The Sun.
London, England, 1862-02-28 00:00:00

heard of such a proclamation appearing in the newspapers
but that on inquiry he had found it to be a forgery —a mere
rethauffee, in fact, slightly altered, of a proc; mation of
Murat's in 1810, when he was engaged in pit' ling down
the brigands. He (the Duke of Argyll) shou regret very
much the publication of this proclamation if IL should turn
out to be genuine.

The Earl of DERBY thought that the noble duke should
have communicated his information to the noble earl.

LAW OF LUNACY.
The LORD CHANCELLOR, who was most imperfectly
heard, rase to call the attention of their lordships to the
present state of the law of lunacy. It generally required
some flagrant instance to concentrate the public attention
on any defect in our law, and we had recently had such an
instance with respect to the law of lunacy, in an inquiry
which had la, ted for 32 days. The subject of that inquiry
had vindicated his title to the management of hie affairs,
but he had done so at an expense of riot less than £15,000;
while the expenses of the petitioners would equal if not ex-
ceed that sum. He had no complaint to Make against the
mode in which that inquiry had been conducted by the
learned master or the jadge. To produce a better state of
things, he proposed that in cases of lunacy where a jury
was demanded, the matter should be referred to one of the
judges in, Westminster-hall, to be there tried as in any ordi-
nary case. This was a most necessary alteration, as their
lordships would see when he adduced some facts connected
with the recent lunacy inquiries-. He found, with respect
to the case of Sir H. Meux, that the expense was £6,910 ;
another was a lady, when the cost was £2,400 ; and another
and antecedent case cost £1,909. Another important point
was the personal examination of the lunatic. At present it
was taken at the close of the proceedings; he proposed that,
subject to the discretion of the judge, it should be taken at
the commencement. He proposed also to confine the medi-
cal testimony to matter of fact, and would confine the in-
quiry to two years from the date of trial. The principle of
the law was wholly in accordance with that which he had
been stating. They admitted according to the rule the evi-
dence of scientific persons when the subject was one re-
moved from the ordinary sphere of intelligent men, but
when the subject was one on which men of ordinary under-
standing could judge for themselves they did not call for
scientific evidence. He particularly desired to introduce 1
into these inquiries the same rules of law which prevailed
in all other inquiries, namely, that scientific evidence should
be received only where in ordinary oases it was received, in
the manner whice he had described, and he felt confident
that their lordships would on reading the bill become con-
vinced of the justice and propriety of these proposed altera-
tions in the law. At present, juries had medical men pre-
sented to them, who told them that according to the experi-
ence which they had derived, they concluded that cerebral
disease existed from certain bodily symptoms; while on
the other hand other medical men stated that the symp-
toms relied upon by the former witnesses were easily ac-
counted for, and that from their experience no cerebral dis-
ease existed. Between these learned doctors it was difficult
to arrive at a sound conclusion Was that a mode inwhich
these great moral inquiries, culminating in results little short
of those which attached to the most serious crimes, should
be conducted and terminated ? Undoubtedly not. For the
inquiry was simply this—was the individual charged with
lunacy in such a condition as to show him to be a person
dangerous to be at large, and unfit to be trusted with the
management of his own affairs; and they were only war-
ranted in coming to that conclusion on moral and not on
speculative grounds. It was a well known fact that medical
men jumped to a conclusion upon some half dozen particular
instances which came within the practice of each individual,
and they gave their opini,ns accordingly, and thus it was
that the experience of one medical man did not coincide with
the experience of another, and hence the Confusion which
existed in public inquiries in lunacy. It was his object to
emancipate the proceedings in lunacy from being specula-
tive inquiries, and to place them beyond the reproach which
now attached to them. If their lordships agreed with him
that the law of lunacy ought to be assimilated to the ordi-
nary rules of law, he ventured to predict that the gross ex-
cesses and enormities which had been found to exist when
this description of inquiry had been found necessary accord-
ing to the present mode of procedure would be done away
with. The other portions of the bill were of a practical cha-
racter, and he hoped they would remove the evils which now
existed. It was matter of deep regret that the present pro-
ceedings were too costly and too prolonged to be resorted to
by persons in humble life. A great number of cases of lunacy
occurred where the property was of small amount, and con-
sequently would be wholly exhausted if a commission of
lunacy were issued, the preliminary expenses of which were
not less than £6O. He knew of cases in one of which the
alleged lunatic had saved £96, and in the other £230, and in
such cases it would be an absurd thing to obtain a commis-
sion of lunacy, which would certainly swallow up at least
£6O, and give rise to further litigation. He proposed to
enact that whenever it should appear to the Lord Chancel-
lor that there existed a case of lunacy where the property of
the lunatic did not exceed £l,OOO, it should be competent
to him to take the same course as under a commission of
lunacy, and thus to save all the expenses attending such
commission. He might also mention that criminal lunatics
were provided for in certain prisons, but that no provision
had been made with regard to their property, and he pro-
posed to treat these cases in an equally summary manner.
He would pass on to an important subject, that of the
visitation of lunatics tinder the protection of the Lord Chan-
cellor, It had been an anxious subject of inquiry in what
way this could be best effected, and to secure for them the
same supervision and control as those lunatics were subject
to which were under the supervision of the lunacy commis-
sioners. A committee of the House of Commons had re-
ported that it was desirable that the visitation of all luna-
tics should be the same, and he (the Lord Chancellor) had
wished to adopt that report, but on communication with the
noble earl near him (the Earl of Shaftesbury) it was found
to be impossible for the commissioners to undertake the
duty of visiting the Chancery lunatics. He therefore pro-
posed that there should be an extended power given to the
Lord Chancellor to appoint two medical gentlemen, and
one legal gentleman, to perform this duty exclusively ; and
he would remark that it was essential that they should visit
the lunatics at least twice every year, without any previous
arrangements being made, so that the persons under whose
charge the lunatics were should be in constant readiness to
receive the visitors. There were some other provisions in
the bill, the details of which be would not trouble their
lordships with, but would simply state that these alterations
had been made necessary in consequence of a new condition
of things having arisen since the last act was passed in 1853.
Lord ST. LEONARDS said that, having always taken
a deep interest in the subject now brought forward, he
wished to make a few observations upon it, although he had
not yet seen the bill. He was glad to hear his noble and
learned friend speak in favourable terms of the late trial in
Westminster-hall. But no doubt such prolonged proceed
ings required a remedy. It had been suggested that if the
jury had been allowed to examine Mr. Windham on the con-
clusion of the petitioners' case it would have saved a great
deal of expense. But he (1 ord St. Leonards) had no doubt
that the learned person who presided at the trial pursued a
1
proper course, and one which led to the right result.
Whether Mr, Windham was ruined or not was a matter of
peried, indifference to the court ; all that could be regarded
was the due administration of justice. his noble and
Ilearned friend proposed that all such cases should be tried
before a judge in Westminster .hall in the ordinary form, and
he (Lord St. Leonards) approved of that alteration, be-
cause b 0 believed that the opinions of a judge would have
grer:er effect on counsel and jury than those of a master.
Questions of lunacy ought to be questions of fact, and
whether the alleged lunatic was or was not capable of tak-
ing care of his property. (Hear.) The act of 1853 provided
that there should be unanimity in twelve jurymen, and in
order to arrive at that result 23 were selected as jurors,
leaving 12 as a majority ; but he did not think that that
was a convenient mode of trial. (Hear, hear.) In an
ordinary case the master's jurisdiction was a perfectly un-
objectionable jurisdiction, and was exerc'sed with great 1
advantage to the public. The bill of 1853 introduced the 1
new provision that, in order to prevent unnecessary trials
for lunacy, the Lord ('homelier himself should see the
lunatic, so that if there was no doubt as to the man's state
of mind, the Lord Chancellor ceuld act without the inter-
vention of a jury. As the law now stands, therefore, the
property of an alleged lunatic was carefully guarded from
being wasted by unnecessary expense. But in a case like
that which recently occurred, where a man was moving
about in society—whether the nr et desirable,was not the
question—where it was certain, from the facts and circum-
stances of it, that an enormous amount of expense would be
incurred, a vast deal of public time wasted, and a great
amount of public scandal exhibited,—in a case of that sort
his noble and learned friend's proposal was exactly what he
(Lord St. Leonards) could wish for. If it was to be tried,
let it be tried by a jury in the ordinary way. The next
proposition, however, was somewhat startling. It was that
the inquiry should be limited to the capacity or incapacity
of the person for two years. That was a matter which re-
quired grave consideration. Beginning with the infancy of
the alleged lunatic, as in the recent case, and going on to
the moment at which he came before the jury, clearly
ought not to be allowed ; but the limitation to two years
would not in all eases admit of a fair examination as to the
existence or non-existence of insanity. In many cases a
much more extended inquiry would be necessary in order to
enable the Lord Chancellor to dispose of the case when it
came back to him. Sometimes it was found that an alleged
lunatic had made a will several years before, and the great
contest was whether at the time of its date and execu-
tion he was sane or insane. The proposition, there-
fore, to limit the inquiry to two years should not
be hastily adopted. A matter which would require
still more consideration, if le ssible, was the propo-
sition that in the first instance the alleged lunatic should be
examined by the judge 1 efore whom he was to be tried and
the jury. By the present law it was provided that the Lord
Cleaucener,ehould examine the alleged lunatic with a view
lb°lltseet, i7;,:;,,eier it was necessary to have a trial before a jury;
wae, ItiTionneasalllelow made by his noble and learned friend
it should be remembered alleged lunatic:sboei wh. re a trial by jury was ordered, the
abed be in the first instance examined. Now
a marked man, r:.dt that a man in that position came for-
wardupon effidavits which, ialatr!u accusation against him,founded
prima facie
easehte,foipinion of , he Lord Chancellor,
showed a
for life, or that which was l'recrY. He w''s on his trial
vheer;hearnhdeit required the
greatest possible consideration
1 amieed before evidence had been given stlowureldbubte
tehxe-