The Sun.
London, England, 1862-03-25 00:00:00

IMP ERIAL PARLIAMENT.

MOUSE OF LORDS—YESTERDAY.
ROYAL COMMISSION.
Thr; Royal assent was given by commission to the Con-
solidated Fund (L 18,000,000) and the Exchequer Bills Bill.
'The Royal Commissioners were the Lord Chancellor,
'he Duke of Argyll, and Earl St. Germans.
Their lordships adjourned during pleasure.
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack
at five o'clock.

THE REVISED CODE,
Lord ST. LEONARDS presented petitions against the
revised coda,
Lord CLUELMSFORD also presented petitions agains t
the rev;.sed code,
Th,J Earl of SHAFTESBURY also presented similar
Petk,ions with a similar prayer.
THIRD READINGS.
The following bills were read a third time and passed :
The Caterham Waterworks and Great Britain Mutual Life
Assurance.

POLAND.
The Earl of CARNARVON had given notico of his
intention to call the attention of tde house to the present
state of Poland, and also to ask her Majesty's Government
whether Prince GortschakofPs circular letter of the 20th
March, 1861, had been communicated to them. He said,
in consequence of an appeal to him by his noble and learned
friend (Lord Chelford) he should postpone doing so for
the present.

INDIA STOCKS TRANSFER BILL.
This bill
~ on the motion of the Duke of ARGYLL, was
read a sPAond time.

LUNACY REGULATION BILL

Their lordships went into committee on this bill.
Clauses 1 and 2 were agreed to.
Upon clause 3, after a short discussion with regard to
some techniceel objections,
Lord CPA.P.IMSFORD said he rose to move the first
ameledus:ent of which he had given notice. He was appre-
hensiv,o that their lordships might consider that his amend-
merit was of no consequence, instead of one, as he :con-
vdived, of serious importance. They were legislating
Confessedly under circumstances of pressure, arising from a
late proceeding under a commission of lunacy. The extra-
ordinary length of that
,trial, the nature of the evidence
given, and the contradictory evidence of the medical men,
conspired to raise a feeling in the public mind that the
law was defective and required alteration. He was
always apprehensive that when a Legislature yielded too
hastily to a demand for a change in the law they
might be hurried into a species of legislation they might
afterwards regret. lie was not afraid to say, that notwith-
standing all the objections made, he believed the law of
1858, for whic?.e they were indebted to his noble and learned
friend (Lord St. Leonards), had worked exceedingly well,
and had answered every object that could be desired.
Since gnat act came into operation in October, 1853, there
had peen 561 commissions of lunacy, out of which only 20
had been determined by juries, 12 of these 20 were settled
in less than a day, and the rest, with two or three excep-
tions, in a very short time. No less than 541 cases of these
commissions had been decialefi, without the intervention of
a jury, merely by the judgment of the master upon the evi-
dence quietly and privately brought before him. Nothing
could be of greater interest than these facts, because they
showed how much the feelings of many families had been
nlaared,, vs/111e the necessary protection the unfortunate
objects a those Inquiries required was thrown around them.
But U-er) Proteedine to which he had referred had made the
pubeie anxious that some moans should be devised by
•Sahich, if possible, the length of such inquiries might in
future be prevented. In order, therefore, to meet this desire
the third clause had been proposed. That clause contained
two provisions which it was assumed would be calculated
to prevent such lengthened proceedings, The first of these
two provisions was, that evidence as to anything done or
said by the person who was the subject of the inquiry, as to
his demeanotj or state of mind at any time being more
than two years before the time of the inquiry, should not
be received.; and the second provision was, that the opinion
of any medical practitioner should not be admissible as
evidence of insanity. Now, he thought he could satisfy
their lordships that both of these provisions were extremely
'objectionable. Suppose a man were attacked with chronic
insanity, which had been stealing on for years, would
it not be impossible to confine evidence within any
limits whatever ? The clause proposed to limit the
inquiry to two years; but if a man laboured under
mental delusion for many many years, how would that
meet such a case as the clause contemplated ? It was well
known with what extreme reluctance families sued out a
commission of lunacy against a relative, and would not that
clause limiting them to two years have a most pernicious
effect r He believed evidence would be excluded of a most
important character if the time were so limited; that it
would fetter the discretion not only of the judge, but the
master in lunacy, and by fixing an arbitrary rule materially
affect the interests of justice. He referred to the case of
31‘Naghten,who attempted to assault the Queen some years
back, showing the danger of relying on the evidence of a
medical man in cases of insanity, without his having pre-
viously examined the alleged lunatio. In cases of wills,
where the testator's soundness of mind was called in ques-
tion, they were always compelled to admit medical testi-
mony, and that of a man who had a previous knowledge
of the manners and habits of the deceased.
Lord CRANWORTH thought, with all respect for the
master in lunacy and the jury who tried the Windham case,
the real remedy for the evils complained of would be to have
such cases tried before one of the superior judges. During
the 11 years that he had acted as common law judge he
never knew an instance where counsel refused to attend to
a suggestion from the judge. If the Court thought the in-
quiry was extended too far a hint from him to that effect
would be sufficient to prevent prolixity ; and he did not
think the present proposal necessary.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said his attention had
been called to the necessity of legislation on this subject by
the enormity of what took place at a recent trial. He
thought he had detected certain anomalies in the manner
in which that case was conducted. He did not think it
right that in trying such a person the case should be
carried back indefinitely. No one could possibly be pre-
pared to meet allegations with regard to what occurred in
his infancy. The first witness examined said when he
became acquainted with the subject of the inquiry he
(Windham) 'was four years of age, he was of infirm mental
trganisaaion, congenitally, and was expected to end his
after years in idiocy. This witness—a medical man—was
wilted what led him to arrive at this conjecture, and he
answered that the shape of the boy's head (a boy of four
years of age) had led him to that conclusion. "It was
larger behind than before—his forehead was not in due pro.. portion to the back part of his head." Was it right to extend
the inquiry backwards for twenty years to ascertain such
particulare? He thought it necessary to have some rules
laid down to get rid of such an anomaly. By the rules he
had laid down he did not mean to exclude medical testi- 1
mony. He did not want to exclude the evidence of what a
medical man might observe, but to exclude fancies and idle
theories nut warranted by any inductions founded on fact.
Ono of the medical witnesses inferred tho boy's imbecility
from the fact that his head measured 22} inches round,
whereas a man's head would require 22 inches and no more
What was required in an investigation of this kind was to
arrive at a moral conclusion from facts, and not to ascertain
-whether the disease was dementia, amentia, monomania,
mania, melancholia, or monomania combined with fatuity.
Ono medical witness was asked whether in cases of this
description the jury could not ferm as correct an opinion as
a medical man, and he said, " I think in a case like this a
layman is as competent to come to a right conclusion on
all the facts as lam myself." He (the Lord Chancellor)
admitted that medical men were more accurate observers
than ordinary persons, but what was sought by the bill
was to prevent the substitution of opinions for facts.
Frequently it was found that the opinions of six medical
mole would be opposed to six others of the same tribe ; but
if it happened on a trial that five were of one opinion and
only one of the opposite, and that the jury were to ac-
cept opinions for facts, one of the parties in the case might
be damaged. Much confusion sometimes arose among
medical gentlemen from the circumstance of their not
understanding medical terms. In a certain case six me-
dical gentleman decided that there was delusion and no de-
lirium, and six more were of opinion that there was delirium
and no delusion. The manner in which these inquiries were
t°tducted, so far as medical testimony was concerned, had
Lsome positively odious, and the evil required to be rerne-
k4- If they struck at that evil they should pluck it out
aT the root, and put an end to that which was a reproach
and he
What could be more unreasonable than to
vaYldes over a man's entire life in search of evidence to
d
establish his insanityy
? There was a vast distinction to be rawn between the opinions of medical men as regarded the
state of mind
°.l Persons supposed to be labouring under
lunacy and the e
peaens of medical men in post mortem exa-
eninations on criminal
deal'because in the latter case they
bad actual facts to th, whereas in the former case
they merely stated at the best what were conjectures on 1
things they had not themselves seen. For the most part in
unacy the opinions of
cases of i teedied witnesses were purely
ulative ; but the law of wild
°ace did not practically ex-
sptc
almost a precedent
clude them, because had. grown
unto
the. subje.ct of moral injury,
(le and juries to aotaught believe that insanity
wfoaefitha epjhuy:iceasldise as o and not
were Loma. to derive their cencl '
Utll.ollB from
and that they
medical opinion.
what he desired t
arrive at theoirtscot4belliet was
that they should mNakoewthe jury
done or said by the paYrtydl.‘ect
to the sanity or insanity of the alleged lunatic by as
proof and testimony. of things done
tviden::
not to he in any degree inf isliips
would
On these grounds he trusted their ra
give
their sanction to the clause, ri'''''h car.)
The Earl of SHAFTESBU(Tty desired to explain that
what he had stated the other evening icferred to the ex-
ceptions which should he made in cases
o. f 11.
oomicidhal
ugt
have tomania
relative to to the period over which the inquiry
tend. With regard to other cases, they would to deal
with the present state of mind of the individual.
Ile ridi-
culed the absurd character of medical certificates, en which
liberty,
parties had frequently been deprived of their libel.. and
maintained that it was on facts and facts alone tiat
any
lunatic should be subjected to confinement.l