The Sun.
London, England, 1862-03-12 00:00:00

LAW OF LUNACY BILL.

- -----
The LORD CHANCELLOR moved the second reading
of this bill,

Lord CHELMSFORD said, no doubt the proceedings
connected with the late extraordinary trial had led to the
introduction of this bill, because up to, that period there
had been no complaint against the manner in
which such inquiries had been conducted. The bill
introduced by the noble lord on the woolsack proposed that
in all jury trials one of the judges of the superior
courts should supersede or preside in place
of the Master in Lunacy. He had great doubts as to the
practicability of such a course. He could not un-
derstand how such a provision had been made,
because during the late trial, and since its termination,
not one person, had found fault with the manner in which
his learned friend the Master in Lunacy had conducted
those proceedinp. Assuming
for a moment that a judge
WS:d to take the place of the Master in Lunacy, there might
perhaps be an advantage in cases which were taken in the
metropolis, but they must tte, aware that the greater
part of these cases occurred hi the country, and that would
greatly add to the inconvenience of making it imperative
that a judge of the superior court should invariably pre-
side. If the Master in Lunacy was to be superseded he
should like to know why the Lord Chancellor or the
Lords Just:lees should not conduct the inquiry because they
issued true commission, and therefore, were the best parties
to cc... Minna the inquiry. IHe was of opinion thatthe present
lee worked well, and there was no necessity for the change
which this bill proposed. Since the year 1853 there had
been no less than 561 commissions of lunacy issued, and
out of that large number only 20 had been tried by a jury,
and that fact strengthened the ntnion that he entertained,
viz., that it would be ini,,aicious to interfere with the
jurisdiction of the Maatrars in Lunacy. He strongly de-
precated the clauses by which the examination of the al-
leged lunatics, at their own request, were to be conducted
in public, and 'Ad some stringent remarks on the pro •
'Wong for d:Acluding medical testimony. Entering into the
various details of the bill, he protested against this
thomuglialteration of a system which, in spite of one
ac:anowledged evil, had many silent advantages.
Lord SHAFTESBURY defended the bill, and was con-
vinced that the provision directing the alleged lunatic to
be examined by the judge and jury previous to the recep-
tion of any evidence, and the clause deciding that no evi-
dence extending over more than two years should be re-
ceived, would save a vast amount of time and money.
The LORD enANCELLOR repelled the attacks of
Lord Chelmsford, and charged him with short memory in
forgetting t'nat the proposal to transfer these inquiries from
the Matters to the superior Judges was embodied in the
bill ort 1858, introduced by Sir H. Cairns and Mr, S. Est-
no;art, under a Conservative Government, and when Lord
Chelmsford was Lord Chancellor. He defended the trans-
fer of the examination from the Masters to a superior Judge,
contended that the public examination of the lunatic was
Only in accordance with the principles of our law, and
showed that the evils conjured up by Lord Chelmsford by
the alteration of the present system were entirely illusory.
Re repeated at some length the reasons by which he had
been induced to dispense, under certain circumstances, with
medical testimony—e testimony, 'owing to the peculiar
diagnoses of insanity laid down by " mad" dostors (some of
which he read to the house), of a most dangerous nature.
Lori Erskine called attention to the matter so long ago as
1806, saying, "I think there ought to be an Act of Parlia-
ment ti give protection to those parties who from age or from
bodily disease may have fallen into a state of imbecility of
t aind, which ought not to be characterised by the name of
lunacy, but for which there is no protection or power of in-
terference except through the medium of a commission of
lunacy." He might refer to the well-known case of Lord
Somers, and to other illustrious men in our history.
" From Marlborough's eyes the tears of dotage flow,
And Swift expires a driveller and a show.
In. extreme old age, reduced to a species of imbecility by
senility and loss of bodily power, persons so suffering re-
quired protection; but their friends and relatives shrank
with horror from stamping them with the stigma of in-
aansity. Lord Erskine dwelt upon this, and said, "It
is an anomaly to put them upon the footing of a lunatic,
and if a commission issues in the ordinary course it
May affect the families of such persons in future
limes." And he continued—" Why should not a man
be protected in his second stage of infancy as well as
in the first?" He (the Lord Chancellor) should not shrink
from proposing to the house to invest the Lord Chancellor
with the jurisdiction of providing for the care of persons
in this second state of childhood without the issuing of a
commission of lunacy. It was his intention to persevere
with the bill now before the house ; and while he would
cheerfully accept every suggestion for amendment, in doing
so the cardinal points of this measure for the amendment of
the law he would not give up in any important particular ;
and therefore, if his noble and learned friend persevered in
proposing such amendments he would have the opportu-
nity of doing his best to throw out the bill, and would thus,
in his (the Lord Chancellor's) opinion, do a great deal of
harm.

The Earl of DERBY could assure their lordships that he
had not the presumption to enter into any of the details of
this most importantbill which had been introduced by the
Lord Chancellor, nor was ho disposed to enter upon the
discussion at that time of that provision not at present in
the bill, but which the noble and learned lord announced
his intention of intioducing. He would only say that it
appeared to him that that was a provision in extension of
the existing power, which required most serious and deli-
berate consideration, and one which ought not to be intro-
duced and decided upon without most careful inquiry. But
ho should not for a single moment have ventured to trespass
upon their lordships if there had not been a direct appeal to
him aud to his noble and learned friend (Lord Chelmsford)
in reference to matters particularly concerning themselves.
Be had listened with surprise to fiud that an accidental
cheer of his to an observation of his noble and learned
frienil should have brought down on him an attack
by the noble lord, charging him and also his noble

and learned friend with shortness of memory and
incon,istency in objecting to the bill, because it con-
tained a similar provision to that contained in a
measure brought by the Solicitor General of a Government
of which they had the honour to be members. His noble
and learned friend on the woolsack did not trust to his me-
mory, but he had referred to a copy of the bill, and he (Lord
Derby) had, in consequence of that statement, thought it
right also to refer to a copy of the bill, and examine its
provisions. The objection which his noble and learned
friend (Lord Chelmsford) had taken to this bill was the
disadvantage of substituting the judges of the superior court
for a master in lunacy in all cases. There had been cases
in which that course might be impracticable, and his noble
and learned lord on the woolsack had said that ho had bor-
rowed the provision from a bill which was introduced by
Sir Hugh Cairns when a member of his (Lord Derby's)
Government. Now, as the noble and learned lord had a

toPy of that bill in his hand he could not understand how
he could have fallen into such an error. Tho clause in Sir
11411 Cairns's bill provided that in certain cases a corn-
lliiasion
eiu. the nature of an inquiry de lunatic() enquirendo
• 6•
.41 b issued, addressed to one or more judges of her
DolfasifteBvtg
exCourt of Queen's Bench. That was with a view
woolsa k pense. Now, the noble and learned lord on the
one whichlorkienuthiem that that provision was identical with
Cour-It, that every case should be referred to a
superior and The LORD transferred from the master. (Hear.)
CIIANCELLOR said the noble earl did not
seem to be aware that
no jury trial could take place unless
the alleged lunaticenlanded it.
saidll he could not understand how
theTNhvnorEdsar
in all cases" could be equivalent to the
words " may in certain cases The bill rendered it im-
perative for the Court 0 Chancery to send every case be-
fore the judges of the superior curt, and the bill of Sir H.
Cairns provided that where it was
demanded it slight in
particular cases be lawful.
Lord ST. LEONARD S objected to the Proposed mea-
sufti-
sure, as he considered that the present law was quite
eient for its purpose.
Lori ORAN W OR,TEI believed that it was desirable to
have lunacy inquiries held before a judge, but it was
expedient to insist upon having a jury in all eases. lerits
opinion, it was not possible to shorten the proceedings by
laying down limitations of evidence, and it was absurd to
exclude medical testimony in great cases when it was the
basis of the first proceedings in minor ones.
The bill was then read a second time, and their lordships
adjourned at five minutes past eight o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS_YESTERDAY•
The SrEAKErc took the chair at four o'clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

The Alford Railway Bill and the Caledonian Railway
Deviations, &c., Bill wore considered and ordered for third
reading.

PETITIONS.

Several petitions were presented in favour of the rejec-
la or modification of the Revised Code of Education, Bco.
NEW WRIT.
the motion,of Mr, BRAND, a new writ was ordered
for the election of a member, for the borough of