The Sun.
London, England, 1845-07-12 00:00:00

ROUSE OF COMMONS, July 11.
LUNATICS BILL.

( Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
Lord A ~HLEY denied that the Bill was any iob, and de-
fended the course pursued by the Commissioners. The Noble
Lord then explained what the state of the law had been up to
1834, and the appointment of the Commission. The
Act then existing was renewed every three years
up to 1542, when a Bill was brought in by his
Noble Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancas-
ter. He then proceeded to explain the nature of that Bill.
He then went on to say that the Commission was then ap-
pointed at that time ; that they reported there were
17 county asylums in England, 11 of which were
of a mxed character, and were supported by subscription
and voluntary contributions; there were 99 houses which were
licensed by ju,tices, 59 of which received private patients, and
40 received pauper and other patients. In the metropolitan dis-
tricts there were 37 houses licensed by magistrates, 33 of which
received private patients, and the remaining four pauper and
other patients. These were visited four times a year. There
were altogether 166 houses of this descrip•ion, which were
visited once, twice, arid a few of them four times a year. The
report on this Commission was presented to that House at the
close of the last session ; and as he hod taken such a prominent
part in the investigations, and having been chairman of
the Commission, he had been solicited to bring for-
ward some measures to remedy the evils which
existed, and the result had been the two Bills which were at
present under consideration. The Noble Lord then explained
the details of his Bills. and said that, if the House
had carefully read the report of the Commission, they would
have little difficulty in giving their support to them. He also
proved that the expense of visitation would be considerably
diminished, though the labours of the Commission
would be very materially increased.—( Hear.) He then
dwelt upon the utility of unexpected and frequent
visitation, which would be provided for by these Bills. There
was no one better acquainted with the enormous evils which
existed under the law as it now stood than he
was, and he trusted that the Honourable Member
for Finsbury (Mr. Duncombe) would not throw any obstruc-
tion in the way of those advantages which would un-
doubtedly result to those unfortunate creatures if
these provisions were carried into effect. Ihe
Noble Lord then detailed several instances of the most
shocking cruelty which the Commission had reported on,
and which had been permitted under the existing law,
and he hoped that the House would no longer tolerate the
existence of those evils which were a disgrace to the age in
which they lived, and more especially to this enlightened country.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE moved the amendment of which he
had given notice—" That the Bill should be postponed till
next session, there not being sufficient time this session to give
that consideration to the subject which it required." He
objected to the construction of the Commission. It should sit
perpetually, as the Poor-law Commission did. He did not like
these amateur Commissioners ; if they must have Commissioners
Ilet them be properly paid, properly responsible, and placed
under the supervision of the Home-office. At the present
advanced period of the session this measure ought not to be
pressed forward with such haste It would be better to
postpone the measure until next session, and then to insti-
tute a searching inquiry. This measure would not
correct any of the abuses he had complained of.
Persons might still be incarcerated by interested
parties, upon the production of a certificate signed by
two medical men. An inquiry ought to be made,
to ascertain if this was such a measure as these unfor-
tunate people required for their protection, and such a measure
as the nation had a right to expect from that House. The Noble
Lord had made no allusion to the petitions which he (Mr. D.)
had presented. Let them look at the petitions of Mr.
Perceval and of Mr. Lewis Phillips. Did the Noble Lord
mean to say that Mr. Phillips was insane? He (Mr. T.
Duncombe) would inform the Noble Lord that Mr. Phillips
was as sane as any man in that House. How was it that the
allegations of that petition had not been inquired into? He
had made inquiries on the subject, and he believed every alle-
gation of the petition could be made out. (The Ho-
nourable Gentleman then read the petition of Mr. L.
Phillips, which has already been published.) Mr.
Phillips brought an action against Dr. Warburton,
which, however, Mr. Chitty said could not be sustained, be-
cause he had been incarcerated with a proper certificate, but
he indicted Dr. Warburton and all the parties for a
conspiracy, and Dr. Warburton paid 1701. rather than let the
matter come into court. Mr. Prockter, one of the Commissioners,
who had known Phillips, saw him in the asylum, and said he
could not release him until he had had their visit. A poor
woman in the next cell to Phillips had complained to the Com-
missioners, and had been brutally ill-treated by the keeper
in consequence. These things required that a searching in-
quiry should be made into the operation of the present law.
There were good things in this Bill ; for instance, the
power of visiting asylums for single patients. But he
objected to rendering this Commission permanent until inquiry
had been made into the working of the existing Commission.
This measure had been so smuggled through the House, that
the public were not aware that such an important measure
was under consideration. The Hon. Gentleman then referred
to the petitions of Mr. W. Bailey and Captain Digby,
both of whom he believed to be sane. He contended that
Captain Digby had been confined from interested motives,
and that he was not a fit person to be shut up. It
was horrible to contemplate the probability of a sane
man being committed to one of these dreadful asylums
on a certificate signed by two interested apothecaries,
without being taken before a magistrate, and without the
intervention of a jury. Captain Digby was not released
until he threatened an action against the persons
who had incarcerated him, and as a proof that Dr. Stillwell
did not consider him very insane he would state that Dr.
Stillwell made him sign a cheque for his keep before he
was released. He complained that where parties came
before the Commissioners to prove the sanity of their friends
they were treated with haughtiness and arrogance. Capt.
Digby's relations, and some of them ladies too had been
thus treated by the Commissioners, and if they
would grant him an inquiry lie would prove it.
Captain Digby, if he were examined, would state the cruelties
which he had witnessed, and he did himself honour by the way
in which he had come forward. He knew it might be said that
Capt. Digby was insane. But he would direct their attention to
cases which had come before the police magistrates, and about
which there had been no doubt. ( The lion. Gentleman then
alluded to the case of Mrs. Finn, who, having been confined as a
lunatic, was released through the intervention of Mr. Broughton.
magistrate, who had stated from the bench his opinion that the
law required alteration.) Now this measure made no alteration
whatever in the law in this respect. He also objected to
the great allowances, and to the large retiring pensions,
awarded to the Commissioners and their officers. It savoured
of an attempt at a job, and that alone ought to throw out
the Bill.

On the amendment being put from the Chair,
Mr. S. Crawford and Mr. Smith rose together, and, neither
being inclined to give way,
Mr. DUNCOMBE rose to order, and insisted on the
priority of Mr. S. Crawford's claim.
The SPEAKER having called on that Hon. Member to
proceed,
Mr. S. CRAWFORD said that, considering the late period
of the session, he thought the proposition of postponement not
only reasonable, but absolutely necessary, and he, therefore,
should second the amendment of his Hon. Friend the Member
for Finsbury.
Mr. V. SMITH regretted that the Honourable Member
who had chosen to introduce this amendment had not thought
it consistent with his duty to consult the convenience
of the Speaker, and reserve discussion till the Bill went into
Committee.—( Hear, hear.) But the very objects of the
Member for Finsbury himself—viz , to obviate or remove the
evils existing under the present Commission—would be much
better promoted by allowing the measure to proceed without
delay. The comparison instituted between the two Com-
missions, the existing and the proposed, was strangely un-
tenable. The peculiar feature of the Noble Lord's (Ashley's)
Bill was, that it sought to dispense with the present Commis-
sion, and create another without the anomalies or evils com-
plained of now, and its virtual effect would be to postpone the
powers of the very Commission which was so frequently
and unjustly impugned. He said unjustly. As to
the anecdote told by the Honourable Gentleman respecting
Captain Digby, who was alleged to have signed a cheque when
in confinement, and on his liberation immediately going to his
banker and stopping payment, the case, if true, certainly attached
blame to the officer, but none whatever to the commis-
sioners.--( Hear, hear.) It fell wholly without their juris-
diction, and like that of Mr. Phillips and Mr. Per-
cival was irrelevant to the conduct of that body. He,
therefore, trusted the House would refuse the proposition for
delay, and adopt a measure of such vast benefits and importance
to the public.
Lord DUNCAN moved the adjournment of the debate.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM surgested that the Hon. Member
for Bath should withdraw his motion of adjournment, on
an understanding that the details of the Bill should not be dis-
cussed till Monday next, and that meanwhile the sense of the
House should be taken on the Hon. Member for Finsbury's
amendment.

Mr. DUNCOMBE stated that the appointment of Monday
would be personally inconvenient to him, but if Tuesday at
twelve o'clock were named, he would promise not to oppose
the Speaker's leaving the chair on that day.
This arrangement being acceded to, strangers were ordered
to withdraw, and the House divided, when there appeared—

For Mr. Duncombe's amendment. t
For the original motion 66
Majority for the original motion
The House then adjourned to Fire o'clock.

The SPEAKER took the chair again at Five o'clock.
PRIVILEGE.

Sir J. Y. BULLER presented a petition from Mr. Phillips,
who stated that he had suffered mach in practice as a surgeon,
and had been kept out of several lucrative situations in conse-
quence of the evidence of Mr. Jasper Parrott given before a Com-
mittee of that House. The petitioner prayed the House to take
his case into their most anxious consideration, and grant him the
means of meeting the evidence of the said Joseph Parrott, and
if such evidence should be proved to be false, toenable the peti-
tioner to recover damages. The Hon. Baronet moved that
the petition be printed, and gave notice that he should submit
a motion on the subject on Monday next.
Mr. DI VETT said he had a petition on the same subject
from Mr. Parrott, who stated, that in giving the evidence
complained of, he had been actuated by no malicious
or vindictive feeling, and that such evidence was given
under a sense of duty which he owed to that Hon. House.
The petitioner prayed for an opportunity to substantiate the
truth of his statements, and alleged that Mr. Phillips had not
been deprived of any dice in consequence of the evidence of
the petitioner.
Mr. BALFOUR presented a petition against the Scotch
Poor Law.

Messengers from the Lords then brought in several Bills
from the Upper House.

THE DANISH CLAIMS.
Mr. HAWES postponed his motion on the Danish claims
till Tuesday week.
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION.
Mr. ESCOTT said he would on Tuesday next move
for leave to bring in a Bill for the abolition of
certain unjust fees in courts of criminal jurisdiction.
POOR-LAW AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM moved the order of the day fur
going into committee on the Poor-law Amendment (Scotland)
Bill.
Mr. HUME said that while he was most anxious that her
Majesty 'sGovernment should ameliorate the condition of the poor
in Scotland, he was yet anxious, as the Bill before the House was
a long one, containing many provisions, that it should be post-
pried till next session, so as to give the people of Scotland an
opportunity of testing the Bill, and of postponing such amend-
ments as would render further legislation unnecessary. He
trusted that they would, therefOre, postpone the Bill.
Mr. EWART quite agreed in the opinion of his Hon.
Friend (Mr. Hume) that the measure should be left over till
next session. He thought an opportunity ought to be ac-
oorded every Alember of the House, but especially those re-
presenting Scotch communities, to consult their constituencies
on the measure. He for one wished for such an opportunity,
as h.• should be in a better position neat session to give a de-
cided vote upon the Bill.
Mr. P. M. STEWART said he would go further than either
of the Hon. Members who had preceded him, in urging the
postponement of the measure. He asked the Government to
apply to Scotland their own principle—that principle which
had guided them in their conduct of other propositions intended
for the benefit of other parts of the kingdom. He asked them
to look alt the feeling of Scotland upon this measure, to consult
the opinion of the people of that country, and then ;at upon
the expressed advice of those most competent to give it, NOW,

though this Bill had been snore than two months before
the public, not one petit-lion had been presented in
its favour—( Hear, hear)—while, on the other hand,
numerous had been the petitions laid on the table
of the House in its condemnation. It was a measure which
while bringing no good to any one, but making the case of the
poor man infinitely worse, would, as his Hon. Friend the Mem-
ber for Montrose had said, encumber the statute-book, already
overloaded with amended laws, with another altered or re-
scinded enactment next session. The present was purely a
national question. He was willing to a.,sist the Government
on the subject of national legislation. The proposed measure
d;d no good to the poor man. No sufficient equivalent was
substituted for the pains and distresses which he suffered. The
Hon. Member for Peebles might shake his head, but that fur-
nished no argument. There was the evidence of the parish of
St. Cuthbert, a little world in itself, resisting the Bill. The
Bill was not passed yet, and the parish of St. Cuthbert, which
contained a population of 70,000 individuals, objected to the
measure, because it would amalgamate them with the city of
Edinburgh. They provided for their own poor, had their own
workhouses, and were perfectly independent of the city, and yet
it was intended by the present measure to assimilate them with
the city where the poor-rates were Is. 6:1. in the pound. The
Bill would force them to join with the city. That was a sample
of the entire measure. The centralisation system was founded
on a false principle, and would occasion universal discontent if the
Bill were proceeded with any further, as it now stood. Why
not consult the feelings of the people of Scotland? He would
say, let the Bill for the present stand as it did, but do not let
it be passed through the statute-book until the next session, in
order that sufficient time may be afforded to make the neces-
sary inquiries for proper alterations. He would say that they
ought to apply the same principle to Scotland that they applied
to other questions. Hardly had one petition been receive.' in
favour of the measure, while great numbers had been forwarded
against the measure from the people of Scotland. All admitted
that legislation was necessary, that a poor-law was wanted for
the people of Scotland, but they considered that the present
measure, instead of effecting an improvement, would render
matters far worse than they now were.—( Hear. )
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said that as a direct appeal had
been made to him, he would briefly address himself to the ques-
tion. If ever there was a question which was divested of all
party character it was the present. It was said that the present
Bill was a crude measure, and that time had not been given for
the due consideration of the question. That was not the case.
There had been ample inquiry made before the present Bill was
framed. Evidence had been taken before a commission, and
whatever difference of opinion might prevail as to many points
of that evidence, it was generally admitted that it abundantly
preyed the necessity of legislation. That evidence had been
before Honourable Members for twelve months. He was sorry
that any man should think that the Bill was a crude and im-
perfect measure, yet in supporting that opinion it could not be
said that it had been hurried through the House. The Bill was
introduced at the beginning of the session, it had been amply
discussed, and a large majority of the House had decided in its
favour. It had also been once postponed, in order to allow the
people of Scotland an opportunity of discussing its provisions.
His Right Hon. and Learned Friend (the Lord Advocate) and
.

himself had given the measure their best consideration and
most anxious attention, and it was their deliberate opinion
that it was as good a measure as could, under the circum-
stances, be introduced. When he remembered how much
the matter had been canvassed, and what a length of time
the people of Scotland had had for deliberation, he could not see
that there was any necessity for further postponement. The
Hon. Gentleman said there were no petitions in favour of
the measure, whilst a great number were against it. He
(Sir James Graham) must say that he had never known, in
all his Parliamentary experience, a measure of this kind to be
petitioned for. He thought, when the measure came into full
operation, the people of Scotland would be well satisfied with
it. The House had already, by a large majority, twice
affirmed the principle of the 8.11, and if, after passing through
Committee, there remained anything obnoxious in it, the
Hon. Member could move the amendment on the third read-
ing of the Bill.
Mr. LOCKHART thought, with some modifications, the
Bill might be made acceptable to the people of Scotland. He
further thought that it would prove a remedial measure. .The
only clause he objected to was the 16th clause; with that ex-
ception he approved of the Bill.
Mr. GIBSON CRAIG was understood to say that he
entirely approved of the Bill, and thought it would be received
with approbation by the people of Scotland.
Mr. HASTIE hoped the Right Hon. Baronet would post-
pone the Bill, at least for the present. That some remedial
measure for the condition of the poor of Scotland was neces-
sary, he did not mean to deny; but in consequence of the
manner in which the press had described their sufferings, much
had been done to ameliorate their condition, and they were
nosy in a better state than they had been for some time. He
must repeat his desire that the Government would postpone
the Bill.

Lord DUNCAN did not agree with the Hon. Member in
thinking the condition of the poor of Scotland at all improved.
Mr. E. ELLICE said he held in his hand a statement, from
which it appeared that since the discovery of the actual state
of the law, the poor had been in a much better condition, and
were better cared for than they were before. He differed very
much from the opinion of his Hon. Friend the Member for
Edinburgh. He knew that the almost unanimous opinion of
the people was against this Bill being passed in its present
shape. He had met with but one opinion with respect to this
Bill if it were passed in its present shape, and that was, that it
would be most mischievous in its effects. At a meeting lately
held in Scotland, this Bill was declared to be a fraudulent at-
tempt to take away the rights of the poor. He entreated the
Right Hon. Baronet to pause before he pressed this measure.
Sir J. APIA GGART could bear testimony to the accuracy
of what had fallen from his Hon. Friend the Member for
Paisley.
Sir J. HOPE, and Mr. P. BOATHIVICE s*pported the Bill.

Mr. G. IItINCAN said he had received a great many
letters upon this subject from various parts of Scotland very
recently, and some of them even that day, all of which ex-
pressed their dissent to this Bill, in many of its clauses. Now,
with regard to the definition of the sum at which parties were
to be rated, he understood it was intended to be fixed at 40/. ;
but if it was, he would ask, why not state it in the Bill?
(hear.) But if the Bill were to be passed into a law in its
present state, so far from its being of any benefit, it would be
an unfailing source of litigation, and of heart-burning and ill-
will.
Mr. ROSS said he represented a portion of the country
where the people were deeply interested in this Bill, and there
were some clauses in it that were deemed so unjust and so
monstrous, that if the Right Hon. Baronet opposite did not

consent to abandon them—altogether, he would givethe Bill al

the opposition in his power. What he now wished more par-
ticularly to advert to was this : it would appear by this Bill
that neither an Irishman nor an Englishman could acquire a
right to relief in Scotland. Now, let him ask, was it because
that men happened to be natives of either England or Ireland
that no period of residence in Scotland would give them a right
to relief ? Was it possible that an Irishman, who might have
spent his youth, and his blood, and his sinew in enabling a
Scotch manufacturer to convert the man's strength into goods,
that at the end of his power of labour he was to be turned adrift,
sent back to Ireland, and, finding that none there lived belong-
ing to him, he was to find no asylum in Scotland if he should
return to it, but be treated as a vagabond. Such treatment
would be enough to make a man's blood boil. But let him asz
what argument could he, as an anti-repealer, use against such
a law ? If, then, the Right Hos. Baronet did not abandon
those clauses he (Mr. Ross) would move that the Bill be read
a third time that day three months.
Mr. T. DUNCOM BE said that though he was not con.
nected with Scotland, yet he had received several petitions from
different parts of that country against the measure. He had
received petitions from Aberdeen, from Dundee, from Edin-
burgh, from Paisley, and from Glasgow, and the parties sign-
ing them all complained that the Bill contained no provision for
the relief of able-bodied paupers out of employment. The
question was whether the Bill would not place the poor in a worse
position than before ? He considered it would. The measure,
in his opinion, was hurried through the House in order to put
an end to certain rights of appeal that have lately been dis-
covered as belonging to the people. It was found that the poor
had an appeal to the Court of Session, which the present Bill
now sought to quash. He hoped, from the feeling displayed by
the people of Scotland in their petition, that the Right Hon.
Gentleman would consent to the postponement of the Bill to
another session.

Colonel RA WDON supported the postponement of the Bill.
Nearly all the Scotch Members in the House had either
spoken or voted against the measure, and great numbers of
petitions had been presented to the House from the people of
Scotland against it. On these grounds he hoped that the fur-
ther consideration of the Bill would be put off till the next
session. There was one clause which had his most decided op-
position. It was a most inhuman and cruel clause. It pro
vided that persons under the necessity of applying a second
time for relief should be acted towards as a criminal, and under
certain circumstances be treated as a felon. Such a clause
was so harsh, so inhuman, and so unconstitutional, that he
csuld not consent to going into Committee on such a Bill. He
concluded by moving that the Bill be read that day three
months.

Sir JAMES GRA HANI said that the objections of the
Gallant Colonel were matters of detail, and could be better
discussed in Committee than now. He denied that the clause
was of the penal character described. It only provided that in
case of parties living on the parish funds, under circumstances
where they might be able to work, and had reasonable pros-
pect of employment, should be treated as rogues and vaga-
bonds. The same principle was recognised in England, as Well
as in Scotland. It was, therefore, nothing new, and was ne-
cessary as a protection against fraud.
After a few words from Colonel RAWDON,

Mr. HAMILTON said he should be sorry to defeat the
measure, as the objectionable clauses were stated to be an open
question. Ile hoped the Gallant Colonel would withdraw his
motion, and allow the House to go into Committee. Unless
the clauses then were much modiffed, he should certainly give
the Bill his most decided opposition.
Sir J. GRAHAM explained, and hoped that Hon. Mem-
bers would go into Committee on the Bill, when a full oppor-
tunity would be allowed of discussing the clauses.
Lord C. HAMILTON condemned the clauses of the Bill
relat:ng to Irishmen, and hoped that, on going into Committee,
they would he altered so as to give the natives of that country
an industrial settlement.
Mr. HENLEY said that unless the clauses were much al-
tered, he should give the Bill every opposition in his power.—
( Loud cries of " Divide.")
The Gallery was then cleared for a division, when there
appeared—
For the amendment 3B
Against it 9O
Majority against the amendment ...... —s'2
Mr. HUME said, that he himself did not give trouble to
the Government with respect to this Bill, but he only for-
warded to the Lord Advocate all the requests of the working
classes in Scotland that it should be postponed. He had been
assured that the going into Committee would not be pressed
against the wishes of the people of Scotland, whom this Bill
would affect. He wished to see the Bill postponed and cor-
rected. He thought it was the Bill of the rich man, against
the poor man.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said, that he was perfectly con-
vinced that his Hon. Friend had not expressed his own
opinions, but those of others, fur he well remembered that
when his Learned Friend (the Lord Advocate) first introduced
the Bill, the Hon. Member
,Mr. Hume) expressed his de-
cided approbation of it.
Lord JAMES STUART begged to say, that he and
many Members at his side of the !loins, whom he could
answer for, bad voted in accordance with their views, as to
their public duty. He would not sit in that House to sup-
port landlords' measures, nor to give his vote in favour of any
measure which would be oppressive to the poor of Scotland.
It was said that there were no petitions presented from Scot-
land but which were hostile to this Bill. He himself had pre-
sented a petition from his own constituents, and he could not
say that there was any desire expressed in it for the postpone-
ment of the Bill. He could not perceive that it was a landlords'
Bill, as was stated. He was, therefore, in favour of their going
into Committee once more on it.
Mr. P. M. STEW ART approved of the introduction of
the poor-law into Scotland, but yet he was of opinion that the
measure should be postponed till next session, in order to give
themselves the opportunity of obtaining information on the
subject from practical men, and framing the Bill so as to be
satisfactory to all parties.
Lord DUNCAN said that it was difficult to discover what
they were at. If they wished to discuss the principles of the
Bill, would it not be better to do so on the third reading, and
if they wished to discuss the details, why not go into Committee
on the clauses?
The House then went into Committee,
OD relidino of elapse 35,