The Sun.
London, England, 1845-07-30 00:00:00

who really did not deserve it; While by the passing of the
Bill, thoae who had been guilty of ti ,e fraud, or rather those
who ought to be punished, would beget escape by reason of the

House of doing so.
The Duke of WELLINGTON said it was very strange
that the Directors, who had the power to come before the
Committee, should not have come before them., for the purpose
of clearing themselves. By not adopting this course they
threw great suspicion on their proceet-lings.
Their Lordships then divided, when there appeared— .
For the rejection cf•the Bill
Against it . 8
Majority
Some conversation then ensued with re speet to the witness
Smith, against whom there is a charge of felony, which, how-
ever, led to no satisfactory result.
STANDING ORDERS.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE gave notice that he should
bring the following standing order under the attention of the
House on Friday neat : —That proof shall be required before
the Standing Orders' Committee that the names subscribed to
a Bill or petition are bona fide.
SCOTCH POOR-LAW BILL.
The Duke of BUCCLEUCH moved the third reading of
this Bill.
The Marquis of BREADALBANE presented a number of
petitions from various parts of Scotland against it.
The Duke of BUCCLEUCH could not consent to the pro-
position of the Noble Lord (Cottenham). The Act of Parlia-
ment provided that that portion of the feofment which it was
contended belonged to the parish of South Leith, not to that
of St. Giles, Edinburgh, and its inhabitants, were subject to
pay double rates, both parochial, tithe, and cess. The object
of the clause was not to overthrow a decision of that House,
but to remedy a palpable hardship, which had been exposed by
a discussion in the House, and he therefore cordially supported
the clause.
Lord CAMPBELL was astonished, after the able speech of
his Noble Friend near him ( Lord Cottenham), to find that the
Government persisted in pressing this obnoxious clause—a
clause which, if passed, would be a reproach, not only to the
Administration, but the House. He had always been an op-
ponent of the Government, but, nevertheless, had believed that
among its members were men of honour, who wished to aet
upon principle towards every part of the kingdom, and of jus-
tice towards man and man. If, however, they now refused to
accede to the proposition for excluding the 17th clause, he
should chancre that opinion, and believe that they were actuated
by neither ability or principle. At any rate, he implored his
Noble Friend on the Woolsack, whose talents, integrity, and
honour were unimpeachable, to say whether the clause was not
most iniquitous? This was a question already decided by the
House. He himself, as advocate, had argued it at the bar of
their Lordships' House, and his Noble Friend (Lord Cotten-
ham), who then sat on the Woolsack, satisfactorily put the
matter beyond dispute by an adjudication which it was sought
to overthrow.
Earl DALHOUSIE said that it was because her Majesty's
Government wished to act with justice towards man and man,
that they would not agree to the expunging of this clause. It
was a novel principle to be laid down that because an advocate
had pleaded, and a judge had decided, a certain question, the
House was prevented from amending the law which rendered
that adjudication, however hard in its requirements, necessary.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that having been called
on by his Noble Friend (Lord Campbell) to explain the law
upon the question, and give his opinion, he would without he-
sitation respond to the appeal. He had looked into the Act of
Parliament and the original contracts most carefully, and he
was therefore in a position to speak with confidence. No con-
tract between these parties could affect the parish of Leith, and
therefore the parties residing in the district would be liable to
pay both the poor-rates of the city of Edinburgh and the paro-
chial burdens of the parish of Leith. The inhabitants were
liable, he repeated, to contribute to the public burdema of the
parish of Leith. That was the effect of the contract. The
Act of Parliament had been passed 10 years after the
contract had been made, and it ratified and recited that
contract. The Act recited that the spot in question
should be included in the Royalties of Edinburgh,
and at the same time be subject to the burdens above enume-
rated, in the parish of Leith. Therefore, the Act of Parlia-
ment in no way varied the case. The matter had been first
decided by the Lords in Ordinary, then by the Courts of Ses-
sion, and finally by that House, which confirmed the decision of
the courts below, on the footing of contract. The present
occupants were as much bound by the contract as the original
contractors. The effect of the law might certainly be hard en
those persons, but they took the property subject to the con-
tingent burdens. It was, he admitted, hard, that the inhabi-
tants should be taxed, not for the value of the land, but accord-
ing to their means and substance. There could be no doubt
as to the law of the case; and if the inhabitants were to be
relieved, it must be done by Act of Parliament.
Lord CAMPBELL said the clause could not be supported,
and trusted that without further discussion it would be with-
drawn.
The Earl of HADDINGTON supported the clause, and
thought the hardship a serious one, and required a remedy.
Lord COTTENHAM urged the withdrawal of the clause,
and entirely agreed with his Noble and Learned Friend on the
Woolsack, that it would be highly inexpedient to pass the clause.
The contract was a regular bond fide one, and to abolish it
would be to take the property of one and give it to another.
He thought that those who framed the clause must have done
so in utter ignorance of the law of the case.
The Duke of WELLINGTON said it was most unfortunate
that any party views had been brought into this discussion. It
appeared to him when the question was first introduced that the
legal objection had been raised with the view of postponing the
Bill to a future session.
Lord CAMPBELL intimated his dissent.
Tae Duke of WELLINGTON said, however that might be,
it was quite certain that by this law great alterations were about
being made in the condition of the poor of Scotland. As re-
garded the clause under discussion, after the expression of the
Noble and Learned Lords opposite, and the Noble and Learned
Lord on the Woolsack, he would recommend the withdrawal of
the clause.
The Duke of BUCCLEUCH acquiesced in the suggestion of
the Noble Duke, and would withdraw the clause.
The clause was then withdrawn, and the Bill was read a
third time and passed.
PAUPER LUNATICS ALYLUNI BILL.
The House then went into Committee upon this Bill.
Lord BEAUMONT objected to the wording of the clause
which permitted the public asylums to admit other lunatics.
The LORD CHANCELLOR supported the clause, which,
after some verbal amendments, was agreed to.
Clauses up to clause 41 were, with a few verbal amendments,
agreed to.
Clauses 42 and up to 91 were agreed to.
The House then resumed, and the Bill was ordered to be re-
ported on Thursday next.
DRAINAGE (IRELAND) BILL.
This Bill was read a third time and passed.
LUNATICS BILL.
On the motion being put for the committal of this Bill,
The LORD CHANCELLOR rose and said, he had been
requested by his Noble Friend Lord Ashley to state the
nature and object of this Bill. Previous to the year 1774 there
was, comparatively speaking, no protection given to persons
who happened to be in this unhappy situation, and everybody
who was acquainted with the history of that period knew well
that cases of cruelty and injustice were of frequent occurrence.
The 14th of George HI. to a certain degree provided a
remedy for the evil, but it was found the provisions of that
Act were totally inadequate for the purposes for which they
were brought forward, and in 1830 his friend, Mr. Robert
Gordon, brought the subject under the consideration of the other
House of Parlirment, and introduced a Bill for improving the
then existing law of lunacy. By that Bill Commissioners
were appointed who had the power of licensing and visiting
private establishments, and the Bill contained other provisions
for the purpose of meeting the evils which had been pre-
viously complained of. That Bill was merely a temporary
measure and was only intended to continue in force for three
years. It was found, however, that it operated so well that it
was again and again renewed, and it was now about to expire.
The present Bill was brought forward for the purpose of making
that Act permanent. The Bill, however, introduced some
alterations into the existing law, and it would he necessary for
him to put their Lordships in possession of the changes which
it proposed to effect. The first alteration was, that in conse-
quence of the Bill being made permanent, it had become ne-
cessary to make the office of Commissioners also permanent.
Hitherto the number of Commissioners had been twenty,
eleven of whom where paid, and consisted of barristers and
medical practitioners, and the remaining nine Commissioners,
from motives of benevolence, performed the office gratuitously.
The present Bill proposed to reduce the number of paid Com-
missioners from eleven to six, and the number of the other
class of Commissioners from nine to five, making in all eleven.
By the existing law a paid:Commissioner was not restricted from
devoting his attention to private practice ; but, under the pre-
sent Bib, he was compelled to give the whole of his atten-
tion to the duties of his office. Another change was pro-
posed to be introduced into the law relative to the mode of re-
munerating the Commissioners. Under the existing law they
were paid by fees ; but, instead of paying them by this mode,
they would be paid by salaries of 1,5001. each, snaking an annual
total of 9,0001. It had been suggested to him that
this mode of remuneration would considerably increase the
expense of the commission, but he had looked into
the subject himself, and he could assure their Lordships that it
would diminish instead of increase the expenses. The Com-
missioners under the existing Act had the ;power of visiting
private asylums, but they had not the power of visiting private
hospitals. But the Bill of his Noble Friend proposed to remedy
this defect. Another point of improvement was, that the visitors
were to be allowed to examine and inspect workhouses or
places where paupers were confined ; they were not, however,
to interfere with the duties of the Poor-law Commissioners,
but simply to report to the Commissioner the result of their in-
quiries. There; was another important alteration to which he
wished to call their Lordships' attention. It related to what
were termed single houses, or in other words, houses where
only one patient vies confined. Their Lordships, in the exist-
ing Bill, restricted the Commissioners from visiting these esta-
blishments, but, as the proposed Bill stood, the Lord Chancellor
would have the power of selecting three of the Commissioners
who should act as a sort of private committee for visiting single
houses. These were the chief provisions of the Bill. He thought
that the alterations were all salutary. The persons who kept
lunatic asylums were in the habit of taking in persons who were
accused of being of nervous temperament, but not insane or
st
pasyTtiolt
uwoh
theirmreo
srss. The
owf
Lordshipsii ielti,
irhasheo,
Irvin sn.
win
ndl
edgi
should
ohonuete notl
be
iodfiethtiee'v
us tisteit.fe
e the
upon
Hpoe n visitorsl
,trho e.
ipno hadst
ehtdeh
teah
Bill. gi
is caooloall menoi
nweoetfeodpu thel
Cntaodcoeeehmxseomi
ot the ejurisdiction
concealment
The Earl of ELDON approved of the Bill generally, but he
objected to some of the details, and he had a petition to present
from persons in the county of Oxford against interference with
the institution at Warnford.
' Lord MONTEAG LE thought that there ought to be some
better provision made fur the supervision of asylums in England
and Ireland.
The House then went into Committee, and the report was
brought up with some amendments.
The Bills of Exchange Bill passed through Committee, and
was ordered to be read a third time on Friday.
The Railway Selling and Leasing Bill passed through Com.
mittee, as also did the Bonded Corn Bill, and were ordered
to be read a third time on Thursday.
The Report on the Fisheries (Ireland) Bill was received.
The Fees Compensation Bill went through Committee, as
did also the Criminal Jurisdiction of Assistant Barristers
(Ireland) Bill, which was ordered to be read a third time on
Thursday.
The Militia Pay Bill, arid Joint-Stock Company's Bill, were
committed, and ordered to be read a third time on Thursday.
The House then adjourned, at Eleven o'clock, till Thursday
..- next.
I
die — lis

ROUSE OF COMMONS', ..hdy 29.
_(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of ve,,terday.) 7c K 7
JOINT-STOCK BANKS (SCOTLAND AND IRE-

LAND) BILL.
Oil the order of the day for bringing up the report on this
Bill being read,

Mr. BOUVERIE objected to the hurry with which the Bill
was carried through the House. The Scotch system of bank-
ing had been in existence for a great number of years, and had
worked in a most satisfactory manner. He thought that at
least more time should be given to consider the details of the
measure. He would move that the Bill be recommitted that
day six months.
The motion being seconded,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
could net agree that the Bill had been hurried through the
House, lie coadered it had been fully dimmed. In the