Lord Campbellsaid, he wished to ask his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack a question with respect to the bill which his noble and learned Friend had promised to introduce, relating to persons committing crimes under circumstances of supposed insanity. He did not blame his noble and learned Friend for not introducing the measure earlier, because it was one which, he felt, ought to be framed with great care; but he wished to know what had been done with reference to it, and when it was likely to be brought forward. Another question which he wished to ask arose out of the same circumstance, and, on that point, he understood that it was intended to take the opinion of the learned judges. He wished to know whether, as had been intimated by his noble and learned Friend, and as their Lordships had unanimously agreed to, it was meant that the judges should be summoned for the purpose of declaring how far, according to their opinion, and according to the law of England, the question with reference to the responsibility of persons alleged to be insane was to be left to the decision of a jury? He, for one, was most anxious to know whether, according to their notion and to the law of England, the judge could direct the jury that a crime was committed in consequence of insanity. At the time when the question was first introduced it was impossible that the learned judges could be present. They were then on circuit, and their Lordships could not have the advantage of their opinion; but the circuit was now ended, and the judges had returned to town. The difficulty now no longer existed. Another question which he desired to put related to the mode of interrogating witnesses; whether medical men who had been in court and listening while other witnesses were examined, might, conformably with the law of evidence, be asked if, according to the evidence which they had heard, they believed the prisoner to have committed the act with which he was charged while he was in a state of insanity? If such really were the law, he thought that it was likely to lead to most objectionable consequences. If the learned judges declared that it was the law, he should submit to their opinion, but he could not bring his mind to believe that it was the law. In conclusion, he wished to know whether 889 his noble and learned Friend was pre pared to bring in the bill which he had; promised, and whether he deemed it advisable to call for the opinion of the learned judges on the subject?
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that with respect to the last question, it would be competent for his noble and learned Friend to put it to the learned judges when they attended, and therefore he felt that it would be improper for him to offer any opinion as to the law. The subject was one of very great importance, and he had consulted Lord Chief Justice Tindal with respect to it. That learned person thought it would be better not to call for the opinion of the judges until term was over. He told the learned judge that it would be inconvenient to wait so long, and begged of him to consult with the other judges whether they could not fix an early day for considering the subject. He had had no communication from that learned judge since. Still, however, he conceived that three weeks would be too long a time to suffer to elapse without coming to some decision. It should be observed that another subject of great importance, namely, the validity of certain Irish marriages, was at present under the consideration of the judges. In answer to the first question of his noble and learned Friend, he had to state, that the bill to which he had alluded was prepared. It bad been referred to the law officers of the Crown, and been sent back again to him; but he did not wish to lay it on their Lordships' Table until he had received the opinion of the judges on certain points, because it might be found advantageous to alter some of its provisions.
§ Conversation ended.
§ House adjourned.