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 tho 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 proceedings. Assuming for a moment that a judge
was 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 be aware that the greater
part of these cases occurred in 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 If the Master in Lunacy was to be superseded he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 Justices should not conduct the inquiry because they
issued tho commission, and therefore, were the best parties
to continue the inquiry. IHe was of opinion thatthe present
law 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 opinion that he entertained,
viz., that it would be injudicious to interfere with the
jurisdiction of the Masters 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 passed some stringent remarks on the pro
visions for excluding medical testimony. Entering into the
various details of the bill, he protested against this
thorough- alteration of a system which, in spite of one
acknowledged 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 CHANCELLOR repelled the attacks of
Lord Chelmsford, and charged him with short memory in
forgetting that the proposal to transfer these inquiries from
the Masters to the superior Judges was embodied in the
bill of 1858, introduced by Sir H. Cairns and Mr. S. Est-
court, 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.
He repeated at some length the reasons by which he had
been induced to dispense, under certain circumstances, with
medical testimony—a testimony, "owing to the peculiar
diagnoses of insanity laid down by "mad" doctors (some of
which he read to the house), of a most dangerous nature.
Lord Erskine called attention to the matter so long ago as
1806, saying, "I think there ought to be an Act of Parlia-
ment to give protection to those parties who from age or from
bodily disease may have fallen into a state of imbecility of
mind, 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.

s' 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-
sansity. 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
times." And he continued—" Why should not a man
be protected in his second stage of infancy as well as
in the first 2" 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 lordship' that he
had not the presumption to enter into any of the details of
this most important bill which had been introduced by the
Lord Chancellor, nor was he 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 ea o d
his intention of introducing. 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
be should not for a single moment have ventured to trespass
upon their lordships if there had not been a direct appeal to
him and to his noble and learned friend (Lord Chelmsford)
In reference to matters particularly concerning themselves.
He had listened with surprise to find that an accidental
cheer of his to an observation of his noble and learned
friend 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
inconsistency 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 ho (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 he 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
copy of that bill in his hand he could not understand how
h.ire could have fallen into such an error. The clause in Sir
Cairns's bill provided that in certain cases a com-
mission.,. in the nature of an inquiry de lunatico enquirendo
illtbe issued, addressed to one or more judges of her
Majesty's Court of Queen's Bench. That was with a view
of saving expe
Now, the noble and learned lord on the
woolsack told them '
one which
requiteded that that provision was identical with
that every case should be referred to a
superior court,
and transferredc from the master. (Hear.)
The LORD
CHANCELLOR said the noble earl did not
seem to be aware that
no jury could take place unless
the alleged lunatic demanded
he
et.
The Earl of DERBY
caw, could not understand how
the words " shall in all
couldhe be equivalent to the
words " may in certain cases."
T
for the Court ef Ch bill rendered it im-
perative Chancery to send every case be-
fore the judges of the superior court, and the bill
. of Sir H.
Cairns provided that where it was ,
ded it might in
particular cases be lawful.
was .d Lord ST. LEONARD S objected to the Prop
mea-
sure, as he considered that the present law
as vine suffi-
cient for its purpose.
Lor 1 CRANNY ORTII believed that it was desirable to
have lunacy inquiries held before a judge, but it was not
expedient to insist upon having a jury in all cases. In his
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 eases 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—YESTEIWAY.
The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock.
• PRIVATE BUSINESS.

The Alford Railway Bill and the Caledonian Railway
Deviations, to., Bill were considered and ordered for third
reading.

PETITIONS.

Several pellitiong were presented in favour of the rejec-
tion or modification of the Revised Code of Education, &c.

NEW WRIT.

On tho motion of Mr, BRAND, a new writ was ordered
to Wm for the el qehou of a member; for the borough of

Chipping Wycombe, in the room of Sir G. H. Dashwood,
deceased.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE.
On the motion of Col. WILSON PATTEN, leave of
absence was granted to Mr. Leigh for three eeks, on the
ground of illness in his family.