The Sun.
London, England, 1852-03-19 00:00:00

mine! Inertliee. and of these shoat 101 were mein`-tined
211 tae two wines 01 BAbi-'') iliit,f,t wero •
built specially for the emit:: of c:imieel lunatics,
at the expense of the country, aeni these lunatics emit-hied
there were maintained at the expense of tee country,
and there were a number maintained also at the expense
of the Government at au asylum at Fisherham (as tvo
understood), near Salisbury. There were others chat
were distributed in other asylums throughout the
country, who were maintained by the respective coun-
ties iu which the asylum was, or by the parishes to
which they belonged; There could be. no ground for
this distinction. He was clearly of opinion that the
charge of criminal lunatics cught not to full on the
county or the parish, but ought to fall on the country
generally. Therefore, he did not pretend to say that he
thought the existing law was in a satisfactory condition,
or that it did not stand in need of some amendment. He
thought the maintenance of these criminals was an ex-
pense that might justly and rightly fall on the public
funds. But when they came to that point they ought
also to consider how difficult it was to stop there'
and how they could draw the line between criminal
lunatics and violent and dangerous lunatics.
His Noble Friend said that the presence of
these criminal lunatics among those who were merely la-
bouring under harmless delusions was injurious to both
parties. He agreed with him—but where was the county
lunatic asylum in which they were so mixed together?
If they were, it was against all the rules governing
lunatic asylums. The Noble Lord moved for an ad-
dress, because if he brought a Bill in that House it would
be an infringement of the privileges of the House of
Commons, inasmuch as it would involve the application
of a sum of money for the maintenance of these este'
blishnaents. Surely, if that were the case, an address
to the Crown recommending such establishments was
equally open to objection.
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY—No; for an inquire'
to consider the expediency.
The Earl of DERBY proceeded. Going no further on
that subject, he said that until they had fully consi-
dered all the consequences, all the difficulty of drawing
the distinction between the two classes, while be quite
agreed with the Noble Earl that it might be expedient
and desirable to inquire into the laW relating to the
custody of lunatics, he thought it would be exceedingly
undesirable to pledge their Lordships with regard
an
te
one portion, and not the most material portion of
alteration in the law. The expense of building the tw°
the
wings at Bethlehem must have been considerable;
cost of the maintenance of the lunatics there was 341,1
103. a head per annum; at Fisherham it was 301.; see
in other institutions, he believed it was about 261.
addition to the increased expenditure of maintenance'
which would, in all probabilit, be the
of such consequencethe
a buildiee
as his Noble Friend contemplated would probably he
more than 50,000/., and might be near 100,0001.; tepees.°
did not see why, in well regulated county asylums, tu`e
might not effect the object by classifying criminal hlee.,
tics, as well as they could effect it in any state asylo'
The subject had been considered by a former Govern'
went, and would be considered by :he present, and he
hoped that his Noble Friend would be satisfied with th
assurance, on the part of the Government, that this sub:
ject should not be lost sight of, end that he would not
think it necessary to call on their Lordships to Pledge
the House on the subject.
Lord ORAN WOR DI said he hoped, after the ease.
ranee of the Noble Earl who hid just sat down, that his
Noble Friend would not object to withdraw the motion.
ol
His Noble Friend stated some doubts whether the
gether on an unsatisfactory footing. His Noble Friel
said it was the habit, both of judges and juries, to av°lO,
responsibility by allowing this plea. Perhaps, as having
had the honour, for a long number of years, of fillteg,
the station of ono of the judges administering criraiii
justice, he (Lord Cranworth) might be supposed to speak
with some prejudice; but he must conscientiously 51111
that he thought his Noble Friend was quite wrong '
supposing that there was the least bias of the kind re•
ferred to in the minds of the judges, On the contrail,
it was the feeling of the judges that they were bound ic)f
law on the subject of the plea of insanity was not a ltoe
:
stand as a sort of obstacle to the frequent tendency ee
juries to shirk their responsibilities.—(Hear, bear..!
He had found this in his own practice, and he wets
that that was the universal feeling of his brethren
on the bench. As the question now raised viD,s.
about to be taken into full consideration, it
might be worse than idle to hazard an opinion se
to what the character of the alteration of the law ought
to be; but, having studied the subject, he did not hest- .-
tate to express his decided opinion that the question of
lunacy ought not to be trusted to the decision of the
juries.—(Hear, hear.) The evils arising from leaving
the question of the lunacy of a person being tried to be
mixed up with the simple question of guilty or not
guilty were very great; and, as their Lordships knew,
it frequently happened that a jury would compromise,
their difficulty by acquitting a prisoner on the ground
insanity. And this happened in numberless instances
in which, as he (Lord ,Cranworth) believed, there Was
no ground whatever for the conclusion as to the ier,
sanity.—(Hear, hear.) His proposal to remedy this eel;
was this: Cases in the criminal courts should be tried
distinctly in reference to the fact, guilty or not guilty,
of the offence; and, the right being permitted to the
jury, on finding a man guilty, to observe upon their De.
lief of the insanity ; this question would afterwards Pr°l
perly come to be inquired into before another tribuiee:
which should be free from the prejudices which 0
al
de:3n
did operate upon ordinary juries. What this crib.
e boa.
should be—whether composed of the Secretary ° „tics'
and some other high functionary, or of was
men—he would not now say, but that tribunal, °feu
convinced, ought not to be an ordinary
perm'ede-
hear) At present, because juries were itted te
ea
tide on the lunacy of a criminal, there were contis'ior
violations of oaths. And this ought to be stopped' bed
it defeated the ends of justice.—(Hear, hear.) What
been stated by his Noble Friend convinced him
nothing could be more mischievous than to mix crienin _
lunatics with other lunatics. There was not,
perhellsr
distinction in genus between criminal lunatics and
~t tier
,unatice, except in this: that, lunacy being pre.eraiee;,
ea
a malady of the mind and of the imagination, them IZ,-
tog of a lunatic who had committed no crime with E;
sons guilty of crimes had a tendency to retard recovery
The Noble Lord opposite had said that there was a °No
fusion in terms in speaking of " criminal lunatics• else
doubt there was; but he (Lord Cranworth) should u"d
to kno
w, in those classes, how many were criminals an
howmowan,y
were lunatice.---(Hear, hear, and laughter'),
The error of expression was in using the word "lunatic'
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY replied,
his satisfaction with the speeches of Lords Derby an
Cranworth, and consenting to withdraw the motion.
The motion was accordingly withdrawn, and their
Lordships adjourned. eXpressingd

HOUSE OF COMMONS, March 18.
IRISH SAVINGS BANKS.
Mr. REYNOLDS then rose to move that this HOUSE)
do, on Tuesday, the 23d day of March, resolve itself into is
Committee, to consider of the losses sustained by the suf-
ferers in the late Cuffe-street Savings Bank, Dublin, and
to move that an humble address be presented to h, r Most
Gracious Majesty, praying that her Majesty may be
pleased to take into her Royal consideration, and
to
grant them a compensation for their losses,and to as-
sure her Majesty that this House will make good the
same. In a former session he had the honour of twice
defeating her Majesty's Ministers ona
u
but the defeat was not followed by, tr:l:trr uul
andjher
Majesty that ho should forma °l'niat
laugh.) He might as well confess at once that the objecta
of this motion was to recover the balance of
30,0001.
which was due to 1,971 depositors of the Cuffe-street
Bank, and he made the de tan
n as an act of charity,
but as a matter of right. The Gnment of the day
were a.vare of the insolvency of the bank long before
the
crisis
but it waskept from the depositor,
through motives of public policy. w
Mr. oa, ,
gnam made
that statement before the Committee which sat is
1848, 1849, and 1850; and when he was asked
what be meant by theterm „er
pubi.c policy," ho
said, if the insolvency had been disclosed to the deposi-
tors it might have produced a panic and a run upon
_,
the savings-banks in the kingdom. The case he law
tasksto
one; the bank failed through e out was a plain
of • the
fraudulent negligence the managers, and the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer
legally liable fur the time being bad become
oftehr
a f
lawyers
and laymen had given it as their opiniP_
that the depositors ought to be paid out of the public
exchequer and an instalment of 30,0001. had in fact beta
paid to tbem,—(ifear, hear.) There could be BO doubt
then of the justice of this case, and he contended that
the time had arrived when the other 30,000/.
ought to be made good by the State.— Bear, bear.)
At this bank the deficiency in the amount of deposits
was 56,2291. 16s. 4d. The number which received a di-
vidend of 10s. in the pound was 1,927, and the miserY
which was occasioned by the insolvency of the bank
would be understood when he stated that two thirds
of the depositors were females, who, by depositing small
sums of money in the institution, thought they were
preparing for a rainy day. However, by the winking.°f
the authorities on this side of the Channel and tne
frauds committed on the other side, the insolvency
of the bank was suppressed, and the poor people found
themselves victimized in 1848. It bad been admitted
that the insolvency of the bank was known from 1833,
and that the fact had been suppressed by the
Commissioners on the grounds of public policYn'
as they fared if it got into circulation then
would be a run upon all similar banks in
Ireland. He had always treated the 30,0001. given t°
the unfortunate depositors by the House as an instal-
ment, not as a final set'lenteut of their claims NV bercil
the Commissioners sacrificed their money , the groun_
of public policy the House ought in justice to 11°7
given ample compensettion. The House could 1):"
act on the princip!e of charity. The peoPied
were either entitled to the whole or they were not, a.,11..ed
it not entitled to the whole, the House was not jes""'
bt*
in voting them a single shiliiag. The Hon. Mom
concluded by moving the resolutioti.
Tee CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said'
this was one of those distressing cases with which ell:
M.ember sympathised. No doubt, a considerable portl°,
of her Majesty'd subjects belonging to the poorer classes
had suffered vary much by the failure of the Cutfe strh'er
Bank. He was surprised that when the Host. Alt ra
was so irsc3gnnnt with branches of the Administration_,e
Ireland, be had spared the =nage rs and trustees of :_°,l
bank, whose conduct was cal timely as liagraut
infamous us could well be imagined.— (Hear, hear.) rho
did net think a one coule coet,nd that it vvs"'
:ant
duty of the G-overnmeut to coma torward and :ant
amends for the wart of ability of :tutioes
of faith of the managers of these ins,crieg
The only ground the House could have for Wier.
in the Cutr—strcet Bank aas the pt culiar circum3t•ost'a'ea
which distinguished it from other cases. Ther vote
30,0001. W W-3 brought forward by the
Govlsettle-
and accepted by the majority as a sus &abbe
ment of -the question. He had serious