COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 31 July 1861)

§ MR. WALPOLE
made an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department not to proceed with the measure. A comprehensive Report with respect to the whole subject, and dealing particularly with the class of lunatics to whom the Bill referred, usually called Chancery lunatics, was made by a Select Committee last year. The Select Committee found that those lunatics were less visited, and, therefore, in a sort, more neglected than any other class of lunatics, 1803 and recommended that one system of supervision and treatment should be applied to all the lunatics in the country. This object the present Bill did not effect. The 3rd Clause, giving power to the Court of Chancery, simply on affidavit, to take any lunatic's property under the value of £1,000 or £50 a year, and apply it for his benefit in a summary manner required to be carefully considered. That some such alteration was necessary he firmly believed, but he could not give his assent to the clause in the Bill, as it was drawn up too loosely and imperfectly. He also contended that the provisions of the Bill did not afford a security for the proper visitation of Chancery lunatics, and, believing that there was not one clause which did not require careful supervision he pressed on the Government the propriety of proceeding with the measure.

§ MR. BRISCOE
, as one of the Committee, and as one who had given great attention to the subject, entirely agreed with what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman. He earnestly implored the Government not to proceed at this time with a Bill of such importance, and in the absence of many hon. Gentlemen who, if present, would certainly have opposed the Bill. This Bill was brought down from the Lords on the 23rd of April, nothing was done with it in the months of May and June, it was not printed till the 4th of July, and now, on the very day that Her Majesty's Ministers were about to celebrate by the usual dinner the virtual termination of the Session, it was proposed to consider the Bill. He could not help urging on the Government to allow a short time for the consideration of the measure, and early next Session they would have an opportunity of introducing it in such a shape as might command the sanction of the House.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
trusted, notwithstanding the festivity which had been alluded to, that the House would consent to consider the clauses of the Bill. This Bill consisted of two parts, the first of which related exclusively to the simplification of procedure with respect to the poorer classes of lunatics. He had observed in that House that there were two sets of objections which were played off upon any Bill according to the convenience of the moment. If the proposal was to introduce additional elaboration of procedure, then it was immediately said that they were multiplying technicalities, that the proposal was conceived in a red-tapist spirit, and that they 1804 were overloading the simplicity of justice with restrictions and obstacles. If, on the other hand, it was proposed as in that Bill to simplify the administration of justice, and to render it cheaper and more direct, then it was said that they were taking away the protection that was due to litigants, and that the liberty of the subject was placed in danger. Now the question was whether the clauses with respect to that class of lunatics who possessed but limited means were not advantageous? This Bill was prepared with great care by the late Lord Chancellor, and was well fitted for the object it had in view. With respect to the latter part of the Bill, he proposed, by the introduction of Amendments, of which he had given notice, to leave matters nearly in the same condition as they were in at present; but there was a clause which would enable retiring pensions equal to two-thirds of their present salaries to be given to the Medical Inspectors out of the Free Fund. One of those gentlemen was past eighty, and the other was seventy-seven. With respect to the salaries of the medical officers, which were now £500 a year, it was proposed to make them £750. He trusted with that explanation the House would go into Committee.

§ MR. DEEDES
said, that the Bill came down from the House of Lords in April, and it was not until the present moment that they were asked to go into Committee on it. He protested against matters of public interest being treated in that sort of way.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, that he was not aware when this Bill came down from the Lords. The hon. Gentleman knew very well that much important business, owing to the debates in Committee of Supply, had been postponed to the end of the Session. He was of opinion that a short Bill of this kind, which had come down from the Lords, might be considered up to the very end of the Session.

MR. HENLEY
said, that this Bill, though a short Bill, involved some very serious principles — principles exactly contrary to those which the Select Committee recommended. They did not complain that a cheaper and more summary mode of dealing with property of a small amount was being introduced, but that this was to be done in so perfunctory a manner. Those who knew anything of lunatics, knew that lunatics sometimes got well. Chancery lunatics never did get well. He wanted 1805 to know what would be the fate of those poor people who on getting well would find their little property had been disposed of by order of the Lord Chancellor. There was no information given upon this matter, and was the House justified at this period of the Session in going into Committee? He must express his regret that the Government were determined to go on with the Bill, and considered that it was almost indecent to proceed with it at that period of the Session, They were asked to agree to the measure, not on its own merits, but because it had been well considered in "another place;" but was it evidence of its having been well considered that the Government had themselves altered it in a most material point since it came from the other House? The House of Lords came to the determination that the medical visitors should not have private practice; but the Secretary of State said they should have private practice, and gave notice of an Amendment to that effect. He submitted that they should not send back this Bill to the Lords at a period of the Session when it could get no consideration at all. It was proposed that pensions for the retiring officers should be paid out of the fee fund, which—were it not for a blessed accident—would have been swept away before the Bill was under consideration, and appropriated to another purpose.

§ COLONEL FRENCH
said, it appeared to him that the best mode of avoiding unnecessary discussion upon that occasion was to take the sense of the House on the Motion immediately before them. He, therefore, moved that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.

§ MR. BOVILL
seconded the Amendment. The proposal of the Government was entirely opposed to the view of the House of Lords and of the late Lord Chancellor, who gave very great consideration to the subject. Where was the urgent necessity for this Bill? What reasons had they to suppose that the House of Lords, having deliberately passed the Bill in its present form, would agree to it in a totally different form.
Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day month, resolve itself into the said Committee," instead thereof.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
expressed his surprise at the objections that had been urged against the Bill. It was not 1806 correct to state that the Bill was totally inconsistent with the Report of the Committee. It was only proposed in one instance to depart from the recommendation of the Committee. The Committee recommended that there should be no Chancery visitors, and that the Commissioners in Lunacy should visit the Chancery as well as other lunatics; and the Government declined to adopt that recommendation. They proposed to give to the visitors hereafter appointed an increase of salary, and to give retiring allowances to the present visitors, who had discharged their duties in an exemplary manner, but were unable from their advanced ago to do so any longer with the degree of efficiency that was necessary. The effect of refusing to pass the Bill would be compulsorily to retain in office gentlemen whose powers were unequal to the work which, for the benefit of the lunatics, the Government desired to have performed. If the Bill were not passed, the power of the Lord Chancellor to deal with the property of this class of lunatics would be paralyzed; and there was an urgent necessity that powers similar to those given by the Bill should be entrusted to the Court of Chancery.

§ MR. MALINS
said, that the only question was whether they ought to proceed with a Bill of this importance at this time of the Session. He was quite in favour of certain clauses of the Bill relating to poor lunatics; but there were so many other clauses of a debateable character that he did not think it ought to be proceeded with after it had lain on the table four months unnoticed.

§ MR. TITE
objected to the Bill, as not going far enough. He thought it of great importance that lunatics should be visited at least twice a year. The present was a very imperfect Bill, and he thought that they ought not, at the present time, to proceed with any part of it excepting that relating to the appointment of visitors.