The Sun.
London, England, 1845-07-03 00:00:00

LUNATICS BILL.

On the order of the day for bringing np the report of
the Lunatics Asylum, and Pauper Lunatics Bills,
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said that he was de-
cidedly opposed to the second reading of this
Bill. He wished the measure under consideration,
and the other measure on the paper also introduced by
the Noble Lord, to be postponed, because they were
much too important to be brought on by a private
Member. He did not see why the House should saddle
the country with additional expenses. He did not think
that six Commissioners, each receiving a salary of 1,5001..
a year, with a retiring pension, were necessary. His
Hon. Friend the Member for Weymouth had moved fora
certain return relative to theseexpenses, and he thought it
would be necessary that the House should be in reAses-
sion of that return before they voted away any more
money. He wished to know whether this was to be con-
sidered a Government Bill, or a Bill brought in by a
private individual. If the latter,-be thought it of too
great importance to be left to the care of an Honourable
Member.—(Hear, hear.) The Bill, as it stood,
was liable to objection, because it did not
give that protection to unfortunate persons confined in
private asylums which it ought to do. The Under-
Secretary of State for the Home Department said the
other evening that the Bill must be passed during that.
session of Parliament, or the Commission would expire,
but that was not the case. The Commission would not
expire till next session. and where, therefore, he asked,
was the necessity for the hurry of this proceeding? He
said that these expenses ought not to be saddled on the
Consolidated Fund until the return ordered by his Hc,n.
Friend had been laid on the table. The public had a
right to know how the money had been expended on
former occasions, and were it but produced the House
would find that the Commissioners were not the
extraordinary fine persons they were represented
to be. What did Mr. Perceval says and he had
ample experience of the system, eleven years ago ?
He was a victim to the private usylum system. He
stated that this Bill would nor remedy the e%ils from
which he and others hack suffered. He (Mr. T. bun-
combe) gave every er'..dit to the Noble Lord the Member
for Dorsetshire tbr his knowledge of this subject, but be
would rather trust the statements made by individuals like
Mr. Percival, who had had their knowledge founded 'en
experience. He protested against the indecent haste with
which the measure had been urged forward ; and, under
all the circumstances, he should move that it be read that
day six months.
Mr. S. CRAWFORD seconded the motion.
Lord ASHLEY complained that the Honourable
Member for Finsbury had not re: erved the discussion
on the part of the salaries to the Commissioners until
the Bill was in Committee. He could then state to the
Honourable Member for Weymouth every de-
tail which he might require. The discussion might in
Committee be taken on the clause, but surely it was
most inconvenient then to open up the whole question
when so much time had already been consumed
in its consideration. Should the Honourable
Member for Finsbury consent to this course,
he believed he should be able to satisfy the House and
the Hon. Member for Finsbury that what he was asking
was no more thee what was just—was no more than what
was economical—and no more than what was absolutely
necessary for the exigencies of the case. The provisions
of the Bill he stated so far back as last session, and, on
that occasion, his Right Hon. Friend the Secretary for
the Home Department had prevailed upon him to under-
take the preparation and bringing in of the Bill The
Right Hon. Gentleman stated that Government would
render him every assistance, if they approved of the
Bill. The measure had now been before Govern-
ment for some time, before the Poor-law Commissioners,
and various other parties, named by the Government,
who had all sanctioned it, and he was now only acting
for and as the mouth-peace of the Government, in pro-
pounding their Bills. He, therefore, entreated the Hon
Member to allow him to go into Committee, when he
had no doubt he should be able to dispel all his objec-
tions to the measure ; else out of kindness to the unfor-
tunate individuals for whose accommodation the pro-
visions of the Bill were intended.
Mr. F. BARING hoped that his Noble Friend would
allow the report to he brought up. That did not bind
the House to enter into any discussion on the subject.
All that would be required would be to bring up the
resolution and have it read, and then the House could
enter upon the consideration of the whole Bill. He
hoped his Noble Friend would not stand on a point of
form.

Mr. MILNER GIBSON briefly supported the motion
of the Hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Duncombe).
He could not see any difficulty that would arise from
taking such a course.

Mr: MANNERS SUTTON suggested that they
should be allowed to proceed with the Bill as far as the
Committee, and that any objections might as well be
made in Committee. He begged that the Hon. Member
would not press his motion.
Mr. V. SMITH was of opinion that any objections
might be urged in Committee.
After a few words from Mr. CARDWELL,
Mr. CHRISTIE said he hoped that, under all the cir-
cumstances, his Honourable Friend would withdraw his
opposition to the further progress of the Bill.
Mr. DUNCOMBE said he would not withdraw his
opposition. He wished the Bill postponed till next ses-
sion, and if this were not done he would divide the
House on every clause. He had a duty to perform to the
unfortunate creatures who were the objects of this Bill,
and he was determined to persevere in his motion of
postponement.
Strangers were ordered to withdraw.
The House then divided, when there appeared--
For Mr. Duncombe's motion
Against it
117
Majority
-102
The report was then received.

PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE.
On the question, that the other orders of the day be
proceeded with,
Mr. DIVETT rose, and said he had to present a pe-
tition of the most important kind as respected the pri-
vileges of that House. It was from a genteman
named Barrett, formerly a Member of the House,
who stated that last session he was summoned
as witness on the Committee of Inquiry into the Medical
Bill, at which the lion. and Noble Member for Dorset-
shire presided. In consequence of the evidence which
he had then given, he was subcequently served with
notice that an action would be brought against him,
and a declaration filed on the 26th of June stated that
the cause of action was for giving false evidence and
libelling the character of the plaintiff. This Mr. Barrett
denied, affirming that he had stated nothing but what
was in strict conformity with the truth, and
to that avowal he (Mr. Divett), after the most careful
examination into the case, believed was strictly correct.
The petitioner, after complaining of the expense and
inconvenience to which this action would subject him,
prayed the protection of the House against it. He (Mr.
Divett) thought that if they were not prepared to mud°
to the prayer of the petition, they would be abrogating