The Sun.
London, England, 1842-04-21 00:00:00

was, that the inmates of the asylum should be treated
w ith kindness ; and he thought any gentleman with or-
dinary capacity could judge of that. In the Metropoli-
tan Commission there were five Medical Commissioners
and only two barristers. If medical men were to be ap-
pointed to this charge, he believed they would not be
able to secure the services of any. but very young practi-
tioners ; and it would, he believed, be very annoying to
the very respectable men who had the management of
the medical departments, to have such Commissioners as
those to interfere with them, instead of gentlemen whose
views would probably not clash with theirs. This was
one very strong reason why he objected to Medical Com-
missioners being appointed. He proposed that the bar-
rister should take any independent medical man of the
neighbourhood, with him, and decide upon the sanity of
a patient in an asylum ; and this, he thought, would
meet the objection of the Honourable Member
for Finsbury. The Visiting Magistrates bad, in
many cases, cot exercised their power of liberating inmates
of asylums as fully as they ought to have done. This
unquestionably was frequently. because they could not see
their way through the legal difficulties of such an Act; but
the conduct of the Visiting Commissioners, as set forth
in the Bill, would be both an example and ant encourage-
ment to the local Justices. lie altogether differed from
the views stated in the petition read by the Hon. Diem-
ben He believed that interfering with the medical con-
dition of inmates of lunatic asylums would be taking the
responsibility from the regular medical officers. He, did
not think they would be able to get any able medical
man in full practice to sacrifice so much of his time
as the duties of a Medical Commissioner would
require of him. He wished he could have thought it
possible to have made the measure much more compre-
hensive than it was ; but another Bill had been intro-
duced on the subject into the other House of Parliament.
lie had not heard any arguments from the Hon. Gentle-
man that had induced him to alter his opinion as to the
provisions of the Bill as it then stood.
Mr. PA.KINGTON gave every credit to his Noble
Friend for the motives which had actuated him in bring-
ing, forward this measure. He thought, however, it
would be more advisable to have Medical Commissioners
than barristers. He hoped his Noble Friend would also
reconsider some of the more stringent portions of the Bill,
which were of an inquisitorial character. He did not
think that any Barrister Commissioner could perform
his duties satisfactorily. He was glad to hear that the
barrister might employ the medical officer appointed by
the sessions, and he hoped that it would be made com-
pulsory on the barrister to have his assistance_ If the
Bill were to pass in its present state, he feared that no
medical person of respectability would undertake the
keeping of a lunatic asylum.
Mr. W. MILES hoped this Bill was mainly the pre-
cursor of some more general enactment on the subject.
lie objected having the Commissioners appointed ex-
clusively from the legal profession, and suggested that
there should be one Legal and one Medical Commissioner.
H,, approved of the present method of inspection by the
Visiting Magistrates, assisted as they always were by
there own medical officer, without whose advice it
would frequently have been impossible for them
to determine cn the cases brought before them. He
could not adopt the proposition of the Hon. Member, but
at the same time he thanked the Hon. Member for bringing
it forward.

Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET said he would
strike out the clause restricting the Commission from
calling in the assistance of the medical officer appointed
by the Court of-Quarter Session.
Mr. WAKLEY said, he hoped the Noble Lord would
neither mention Medical Commission norLegalCommis-
Lion, but leave the whole responsibility to the Lord Chan-
cellor. He would withdraw his amendment if the Noble
Lord would adopt the suggestion he had made—viz., to
introduce the words " two Commissioners," only leaving
-the profession to the Lord Chancellor.
:\ Ir. I'. HOWARD thought that a medical man was to
he preferred to a man of the legal profession, being more
adapted to the office. He should, therefore, support
the Hon. Member for Finsbury.

Mr. HENLEY thought that the word " barrister "
should remain.

Lord G. SOMERSET could not acquiesce in the
proposition of the Hon. Member for Finsbury, to leave
the responsibility of the appointment of the Commission
to the Lord Chancellor.

Mr. WAKLEY withdrew his first amendment, . and
moved in its stead the words " Two Commissioners,"
leaving out the words "Barristers." lie trusted the
Noble Lord and the House- would adopt this suggestion.
Mr. HARDY would much rather see the adoption
of the proposal for a Commissioner of the legal pro-
fession and one of the medical profession to be ap-
pointed than the last proposal of the lion. Member.
He (Mr. Hardy) had visited a lunatic asylum, and he
met a man there who was confined as a lunatic, and he
conversed so rationally that he (Mr. H.) was led to enter
into conversation with him with respect to his situation,
when the re_an informed. him that. he had been placed
there by his brother in order to his being deprived of
his property. He conversed with the man so long, that
at last he was locked up in the ward with half a dozen of
the lunatics—(Loud laughter)—who came round him,
and said that. they-had been placed there in the same
way, having been left there by their friends.—(Roars of
laughter.) Had he (Mr. Hardy) been a Magistrate of
that district, so rational did the man talk to whom he
had alluded, that he would have ordered his discharge.
He thought that that was a good reason why a medical
man should be appointed.
Mr. GODSON thought there ought to be a combi-
nation of the two professions. He had known a medical
man who swore that he believed every man was mad.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw. The
House then divided, when there appeared—
Fur the Amendment

Against it
Majority for the Amendment — 3
On re4ntering the gallery we found
Lord G.- SOMERSET on his legs, who said a few
words, which 'ere quite inaudible.
After a desultory
,conversation between the NOBLE
LORD and Mr. WAKLEY, the latter Hon. Member sug-
gested that the Chairman should report progress,
Lord G. SOMERSET said he thought, then, that the
only course for him was to move that the Chairman re-
port progress, and ask leave to sit again.
The CHAIRMAN reported progress, and obtained leave
to sit again this day fortnight.
COPYRIGIIT BILL.

On the motion that clause 15 stand part of the Bill,
Mr. WAKLEY said he thought this clause would
prevent elegant extracts being put into school-books ;
he wished to know what ef&ct this clause would have
with respect to the existing law, which was at present
very- stringent ; but stringent though it was, it was
beieve.l that the proposed clause would be much more so.
Mr. GODSON said that he thought that the making
of extracts to a limited extent would not come within
the limits of piracy ; and instead ofinjuring the property,
they would serve as a very good advertisement. If the
extracts were bona fide, then it would not be a piracy;
but unless there were some restriction, they might;
under the pretence of a school-hook, extract the whole
of the book, or at any rate the whole of the beauties of it.
The sole question before a Court of Law was, whether
the extracts were so extensive as to injure the property.
lle thought, thet unless the clause were retained, authors
wotild have no means of defending themselves agains
Tinley.
Mr. AGLIONBY opposed the clause. It appeared to
bite that the effect of passing this clause would be, that
the large class of books on important subjects which,
from their cheapness,- were accessible to the public,
would no longer be placed within their reach. It was,
in his opinion, entirely inconsistent with the public inte-
rest that this clause should be agreetlito.
Lord MAHON said it was undoubtedly perfectly fair
that in the works of Enfield and Blair passages should
be inserted from Scott or 'from Byron ; but this clause
was intended to provide for a totally different case.
Nothing was more easy than, under the name of conipila-'
tion, to extract all the essential parts of a work,
and it was against that evil that this clause was
intended to provide. Admitting, with the Hon. Member
opposite, that there were many cases in which the ex-
tracts were perfectly fair, yet he contended that there
were others in which the grossest injustice was perpe-
trated under the name of compilation. The object of
this clause was to re-enact and re-affirm the existing law.
Mr. GODSON explained.
Nr. WAKLEY said that if the clause was passed a
large class of useful publications would be stopped. The
Mirror, which contained the most valuable matter, and
had been circulated for many years throughout the cot-
tages of the land, consisted almost exclusively of compi-
lations. So also, to a great extent, did Chambers's Edin-
burgh Journa Both those works would be injuriously
affcted by the proposed clause.
Mr. HODGSON was most desirous to have piracy de-
fined. Mrh:.t better test could there be than the fatit of
the extract being injurious to the property of another ?
This would be the question which should be in cases of
litigation laid before the Jury. The length of an extract
would only sometimes Le an evidence of alleged iujury ;
but many'circumstances should be considered at once.
Mr. CHRISTIE was anxious that authors should be
protected against compilers.
Mr. WAKLEY quoted from Mr. Godson that a piracy
Was not committed unless nearly the whole of a book
was extracted, or the extracts made with a manifest bad
intent in the opinion of a jury.
After a short conversation, during which some verbal
amendments were agreed to, the Committee divided,
when there appeared—
For the clause
Against it
Majority for the clause
The clause was then passed.
Clauses 17, 18, and 19, were agre.ed to, with some
slight amendments in the last.
Clauses 20, 21, 22 and 23 were agreed to.
On Clause 24. a discussion took place, during which
Mr. GODSON explained the object of the clause was
to preclude the necessity of applying to the Court of
Chancery in all cases of piracy, for an injunction to
prevent it. The clause allowed the injunction to be is-
sued . by the Common Law Courts, thus avoiding the
necessity for two sets of proceedings.
Me WAKLEY said the elapse, still left the option of
applying to the Court of Chancery. The more sensible
course would be to compel the application to be made to
the Common Law Cou:c at once.
Air. GODSON explained that in case an injunction,
as well as damages, were reit:tired, it would be necessary
to apply to the Court of Chancery,
Mr. Sergeant JACKSON suggested that, in case an
action had been commenced in a Court of Common Law
for another purpose, then the power of granting an in-
junction should_be_given it ; but lie objected to giving
thatiMlN3R,UAMl.,urts a power which they did not
arlieesent,t,
>Mr.- IiGLIOICt ' that the better course
bested
''-,Would be-io postponte e clause, in order that it might
be drawn up inAp:i. t":', form. The adoption of such a
e,,rse Avot4:44M-4 • oble Lord (Mahon) to consult,
`l'" Judges of.4tet! Cl4;iiiiiton Law Courts.
A\ fter a fe-*observatiOns from Lord Mahon, the clause
es.-s ordered to be struck out.
. ..

36
11

-25