was required, and he (Lord Lyndhurst) should be
extremely sorry to see a jury dispensed with in those
cases. There was, however, another and a graver ob-
jection to dispense with a jury. On no subject was
there such a difference of opinion as on that
which constituted soundness or unsoundness of mind.
There was great danger, therefore, that the commis-
sioner might, when six medical men, for instance, were of
one opinion, and six of another, lean to either side—might
fancy this or that, and therefore it was far better in cases of
doubt and uncertainty to submit the evidence to the decision
of a jury, men commonly of plain, but practical understand-
ing. It had also been suggested that it would be better to
do away with inquiry by commission, and refer the question
of lunacy to the assizes in the country, or to analagoua juris.
dictions in the metropolis ; this, however, he not think
practicable; nay more, he thought it might be in-
jurious to the lunatic and expensive to his estate.
It was absolutely necessary, for instance, that the judge
and jury should see the lunatic, as in the present practice,
with the purpose of putting questions to him, which ques-
tions very often decided the issue. How could that be
done at assizes? Furthermore, the lunatic might get unduly
excited, and sustain irreparable injury by such open exami-
nation. At present, these inquiries were carried on very
often in the residence of the lunatic. Besides this, the wit-
nesses were usually examined on the spot where they carried
on their ordinary avocations. But if there was to be an in-
quiry at assizes, all these witnesses would have to be removed
to the place where the assize was held, and the expense to the
estate would be enormous. He saw no advantage, therefore,
in changing the tribunal ; more especially as no limit could
be placed on the length of the proceedings where the case
might be one of contested evidence. With respect to another
point, that of a new traverse, when twelve or more jurymen
expressed their opinion that a person was of unsound mind,
he had a right to carry his case before another judge and
jury of the same nature. This right had no doubt been
celled in question by Lord Ilardwicke and Lord Thur-
low ; but Lord Loughborough and Lord Eldon had
admitted it; and the decision of Lord Cottenham
in its favour had been sanctioned by the Lords Justices.
Lord Cottenham decided that there was an absolute right
to traverse ; and within the last few days the Noble and
Learned Lord on the Woolsack had affirmed that right, in
a case now pending. But the reasons for allowing an abso-
lute traverse in all cases existed no longer ; and he (Lord
Lyndhurst), therefore, proposed to extinguish it as such,
and leave it to the discression of the occupant of the Wool-
sack for the time being to grant or refuse it. If he was
dissatisfied with the verdict he should have the power of
exercising that discretion, either by ordering a new trial or
by such other form of proceeding as he might think best
for the ends of justice. He (Lord Lyndhurst) had made
these observations in reference to the Act of 1842 ; in refe-
rence to the Act of 1845 he would say one word more, with
the permission of their Lordships. Any person confined for
a certain period in a licensed house for the reception of lu-
natics was deemed of unsound mind. The masters in lunacy
had a right to examine into the estates of those persons, and
to exercise a certain amount of authority over them. Their
powers., however, were defective, fur they fell short of
those of the Commissioners in Lunacy. What he pro-
posed was that their powers should correspond with those
of the Commissioners in Lunacy. The Noble and Learned
Lord concluded by thanking their Lordships for the patient
hearing they had given bins, and stating that, knowing as
he did the anxious desire of his Noble and Learned Friend
on the woolsack to introduce all possible degree of perfection
into the administration of justice, he confidently left the
case in his hands. The Noble and Learned Lord then moved
for the returns of which he had given notice.—(ilear.)
The LORD CHANCELLOR was not aware of the par-
ticular topics to be introduced by his Noble and Learned
Friend ; he could not, therefore, be expected to pledge him-
self to the numerous measures which he proposed. At the
same time he was free to express his opinion that few of
them were open to any serious objections. As far as they
went they affected beneficially the great object of lunacy
legislation, which was to obtain sufficient support for the
lunatic, and to preserve his estate. The House was in-
debted to the Noble and Learned Lord for the Act which
hal been passed • in 1842, and for the new tribunal in
lunacy, which worked, he believed, remarkably well,
and which would ultimately enable their Lordships, he
hoped, to carry into effect many of the proposals of his
Noble and Learned Friend. The speech of his Noble and
Learned Friend opened up very serious considerations. The
great thing was to discourage the vast expense which at-
tendees commissions in lunacy, many of which were sought
and maintained for the benefit of every one but the lunatic ;
in fact, the last thing thought of was generally the lunatic.
Most of the propositions of his Noble and Learned Friend
might be readily adopted ; some of them were of the greatest
importance. But to abolish trial by jury in the case of
lunatics--to take individual liberty and property without
sulk a means—he did not think possible; though, at the
same time, he was ready to admit that there had been cases
where a great waste of money had taken place without the
slightest beneficial effect. A certain time spent in an asylum
was a prima facie proof of a person being under the care of the
Great Seal; but that should not prevent cases being sent
before a jury. The great object, however, was to provide
for the proper maintenance of the lunatic, the due admi-
nistration of his property, and its exemption from unnerceesa-
sary expense. The question of traverse was one oft that
difficulty. The Noble and Learned Lord proposed h_t_7._
ror agains,,, ne
person holding the sign manual warrant should hove li'avg.
feet discretion in this respect, and decide fo
ied six-
trial himself. This was a question to be confide
would take the case of Mrs. Cumming, w.IIIZet, she Lord
teen or seventeen days before a jury, ncl bad again
a _mess with his Noble
sent for a new trial. In many cases he g
ach that un inquiry
h which he (the Lord
Chancellor in the exercise of his ownadiscretion
and Learned Friend, that it was no repsing
athoaf the lunatic being examined
should last long ; but there was
nis the trial of lunacy cases at
disease. All these were nice
his opinion, have a most
nCihsianpereilulso.r) dielpereeciarcteudminatowanr
before a judge and jury
on
riehne desirous
had
adv ltieadn
mosthe wofa st
the
to
injurious influenrrobluePana Learned Friend did him no more
and in estate, and to see
questions- stating his anxiety for the perfection of
justice; no man
person
than justice
serve lunatics justice
When in another
done- d and he be
Ire an fbelieved that the labour he had
asylums snot thrown away. In the • •
had was
when ha had disposed inquiry into which he
should go w of the questions of the
Chancery he should Court of
._ endeavour to meet the sugges-
tionsiving
was
p:illuinical
place
of his Noble and Learned Friend.
Lord LYNDHURST observed that
applications for new
trials were never entertained unless the judge who had
tried the case stated that in his opinion a newg
trial ought
to be granted.
Lord TRURO said that the Act of 1842, and the orders
made under it, had been attended with the greatest possible
benefit. Ile thought, however, that the per-centage charged
upon the estates of lunatics might be so lowered as to relieve
the smaller estates considerably. With respect to the
right to traverse, the ground on which a party claimed
that right was that he had no trial at all. Out of 40
commissions, which was about the number issued an-
unly, about five were executed, and not
all of these even proceeded to the extremity of
contest; and yet, was it not lamentable to find that in
each ct the 35 wtoonte.3ted culuthi.s:iouq the prelithiuory

expenses up to the appointment of the commission was
2001., out of which about 551. went to the Suitors' Fund ?
He saw no reason why this enormous expense should
be permitted, or why the masters in lunacy should, on
being applied to by the relatives of the alleged lunatic, not
proceed with the inquiry until somebody appeared to object
to it. By that means they would avoid the large expense
of 2001. in each of the uncontested commissions. The trial
upon traverse at nisi prius which had been described as so
imperfect, and at which neither the judge nor the jury saw
the lunatic, was nevertheless the only final binding act; for
the investigation before the commission which was so ex-
pensive, and the preliminary proceedings in which cost 'LOU,
was finally binding upon no one. Let, then, the proceeding
on the trial upon traverse be improved, and where there had
been no previous inquiry before a jury, let it be a matter of
right to have the power to traverse.
The motion was agreed to.
FOREIGN REFUGEES.

Lord BEAUMONT said that certain papers relating to
foreign refugees had been laid on the table; and on next
Monday, if it suited the Noble Lord's convenience, he would
draw the attention of the House to the subject to which those
papers related.
The Earl of DERBY hoped the Noble Lord would give
notice of his motion in specific form.
Lord BEAUMONT said the question he intended to put
to the Noble Lord, was, whether he was prepared to lay on
the table of the House any further correspondence which
has taken place respecting the Rev. Mr. Wingrove who was
driven out of Pesth, and another clergyman (we did not
catch his name) who was expelled from another part of the
Austrian dominions; and also with regard to a certain
courier from Constantinople who had been arrested and
deprived of his dispatches. _

The Earl of MALMESBURY said he could answer the
question respecting ➢lr. Wingrove at once. That gentleman
was arrested by mistake, but had since been liberated and
had received compensation (as we understood).
Lord BEAUMONT said that the question he meant to
ask was, whether the Noble Lord was prepared to lay any
further correspondence on the table.
The Earl of DERBY suggested that the Noble Lord
should give notice in due form of the papers he meant to
move for.

Lord BEAUMONT would then move for the production
of all further correspondence which might have taken place
on the subject.
Then Lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, March 30.
The SPEAKER took the Chair a few minutes before
Four o'cicck.

ROYAL ASSENT.

The Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod appeared at the
table, and summoned the House to attend in the Lords
to hear her Majesty's Royal Assent given by commis-
sion to the Consolidated Fund Bill.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

The following Bills were considered and agreed to.—
Barnsley Gas Bill.
Bristol and Exeter Railway (Yeovil Branch) Bill.
South Essex Estuary and Reclamation Bill.
PETITIONS.

Colonel THOMPSON presented a petition from the
Society of Friends in Bradford against the Militia Bill,
and from the members of the Working Man's Co-opera-
tive Association in Bradford, praying to. be legalised.
Sir G. STRICKLAND presented a petition from
Preston, praying that industrial societies may be
legalised
Mr. V. SCULLY presented two petitions from the
county of Cork, one praying for the repeal of the Ec-
clesiastical Titles Bill, and the other in favour of tenant
right.
Mr. 'LINDLEY presented a petition from Staley-
bridge, praying that it might be created a borough.
Mr. 0. GORE presented several petitions from places
in Shropshire against the Maynooth grant.
Sir F. BARING presented a petition from Portsea,
praying for an amendment of the Poor-law.
Mr. DEEDES presented similar petitions from places
in the county of Kent; also a petition from the Isle
of Sheppy, praying for the right to return a Member to
Parliament.

Lord CASTLEREAGH presented a number of peti-
tions from the county of Down i❑ favour of tenant-right.
Mr. HUME presented a petition from Arbroath
against the Maynooth grant, and praying the House not
to make grants to any religious denomination whatever;
also a petition from various other places in Scotland,
praying for the repeal of the Test Acts; also a petition
from Admiral Dundonald, praying fur an inquiry into the
state of the navy.
Sir R. H. INGLIS presented a petition from a place
in Scotland against the abolition of the Test Acts.
Mr. G. HIGGINS presented a petition from the
county of Down, praying for an alteration in the law of
mortmain. _

Mr. LOCKE KING presented a petition in favour of
Parliamentary reform.
Mr. Cayley and other Hon. Members presented peti-
tions praying for the repeal of the post-horse duty.
Mr. HEY WOOD presented a petition frum a place in
Lancashire, praying for the repeal of all taxes on know-
ledge.
Mr. BENNETT presented a petition from Bury St.
Edmund's complaining of agricultural distress and pray-
ing for relief.
Mr. NAPIER presented a petition from a poor-law
union in Ireland in favour of tenant-right.
Mr. HASTIE presented a petition from Glasgow,
praying for the repeal of the Test Acts.
Sir B. HALL presented a petition praying for the re-
peal of all taxes on knowledge.
Mr. W. J. FOX presented a petition from Bolton
against the Militia Bill.
Mr. COBDEN presented a similar petition from Eden
bridge.