HC Deb 23 February 1831 vol 2 cc915-29
Mr. R. Gordon

said, the House would probably recollect, that an Act had been passed in 1827 to appoint Commissioners to inspect the Lunatic Asylums in the neighbourhood of the metropolis, though perhaps, it might not be aware that great good had resulted from that Act. He would only instance one place, the White House at Bethnal Green, which had formerly been a disgrace to humanity, and was now conducted with comparative decency: much of the success of the measure was owing to the unremitted diligence with which his noble friend (Lord Granville Somerset), the Chief Commissioner, had attended to his duties. He would not pretend to do justice to his noble friend by any eulogium; he would only say, that his conduct was above all praise. Of the Act, he wished to observe, that it had been more expensive than he had anticipated, and the fees on the licenses granted by the Commissioners had not sufficed to pay the expenses incurred under the Act. Considering, however, that great benefits to a large class of helpless and unfortunate beings resulted by means of that Act, he thought the House would not object to the few hundred pounds expense, which it occasioned. The Act, however, or rather the Acts now in force, for the first one had been amended by a subsequent Act, were about to expire, and required consolidation, and he moved for leave to bring in a Bill to consolidate, continue, and amend the Acts of the 9th of Geo. 4th, cap. 41, and the 10th of Geo. 4th, cap. 83, relating to the care of Lunatic Persons in England.

Lord Granville Somerset

rose to second the Motion, and bear his testimony to the great utility of the Act. It had put an end to a great many abuses, but much was yet to be done to secure due attention to private persons. He was happy to have that opportunity of expressing his approbation of the conduct of many proprietors of Asylums, who seemed to be actuated by higher motives than a view to profit. One defect of the present Act, in his opinion, was, that it did not provide any one paid Commissioner. Such a person, to reside in London all the year round, was, he thought, necessary; and he hoped to see some provision for that made in the Bill of his hon. friend. He was sorry that he had then, a disagreeable task to perform, in the vindication of the Metropolitan Commissioners from a charge that had been made against them from a very high quarter. The proceedings of the Commissioners had hitherto received the sanction and approbation of the noble Lord who had preceded that noble Lord who now presided over the Court of Chancery, and they had hoped to have been so fortunate as to receive an equal degree of approbation from that distinguished individual; but he was very sorry to say, that within the space of last week, some occurrences had taken place which tended very greatly to shake the expectations of the Commissioners in that respect. He was aware that, in adverting to the conduct of the noble Lord who was now at the head of the Law Courts of the country, that House was not the place in which to array his observations; but he must beg to be understood, that in making the observations which he deemed necessary, he was not referring so much to the individual as to the conduct of those against whom the censure had been levelled. No other consideration, save that which sprung from a desire to vindicate himself and his colleagues, should have induced him to speak on the subject in that House, whatever feelings he might have experienced as to the injustice done them. It would appear, that some time last week, the case of a lunatic of the name of Houstoun, came before the Lord Chancellor, in respect to which, he was sorry to say, the Commissioners had been considered in fault by that noble Lord. The Lord Chancellor had on that occasion used language and uttered expressions towards the Commissioners, in the presence of the whole Bar, which could not be otherwise than painful to their feelings, accusing them of meddling and interfering in the most improper manner with him, in one of the most important functions—that of his jurisdiction in cases of lunacy. In consequence of these observations, and finding also from private information, that the reports in the Newspapers of what had occurred in the Court of Chancery were much more correct than had been stated, he and his brother Commissioners had thought it not disrespectful towards the noble Lord—nor did they for an instant contemplate by such a proceeding to interfere with his high judicial functions —to address to him a letter, stating the motives which had actuated them with regard to the case of Houstoun. As the Lord Chancellor, however, had thought proper to characterise that letter in the mode already stated to the House, he trusted they would allow him to read it to them, in order that they might be enabled to judge whether it deserved such heavy censure. In doing this, however, he did not mean to say that the letter was above observation, or that it was one that it would be proper to be made public; it had been sent to the Lord Chancellor's private house, was intended to be considered as a private communication, and probably had better have remained unknown to the public. Indeed, as far as he (Lord Granville Somerset) was concerned, he had reason to believe that regret had been experienced for the expressions which were made use of respecting that letter, which he begged now to read to the House;— My Lord,—The report, such as it appeared in the "Times" and "Morning Herald" papers of Tuesday last, of the case of Mr. Houstoun, a lunatic, gives us reason to fear that, from a misapprehension of the way in which the Metropolitan Commissioners in Lunacy had acted with regard to that individual, your Lordship adopted and expressed an erroneous opinion of our disposition and our conduct in reference to this, as well as to other cases of persons confined under commissions of lunacy. We are anxious to state, that we neither directly nor indirectly have ever interfered with any patient under the jurisdiction of the Lord Chancellor, unless in pursuance of the suggestion of the Lord Chancellor himself. We have ever studiously respected his high authority; but we have felt it our duty, whenever circumstances connected with persons confined under his jurisdiction have come to our knowledge, which seemed to require his attention, to submit them to his Lordship, and your Lordship's predecessor never intimated that he considered such a course an undue interference with the functions of the individual lo whom his Majesty intrusted his jurisdiction in matters connected with lunatics; but, on the contrary, he uniformly sanctioned and approved of it. In this particular case, some of our body, when Officially visiting Mr. Stilwell's house, found the lunatic Houstoun in great agitation, and much distressed at the idea of being removed thence to some other place of confinement, and, having ascertained, as far as an ex-parte inquiry could inform them, that there was no apparently good reason to justify his removal, one of them wrote a private letter to Mr. Lowdham, that he might acquaint the then Lord Chancellor with these circumstances, and Mr. Lowdham expressed his Lordship's thanks for the information which was thus afforded him. The visitors stated these facts to the next General Meeting of the Commissioners, who decided that their clerk, Mr. Browne, should, in a more official manner communicate them to Mr. Lowdham, for Lord Lyndhurst's in- formation, so that Mr. Houstoun might not be removed from Mr. Stilwell's house with out an investigation as to the fitness and necessity of his removal. In consequence of this, Lord Lyndhurst directed Dr. Bright, Dr. Southey, Dr. Turner, and Dr. Hume, the four Medical Commissioners, to proceed to Mr. Stilwell's, to examine Mr. Houstoun, particularly on this point, and to make a special report to him; this they accordingly did, and his Lordship gave orders, through Mr. Lowdham and Mr. Brown, that Mr. Houstoun should continue to be confined at Mr. Stilwell's till his Lordship gave further directions. Since that period various applications have been made to the Commissioners on the subject, as well by Mr. Stilwell as by the other party, and our in variable reply has been, that we could not further interfere; and we have every reason to believe that the replies of our clerk, to similar applications, have been to the same effect. Having thus stated, as concisely as possible, the only connection we have had with the circumstances of Mr. Houstoun's confinement at Mr. Stilwell's, we trust your Lordship will publicly relieve us from the charge of presumption and undue interference will) the authority of the Crown, which your Lordship is reported to have preferred against us; for we beg to observe, in conclusion, that, in the performance of an irksome duty, we are not conscious of ever having evinced any disposition to exceed the authority conferred on us by the Statute under which we act; and we doubt not that your Lordship will feel that the observations which have been attributed to your Lordship are calculated to deprive the Commission of that public estimation which is essential to the proper discharge of its official duties —We have the honour, &c. Office of Metropolitan Commissioners in Lunacy, 19, Margaretstreet, Cavendish-square, Feb. 16. Such was the letter which it was deemed by the Commissioners to be not disrespectful to address to the Lord Chancellor: it in no way impugned the decision of the noble Lord in the case in question; it merely adverted to a misapprehension on his part of the conduct and motives of the Commissioners, and stated, that he had, in consequence of that misapprehension, passed a most unmerited and severe censure on their conduct. The noble Lord had not done them common justice in passing this censure—for, without giving the public an opportunity of judging of the letter, he had characterized it as a most indecent and presumptuous letter, and one that demanded signal re- proof. He could only say of himself, as one of those who signed it, that he could not feel the slightest regret at having used any single expression contained in it. The noble Lord objected also to that letter, because the Commissioners who signed it had not distrusted those reports in the newspapers which had occasioned them to write it. But, although he was aware it was against the customary rules of that House to make any allusion or reference to the correctness of the reports which daily appeared in the newspapers concerning the proceedings of that House, yet there were no such restrictive regulations with regard to the proceedings in the Courts of Justice, and he had ever found, and had ever been given to understand, that those reports were in general correct, and contained the substance of what occurred in all the Courts. But on this ground it was, that the Lord Chancellor had thought proper to say, the Commissioners had acted indecently. If the report were, as his Lordship stated it to be, grossly incorrect, why did he not call the Reporters before him, and inflict the deserved reproof on them? and if the Reporters in the noble Lord's Court were such that their reports could not be relied on, the first thing he should do would be, to insist on having others more efficient. But he (Lord G. Somerset) believed that the reports in question were substantially correct. The noble Lord had, however, gone further than calling the letter of the Commissioners an indecent one—he had said there was a further consideration, and observed, that the course pursued by the Commissioners deserved punishment; and then he talked of "My Lord Holt," and of "My Lord Chief Justice Willis," and of the method? pursued by them, ending with an expressed intention of consulting the Lord Chief Justice as to the mode and measure of the punishment he should inflict for the offence committed by the Commissioners in writing the letter to him. If the proceedings in the Courts of Justice of this country were to be reported, and if, upon some misrepresentation or injustice done them, individuals were to be so treated for attempting to vindicate themselves by such a letter, it would go all over England that they were to be threatened with imprisonment, because the Lord Chancellor was so great a man, that in facts he won't be wrong,—and in opinion he can't be wrong. Although he greatly regretted that he should occupy the attention of the House in a matter of such a personal nature, he could not but think he had done only what was right in attempting to clear himself and his Fellow-Commissioners from the stigma which the noble Lord had cast upon, them; and, ready as he was to bow-to the opinion of the House, he could not but express his sincere hope that he and his colleagues would receive the full benefit of publicity to the explanation which he had deemed it necessary to obtrude on the House.

The Solicitor General

observed, that the noble Lord had fallen into a great mistake in the recital of the circumstances attendant on the conduct of the Commissioners in the case of Houstoun, as to the Reporters of the Court of Chancery, by supposing that they all derived their information from one common source, and that the editors of the two Papers in which the reports complained of had appeared were the Reporters of the Court of Chancery. [Cries of "No, no!" from Lord Granville Somerset.] Well, he was glad to find, then, the noble Lord had not laboured under such an erroneous impression; but, in the present case, there were reports of the Chancery Court in only two of the newspapers, and none but those were authors of the report in Houstoun's case, so that the noble Lord must have been misinformed when he relied on other sources for his information as to what had been said in the Court. He was not engaged himself in the case, and he was sorry he did not see the late Solicitor-general in his place, who was better informed on the subject; because that hon. Member was engaged as Counsel in the case of the lunatic, and had occasion to make some observations on the conduct of the lunatic, and also on that of Mr. Brown, the Secretary to the Metropolitan Commissioners. Sir Edward Sugden mentioned that he had addressed two letters to the Court, one of which was written anterior to the present Lord Chancellor's time, in the month of May, 1830. He was sorry he had not been able to prepare himself so fully as he should have done in respect to this matter, had he been previously made aware of the noble Lord's intention; but, if he mistook not, the impression on the mind of the Lord Chancellor was, that Brown's interference in the matter was highly irregular and improper. He came forward on a most unnecessary occasion, and adverted to the authority with which the Act had armed the Metropolitan Commissioners, using the name of the noble Lord himself, in the first part of the letter which he wrote, as if he sanctioned the concluding paragraph, in which Mr. Brown said, he had the authority of the Lord Chancellor for the detention of the lunatic by Stilwell. Such an interference was deemed by the Lord Chancellor to be of a nature that demanded to be instantly repressed and checked. He certainly understood that the noble Lord's name was used so as to sanction the paragraph which the Lord Chancellor thought offensive, and which he would read to the House. The hon. and learned Gentleman read the following letter:— Office of Metropolitan Commissioners in Lunacy, 19, Margaret-street, Cavendish-square, May 7th, 1830. Sir;—I have the instruction of Lord Granville Somerset to acknowledge your letter, addressed this day to the Commissioners, respecting the intention of Mrs. Flower to remove Mr. Houstoun from under your care, and, at his Lordship's desire I attended the Lord Chancellor's Secretary in Lunacy on the subject, who has requested the Medical Commissioners will visit, and report to the Lord Chancellor on the propriety of acceding to Mr. Houstoun's wishes. In the mean time, I am to acquaint you, that you are authorised to detain Mr. Houstoun until you have the further directions of the Lord Chancellor on the subject. I have the honour to be, Sir, Your obedient Servant, James Stilwell, Esq. ROBERT BROWN. Moorcroft House, Hillingdon. Here was a direct interposition on the part of Mr. Brown, telling Stilwell to detain the lunatic Houstoun, as if on the authority of the Lord Chancellor, and that interposition, in his opinion, seemed to be sanctioned by the noble Lord. It might be that Brown had no intention to attach the authority of the noble Lord's name to the concluding paragraph, in which that order to Stilwell was given; but it certainly not only admitted of that construction, but absolutely required an explanation to be construed in any other manner. He believed, if the noble Lord had taken the trouble to inquire from sources which would not have deceived him, he would have found, that the reports to which he had referred were inaccurate; and that although the Lord Chancellor had cast a heavy censure on Mr. Brown for his un- necessary interference, so far from having thrown any imputations on the Commissioners, the noble Lord had, in the course of delivering his judgment, expressed his anxiety to do justice to the Commissioners, and bore his testimony to their honourable and upright conduct, and to the valuable assistance which the Great Seal and the public had derived from their labours. This would have been the result of his inquiries had he directed them towards sources which would not have deceived him. He was in Court at the time, and though it was not customary for counsel to pay much attention to cases in which they were not engaged, he recollected perfectly, that what he had stated had passed. With respect to the noble and learned Lord's observations on the letter of Mr. Brown, all he had to say was, that in his opinion they were highly proper, and the letter deserved notice. Although the noble Lord had said, it was his intention to canvass the opinion only of the noble and learned Lord, yet he must state, that there was a wide difference between canvassing the opinions of that distinguished and learned individual, and canvassing his judgments. One fact he could state from his own recollection, that, when the Court was pressed to give costs against Stilwell, it was remarked by counsel, that he could afford to pay the costs, inasmuch as the circulars he had sent were so many advertisements of his good conduct, and would prove most advantageous to him in his business. These circumstances he did not detail to the House as matter of law; but to show that it was necessary for the Court to accompany its opinion on this case with observations on the parties connected with it. As to the letter of the noble Lord and others, the House was aware that it was written after the judgment of the Court had been delivered.

Mr. Ross, across the Table, denied that the judgment had been delivered.

The Solicitor General

thought he was right as to the fact. The letter must necessarily have been written after the judgment was pronounced, for it referred to the observations which accompanied the judgment. In writing that letter, he conceived that the noble Lord and the hon. persons who had signed it forgot the situation in which the noble individual stood to whom the letter was addressed. Right or wrong, the judgment to which it referred, was the judgment of the Lord High Chancellor. Right or wrong, the observations complained of were said to be made by the Lord Chancellor, exercising his judicial functions, and deciding in a case of lunacy. It might be that Mr. Brown, the Commissioners' Secretary, did or did not deserve what had been said of him. It might have been that the imputations or the commendations on the conduct of the Commissioners were right or wrong, but still these observations formed a part of the judgment of the Lord Chancellor. If the expressions attributed to the Lord Chancellor, therefore, had all been uttered, there clearly was no ground for writing the letter which had been addressed to him. If his judgment was wrong, the law of the country allowed no other mode of impugning it but by an appeal. Writing such a letter, therefore, was not the proper course to pursue towards any Judge, even if that Judge was wrong, and had come to an erroneous decision in the discharge of his duty. The noble Lord had stated, that the letter was not intended to be in any way offensive to the Lord Chancellor, but it sometimes happened that the intentions of a writer were not accurately conveyed. He was not now adverting to the conduct of the noble Lord and the other persons who had signed that letter as if they were privileged persons, but upon the same principles which would apply to the humblest individuals; and, looking at the subject in that light, he would take the liberty of saying, that after judgment had been pronounced by the Lord Chancellor, in a case coming regularly before him, they ought not to have fixed upon a newspaper report as if it contained the authorised judgment of the Lord Chancellor, and upon that report to come to the conclusion, that certain observations had been delivered, reflecting on them. Upon this assumption, the noble Lord and others called upon the Lord Chancellor publicly to disavow, or, in their own words, "to relieve them from the charge of presumption and undue interference with the authority of the Court." The writer of the letter in question assumed that those charges had been made against them—assumed the fact to have been proved because they found it in a newspaper report. No person in a Court of Justice ever decided that, a report contained a true statement of facts because it had appeared in a newspaper; and he was sure that if a person quoted such a report as evidence of any fact, or any decision, be would be laughed at, and such an attempt would call for the strongest animadversion from any Judge who was required to admit that such evidence was correct. It might be that what he had stated as to newspaper reports was not known out of the profession, but it ought to be known to persons out of the profession as well as in it; for it was obvious that the same rule was acted upon by persons out of the profession. If a Judge was to be called upon, however, to answer for any newspaper report of his judgments and observations, there would be such a weight upon his mind, lest any observation should be inaccurate, or should bear too hard upon individuals, as must necessarily break in upon that clearness, impartiality, and sound discretion which were so necessary in the administration of justice, and all of which were more particularly called into exercise at the moment a Judge was pronouncing his judgment. If at such a moment a Judge had not confidence in his own powers, and was not secured from being called upon to account for every observation that might be ascribed to him in newspapers or other publications, he could not possibly do his duty with satisfaction, either to himself or the public. In this particular case the newspaper reports were not only assumed to be accurate, but the judge was called upon to do justice to individuals, who felt themselves aggrieved by a public recantation of what had been ascribed to him. Now, he put it to the noble Lord, as one of the writers of the letter, how a Judge could make a recantation, unless he pronounced it from the seat of judgment, or that he went to the press, for a private letter would not have been satisfactory. He put it to the House whether it was consistent with the administration of justice, or how justice could be administered, if a Judge's observations when giving judgment were found fault with, and appeal was to be made, on every occasion, not to the legitimate tribunal pointed out by the law, but to the public; and still more, if that appeal was to be founded upon unauthorised paragraphs in newspapers? He supposed the noble Lord meant to bring forward this subject seriously, or he would not have called the notice of the House to it; but he would take leave to tell the noble Lord, that the mode he had adopted was not the mode he ought to have taken. He fully concurred in what had been said as to the respectability of the Commissioners authorised by Parliament, but those Commissioners were not placed in such a situation that they should interfere with the exercise of the powers of the person who held the Great Seal, or point out the course which he ought to take in any lunacy case, in any judgment he was called upon to pronounce, or in any personal observation he thought fit to make in the exercise of his judicial functions. He would not detain the House further. He admitted that he was not well prepared to enter into the merits of the case. The House, however, must see how extremely inconvenient and unjust the course was that had been pursued. If the House entertained such a subject in order to enable the Lord Chancellor to make his defence, without which no opinion the House could deliver would be just, the Lord Chancellor must be called before it, and evidence gone into as to all the facts. If the House was not prepared to adopt such a course, it could not come to any other result. Under these circumstances, he hoped the House would be of opinion that the noble Lord had not made out any case against the Lord Chancellor, and that it would not countenance the course of proceeding which had been adopted. For his own part, he was satisfied, that what had been said by the Lord Chancellor, instead of being such as the newspapers represented, as far as regarded the Metropolitan Commissioners, was quite the reverse. Others had been alluded to by the Lord Chancellor, but their conduct was put in contrast with that of the Commissioners, whose conduct and character were thereby sufficiently vindicated.

Mr. Ross

observed, that when Lord Lyndhurst was Lord Chancellor, instead of being offended, he always expressed himself gratified by the Commissioners directing his attention to any particular facts connected with the lunatic cases which were brought before him. The hon. and learned Gentleman contended, that the letter was written after the judgment of the Court was pronounced in the cause; the facts, however, as to time, were these: The observations complained of were made by the Lord Chancellor on Monday se'nnight; and at the conclusion of those observations he had paid, that he should take an early opportunity of disposing of the cause. The letter was written on the following Wednesday, and the cause was disposed of on the Friday. The letter, therefore, was written before the judgment was pronounced, and the object of it was, to give the Lord Chancellor an opportunity of correcting the erroneous impressions which it appeared he had taken upon the subject. As to Mr. Brown's letter to Stilwell, on which the hon. and learned Solicitor General laid so much stress, as if it conveyed the idea that the Commissioners had interfiled improperly with the jurisdiction of the Great Seal, the clear and natural interpretation of that letter was, that the directions to Stilwell were under the Lord Chancellor's authority. The Commissioners never called in question the Lord Chancellor's judgment; they were not parties in the cause, and never contemplated impugning the judgment; but what they complained of was, that the Lord Chancellor, misinformed as to the facts, should make observations reflecting on individuals who were not judicially before him, and had no opportunity of refuting or denying the statements which reflected on them. As much blame was attributed to the Commissioners for acting on newspaper reports, he was bound to say, that what had fallen from the Lord Chancellor was communicated to him before he saw the reports in the newspapers; and, therefore, the Commissioners had not relied exclusively on the accuracy of the newspaper reports. As to the letter, he conceived that the Commissioners had a perfect right to send such a letter to the Lord Chancellor, and he, for one, was not ashamed that he had put his name to it. He thought that the Commissioners had additional right to complain that that letter was followed by a threat from the Lord Chancellor of committing them to prison.

The Attorney General

said, that this discussion illustrated the extreme inconvenience of referring to observations made by a Judge in his judicial capacity. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, stated for the first time, that the letter of the Commissioners was not founded on the Reports which appeared in the Times and Morning Herald newspapers, but upon private information. The letter stated no such thing—It merely referred to the reports in the Times and Morning Herald, and therefore it was unfair now to the Lord Chancellor, to state that the letter was founded upon other information, when the letter itself only called his attention to what was stated in the two newspapers. Now, as a private informant had been alluded to, he (the Attorney General) would have liked to know who that private informant was. He did not like alluding to individuals, but when he recollected that the Commissioners thought fit to disclaim a letter written by the person who acted as their Secretary, he should not be surprised to learn that the private information was derived from the same quarter, and, coming from such a quarter, he was not surprised that it had not been entirely consistent with truth, and had given rise to the misunderstanding which had taken place. The Lord Chancellor was warranted by the facts to state what he did with respect to Mr. Brown, the Commissioners' Secretary, and he was not bound to disclaim any observations he thought fit to make respecting the Commissioners. The Lord Chancellor was not only authorized, but bound to give his opinions, and the reasons on which those opinions were founded, for the satisfaction of the public, whose servant he was. On the occasion referred to, however, the Lord Chancellor went out of his way to compliment the Commissioners, and expressed his conviction, that they were not parties to the irregularity committed by their Secretary, in writing the letter to Stilwell, although that letter was dated from the office of the Commissioners. The circular which the Secretary had previously written, modestly suggesting that the powers of the Great Seal, with regard to lunatics, should in a great degree be conferred on the Commissioners had met the Lord Chancellor's eye, and naturally excited attention to any thing-proceeding from the same individual. The letter containing this monstrous proposition was formally disavowed by the Commissioners, but Mr. Brown, the writer, still continued to act as their Secretary. He was sorry that the discussion had taken place, because it must lead to personal animadversions and recriminations. But in another sense he was glad of it, for it would give publicity to the Lord Chancellor's determination of supporting the dignity of his office.

Lord Granville Somerset

explained. He had disapproved entirely of Mr. Brown's letter, and disclaimed it, and it was not Mr. Brown who had suggested the proceedings to him.

Mr. Robert Gordon

defended the conduct of the Commissioners, but wished it to be understood, that his noble friend had complained less in his character of a Commissioner, than in that of a Member of Parliament.

Mr. George Lamb

thought it was very much to be regretted that such an inconvenient and indecorous letter had been sent to the Lord Chancellor. It had contained an assumption of authority which could not but be very offensive to that Judge, as well as calculated to excite his jealousy of a trespass on his authority.

The Attorney General

could not but repeat that the letter was in every respect most ill-advised, and only calculated to excite suspicion, and bring down censure on Mr. Brown.

Leave given to bring in the Bill.