The Sun.
London, England, 1858-06-23 00:00:00

REWARDS TO MEMBERS.

Lord HOTHAM rose to propose the following reso-
lution :—" That it is contrary to the usage, and deroga-
tory to the dignity of this house, that any of its mem-
bers should bring for yard, promote, or advocate, in this
hcuse, any proceeding or measure in which he may
have acted or been concerned, for, or in consideration
of, any pecuniary fee or reward." In doing so the noble
lord said he was not actuated by any private feeling
but solely from a sense of public duty. (Hear.) Tnere
were precedents for the course he was pursuing, and
therefore in asking the house to record their opinion on' •
the resolution, ho was establishing no new principle. The
house from the earliest period has shown a determination
to sustain its own purity, and at different periods they
had passed resolutions restraining members from the
commission of acts calculated to undermine the indepen-
dence and to lower their efficiency in the eyes of the
country. his motion emanated from the report of a
committee which sat in April last, and investigated the
charges contained in a petition presented by Mr. Coffey,
but it was not his intention to cast any reflection on the
members of the profession of the law. The first resolu-
tion direc►ly interfering with the free action of the mem •
hers of the legal profession belonging to that house, pro-
vided that members of that house being lawyers should
not take part as counsel on bills before the House of
Lords prior to their coming to the House of Commons.
Subsequently to that various members were expelled
for accepting money bribes in consequence of
the performance of certain duties ; and in 1667
Mr. Aahburnham was expelled the house for
taking a bribe of 5001. from the French merchants. In
1694 the Speaker of the house was expelled for taking a
bribe of 1,000 guineas relative to the London Corpora-
tion Orphan Bill, and Mr. Hungerford, for receiving
the very moderate sum in those days of 20, guineas as
chairman of the committee on the same bill, and in 1695
a resolution was passed, making it a high crime and
misdemeanour, and tending to the subversion of the
British constitution, in any one to presume to cffer sums
of money to members to stimulate honourable members
in the discharge of their duty in any particular direc
tion. (Hear, hear.) From that time things appeared
to have gone on without interruption till 1830, when,
in consequence of an honourable member entering into
partnership with a gentleman who carried on the busi-
ness of a parliamentary agent, a resolution was unani-
mously passed condemning the practice, and the part-
nership was dissolved the next day. H's reason for
taking that prominent position was in consequence of
there having grown up of late years a practice of send-
ing appeals from India to this country. That practice
had, year after year, become a matter of more frequent
occurrence ; and, in consequence, a practice had grown
up with it which be thought it behoved the House of
Commons to guard against. (Elear, hear.) The public
mind was impressed with the belief, in consequence,
that a system was being adopted that was not calculated
to sustain the purity of the house ; and they had it on
less authority than the hon. member for Guildford, late
chairman of the Court of Directors of the East India
Company, in his evidence bet •re the committee on Mr.
Coffey's petition, that it had been publicly stated in
India that the services of the members in that house
were obtainable by means of money, and he (Lord Ho-
them) asked the house if it was a system that ought to
be permitted I The truth of the statement referred to
had been corroborated by the report of the committee,
respecting which he would then say nothing, because
he was bound to believe they bad done their duty fairly
and honestly, and given a right decision on the evi-
dence adduced before them. The resolution to which he
had referred did not apply to the cases in question. The
former referred to the payment of money for Parlia-
mentary services, but the cases in question were of a dif-
ferent character. As he understood, a legal member of
the house was retained, with a very heavy fee, to con-
duct the case in a court into which it was never intended
by those who paid the fee to take it, and afterwards he
was asked to undertake to bring the case forward in

Parliament. The money, no doubt, was paid legally, and
there could be no doubt a legal gentleman, a member of
that house, bad a perfect right to bring the case before
the house, but i❑ doing so could it be considered as any-
thing else than an evasion of the law of Parliament
laid down to protect its own purity ? He considered it
was the duty f the house to declare their opinion on the
subject, and say such a practice should no longer exist.
(Hear.) He denied that the resolution he proposed would
interfere with the free action of the members of that
house. Already the number of the legal professional
members of that house were relieved from the share of
the committee work of that house to go on circuit, and
it was unreasonable for the members of the legal profes-
,ion to expect that the character of that house for purity
should be sacrificed by their conduct. It was said there
was no occasion for this resolution because publicity. was
a check en them, but the legal profession was different
from all others, in that they received their fees before
they did their work, and having received their fees
legally with a brief in a case purporting to be brought
before the courts in Westminster-hall, it could not be
said they had taken bribes, when they advocated certain
claims afterwards in that house. , Since he had put his
notice on the paper, he had received expressions of ap-
probation of his conduct from a large number of gentle-
men, connected with the luish and English bar, 'who
wished to see the prat' ice put down. It was because

he cordially concurred in the opinions which Thad been
expressed by the !italic journals that he had thought
it his duty to propose the resolution to the house.
Whatever might be the merits of the resolution which he
was about to submi►; at all events it would not be open
to the charge of ambiguity. There could be no doubt
whatever as to its meaning. (Hear) He appealed to hon.
members, , as men of integrity, honour, conscience,
honesty and common sense, what opinion would the public
entertain of the House of Commons if, while professing so
much abhorrence of improper conduct in others, they
were squeamish respecting charges which affected their
own purity and integrity 1 He ventured to hope that the
house would rise above ad minor consideration, and de-
clare boldly and in the face of day and of the world, that
while they were resolved to punish corruption without, it
would not tolerate even so muoh as a suspicion of c ,r-
-ruption within its walls. (Hear, hear.) He therefore wised
the house to declare that it was derogatory to the dignity
of the house that any of its members should bring for-
ward any motion, or advocate any proceeding or measure
in which he might have acted, or been concerned for, or
in consideration of any pecuniary fee or reward. (Hear.)
Mr. DIVETT si.conded the motion.

Mr. BOWYER objected to the resolution, on the
ground that it conveyed a vague censure upon all the
legal members of the house. (No, no) He called upon
the noble lord who brought forward the motion to state
definitively and precisely who were the persons to whom
the resolution was intended to apply. If it had no par-
ticular reference, then it was a mere abstract resolution
of the worst kind, inasmuch as it conveyed a general
censure upon the members of the legal profession. He
was himself a member of the bar, but although not in
actual practice, he felt it his duty to repel the accusation
which was then brought against a most honourable
body of men. The noble lord must, however, go a great
deal further than his resolution went. There were rail-
' way directors in this house who received salaries as
director,e and they were permitted to advocate the in-
terests of he particular lines with which they were con-
nected. The chairman of the East India Company and
the governor of the Bank of England ought also to be
excluded from taking part in any discussion upon
questions in which they were interested. Even the At-
torney ere'reneral and Solicitor-General would have their
mouths closed upon the same principle in
.all cases in
which they might have received a brief in any case affect •
jug the iet,,rests of the Crown. (A laugh.) It was, he
contended, most unjust to affix a stigma upon the legal
profession, leaving other members perfectly free. Toe
noble lord ought, in justice to the house, to name the
barristers who had, as he stated, misconducted them-
selves. (Hear.)
Mr. WHITESIDE said that the argument of the
hon. member that the chairman of the East India Com-
pany ought to be prevented from speaking on subjects
connected with that company, did not in the least apply
to the resolution before the house. The house knew per-
fectly well the position which was occupied by the chair-
man of the East India Company, and his arguments
upon any question were taken accordingly, but that
such conduct was very different from that of persons
who indirectly received fees for advocating measures in
the House of Commons. (Hear) The motion of his
noble friend appeared to bim just and honourable, and
so fir from considering it an impeachment upon the pro-
fession to which he had the honourto belong, he thanked
the nolls lord far having brought it forward, and would
give it his hearty support. (Hear.)
Mr. BOUVERIE objected to the resolution, on the
ground that, if entered upon the records of Parliament,
it would convey the erroneous notion that general cor-
ruption was prey:elect in the House of Commons. The
hon. member proceeded to read some extracts from con-
temporary werks of the time of Charles, showing the
great extent of con option which then prevailed, and
contended that the great security (or the continuence
of
the integrity of hon. membrrs was to be found in the
ceaseless vigilance of the press. Dissenting, therefore,
iron the resolution on the grounds which he bad stated,
he moved the previous question. (Hear.)
Sir J. PAKINGTON suggested that it was moat de-
sirab!e that if the resolution were agreed to, the words
of the resolution should be so wideas to cover all honour-
able members and all cases. He thought that the words
"in which he might have acted or been concerned"
should be omitted, and the omission of those words
weuhl remove anything like a stigma upon a particular
class or pra,ssion. The standing orders of the house
were, he believed, very strong against "offering" any
brine t i the members of tee house, but he di I not think
there was any ord against hon. na?mbers " receiving"
a bribe. (Ili ar, hear.)
Mr. LA 1301JCLIE RE hoped that the h, use would not
accede to the suggestion of the right hon. baronet, the
effect of which would be to seduce the resolution to the
merest truism, which it would be inconsisteut with the
dignity of the house to affirm. (Hear ) The House of
Cornmone, at tie present moment, stood higher than it
ever did, but it was impossible not to understand that a
very strong feeling existed out of the house on the sub-
ject, and it was, therefore, the duty of the house to give
expreF,sion to its opinion that sue] acts as those which
were peirved out by the resolution were derogatory to
the character ef the Howie of C enceone. There was also
an increased nee s,ity for agreeing to some resolution of
the kiud, arising out of the contemplated transference of
the government of India to theiCrown, one effect of which
would be to make the House of Commons much more
than it had yet been the arena fer discussing pecuniary
matters and interests connected with India. We knight
expect to have wealthy raj ahs and zemiudars coming over
to England and endeavouring to interest hon. members

23,

in the promotion of their claims, and endeavouring to
obtain redress for alleged grievances. (Hear, hear.) Be-
lieving that the necessity for this resolution did exist, he
should give it his cordial support. (Hear, hear.)
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL concurred in the pro-
priety of a great deal that had been said by the right
hon. gentleman who had just addressed the house, and
had no hesitation in saying, on the part of the bar, that
fer any hon. member to advocate in the house the same
cause which be had been retained to advocate at the
bar, was not in accordance with those notions of
honour which generally actuated the members of the
legal profession. (Hear ) While he entertained this opi-
nion, he regretted that some cases had not been brought
forward to show the necessity of a resolution as that be-
fore the house. When it was said there were suspicions
abroad on the subject of the conduct of the bar, and
that, therefore, it was necessary to pass such a resolu-
tion, be felt it his duty, on the part of the bar, to state
that there was no ground fur such suspicion, so far as
the members of that profession were concerned. In his
humble judgment, the resolution as expressed iu ono
sense, conveyed much more than its authors meant to
convey, while in another sense they actually shrink from
conveying their full meaning. He should vote, there-
fore, fur the amendment r f the hon. member opposite.
Mr. Sergeant DEASY, as a member of the Irish bar,
entirely concurred in every sentiment that bad fallen
from the hon. and learned gentleman the Attorney-Ge-
neral for Ireland, and in regarding such conduct as this
resolution was directed against, as involving not only a
violatio❑ of the duties of a member of Parliament, but
likewise a violation of the duties of a member of the bar,
and as entirely opposed to the feelings of the profession.
He believed that members of that house who happened
also to be members of the legal profession, bad very fre-
quently abstained from taking fees in matters to be sub-
mitted to Parliament.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that if his noble
friend who brought forward the motion, or any other
hon. member, really believed that there was any one
member of the bas of England, Scotland, or Ireland, who
happened to have a seat in that house that had afforded
the slightest gronnds for a motion of this kind, it was
due to the bar and to that house that the name of that
hon. member should be declared. Now, as far as re-
garded the resolution itself, with the exception of the
words tointed out by his right hon, friend the First Lord
of the Admiralty, it was entirely unobjectionable, but at
the same time it was entirely uncalled for and unneces-
sary. IT° the resolution, taken abstractedly, no one
could object, but it wee actually implied in an order of
the house so far back as the year 1695. But let them
take it in connection with the position of the law officers
of the Cro-on in that house. Why, it might so happen,
that immediately after the Attorney-General was con-
sulted upon some important question it would be brought
forward in that house. Such was the case with regard to
the matter of the Cagliari, which was submitted to Par-
liament only three days after the law officers of the
Crown had been consulted with reference to it. Well,
what a position would not the law officers of the Crown
be placed in under such circumstances if a resolution like
that were accepted. Well, suppose again the case of one
of those Indian princes to whom allusion had been made.
A case is submitted to council for consideration, and
the council comes to the conclusion that there is no legal
remedy whatever for the grievance in question ; still
Parliament alone ca❑ redress the wrong which has been
done. Well, then, under these circumstances was a mem-
ber of Parliament to be precluded from delivering his
opinions as to the law of such case in his place in that
house. But the moment that a member of the profession
perceived a case was likely to be brought before. Parlia-
ment, if he should happen to be a member of thathouse,
it was undoubtedly his bounden duty to intimate te the
solicitor in the case that he could no longer be profes-
sionally interested in it. He had most fully considered
the resolution, and considering it in reference to the in-
numerable cases in which the bar might be consulted, he
did not hesitate toaffirrn that its adoption must have the
effect of driving many distinguished members of the pro-
fession from that house. Once more, with regard to the
case of the Indian Prince,—he believed that none would
be found advocating their cause unless such persons could
declare they were actuated by none but the purest mo-
tives. But what he wished above all the house to bear
i❑ mind, was the practical meaning of a resolution of
that kind upon the members of the bar who happened to
be members of that house, especially those who might
happen to have duties to perform with reference to the
Crown and the subject in connection with matters that
might happen to be submitted to Parliament. (Hear.)
Mr. MALINS must protest against the aspersions
which had been cast upon his profession throughout the
discussion of that evening. He was utterly lost i❑
amazement to discover to what conduct the resolution
before the house could possibly refer. He bad the most
profound respect for the noble lord who had moved it,
but he regretted that he had not more specifically urged
the grounds upon which his conclusions rested. If any
Particular member or members of that house bad bee❑
guilty of the malpractices imputed by the resolution, let
their names be published to Parliament, but do not let
the House of Commons by a general resolution cast a
slur upon a high and dignified profession.
Mr. BENTINCK expressed his cordial concurrence
in every line of the resolution, as well as in every senti-
ment uttered by the noble lord who had introduced it.
Mr. GILPIN. opposed the resolution.
Mr. P. O'BRIEN regarded such a motion as an invi-
dious attempt to asperse the character (f the hoeour-
able profession to which he had the honour to belong.
Lord J. RUSSELL thought the noble lord had done
great service to the house i❑ bringing forward this mo-
tion—(hear, bear)—but that great diflicu'ty s'ood in the
way of so framing a resolution which should neither o❑
the one band fall short of the object in view, or, on the
other, overstep it. (Hear, hear.) It would be found a
matter of great difficulty to meet every case that might
arise, and it ought to he remembered that the house
had emphatically recorded its opinion against any memo•
ber of Parliament receiving pecuniary reward for his
Parliamentary strvice4. The rule for the guidance of
barristers, laid down by the Attorney General was, in
his opinion, quite satisfactory. The discussion would
tend to clear up matters, but for his own part he would
rather trust to the high sense of duty aniameing the
members of the bar, than to any resolution which might
be passed. He should vote for the previous question,
but the noble lord deserved thanks for having brought
forward the motion. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. BOVILL, on the part of the legal profession,
thanked the noble lord for having afforded an opportu-
nity for a vindication of the members of the legal pro-
fession.

Mr. ROEBUCK said, that as the house was about to
legislate for India, it was cf importance to lay down a
rule which was to guide members of the bar, who were
at the same time members of parliament. He would
tell the house ezaactly what had occurred to himself. He
was a director of a bank, and one day, when at the
bank, was toll that an agent of the Queen of Oude
wished to see him. He supposed that the Queen of
Oude might possibly wish to open an account with the
bank—(laughter)—and consented to see the agent. This
individual affected to regret that the Queen of Oude
should appear before him (the honourable and learned
member) "in such a manner," upon which he (Mr.
Roebuck) said, " What the devil do you mean ?"
(Laughter.) "The Queen of Oude is poor," said the
agent. "I understand you now," replied tae honour.
able and learned member. "Oh," the other rejoined,
"we know one who received a fee of 5001. !or advocat-
ing the claims of the Queen of Oude." So the matter
ended, and the individual was bowed out of the bank.
(Hear, hear, and Itughter.) The rule for the guidance
of a barrister was clear. When a legal man caine into
parliament it was clear that he should give up every-
thing in the shape of a fee. (Hear, hear.) He thanked
the noble lord for having brought forward the motion,
and if he went to a division, ha should go into the same
lobby with him. (Hear, hear ) The house had dis-
tinctly expressed its opinion that no man, as a lawyer,
ought to advocate any case in the house as a barrister.
(Hear.) After that expression of opinion no man would
dare to do so. (Hear )
_ _ _ _

Mr. MELLOR said that the legal profession were
already precluded from doing that which the resolution
aimed at. He hoped the noble lord would net press the
motio❑ to a division, although he should feel reluctant
to vote against it.

Lord 110TEUI replied, and the house divided, when
there appeared—
For the previous question BO
Ag,ainat it
Majority --71
The SPEAKER put the resolution.
The numbers were—
For the resolution...
Against it
Maj rity
(Cheers and laughter.)

210
27
----183

iISSESSORS AND COLLECTOR.S OF TAXES.
Mr. LINDSAY had given notice to move "that in the
opinion of this house the assessors and collectors of tax,s,
both assessed and income, should be appointed by the
C nnmissioners of Inland Revenue." The su'isct was one
of considerable importance, and his constituents, as well
as others, had suffered severely from the prevailing sys-
tem. He wished somewhat to modify his motion—to the
effect that the present mode of collecting the assessed and
income taxes in England was attended with great disad-
vantage and Ices, and that some other means of collect-
ing those taxes should be resorted to. Ile found that 71
paiishes had been called on fur second payments in c
sequence of the defalcations of collectors. In one case the
amount was as large as 2,5001., and his own cons' ituents
had had to repay 1,7651. Two collectors for Tynementh
were appointed in 1854 and 1855--Thomas Briggs and
Joseph Pbillipson. The warrant appointing them autho-
rised them to give the usual quittances, and to issue dis-
traints where necessary. atiggs became insolvent ; his
cidleague Piiillipion could not be made rtsponsible ; en 1
the property in the hands of the tfficial assignee crud not
be seiz fir the purpoiie. Thu result was a loss of 1,765/ ,
w hien was made up by a rc-assessment as usual. Tile in-
habitants resisted and took legal advice ; but there were
conflicting opinions, and ttiethard of Inland Revenue
insisted on the re-asscssment of the parish, and called on
the Commissioners to dis;rain. Two oilier parties were
named as c 'Hectors, Jackson .an l another, but they de-
clined to act atid were fined 501. for neglect of duty.
At kit a party had to be sent down from L ,indon
,espe-
cialfy to collect this tax, and the par phi of 13'11e-
mouth were ob'iged to pay it. Sevent) -sine other
parishes were in this same case. Tee law, as it stood,
was extremely difficult to understand ; theta were a
number f acts bearing on the subj-tet. The 43rd Geo.
111. gave directions for the appointment of assessors
and collectors, and by 5 and 6 Via. parishes were liable
to be re-assessed for defalcations. A subsequent act, 17
and 18 Viet., erepowercd the B iard of Inland Revenue
t
to require sourity frem the collectors. This
was
imperative, but ought to be made sc. would also
have the c dle.c ors appoint®d by the Government, who
would tlen be respo-o.ible for their deficiencieP.here
was naturally a difficulty in obtaining collectors for
s parishes, where the poundage, was scuall jt r .
n those

1 8 s'B.

cases he would not place the appointment in the hands
of the Treasury, but would divide the country into dis-
tricts, under commiszoners, who sWo-tild receive instruc-
tions from the Board of Inland Revenue to require secu-
rity from the collectors. By these meaos real responsi-
bility in the collectors would be secured. He had stated
the case briefly, but he hoped he bad said enough to
show the house the necessity for inquiry and some
change—(hear, hear) —and with these observations he
begged to move "that in the opinion of this house the
assessors and collectors of taxes, both assessed and in-
come, should be appointed by the Commissioners of In-
land Revenue."
Mr. %V ILLIAMS seconded the motion. In two
parishes of the borough which he represented very seri-
ous losses had been sustained through the defalcations
of collectors. He thought the responsibility of collect-
ing ought to be throw❑ on the Crown.
Sir J. TROLLOPE thought there would be great
difficulty in carrying out the views of the hon. member
for Tynemouth. In a large number of districts the re-
muneration was so small i.lsat no man would for it sub-
ject himself to the inconvenience of giving security to
the Government. He bad been a local commissioner
for many years, and never knew a case of defalcation in
auy officer appointed by him. He would suggest to the
hon. member that the best course would be to propose
the repeal of the statute of George hear)—
which enacted that in case of any defalcation the
amount should be re-assessed on the parish ; that was
a hardship. With taxes, as with anything el-e, if a
person paid his money to the duly qualified officer the
receipt ought to be a discharge under all circumstances.
(Hear.) If the hon. gentleman pressed the subject to a
division he must oppose it, although he admitted the
law required amendment.

Mr. RIDLEY contended the matter complained of
was a great grievance. There could not be a greater
hardship than that a man having once paid a tax to the
proper officer should be compelled to pay it over again.
He understood the matter had lately been under the
consideration of the Beard of Island Revenue, and he
trusted the Government would be able to provide a
remedy. If something was not done the effect on the
revenue might be very serious.
Mr. INGHAM considered the suggestion of the hon.
baronet (Sir J. Trollope) a very good one, and if adopted,
i: would go far to remedy the grievance complained of ;
but if the Inland Revenue Commissioners were respon-
sible for the collection of the revenue, they ought to
have the appointment of their own officers. If that
were done a much smaller number of collectors would
do the work.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
hon. member for Tynenacuth was fully justified in bring-
ing the matter before the house. No doubt what was
complained of was a grievance. He knew nothing more
severe than to have to pay taxes under any circum-
stances; but to have to pay them twice, and that
because a person of whom you never heard had run
away with the money, was a combination of grievances.
He still wished, however, the hon. gentleman would
❑ot press his motion. The question was really under
the consideration of the Government at the present
time. He did not use this as a mere phrase to meet a
motion from the opposite side. He could refer to the
report of the Inland Revenue Commissioners just laid
on the table. The Commissioners say, "The mode of
assessing and collecting the taxes by officers appointed
by the parish must before long demand your lordships'
consideration ; the subject is in a most unsatis-
factory state." The honourable baronet (sir J. Trol-
lope) had made a suggestion well worthy of atten-
tion; but the matter was one which could not be imme-
diately settled. It required grave consideration and con-
trivance before a satisfactory state of affairs could be
arrived at. It was not an easy matter to raise a large
revenue at a slight cost, and, moreover, there was a
local jealousy (isot to be discouraged) which must be
taken into account, and it was not advisable to increase
the patronage and power of the Crown beyond what the
neces•ity of the case required. The hon. gentleman had
done his duty in bringing the subject before the house,
and he trusted he would be content with the expression
of opinion on the sus jest. (Hear.)
Mr. LINDSAY, after the clear and express statement
of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would ask leave to
withdraw his motion---(hear, hear)—but he hoped no
time would be lost in dealing with the subject.
The motion was then withdrawn.
LUNATICS UNDER THE COURT OF
CHANCERY.
Mr. TITE, in moving for a select committee on this
subject, said the matter was so foreign to his usual pur-
suits, that he would not have moved for it, but a case of
great hardship having recently been laid before him, he
felt compelled by a sense of duty to bring the matter be-
fore the house. He regretted to hear that his motion was
to be opposed—he would have thought that the feelings
of every member would lead him to support it. It ap-
peared from recent returns that there were now 29,000
lunatics in England, the increase last year having been
1.000. There were 15,054 in the county asylums, and
7,060 pauper lunatics in the workhouses. Tee number of
county asylums was 38, and it was gratifying to learn that
last year the cures in them were 14 per cent. There were
551 lunatics under the control of the Court of Chancery,
possessing property to the amount of 240,0001. a-year.
The amount allowed for their support was 160,000/., or an
average of about 3001. a-year each. It might be supposed
that having such large funds for their support, those luna-
tics would be in a much better state than any other, but
in point of fact it was amongst this class that the greater
number of complaints of hardship were found to exist.
The proportion of cures did not exceed 2 per cent. The act
of 1853, though drawn with much legal acumen, did not
work. In the first place, only two medical visitors were
appointed to look after these 530 persons, and they were
only paid 500/. a year each, an amount of remuneration
for which it was impossible te expect gentlemen of their
eminence to devote the whole of their time. The result
was, that although the patients were required to be
visited once a year, the visitation was not efficient, and
without constant supervision the lunatic was sure to be
neglected. Lunacy was tiresome and harassing ; and
without constent vigilance humanity itself would cease
to be humane with regard to this unfortunate class. In
a recent return to the House of Lords he saw a case
mentioned in which no less than 1,1001. a year was
allowed for the maintenance of the lunatic—a sum that
must make the fortune of the asylum in which he hap-
pened to be placed. In another case, a clergyman, sub-
ject to partial hallucinations, and fit to move in society,
was placed, with an allowance of 4001. a year, in the
care of an ex-sergeant of police, whose other income only
amounted to SO4. He did not mean to say that the
lunatics in these cases were unkindly treated, but he
maintained that they were not treated quite fairly. With
regard to other patients, the reports of the commis-
sioners were regularly laid on the table ; so that if there
was any complaint it could easily be investigated ; but
the reports relating to the class to which he was calling
the attentio❑ of the house were kept secret. He would
not detain the house while he quoted to them the cases
of hardship which had come within his knowledge, but
hoped the government would take into consideration the
great importance of the subjec , and grant him the com-
mittee for which he moved. (Hear, hear.)
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL had no objection to
have the subject investigated ; but he thought if
an inquiry were undertaken at all, it should be a
thorough one, and one of a character which at that
period of the session it would be impossible to carry
out. If the subject were renewed next year and a
committee were appointed, every assistance would be
afforded by the government, and, he might add,
by the Lord Chancellor. The hon. gentleman had re-
ferred to the small per tentage of cures amongst patients
of this class ; but in point of fact commissions of lunacy
were never take❑ out except in the last resort. Re-
ferring to the list for a single year (1852) he found that
the shortest period during which the lunatic was found
to have been suffering from mental infirmity previous to
the proceedings being taken was two years. In one oc-
casion it was 50 years ; and some of the lunatics were
returned as having been idiots from their infancy, co
that in point of fast these persons might be considered as
having been all but incurable before any steps were
taken. The hon. gentleman stated tbas the act would
not work. No doubt it was susceptible of improvement,
but it had worked admirably. One great object of the
meesnre was to reduce the cost of proceedings in lunacy.
Formerly in the most ordinary cases the expenses up to
the appointment of the committee amounted to 200/...
now they were between 501. and 701., besides which all
the subsequent bus!nsss was transacted before a Master
in chambers and was attended with scarcely any addi-
tional coat at all. With regard to the visitors, he had
first to observe, that half the patients were in private
asylums, and had the advantage of the habitual visits
of the commissioners, presided over by Lord Shaftes-
bury. With regard to the rest, it would no doubt be
very desirable that they should be more frequently seen
by the two medical gentlemen appointed for that pur-
pose ; but it was unnecessary to say that if they insisted
on their visits being made oftener they must increase
th, it salaries. At the same t'me it must be borne in mind
that the pa ii u u aere under theiregular medical supervi-
sion which was provided by the scheme in each case ;
and the visitors, when they did see them, were in-
structed to ascertain that the scheme was carried out in
its minute-t detail,. The lion. gentleman had referred
tc a case where he sail 1,1001 was paid for the lunatic's
mitintenance ; but his " maintenance" included not only
what was paid for his board, but an allowance on
account of his family.
Mr. TITE said that in the report to the House of
Lords (which was dated the 21st of February) the sums
were placed under separate heads, and the 1,100/. was
returned as "maintenance of the lunatic."
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said from his know-
ltdee of the manner in which transactions of this kind
were conducted, he had no doubt the thing occurred in
the way be nad stated. The hon. member said the re-
parts of the comeniseionere were kept secret, It coul
❑ot tie supposed that it would be agreeable to the friends
of these uefer unate persona to have them laid on the
table of that house. (Hear, hear.) He (the S ,licitor-
Genera') thought the c untry was greatly indeb' ed to the
Lord Chancellor, and inure especially to the Lords
Justices, in whose doper tent the matter lay, for the
attention which was bestowed on these subject•. Ho
knew that in many cases the Lards Justices had made
a laroonal txawinaiion of lunatics, and, generally speak-
ing, they had manifested tie most lively interest in the
treatment and welfare of those who were under their
special cere. (EL ar.) He was desirous that wheneser
a complaint was made it should be fully investioa'ed, in
order that the house inight see how the act of 1853, re-
lating to this subject, worked. lie did not obj=et to
inquiry, but it was impossible that it could be properly
conducted.in the present seseion, and if the hon. gentle-
man would withdraw his motion then, and renew it next
session, he would have the support of the Government
in his attempt to obtain a feel and ccmplete inquiry. '
Mr. H. DRUMMOND thought it would have been
batter, if, instead of proposing an inquiry into "the 'awe
relating to lunatics," the hon. member had proposed an
inquiry into the care and treatment of lunatics. Every
ono who had studied the matter knew perfectly well

that the treatment of lunatics under the authority of the
Court of Chancery was much worse than the treatment
of other lunatics. It was impossible for the Lords
Justices to bestow sufficient attention on the matter to
discover all that was going on. (Due thing which ex-
cited his suspicion in a lunatic asylum was the circum-
stance that whenever a patient attempted to speak to
him a keeper immediately came up and said, " Take
care of him, sir, he is a very danqerous man."
Mr. TITE said, in accordance with the suggestion of
the Solicitor-General, he would withdraw his motion and
renew it next session.
The motion was then withdrawn.