Commons Sitting of 20 May 1862

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1o Tralee Savings Banks; Partnership Law Amendment; Artillery Ranges; Sandhurst Vesting; Jurisdiction in Homicides.
2o Lunacy Regulation; Crown Private Estates; Universities (Scotland) Act Amendment (No. 2).
3o Landed Property Improvement (Ireland) Acts Amendment.

IMPORT OF FOREIGN PAPER.

  QUESTION.
  MR. ASPINALL TURNERsaid, he would beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, Why the Trade and Navigation Returns do not include the quantities of Foreign manufactured Paper imported into this country as well as the quantities of British manufactured Paper
  1960
  exported, and the quantities of Rags, &c, for making Paper imported; and whether he has any objection to furnish a Return of the quantity of Foreign Paper of all kinds imported each month since the Abolition of the Import Duty up to the end of April last?
  MR. MILNER GIBSONin reply said, the reason why the Trade and Navigation Returns did not contain the quantity of Foreign Paper imported was that they were Returns of only the principal articles imported, and the Foreign Paper was not sufficiently large in quantity to justify its separate mention; but, should it become an important article of import, it would be duly specified. There would be no objection to give the Return for which the hon. Member asked if he would move for it.

ST. STEPHEN'S CRYPT.—QUESTION.
MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works, In what state the crypt of St. Stephen's Hall now is, and whether there is any prospect of its being used for Divine Service?
MR. COWERsaid, that the restoration would probably be complete early next year, but he was unable to inform the hon. Member as to the prospect of the crypt being used for Divine Service.

PERSIA—REPORTED ATTACK ON HERAT.—QUESTION.
SIR MINTO FARQUHARsaid, he was anxious to know, Whether the news by the last Bombay mail confirmed the frequently repeated statement that the Persians had advanced upon Herat?
SIR CHARLES WOOD: I have received, Sir, information by the last mail that the statement is not true. The Persians do not seem to have moved any where.

FISHING BOATS.

  RETURN MOVED FOR.
  MR. BENTINCKmoved an Address for Return of all British and French Fishing Boats which have been captured during the last ten years for the infringement of the Convention of 1843, and of the punishments inflicted in both countries in those cases; and Copy of all Correspondence which has passed on the subject of

  1961
  such captures and punishments between the British and French Governments. He thought the House would agree with him that there was no class of men deserving more consideration than that valuable class from whom our navy and merchant service were principally recruited. The fishing on the English and French coasts was regulated by Convention. For some years past the fishermen on the southern coast of England had considered themselves greatly aggrieved by the manner in which the French authorities had put into effect the provisions of the Convention relating to the mode of dealing with fishermen who were guilty of an infringement of the law. At the outset he might state to the House that he had had no communication with the persons who considered themselves aggrieved, but he had been led to inquire into the subject solely from circumstances that had come to his knowledge. Hon. Members might, perhaps, be aware it was the practice of English fishermen to fish close to the coast of France, and of the French fishermen to exercise their calling near the shores of Great Britain. Naturally, that would lead to some irregularity; and in order that cases in which the law had been infringed might be properly dealt with a Convention was agreed upon between the two countries, which was known by the name of the Convention of 1843. That Convention had not been hitherto carried out in a fair and satisfactory manner, inasmuch as offences of the same class were not dealt with in a similar manner in the two countries. He complained that the French authorities had carried out the Convention rather according to its letter than to its spirit. By the Convention the authorities were empowered to punish infringements of the law either by fine or by detention of the vessel. The English fishermen also complained of the unnecessary delay which took place before they were brought to trial by the French authorities. From a Return for the last four years it appeared that the average delay between the capture and the trial was ten days, the shortest delay five days and the longest nineteen. And whereas in this country it had been the invariable practice to deal with those offences by fine, the French authorities inflicted the penalty of detention, which, in point of fact, was a much heavier punishment than fining. The fishermen also complained of the
  1962
  great distances they were taken before their cases could be brought before the French authorities. The Convention provided a fine of £10 in certain cases, and the object evidently was that this should be the maximum punishment. In this country such matters were dealt with summarily, and the punishment seldom exceeded the infliction of a pecuniary penalty; whereas by the different course which was pursued in France our fishermen were mulcted to the extent of £80, £100, or sometimes even £150. They therefore considered themselves most unjustly dealt with, the more especially as in many cases their cargoes were utterly destroyed. He assured the House that he had no desire to make out a case in order to shield the misconduct of our fishermen, who certainly were by no means immaculate; but, at the same time, he did not think that we were to sacrifice everything for the purpose of a close intimacy with France, and he thought in that instance the French authorities had allowed their zeal to outrun their discretion. They had inflicted many grievous punishments that had never been intended to be inflicted by the spirit of the Convention, nor had they any excuse from the manner in which such offences had been dealt with in this country. He could not but think that this was a subject which ought property to be taken up by Her Majesty's Government, and he hoped that he should receive an assurance on their part that inquiries would be made into the matter and such steps taken as the case demanded; and he could not but think, that if the case were properly stated to the French Government, the injustice of the whole proceeding was so obvious that he believed there would be no difficulty in obtaining attention to it. They were a helpless class of men, but at the same time a class most valuable to the community. As he had said before, it was from it that both our marine and naval services were supplied, and therefore he could not but think that it was the duty of the House of Commons to watch over their interest as closely as they did over the interests of all other classes of the community.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, a Return of all British and French Fishing Boats which have been captured during the last ten years for the infringement of the Con-

  1963
  vention of 1843, and of the punishments inflicted in both countries in those cases:
  "And, Copy of all Correspondence which has passed on the subject of such captures and punishments between the British and French Governments."
  MR. CAVEseconded the Motion. He was glad his hon. Friend had brought the question forward, as it was one which had excited growing attention and increasing dissatisfaction on the English coast. He had on former occasions advocated the cause of the deep-sea oyster fishermen of the South Coast, and since this Motion had appeared upon the paper he had received a long list of vessels detained, and nets seized, for alleged infringement of the Fishery Convention. He had given his best attention to the Convention, and it was fair to state that he believed it was a good measure, and had, on the whole, worked well. But owing to change of circumstances, and contingencies over looked at the time, certain enactments seemed now arbitrary and oppressive; and the fishermen complained, as he thought with reason, that when we made so many concessions to France under the Commercial Treaty, we did not in return obtain an abrogation of these harsh and vexatious restrictions.
  MR. LAYARDagreed with the hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck) that the fishermen were a valuable and meritorious body of men, and were entitled to the protection of the Government and the House. It was perfectly true that they had some grievances to complain of, but they did not extend quite so far as the hon. Gentleman represented. He complained that the highest penalty warranted by the Convention between France and England was inflicted upon them; but the French authorities had a perfect right to avail themselves of either punishment prescribed by the Convention. The fact was, these fishermen were in the habit of occasionally defying the French authorities and exposing themselves to capture by French cruisers. This naturally excited a feeling of exasperation against them, and the French courts had inflicted upon them the highest penalty. But the real grievance was this:—By the 69th article of the Convention all transgressions of the regulations established for the protection of the fisheries lying between the English coast and France were to be submitted to the exclusive jurisdiction of the magistrates designated by law in each country;
  1964
  and the 70th article provided that cases of infraction should be heard in as summary a manner and at as little expense as possible. It was alleged that this latter article had been infringed, because there was reason to believe that the parties were not brought to trial in a summary manner. If a boat was captured off Jersey, it was taken to the nearest French port, Granville, and then the fishermen had to travel eighteen miles to Avranches, where the nearest court was held; and that court sat only once a week. They had to travel at their own expense, and to wait at Avranches often several days before the case was heard, while the car go of the boat, being of a perishable nature, was partially, if not entirely lost. This was, no doubt, a hard state of things to be endured by these poor men, who, whether guilty or not, were virtually punished, without the authority of the Convention, by the total or partial loss of their cargo. The Government were consequently of opinion that they had a just cause of complaint against the French authorities. The strongest representations had been made at Paris on the subject, and correspondence had gone on for some time between the English and French Governments. M. Thouvenel had now informed Her Majesty's Government that he had entered into communication with the Minister of Marine, who had exclusive jurisdiction in these cases, and he promised that some arrangement would be come to by which this grievance would be put an end to. As the correspondence was still pending, he thought it would rather interfere with than promote the hon. Gentleman's object, if he were to press for these papers.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, that after the assurance that had been given by the hon. Member that negotiations were taking place he would not press his Motion. With reference, however, to the observation that the French Government had a perfect right, under the terms of the Convention, to inflict the punishment of detention, he must observe that it was the duty of Her Majesty's Government to take care that fair and equal justice should be done, and that the same description of punishment should be inflicted in both countries for the same kind of offence.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

CASE OF ALICE DELIN.

  RETURNS MOVED FOR.
  MR. O'BRIENrose to move that there be laid before the House—
  "Copies of the Depositions taken at a Coroner's Inquest held at Tullamore, in the King's County, on the 3rd day of January 1862, on the body of Alice Delin, who had been imprisoned in the county jail for seven days:
  "Of the Order or Conviction (if any), and of the Committal, under which she was so imprisoned:
  "Of the Entry (if any) of such Order or Conviction in the Petty Sessions Order Book of the district, and of all Entries or Orders appearing on the page of the said Order Book in which such Conviction or Order is entered:
  "Return stating when and from whom the said Conviction or Order was received by the clerk of Petty Sessions, when he made an entry of the same in the order book, and in whose handwriting the original of said Order or Conviction and the signature thereto is:
  "Copy of the Informations sworn against the said Alice Delin:
  "Return stating in whose handwriting the original of said Informations is, where they were written, and also whether the prisoner, the deponent, or any justice of the peace were present while such Informations were being written, and also if the prisoner was present when such Informations were afterwards sworn:
  "And, Copy of any Correspondence of any members of the Irish Government in relation to the above case."
  The hon. Member said, that the excitement in the King's County which immediately ensued upon the circumstances of this case becoming known had not subsided at the end of five months; and as one of the representatives in Parliament he was called upon to state the grievance to the House. The magistrate whose conduct was questioned was Mr. Trench, a gentleman who was intrusted with the management of one of the largest estates in King's County. Alice Delin was an old woman of seventy-eight. Upon some day shortly before Christmas she was seen to enter the house of one of the tenants of the estate to which he had referred. Mrs. Carter, the wife of the tenant, was in the house. Mr. Trench followed the old we man, and asked Mrs. Carter whether she had been begging. Mrs. Carter said she had asked for a bit of sugar; but, knowing the old woman as a neighbour, she did not wish to prosecute. Mr. Trench produced a Bible from his pocket, administered an oath, questioned Mrs. Carter again as to what had been asked of her, and, having obtained the presence of a police man, sent Alice Delin to the county gaol
  1966
  for a week. It must be remembered that she had lived for forty years in the locality, that she had never committed any offence, that she had never been in the workhouse, and that, when too old to gain a living by selling trifling articles, she received the gratuities of the neighbours who respected her, and, whenever she could, rendered them little services in return. This woman was sent a distance of six or seven Irish miles on a cold December evening, and five days afterwards she died. The horror and excitement of the neighbourhood necessitated an inquest, and at the inquest the police-constable stated that the weather was so cold he had to lend his coat to wrap round her; that in the presence of the magistrate she would have fallen but for his support; that he took her to the barrack, where the head constable made out Mrs. Carter's information from what he told him, neither Mr. Trench nor Mrs. Carter being present; that on arriving at the gaol at six o'clock he had to lift her bodily out of the car, and that she said she was sure she should not live to come out of gaol. He did not wish to excite public feeling, but to allay the natural indignation which must exist in the minds of humane people, by giving the executive Government an opportunity of expressing their opinion on the case. This question might be considered in the legal view and the moral view. Asking alms within a house did not constitute an offence under the Vagrancy Act; but, even if it did, Mr. Trench did not comply with the provision of the Petty Sessions Act, which required that the depositions on oath of witnesses should be taken in the presence of the accused. In the present situation of Ireland, however, he did not rest this question on a miserable legal technicality; he viewed the question as one of moral duty, and would ask the House whether it was right that even the poorest in the land should be dealt with in such a manner, contrary alike both to justice and to mercy. The distress which prevailed in that country rendered the con duct of Mr. Trench still more monstrous. He was well aware of the noble efforts which the landed proprietors were making to alleviate the misery of the people, and he was certain they would share the hodest indignation with which this affair was regarded. He joined in execrating the horrid outrages which had recently been committed; but he could not but feel that

  1967
  such behaviour as that of Mr. Trench was apt to be used as an argument to palliate those crimes, and must create dangerous agitation in the minds of ignorant and Buffering people. He hoped the Government would produce the papers on the subject, and would see the propriety of removing Mr. Trench from the commission of the peace. He was quite aware that the circumstances of the case were widely known, but he wished them to be placed before the House in an official form. The hon. Member concluded by moving for the papers.
  MR. HENNESSYseconded the Motion.
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, that as there was no opposition to the Motion, it was, perhaps, unnecessary for the hon. Gentleman to enter into all the details of the question. He did not complain, however, that he had felt it to be his duty to bring the matter under public notice. The hon. Gentleman said he did not desire to excite ill feeling in the country, but rather to allay it; but he (Sir Robert Peel) thought that as all the facts had already been placed before the public, this renewal of the discussion on the matter would rather tend to the perpetuation of bad feeling than promote any good end. The papers moved for had already appeared in the shape of a pamphlet, and had received sufficient publicity through the newspaper press; but as the hon. Gentleman desired to have them in an official form, the Government was prepared to accede to his request. The Lord Chancellor had authorized him to say that he would add to the documents the letter which he wrote on the subject; but he could not see how any public good could result from the continuance of the agitation on this question. The hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well that very great excitement had been created in the country by the conduct of Mr. Trench. The Lord Chancellor wrote to that gentleman asking an explanation, and on receiving it severely reprimanded him. He understood from the Lord Chancellor, however, that Mr. Trench erred rather from want of judgment than from a desire to use the old woman harshly or unjustly. Instead of entering into a discussion on this matter, which in the present excited state of certain parts of Ireland might be very injurious, he hoped the House would accept the statement he had made, and not pursue the subject further.
  MR. M'MAHONobserved, that it was
  1968
  very desirable that the people of Ireland should have perfect confidence in the administration of justice, and urged that Mr. Trench should be removed from the commission of the peace, which his behaviour had proved him unfit to hold. That gentleman ought not to be allowed the opportunity of repeating the atrocious con duct for which he had been reprimanded by the Lord Chancellor.
  MR. COGANtendered his thanks to the hon. Member for the King's County for having ably and dispassionately brought this matter forward. For the first time the fact had been ascertained that the Lord Chancellor had felt it is duty to severely reprimand Mr. Trench; and it was there fore acknowledged that the conduct of that magistrate was not capable of any defence. Before any further discussion took place on the matter, the papers ought to be produced, and then, after a careful consideration of the Lord Chancellor's letter, it would be for the House to decide whether a sufficient punishment had been inflicted upon Mr. Trench, or whether it might not be better that the bench of justice should no longer have him as one of its occupants.
  MR. BRADYsaid, there was one feature in the affair which he could not pass over without some notice. He alluded to the testimony of the medical officers, which proved that they were most inhuman in their conduct towards the poor creature. One medical man deposed that she died from congestion of the lungs, while at the same time he stated that he made only an external examination. Now, as a medical man himself, he arraigned that opinion, believing that the cold which the unfortunate old woman endured was the chief cause of her death. It was as clear as possible that the evidence of the medical men was not such as ought to have been given, but that they were under the influence of a certain power, which pre vented their giving the evidence they should have done. He trusted that when the subject next came under their consideration the House would mark its sense of the treatment shown to this poor creature by requiring a much more severe punishment to be visited upon the author of this inhumanity than that which he had already received from the head of the magistracy of Ireland. He held that it was not fit or right that any gentleman should hold the commission of the peace who was capable of committing such acts

  1969
  of inhumanity as were imputed to Mr. Trench.
  Motion agreed to.

JURISDICTION IN HOMICIDES BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISmoved for leave to bring in a Bill for the more speedy trial of certain homicides committed by persons subject to the Mutiny Act, and for giving jurisdiction to the Central Criminal Court to inquire into such homicides. The measure was intended to meet such a class of cases as had occurred frequently of late—namely, the murder of officers of the army by privates. Various plans had been under the consideration of the Government for the amendment of the law applicable to such crimes. On the whole, however, they did not think it desirable to do more than to take steps to accelerate the course of justice in such cases. There was already an act by which any criminal case could be removed to the Central Criminal Court, where the sessions were held monthly; but that Act was limited to cases where bills of indictment had been found by grand juries. The present measure was intended to adapt the provisions of the Act to those military crimes, but to provide that when a prisoner had been committed to prison on the warrant of a magistrate, such party might be tried at the Central Criminal Court without waiting for the finding of a bill of indictment by a grand jury.
  Leave given.
  Bill for the more speedy trial of certain Homicides committed by persons subject to the Mutiny Act, and for giving Jurisdiction to the Central Criminal Court to inquire into such Homicides, ordered to be brought in by Sir GEORGE LEWIS and Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL.
  Bill presented, and read 1o, to be read 2o on Thursday 29th May, and to be printed [Bill 129].

ARTILLERY RANGES BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISmoved for leave to bring in a Bill to appropriate certain portions of land lying between high and low water mark, situate in the parishes of Shoebury and Wakering, in the county of Essex, as ranges for the use and practice of artillery. The right hon. Gentleman said the object of the measure was to prevent accidents during the use and practice of artillery. The measure simply pro-
  1970
  posed to prevent the anchorage of vessels in the neighbourhood whilst the practice was going on.
  Leave given.
  Bill to appropriate certain portions of Land lying between high and low water mark, situate in the parishes of Shoebury and Wakering, in the county of Essex, as Ranges for the use and practice of Artillery, ordered to be brought in by Sir GEORGE LEWIS and Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL.
  Bill presented, and read 1o, and referred to the Examiners for Petitions on Private Bills, and to be printed [Bill 127],

SAVINGS BANKS BILL— [BILL No. 35].

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. AYRTONsaid, that he had cooperated with the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. S. Estcourt) in bringing forward the measure, the object of which was to give the best security they could to depositors short of a direct pecuniary guarantee on the part of the Government. The Bill sought to effect that object in two ways: first, by taking care that there should be an efficient body of managers, and by taking care also that those managers performed their duty in seeing that the officers of the bank brought the money paid in by the depositors to ac count. The measure had been intended 88 a boon to the managers of savings banks; but, unfortunately, some of these parties regarded it in the light rather of an obstruction than a benefit, and under those circumstances he was afraid he must re commend the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw it, because he felt it would be hopeless to attempt to pass a measure of this kind without the general sanction of the gentlemen concerned. In that event, however, a grave responsibility would rest on some one, for it was the bounden duty of the House to see that the law offered. every reasonable security to depositors, who were generally of a class ill able to form a sound opinion with regard to the minute details of the system. Unless the right hon. Gentleman succeeded in bringing in a Bill more generally acceptable, he thought it would be the duty of the Government to introduce a measure giving every reasonable security to depositors, though, of course, having savings banks of their own, they could not now be expected to give a pecuniary guarantee.
  MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURTsaid, he had brought in this Bill in connection with some hon. Friends, including his hon. and learned Friend who had just spoken, whose assistance he begged to acknowledge, believing that its operation would afford better security for depositors, and would also affect the managers of savings banks beneficially. He had, however, received within, the last few months numerous representations from managers and others in different parts of the country urging in some cases that the Bill was inapplicable to their particular circum stances, and in others alleging that, whether rightly or wrongly, great apprehensions as to its operation were entertained by managers and trustees. He should not have felt himself justified in assenting to the request which they all put forward that the Bill should be withdrawn for the present Session, if it were not that he had that very day received from an influential body of managers of savings banks, gentlemen of great experience and fully to be depended upon, an assurance, that if he consented to withdraw this Bill, they would endeavour to devise a Bill the provisions of which would, in their opinion, meet the requirements of their different establishments. On the other hand, he had assured those gentlemen, in the name of his hon. Friends as well as his own, that they could not accept any Bill until they were perfectly satisfied that its provisions would afford the requisite security to depositors. He cordially concurred with his hon. and learned Friend opposite in hoping that some measure might ultimately be devised which would have the effect of remedying the present very un satisfactory condition of the law. He trusted the Government would be induced to take charge of the question: but should they not do so, he would do his best to remove these small imperfections which still attached to the law of savings banks. Under these circumstances, he asked for leave to withdraw the Bill.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he regretted very much that the labours of his right hon. Friend had not come to a different conclusion than had the labours of those who, with the advantages or disadvantages of official position, had previously attempted to deal with this subject. The question had been for a long time handled by those who had successively filled the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer, but who had. not succeeded in persuad-
  1972
  ing the Commissioners to adopt plans which they had framed in order to effect the security of the depositors. From them it had passed to the hands of his right hon. Friend, who had just now informed the House that he felt compelled to assent to the postponement of his labours; but that the subject would during the recess be in the hands of a considerable association or combination of managers of savings banks. Well, it was very desirable that managers should take their turn. On the part of the Government he would say, that if they could see their way to the attainment of an alteration of the law which promised to be a real improvement, they would not excuse themselves for the purpose of evading difficulties which might attend legislation on the subject. Undoubtedly the main question had been disposed of. They were now able to say to the people of England who were disposed to lay by their savings, with a moderate interest, and with a perfect security, the Government had provided some 3,000 places of deposit where those savings could be received, and where the security of the State was given for those deposits. There, therefore, was not the same urgency which formerly existed for an amendment in the law relating to savings banks. At the same time, it was known that there was a sum of £30,000,000 to £40,000,000 in the hands of the old savings banks, deposited by an immense number of persons on the security of the law; but which security was liable to be misunderstood. Hon. Members had no difficulty in distinguishing between Government liability to trustees and Government liability to depositors; but the distinction was not so readily comprehended by the depositors themselves, and he believed that the utmost vagueness of conception actually prevailed among the depositors on the point. In 1853 he proposed to introduce an agent independent of the local manager of the bank, who should be a party to every transaction of paying and receiving money; but it was undoubtedly open to the objection that it would entail some increase of expense in the management, and this must be regarded as a serious defect. He did not imagine that anything of so extensive a character would now be attempted. He confessed that he was somewhat discouraged at the momentary failure of his right hon. Friend, because he knew of no one who, from character and position, from the attention which he had given to

  1973
  the subject, and from the general possession of the confidence of the managers of savings banks, was so likely to bring the matter to a successful issue. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would pursue the course he had intimated his intention to take, and any representation which he might urge upon the Government, either during the Session or in the recess, would receive at his (the Chancellor of the Exchequer's) hands, should be have the honour to retain office, the best consideration, with an earnest desire to secure the prosperity of savings banks.
  MR. H. A. HERBERTfully concurred in all that had fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the position and character of the right hon. Member for North Wiltshire and his peculiar ability and fitness for the task he had undertaken, and regretted the announcement he felt himself called upon to make. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would impress on the managers with whom he would come in contact the great responsibility which they had incurred by year after year defeating the attempts of successive Chancellors of the Exchequer to amend the law with regard to savings banks. The state of that law was most anomalous. It was not sufficient that any hon. Member should be able to say that these banks were generally well managed; but it was a disgrace to the country and to that House that any law should exist under which it was possible that such things should occur as the public were unfortunately familiar with—the failure of savings banks. These banks had been just sufficiently tampered with by Acts of Parliament to create an impression of absolute security, but the House had altogether neglected to take precautions to ensure that such belief was well founded.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he could not say he regretted that his right hon. Friend had taken the course which he had done in this matter. It was very advisable that any measure to give security to depositors in the ordinary savings banks should, as far as possible, be taken with the consent of the persons who had the management of those banks, and he was not without hopes that this might be accomplished. This was a great point, and the delay might be advantageous if that desirable result could be obtained. He was not without hope, that if proper steps were taken, perfect security to the depo-
  1974
  sitors would be obtained. The measure which the Government had introduced for the establishment of Post Office Savings Banks had worked well, and afforded an opportunity of dealing with this question which had not existed before. The managers of very small banks on the old system, which could not afford the proper machinery for perfect management, ought to hand over their business to Post Office Savings Banks.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHexpressed his concurrence in the remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He was glad to hear that the Post Office Savings Banks were working so well, and expressed his opinion that the Post Office Banks would ultimately swallow up all the old banks.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Order for Second Reading discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

LUNACY REGULATION BILL.

  [BILL NO. 76.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  SIR GEORGE GREY,in moving the second reading of the Bill, which had come down from the House of Lords, said, that the Bill related almost exclusively, to Chancery lunatics. One object of the measure was to amend the mode of procedure in Commissions of Lunacy issued by the Lord Chancellor, so as not to exhaust the whole of the property of a lunatic or alleged lunatic in the expenses incidental to the Commission. The Bill also gave the Lord Chancellor additional power to apply properties of small amount for the benefit of lunatics, when satisfied that there was foundation for the allegation of lunacy; and the third object was to provide for the more effectual visitation of Chancery lunatics. There was also a clause which would enable the Lord Chancellor to make provision for criminal lunatics. The Bill was, in fact, an Amendment of the Act of 1853, introduced and passed by Lord St. Leonards when he held the office of Lord Chancellor, and which introduced most valuable alterations in the law of lunacy; and the two latter objects had already been the subject of Bills introduced into that House by the hon. and learned Member for Belfast (Sir H. Cairns). The necessity for the first part of the pre sent Bill had been suggested by the recent case of Mr. Windham, which had attracted public attention in consequence of the length of time it lasted, and the enor-

  1975
  mous expense which had been incurred in the inquiry. The third clause provided that the inquiry should be limited to the state of mind of the alleged lunatic at the time when the inquiry was instituted. It also enacted that no evidence should be received in proof of insanity as to anything done or said by such person, or as to his demeanour or state of mind at any time being more than two years before the time of the inquiry, unless the Judge should otherwise direct. The third limitation of this clause was intended to exclude the merely speculative views and opinions of medical men; and it provided that the opinion of the medical practitioner should not be admissible as evidence of insanity. As to the first of these provisions, it was desirable to bear in mind what the state of the law now is. Prior to the year 1858 the inquiry was not limited in point of time. The inquiry was directed not merely to the state of mind at the time, but the jury were called on to state the period from which that lunacy should date. The 47th section of the Act of 1853 provided that the inquiry should not be carried back, unless directed by the Lord Chancellor. That was a great improvement of the law. But he thought this should be altered so as not to leave this discretion to the Lord Chancellor. The reason for going back was to ascertain whether the validity of a will or a marriage would be affected by the lunacy: but by admitting these collateral subjects of inquiry, the parties whose rights would be affected by it would be greatly multi plied, while no final decision could be obtained with regard to them. These matters could be ascertained by other modes, and it was now thought better to propose that in all cases the inquiry should be as to the state of mind at the time of the inquiry. The second alteration was as to the period beyond which no evidence should be given, and that, it was thought, should be two years. This, however, might be extended at the discretion of the Judge, if he should think it necessary, to meet particular cases; such as where the character of certain symptoms might have an important bearing on the inquiry, if proved to have exist ed at a former period, and to have developed themselves subsequently into confirmed insanity. The third point touched upon a question which had occasioned, and would probably still occasion, considerable difference of opinion—the exclusion of mere speculative theories of medical men,
  1976
  were which often given in inquiries of this kind, and which tended to confuse rather than enlighten a jury; but it was by no means intended to exclude medical evidence. On the contrary, where a medical man had been long in attendance on an alleged lunatic, and spoke to what he had himself seen, his evidence was exceedingly important. The object of those inquiries was to judge of the acts, habits, demeanour, and conversation of the alleged lunatics; and if medical men were permitted to give their opinions as to the structure of the head, the expression of the eye, or any particular malformation, irrespective of acts done or words spoken, it would tend rather to mislead the jury than to guide them to a right conclusion. He was glad to find the following statement in the Journal of Mental Science for April with reference to this provision of the Bill:—
  "At the first blush of this we were inclined to feel professional vanity not a little wounded, but we are bound to ask, not whether the provision is flattering, but whether it is calculated to promote the public interests by rendering judicial proceedings more certain and simple. The broad position taken by the Lord Chancellor is, that in inquisitions of lunacy the question mooted is the existence or non-existence of certain states of mind as a matter of common observation; it is not whether these states of mind are or are not conditions of disease, but whether it is a fact that they exist, and he maintains that the proof of this fact must depend on that kind of evidence which appeals to the understanding, and which gains the belief of common men unlearned in the subtleties of physiology or metaphysics. The plain expression of an empirical knowledge of observed facts relating to the mind of an alleged lunatic is the very thing which the provision contained in the Lord Chancellor's Bill aims to substitute for those speculative views and theoretical opinions which have in lunacy trials been the cause of so much waste of public time and patience, and of so much discredit to our profession."
  To a certain extent this provision of the Bill was already in force. A case was tried by Lord Campbell in 1850 at the Stafford Assizes, in which the validity of a will was disputed. The then Solicitor General appeared for the plaintiff, and Drs. Monro, "Winslow, and Conolly were brought down as witnesses. Dr. Monro, being put into the witness-box, was asked whether, having heard the evidence which had been given, he could say that the testator was sane or insane. Lord Campbell would not permit the question to be answered. He said he would not allow a medical man to be placed in the position of a jury. In many cases the opinions of the medical men were contradictory, and tended rather to perplex than

  1977
  to elucidate the subject of inquiry, and it was therefore proposed to exclude altogether mere opinion, not founded on personal knowledge of facts of which the jury could judge. There was another important change with regard to procedure. Under the Act of 1853 a jury was impannelled only in cases in which a demand for a jury was made by the alleged lunatic. The results of the Act of 1853 had been satisfactory in two respects: in the first place, it withdrew many cases from a publicity which was often very painful to the families of the persons afflicted; and, secondly, it had induced persons to apply for commissions of inquiry who otherwise would have shrunk from doing so. How the Act had worked in that respect would be shown by the following figures:—During the five years preceding the Act of 1853 the number of inquisitions was 196; during the five years which followed the Act they rose to 358; and although the option of demanding a jury was given, out of the 358 inquisitions there were only 21 in which juries had been impannelled. It might be thought therefore, that it would not be necessary to alter the law. But some of the cases in which a jury was impannelled were of great importance, from the magnitude of the interests at stake. Counsel of the greatest eminence were employed in them, and it was thought desirable in such cases that a Judge of one of the Courts at Westminster should preside, in order that the inquiry might be conducted in a manner that would be most satisfactory to the public. No imputation whatever was thrown on the manner in which the Masters in Lunacy had conducted those inquiries; but it was obvious that it would be advantageous that those cases should be pre sided over by one of the superior Judges, Counsel would be more likely to attend to suggestions coming from such a quarter, evidence foreign to the case would be rejected, the inquiry would be shortened, and satisfaction would be more generally given. The present Bill, then, would enable the Lord Chancellor to send those cases before a superior Judge instead of a Master in Lunacy. An objection had been made that the Judges were so fully employed that they would have no time for such inquiries. But when it was considered that' in five years only twenty-one of those cases had occurred, it would, he thought, be found perfectly practicable to obtain
  1978
  the services of one of the superior Judges, There was another provision in the Bill, which would take away the absolute right of traverse in all cases which might have been heard by a jury, leaving it, however, in the power of the Lord Chancellor to grant a new trial if he thought proper. 'Under the present state of the law the right of traverse had been exercised without the slightest benefit to the lunatic and at great expense. The Bill also proposed that after the case had been opened there should be an opportunity of examining the alleged lunatic, and that a similar examination might take place at the close. It was very generally considered, that had the examination of the alleged lunatic in a recent trial taken place at an earlier period, it would have tended to shorten the case. It was also provided that it should be at the discretion of the Judge whether the examination should be conducted in public or in private, because it was felt there were cases in which public feeling and public decency might be shocked by an examination with open doors. What he had said thus far related to procedure. The second object of the Bill was to extend the power of the Lord Chancellor, so as to enable him to deal with small properties of the value of £1,000, or of £50 per annum, without having recourse to a commission. The third object of the Bill had reference to the visitation of Chancery lunatics. In the Committee appointed to inquire into the law affecting lunatics, no point was more clearly established than that an immense improvement in the care of lunatics resulted from proper and regular visitations; but he was sorry to say that the law did not extend to Chancery lunatics the same protection that it afforded to other classes of lunatics. The visitors were under the obligation to visit the Chancery lunatics only once a year, and the interval between the visitations was not fixed. The number of lunatics under the care of the Court was about 650, and their incomes amounted in the aggregate to about £350,000. About 300 of the lunatics were in licensed houses, and the remaining 350 resided in their own houses, or were placed with their relatives, or with persons selected by the latter. Their places of residence were therefore scattered all over England. By the present Bill the visitation would be altered. The recommendation of the Committee before which Lord Shaftesbury and other members of the Lunacy Board were examined,

  1979
  was that the visitation of Chancery lunatics should be intrusted to that Board, the Lord Chancellor retaining full authority as to their property. The Lord Chancellor was willing to adopt this recommendation, and only abstained, from doing so in con sequence of the strong objections raised to it by the Board itself. It was therefore proposed, that in addition to the legal visitors, who are to be retained, two medical visitors should be appointed, who should be withdrawn entirely from their profession. It would be obligatory on these visitors to visit this class of lunatics at least four times in the year, and such visits were to be so regulated as that the interval between the visits to each lunatic should in no case exceed six months. If the House agreed to this proposal, these unfortunate persons would be looked after in a more efficient way than they hitherto had been, and every precaution taken for securing them the greatest amount of comfort that could be extended to persons in their condition. He had now explained the general purport of the measure, and he apprehended that there would be no objection to the second reading.
  SIR HUGH CAIRNSsaid, he did not rise to offer any opposition to the Bill, in the greater part of the provisions of which he fully concurred. With respect to the visitation of lunatics, and the mode of dealing with small properties, it would be extremely useful; and he regarded the proposed change, by which the inquiries before a jury respecting lunacy were to be made by an issue to one of the Superior Courts of common law, as a great improvement. It was impossible to find fault with the way in which the officers before whom these investigations had hitherto taken place had conducted the inquiries; but, as the Secretary of State remarked, there was one conclusive reason for the change—because, after an expensive trial before a Master in Lunacy, and a decision establishing lunacy, the lunatic might the very next day traverse the finding; and then that traverse would have to be tried by a Judge of the Superior Courts. Therefore the proposition embodied in the present Bill was calculated to save time and expense. There were one or two points in respect to which he thought the Bill needed revision, and which he should mention in the hope that the Government would reconsider the propositions which they made. The Bill, for instance, provided that no evidence should be taken as to
  1980
  anything which might have occurred more than two years previous to the institution of an inquiry under its operation. Now, he felt assured that in ninety-nine cases out of 100 it would not be found necessary to go further back; but there were, nevertheless, very serious objections to defining the time to so sharp a limit. What magic, he should like to know, lay in a period of two years? What, moreover, would be likely to be the result of fixing upon it as the boundary beyond which the inquiry must not extend? The House was well aware that in many cases the friends of a person who was supposed to be afflicted with the infirmity with which the Bill proposed to deal, were very unwilling, till the last moment, to take steps which would make that infirmity the subject of a public investigation; but under the operation of the provision to which he was referring, they would be led, perhaps, to precipitate an inquiry which might be very properly and conveniently delayed, under the apprehension that unless that inquiry were instituted within two years they would be debarred from adducing certain evidence as to the state of mind of the alleged lunatic. He might further observe, that although, technically, inquiries such as those of which he was speaking were not conclusive, yet that, practically, it rarely occurred that when once a verdict establishing the sanity of any one had, after a full and satisfactory inquiry before a jury, been established, the state of mind of that person was subsequently challenged. If, however, the time within which the scope of the inquiry should be confined were fixed as proposed, the result might in many instances be that on the death of the alleged lunatic a controversy would take place with respect to his will, when those who opposed it would be, perhaps, induced to renew litigation on the question of the sanity of the testator, in dealing with which question there would be no limit as to the time over which the evidence might extend. If, however, evidence on the original inquiry had not been limited, but had been allowed to spread over any length of time, they would hardly deem it expedient to take that course. The provision as it stood, therefore, left open, in his opinion, a door for future litigation. It would, under those circumstances, he thought, be better to leave the law in that particular respect as it stood. He wished, in the next place, briefly to advert

  1981
  to the clause in the Bill which set forth that "the opinion of no medical practitioner was to be admissible as evidence of the insanity of any person." Now, he quite concurred in the view that the evidence of a medical man who had never previously seen or examined the alleged lunatic was worth very little. The late Lord Chancellor had, he might add, re fused to admit such speculative evidence in a well-known case; so that an Act of Parliament was not necessary to effect its exclusion. The real operation of the clause in question would therefore be to prevent a medical man who had known and examined the alleged lunatic, and was perfectly well acquainted with his appearance and demeanour, from giving any opinion as to his sanity or insanity, while every cab-driver or crossing-sweeper who had ever known or listened to him would be admissible as a witness in the case. This appeared to him to be a great anomaly. He for one had no prejudice in favour of the testimony of those who were known as "experts," but he thought it wrong that the medical practitioner should, under the circumstances which he had mentioned, be the only person whose evidence would not be received. He wished also to point out how great the anomaly would be of allowing any amount of evidence, so far as related to the time over which it was spread and the persons by whom it was given, to be taken before the tribunal under the authority of which the commission in lunacy was issued, while, in both respects, a certain limit was assigned when the commission was issued and the case came before a jury. He should merely refer, in conclusion, to the provision contained in the Bill for the appointment of a shorthand-writer to take down the evidence adduced in the investigations in question, and the reception of his notes as evidence, with the view of "saving time and expense." Now, if the making of such an appointment were calculated to save time and expense, why was such a course not adopted in every instance of a trial before a jury? The fact was, that the employment of a shorthand-writer was calculated to effect no such saving, because, when a witness was being examined, the opposing counsel, as well as the presiding Judge, had to take down notes of the evidence, and the witness had frequently to be requested not to speak too rapidly, or to cease speaking at a particu-
  1982
  lar point, in order to admit of their doing so. If, on the other hand, the Judge were to depend on the shorthand-writer's notes, then he would be obliged to adjourn the Court until they were transcribed, before he could deliver his charge to the jury. Unless, therefore, all the parties who were obliged to take down the evidence were able to write shorthand, no saving of time would be effected. He had merely mentioned these objections to the Bill as it stood in the hope that the Government would take them into consideration before it went into Committee.
  MR. WALPOLEagreed with the Committee which inquired into the subject that there was no reason why Chancery Commissioners should be appointed at considerable expense to pay rare visits to Chancery lunatics, when every other lunatic in the kingdom was visited much more frequently by persons who were well acquainted with all the circumstances of each individual case, and who were much more competent to the work than any Chancery visitors that could be selected. The only reason that could be alleged for the appointment of Chancery Commissioners was, that the ordinary Commissioners in Lunacy might not be able so conveniently among themselves to arrange for the supervision of Chancery lunatics, in case there should be an interference on the part of some Chancery authority. He could not understand, however, why there should be any interference on the part of the Chancery authorities, or why Chancery lunatics should not be visited by the same persons who took charge of every other class of lunatics in the kingdom. The present Bill was, no doubt, a great improvement upon the existing law, and he was not prepared to oppose the second reading; but he should probably think it right in Committee to propose another method of supervising Chancery lunatics. He gave his cordial assent to that part of the Bill which extended the existing provisions for applying the property of Chancery lunatics more conveniently for their comfort, and he should be glad to see those clauses passed into law. The only other part of the measure upon which he wished to make one or two observations was the way in which it was proposed to deal with those alleged lunatics against whom commissions might be issued, and the mode of inquiry into the state of their mind. Per-

  1983
  haps he was going to state an opinion which, with many persons, would not be very popular, as regarded the care which ought to be taken before persons who possessed property were put under restraint; but he had thought a good deal on the subject. There were nearly 40,000 persons subject to the lunacy laws in this country. A vast number of those persons were put under care and treatment without any injurious publicity, not by any expensive inquiry, but by, proper certificates to the effect that the cases were such as required confinement. The law as it originally stood with respect to Chancery lunatics was that in all cases there should be, not only an inquisition, but a jury. Many persons hesitated about the alteration of the law upon that point; but no jury was now empannelled to try such cases, except in the few instances where the alleged lunatics might desire it, or their friends on their behalf. And what was the result? Instead of every case being made public, much to the detriment of the alleged, lunatics and their relatives, only a very few were tried by juries, and no complaints were urged either by the lunatics themselves or by any person on their behalf against the new system. The alteration of the law, therefore, had answered its purpose. But he was sorry to say that the few trials which did take place before juries were struggles, not for the benefit of the alleged lunatics, but because there were different views taken by those who wished to have the management of their persons and their property. He believed, indeed, that there was little advantage in having a jury at all, and he was sure that the Lord Chancellor himself was the person who ought to decide whether the alleged lunatic should be put under care and treatment or not, unless it struck his mind that there should be a fuller inquiry than he could give to the case. The only reason why Chancery lunatics were more likely to be confined improperly than other persons was that they possessed property which their friends desired to get hold of. That was a good ground for affording them additional protection; but granting, for the sake of argument, that there should be a jury trial in the majority of cases, why should the matter be transferred to another tribunal? The whole case was before the Lord Chancellor, and if it was necessary to have a jury, why could the Lord Chancellor not have it then and there? Why
  1984
  go to another court at all? The whole of that part of the Bill was merely a provision for encouraging struggles and increasing expense. As to the few instances where there was a necessity for having a jury—the number did not exceed three in every seventy—the Lord Chanceller or the Lords Justices ought to conduct the inquiry, publicly or privately, as the case might be. It might be said that this was not a usual proceeding in the Court of Chancery; but he contended that the Lord Chancellor or the Lords Justices could try such cases quite as well as any court of law. The effect of the alteration he suggested would be to diminish the number of cases sent to a jury for inquiry, instead of increasing them, which would be the result of transferring them to another tribunal. Supposing, however, that the cases were to be sent to another tribunal, then he agreed in all the observations of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Belfast (Sir H. Cairns). He could not conceive why the evidence should be limited to two years before the commencement of the inquiry. In many cases it might be only fair to the alleged lunatic that the state of his mind should be shown to have been strong and firm anterior to the period stipulated in the Bill; because the circumstances under which his mind had given way might have been merely casual, and the fact that throughout all the earlier part of his life he had never been afflicted with mental disease was a strong argument in his favour against the necessity of declaring him to be incapable of managing himself and his affairs. On the other hand, there could be no doubt that when a person was afflicted in this manner, and had evinced, on former occasions a tendency to commit dangerous acts, it would be detrimental both to him and to society to exclude evidence of these facts, which showed that the malady under which he was suffering was not a casual aberration of mind, but rather a repetition of a state which he had exhibited before. With respect to the exclusion of the opinion of medical men, he could not understand how such a provision could have found its way into the Bill, except upon the supposition that it was simply intended to prevent doctors from saying, after they had heard the evidence of others, "From what we have heard in court, we think the alleged lunatic is (or is not) of unsound mind." Of course, such evidence as that never ought to be admitted. It had, unfortunately, been

  1985
  admitted too often lately; but it had been excluded by the ruling of Lord Campbell, and there was no necessity for any alteration of the law in that respect. Such being the provisions of the Bill, thinking, as he did, that juries ought to be resorted to as little as possible, he hoped that the few eases where inquiry was necessary would be determined by the Lord Chancellor or the Lords Justices, instead of being sent to a different tribunal. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would apply his mind to the points he had mentioned, and endeavour to devise some means of removing the objections to some parts of the Bill.
  MR. MALINSsaid, that he regarded many parts of the Bill with approval, but as to some points he concurred in the opinion of the hon. and learned Member for Belfast (Sir Hugh Cairns.) He objected to the clause which limited the inquiry to a period of two years; and he could not understand why the opinions of medical men should be excluded whilst the opinions of all other persons were admitted in evidence. He hoped that the Government would modify these parts of the Bill. He must express his surprise at hearing his right hon. Friend (Mr. Walpole) say that there ought to be even the possibility of a man being treated as a lunatic without his having the option of going before a jury; for though it was perfectly true that out of 328 cases of lunacy there were only twenty-one in which juries were required, still it was impossible to compute how many more charges of lunacy there would have been if the alleged lunatics had no power to demand a jury. No man, in his opinion, should be confined as a lunatic until the question of his sanity or insanity had been decided by a jury. The advantage of the right to demand a jury was shown forcibly in the Windham case; for if there had been no power to demand a jury, that gentleman would, no doubt, have been treated as a lunatic for the whole or a large portion of his life. There was a case, some years ago, in Wales, where a man's family combined to charge him with lunacy; but the jury were unanimously of opinion that he was of perfectly sound mind, and he had managed himself and his affairs ever since; though, but for having a jury, there might have been this monstrous injustice that the man would have been treated as of unsound mind. He entirely agreed with having only twelve instead of twenty-three
  1986
  jurors, and that the trial should be before one of the Judges of the Superior Courts. Many parts of the Bill, he thought, were admirable; but others would, no doubt, require much modification.
  MR. HENLEYhoped that in Committee that part of the Bill which related to the visitation of Chancery lunatics would be amended. It had been proved before the Committee, that when a person visiting Chancery lunatics saw something that he thought it would be beneficial to the lunatic to mention, such was the machinery of the Court of Chancery that the statement was struck out of his report as impertinent, he not having been directed to ask any questions upon that particular point. He hoped, therefore, the visitors would have full power to report anything which they considered it was for the advantage of the lunatic to make known, whether the Chancery people thought the information impertinent or not. He also thought the period of six months should be changed, as, although it was intended that the visitation should take place four times a year, yet if the visitors went at the beginning of one period of six months, and at the end of the succeeding period, there would be only two visits a year. In the Bill, as it stood, medical evidence was to be excluded; but if that provision were maintained, a greater anomaly than any which now existed would occur; because, while medical evidence would be excluded in the cases of Chancery lunatics, the number of whom was comparatively small, the great muss of lunatics, not Chancery lunatics—some 29.000 in number—were confined upon medical certificates alone. The opinions of medical men who had not seen the lunatic, but only heard the evidence of witnesses concerning him, ought not to be admitted; but medical men in their certificates were required to state the facts which had led them to their conclusions; and it was absurd, that while lunacy was regarded as a disease, the medical man who had seen and examined the patient should not be allowed to express his opinion in reference to symptoms which a non-medical man would not have observed.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that as there would be an opportunity for full discussion upon details in Committee, he would only notice one or two points that had been raised that evening. Objection had been taken to the limitation of the inquiry into the state of mind and conduct of the alleged lunatic to two

  1987
  years. The object of that limitation was to devise a remedy for an existing evil. At present, the inquiry was directed into the state of mind of the alleged lunatic without any limit of time—it might ex tend over a man's whole life, and in the Windham case did go back more than twenty years. In order to provide a remedy for this state of things, some limit must be fixed; and though there was no particular charm in two years, that period would, he believed, give sufficient scope for the evidence. As to the opinions of medical men, what was proposed was not so much a change in the law as an authoritative exposition of the law as it already was, so as to make it accord with the general rule of evidence, which excluded mere opinion, except in cases where persons of ordinary knowledge and intelligence could not come to a proper decision without the guidance of experts. Medical men were now called upon to give their opinions upon the state of mind of an individual at a given time; but, after hearing evidence, persons of ordinary intelligence were capable of arriving at a just conclusion for themselves upon such a point. Judicial practice had not been very harmonious or decisive upon this point, but upon principle he thought that such evidence ought to be excluded. It was said that the Commissioners in Lunacy ought to be substituted for the visitors under the Lord Chancellor, but the Com missioners had stated their inability to undertake the duty, and he thought it was not desirable to force duties upon them, considering that, to a great extent, their services were given gratuitously to the country.
  SIR DAVID DUNDASapproved generally of this Bill, which introduced a great improvement in the law, but he was opposed to the third clause, regarding the limitation of the inquiry. The limit of two years was a monstrous interference with the rule of evidence. Surely the question of the sanity or the insanity of a Chancery lunatic was as much a question of fact as the competency of a testator to execute a will, or the question whether a man's state of mind was such as to make him accountable for a murder. In such cases even the fact that a man's father was a lunatic might be material. He did not think that the Judges would like the discretionary power which was given them in this matter, which would necessarily lead to a difference in the practice of the courts.
  Bill read 2o, and committed for Thursday, 5th June.
  House adjourned at half after Eight o'clock.