HC Deb 19 February 1864 vol 173 cc833-47

Order for Committee read.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 1 (Repeal of 3 & 4 Vict. c. 54, s. 1), agreed to.

Clause 2 (Prisoners becoming insane, Two Justices may inquire, with Medical Aid, respecting such Insanity).


, who had given notice to move Amendments in Clause 2, line 12, to leave out "death," and in Clause 2, line 20, after "appoint," to insert— If any person imprisoned in any prison, under sentence of death, shall be certified by two or more of the visiting justices of such prison to have become insane since his conviction, one of Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State shall, on receipt of such certificate, forthwith issue a commission to three Commissioners to be selected by him, not more than one of whom, if any shall be of the medical profession, to inquire into the truth of such certificate; and such Commissioners are hereby empowered to examine such person, and to take evidence on oath of such witnesses as they may deem necessary; and such Commissioners shall report their proceedings, with the evidence, and their decision thereon, to such Principal Secretary of State; and in case they shall adjudge that such person has become insane since his trial, then such Secretary of State shall issue his warrant for the removal of such person to some lunatic asylum for the reception of criminals; said he would now move an Amendment to omit the word "death" in the second line of the clause, which would be sufficient to raise the question which he desired to have discussed. His object was to define and limit the power of the Secretary of State in cases where sentence of death had been passed.

The operation of the Bill ought in his opinion to be confined to insanity arising in the period between conviction and execution; and if it were intended by the Government to reinvestigate the question of insanity either at the time the offence was committed, or at the subsequent period of arraignment, that end ought to be attained by some different machinery. He saw an Amendment on the paper of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. Montague Smith), to delegate the inquiry into the sanity of a prisoner, after certificate of the justices, to one of the Masters in Lunacy and a jury. But though that seemed a plausible he did not think it would be a satisfactory proposition. A jury required the direction of a leading mind, and he was far from being satisfied that they were easily directed to a right conclusion. In a pamphlet by Dr. Hood it was stated that, in the six years from 1852 to 1858, 120 persons were tried for murder or attempts to murder, or for acts of personal violence, and were acquitted on the ground of insanity. Of that number, seventy-nine were received into Bethlehem Hospital, but in several instances they exhibited no symptoms of insanity during their residence in the asylum. That showed the way in which juries acquitted pri- soners where there was no ground for saying they were insane; and the risk would be greater if their decision in favour of sanity was to be immediately followed by the punishment of death. He thought that when a man had been convicted by a jury of his countrymen, he should be dealt with as a State prisoner, and that the State should undertake the charge of investigating the condition of his mind. When the visiting justices certified that a prisoner had become insane, Commissioners should be sent to examine the prisoner, and to call such witnesses as they deemed fit; and upon their Report the Secretary of State should act, without any responsibility attaching to him. The mode which he should propose in a subsequent Amendment, of sending three Commissioners, not more than one of whom should be of the medical profession, was, he thought, better than that of a jury, which was suggested in the Amendment of his hon. Friend. He begged to move the omission of the word "death" in line 12 of the Clause.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 12, to leave out the word "death"—(Mr. Gathorne Hardy.)


said, he concurred with the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) as to the principle embodied in his Amendment, although he differed with him as to the mode in which it should be carried out. He would suggest that it should be left to the Governor of the gaol, as well as the visiting justices, to put the machinery of the law in motion. In many respects the Governor was a better person to exercise the power than visiting justices, who were frequently selected merely on account of their near residence to the gaol. In his opinion, the law, with regard to insanity, was not merely unsatisfactory but was contrary to humanity and common sense, and he believed that the Judges would willingly dissent, if they could, from the exposition of the law contained in the Answers of the Judges to the question proposed to them in M'Naughten's case. In the eye of the law, normal and habitual insanity was no defence whatever. The question considered upon a plea of insanity was, whether the prisoner was insane at the time the act was committed, and in reference to the circumstances under which it was committed. Supposing a man acted under the influence of a delusion for which there was no reasonable ground, according to the law he might be liable to its extreme penalty. For instance, if a man supposed that another man's house belonged to him, and went with a loaded pistol demanding admission, and on being refused shot the person dead, although he acted under the influence of an insane delusion, and was subject to delusions shutting him out from intercourse with society, and was not able to know that the house of his neighbour did not belong to him, yet, according to the opinion of the Judges as to what the law was, he would be liable to the extreme penalty of the law. The inquiry should therefore be, not whether a prisoner had become insane since his conviction, but whether he was habitually and normally insane, which was, and ought to be, a sufficient ground to exempt him from punishment.


said, the Judges of the land had, with great ability and humanity, laid down the law with regard to insanity, and it was absolutely necessary for the protection of society, that every one who knew the consequences of his acts should suffer the penalty imposed for his offence, and that they should not be mystified by the advocates of the new and singular doctrine of moral insanity, that the more depraved a man might be the more should he be exempt from punishment. Such a doctrine was unchristian and unworthy the law of England. It was clear, that from the time of a man's conviction he should be in the hands of the Secretary of State, and that nothing should save him but the exercise of the Crown's prerogative of mercy. The object to be achieved was, to furnish due information to the Secretary of State as to the state of the prisoner's mind. He did not think that this should be left to the justices. There were only two modes of doing it effectually—first, by an inquiry by a jury; and secondly, an inquiry by a Commission. He thought that an inquiry by a Commission—not of medical men, but of men of intelligence and station, who might consult experts if necessary, was the true species of tribunal to whom this important authority should be consigned. He therefore approved of the Amendment proposed by his hon. Friend.


said, he had considered the Amendments of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) very carefully, but he had failed to satisfy himself that they would be an improvement. Suppose a man changed with a capital crime but not yet put upon his trial—if the Amendments were adopted, the very day before his trial he might be examined by two visiting justices and two medical men, and the Secretary of State would be bound to act upon their report. Sometimes a long interval takes place between commitment and trial. Take the case of Townley. He was committed on a charge of murder, and was imprisoned for some months before trial. At any time before his trial this certificate might have been signed, according to the Amendment, and he would have been withdrawn from the cognizance of a judicial tribunal. The hon. Member, as he understood, proposed not that there should be a representation by the visiting justices of a prisoner's insanity, but that they should certify to the fact of his insanity. This would be the only instance in which two laymen, as distinguished from medical men, had been empowered to certify the existence of insanity. There were cases in which two medical men might sign, and others in which visiting justices and medical men might jointly sign, but none in which laymen were to sign alone. To that extent the hon. Gentleman proposed an innovation on the existing law; because, although the opinion of two laymen in cases of insanity might be of value, it ought not, in his opinion, to be entirely unconnected from that of medical men. The hon. Gentleman then proposed that, on the certificate of two justices that a prisoner was insane, the Secretary of State should send down a Commission to consist of three members, only one of whom should be a medical man, with power to inquire into the prisoner's sanity, that their certificate should be final, and that no discretion should be left to the Secretary of State in the matter. The course suggested was very much like that which he had taken in sending the Lunacy Commissioners to inquire into Townley's case. They consisted of two laymen, members of the Lunacy Commission, and one medical man; and what was the result? They produced a report which was evidently a compromise. They expressed an opinion that Townley was not of sound mind; but that, according to the law laid down by the Judge, he was rightly convicted. If the present Bill had then been the law, with the hon. Gentleman's Amendment, the certificate of this Commission would have been final, the Secretary of State would have had no discretion, and he must have transferred Townley to a lunatic asylum. The final report made by four medical men of great experience was more satisfactory. He thought it would be better that there should be a certificate from the visiting justices and the medical men, and that the Secretary of State, being thus put in motion, should appoint those persons whom he thought best qualified to examine the prisoner and report their opinion to him. The Bill would, no doubt, increase the responsibility of the Secretary of State, but that could not well be avoided with due regard to the proper administration of justice.


said, that the right hon. Gentleman in objecting to put prisoners under sentence of death in a different position to other prisoners had failed to notice the peculiar state of public opinion on the subject of death punishment. Among a small section of the public there was a strong opinion against the punishment of death, and that feeling was entertained so vehemently, that no scruples would prevent some of those who shared it from putting into work all the machinery which might exist for the purpose of saving a criminal from his fate. It was necessary, therefore, to treat the position of these prisoners as exceptional, and to take special precautions to prevent people signing their names to statements which they did not believe for the sake of getting them off. The weak point of every such tribunal as that proposed was, that it would consist more or less of medical men. Now, the medical and legal theories of insanity entirely differed from each other. Medical insanity simply meant something wrong in the structure of the brain, or in the performance of some of the functions connected with it. It might or might not affect the personal responsibility of the patient, and might be quite consistent with a full knowledge of the nature of a crime and its consequences. There was no reason for excusing a man from the penalty of his crime because he was, in a medical sense, insane. But there was an insanity which was an excuse for crime, and that kind of insanity had been defined by the Judges, and was acknowledged to be the legal doctrine on the subject. It had been excellently laid down by the Judges in M'Naughten's case, where it was ruled that ignorance of the nature of a crime and of the consequences which would flow from it were necessary to exculpate a criminal. The worst of appointing medical men on a tribunal to try the sanity or insanity of a prisoner was, that they were sure to go off on a wrong scent. They would be thinking of medical insanity, when the point they were put to judge of was, whether a man was legally insane or not. The position of medical men in such cases should be that of a witness, not of judge. He had never been able to see why insanity after trial should not be judged of in the same way as insanity before trial—by a Judge and jury. If that tribunal was the fittest for the one investigation, it was the fittest for the other. Those who were conversant with foreign jurisprudence would be aware, that in some countries insanity was tried by a jury, and he regretted that this had not been introduced into the present Bill. He thought the Amendment was an improvement on the Bill, but it did not go far enough; he was convinced that we should never arrive at a proper condition of the law, and never relieve the Secretary of State from a burden which pressed heavily upon him, and which exposed him to constant obloquy, except by having recourse to the ancient and tried system of trial by jury.


said, that the noble lord (Lord Robert Cecil) had taken the bull by the horns, for he had gone the full length of the legal doctrine of insanity, and held that if a madman in a lunatic asylum should murder his keeper, he ought to be brought out and hanged. [Lord ROBERT CECIL: No, no!] If the doctrine laid down by the Judges were carried out to its full application that must be the result. In a conversation he had had with Dr. Forbes Winslow that morning, that distinguished physician told him that he had lately subjected three patients under his care, all hopeless and incurable lunatics, to the test laid down by Baron Martin— that they should know the nature of an offence, and the legal consequences which would flow from it, and all three of them had given such answers as would have placed their lives in jeopardy. "If you were to shoot a man with a pistol what would be done to you?" was the question he put; and one answered that he should be hang, the second that he should be hung here but guillotined in France, and the third said that he should be hung only that he was a lunatic. Nothing could rescue us from a continued difference between the present state of the law and common sense and humanity but an inquiry which would reconcile the conflicting doctrines of medical and legal insanity.


said, the question was not at all that which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Neate) had put before them. If there was any error in the administration of justice, it was rather on the side of acquittals on the ground of insanity than improper conviction of lunatics. What he desired the House to consider was whether, in the case of persons capitally convicted, who were alleged to be insane, the question of sanity should not be inquired into by the same rules as were applied to other cases. The Bill should be confined to cases of insanity arising after trial. In the case of a prisoner insane before trial, there were two courses open to follow. In the case of the prisoner being evidently mad, he was not to be put on his trial at all; but the Secretary of State had power to order his removal to a lunatic asylum at once. But if it were a doubtful case, the question would be raised at the trial, and the verdict of the jury would decide it. His opinion was, that the verdict of the jury should be conclusive down to the time of the verdict; and if the law were not satisfactory on that matter, let it be amended. Then came the question as to insanity of the prisoner after trial. In the case of a man under capital sentence the time was so short, and it was so important that he should not be removed until the question was settled, that all that should be required was that the visiting justices should certify that the man appeared to have become insane. The right hon. Gentleman said, it would be dangerous not to call in medical witnesses, and the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Neate) would include the Governor of the gaol; but the Governor of the gaol was the servant of the visiting justices, and it would never do to call him in. He would report to the visiting justices if he thought the prisoner insane, and so would the medical officer of the prison. But the visiting justices having reported that the prisoner was insane, there should be an inquiry — his noble Friend (Lord Robert Cecil) said by a jury. But a jury did not appear to him (Mr. G. Hardy) for such a purpose a very efficient tribunal. What was wanted was some sort of investigation into the man's state, by an examination of the man, such as could not take place at the trial. In such an issue there would not be proper parties to bring forward the evidence for and against insanity; and the jury could not examine the prisoner for themselves, as Commissioners could. In the case of Townley the decision of the last Commissioners was entirely founded on their own personal examination of him. It would be much better that medical men should be called in as experts than as judges. Both theoretically and practically, the medical man would take a very different view from what a jury or barrister would take. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that he (Mr. G. Hardy) was inconsistent in proposing a Commission in which medical men should sit; but, if he examined his proposition, he would find that he left it optional with the Secretary of State to appoint a medical man on the Commission, or not. But what the House was now called on practically to decide by his Amendment was this:— Whether a man under sentence of death should be treated in the same way as a man under sentence of a few weeks' imprisonment or penal servitude? Should there not be once for all an investigation into his sanity, and with as little delay as possible? If a Judge and jury were to be called in, it could not be done promptly enough, for the Judges might be otherwise engaged. For these reasons, he had come to the conclusion, that it was necessary that Commissioners should be sent down forthwith, and should certify to the Secretary of State. What he wished the Committee to determine now was, whether by taking the word "death" out of the clause, cases of those under sentence of death should be left to be decided by some other tribunal than that which was sufficient for ordinary cases? If the House agreed to his Amendment, he should ask the Committee whether the inquiry should be by Commissioners, or before a jury.


said, he was pleased that the noble Lord (Lord Robert Cecil) had come to the conclusion that a jury would be the best tribunal, but a private Member had no chance of getting his views carried into effect. The question was, whether prisoners under sentence of death, should be put precisely under the same conditions as prisoners confined for slight offences? In former times there was no question whether prisoners under sentence of death should be put on the same footing as other prisoners, for their execution generally took place within forty-eight hours from the passing of the sentence. The word "death" was introduced for the first time in the 3 & 4 Vict, by the late Marquess of Normanby in the other House, and adopted without discussion, the noble Marquess having stated that there was no novelty in the matter. But there was very great novelty, because it altered the law, and altered it in such a manner as not to fit the case of persons under sentence of death. With regard to the retention of the word, he should prefer its omission, and that the whole matter should be left to the Secretary of State rather than have this wretched legislation about visiting justices. If the matter was left to the Home Secretary he might, before he advised the Crown to exercise its prerogative, inquire by any means he thought fit into the prisoner's insanity; but he would be fettered by such legislation as was now attempted. It was virtually giving to two justices and two medical men the power of interfering with the prerogative of the Crown. In his (Mr. Montague Smith's) opinion, the inquiry should originate with the responsible Minister of the Crown. The Bill, as the right hon. Gentleman desired to pass it, was a most absurd piece of machinery. It was made mandatory on the magistrates to grant a certificate. [Sir GEORGE GREY: Not at all.] It would certainly appear so from the Bill. The Bill stated, that if the prisoner "shall appear to be insane" then the visiting justices were, with the assistance of two medical men, to make an inquiry into the sanity of such person. But to whom was it to appear that the prisoner was insane? To anybody? He conceived that the visiting justices would be placed in extreme difficulty by this clause, and that the proposed legislation would not be found to operate in a satisfactory manner. Again, how were they to construe as mandatory, words that were in their terms conditional? If a certificate of insanity was signed by the visiting justices and medical men it was to be sent to the Home Secretary, and then arose the question, what ought to be the next thing done? Now that the interval between the judgment and the execution was no longer restricted to forty-eight hours, there was time for a formal inquiry; and if they were to have any legislation at all, it would be better to have recourse to the old and constitutional inquiry by a jury. But, for himself, he thought it was best to leave the matter as it stood, and to leave the inquiry and the responsibility to the Secretary of State.


said, that the Amendment actually before the Committee, did not, in fact, raise the whole question at issue, as would appear from the opposite views of the two hon. and learned Gentlemen, He (Sir George Grey) could not help thinking, that if the case were to stand over to the next assizes, the interval which would elapse would amount to a remission of the capital sentence. The same result would follow if the case was sent before a Master in Lunacy. He entirely agreed with the hon. Member for Leominster, that that would be in fact only a means of evading the execution of the law. The Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman would take away a grave responsibility from the Secretary of State. Of course, if the House were willing to consent to that, the Secretary of State would be relieved; but he (Sir George Grey) thought the result might be an interference with the due execution of the law. With regard to the proposition before the House, he thought it was right in the first instance to require a solemn declaration from the visiting justices and medical men of the insanity of the prisoner; and then the Secretary of State, on his own responsibility, which he could not shrink from, would take that course which he deemed best calculated to meet the requirements of the case. With regard to the observation that the words "if it should appear," might mean if it should appear to "anybody," he wished to say that he believed there was no doubt that the true construction of those words was that the matter in question must appear to the persons who were to act.


felt an objection to the local nature of the inquiry suggested by the Secretary of State. The visiting justices and the medical man who would sign the certificate would, in most cases, be residents of the neighbourhood; and judging from what had recently occurred—for it was impossible to disembarrass the mind of it—it would be easy to find persons who were influenced by the prejudices or passions of the locality. Before the Secretary of State was put in motion, some more solemn representation than what was required in this Bill ought to be necessary.


feared that if the Bill became law they would not be in any better position than heretofore. He would put a case. Let them suppose a man adjudged to the sentence of death who had pleaded insanity, but had had the plea decided against him. If two medical men and two visiting justices after the sentence certified to the Secretary of State that the man was insane, and the Secretary of State by virtue of this certificate removed him to a criminal lunatic asylum, the country generally would not be satisfied that justice was done. It would not be endured that the certificate of four gentlemen, without the assistance of counsel or the attendance of the public in this inquiry, should virtually reverse the decision of the Judge and jury. It might be said that the certificate was given, not upon the question whether the condemned man was insane at the time of his trial, but whether he had become insane since the sentence was passed upon him; yet the impression on the public mind would be otherwise. In the recent case the medical man was called upon to state his opinion of the prisoner's state of mind from the insanity of members of his family; but if he was not responsible for his actions at the time of that inquiry, on the same ground he could not be held responsible at the time that he committed the offence; and it would be simply preposterous to set up this conclusion against the finding of the jury. In fact, to raise this question of insanity after the trial would be to give the go-bye to the real issue. It was said that the visiting justices were selected by the bench of magistrates, because of their great experience; but he (Mr. Hunt) believed they were generally selected because they resided near the gaol, rather than for any other reason. It seemed to him that under this Bill, if a prisoner under sentence of death could only persuade the surgeon of the gaol that he was mad he would save his life, for the surgeon was bound to bring the matter before the justices, and his opinion would be sure to have almost irresistible weight with the latter, If the visiting justices wanted assistance in their inquiry they would either call in a medical man of the locality, or else would take the evidence of a "mad doctor." He (Mr. Hunt) had very little faith in these lunatic doctors. The medical man in the case of Townley's inquiry said, if a man had a perverted moral sense to an extraordinary degree, he was not to be held responsible for his actions. But he (Mr. Hunt) said that all criminals had a perverted moral sense: for malice and a premeditation to murder were perversions of the moral sense. And if any two Members of that House, hearing the evidence of a medical man with such a reputation as Dr. Forbes Winslow, without any cross-examination, were called upon to give a decision, it was easy to anticipate the result. He (Mr. Hunt) believed that Dr. Winslow had run mad himself on the doc- trine of insanity; and there was hardly a Member in that House who would not be pronounced by that gentleman insane. Indeed, he (Mr. Hunt) would be sorry to subject himself to him for examination, though his perverted moral sense might not be of the strongest degree. The country would not be satisfied to have criminals reprieved on the certificate of two visiting justices and two medical men after a private investigation in the gaol; and what he wanted was that the Home Secretary's duties should be defined by Act of Parliament, in the event of a similar popular outcry as was raised in Townley's case. The question then before the Committee was not the tribunal before which an inquiry should be made, but when it came before the Committee lie should be prepared to express his opinion on it. There should, he thought, be a distinction between the cases of prisoners under sentence of death and those under lighter sentences; because the motive was strong in a man under sentence of death to set up a plea of insanity, and his friends would be anxious to assist in it to save themselves from the disgrace of a public execution. Besides that, there were also persons ready to come forward from philanthropic motives to save a fellow-creature from the gallows, and if the Bill was passed in its present form he ventured to assert that in almost every case they would do so. He therefore hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consent to exempt prisoners condemned to death from the operation of this Bill. Should the Committee decide on the investigation taking place, either before a jury or a commission, he hoped the examination would take place in public. He saw no reason why the criminal should not be examined before them as was now done in the case of persons who were supposed to be incapable of managing their affairs on account of insanity.


said, the real question before the Committee was, whether or not there should be a different mode of dealing with prisoners after sentence in the case of death, and those who were under sentence for a term of imprisonment or penal servitude. In his opinion, the weight of argument was adverse to the opinion entertained by Her Majesty's Government on the question. He believed that it was only per incuriam that persons under sentence of death were included in the Act of 1840. Persons under capital sentence were not included in 10 Geo. IV., which was still the law in Ireland, but it was introduced in the Act of 1840, probably from its not occurring to the then Parliament that it involved such a serious question. He agreed in opinion with the proposition urged by the hon. and learned Member for Truro (Mr. M. Smith), that the inquiry into the soundness of mind of a criminal after sentence of death should not be a hole-and-corner proceeding, but publicly, so that the public might have an opportunity of being present, and of knowing that the witnesses were properly examined. It was a principle well known to the common law, and was so stated in a passage of Lord Hale, quoted on a former occasion, that not only should such an inquiry take place after verdict and before judgment, but after sentence had been passed. The revised code of New York adopted the principle, and it had been acted upon in America for the last fifteen years, and had been found to work well. No delay need take place under such an inquiry longer than ten days or a fortnight. The present Bill proposed to give the Home Secretary a discretionary power; and why, if he found it necessary to make further inquiry into the matter, should it not be done before a jury or a Commission openly? It would be more consistent with public opinion that the inquiry should take place before a jury.

Question put, "That the word 'death' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: — Ayes 32; Noes 26: Majority 6.

Blake, J. Montgomery, Sir G.
Bruce, H. A. Neate, C.
Cardwell, rt. hon. E. Palmer, Sir R.
Clay, J. Palmerston, Viscount
Clifford, C. C. Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.
Clifford, Colonel Peel, J.
Cobbett, J. M. Potter, E.
Craufurd, E. H. J. Powell, J. J.
Crawford, R. W. Scourfield, J. H.
Dillwyn, L. L. Seely, C.
Ewing, H. E. Crum- Tollemache, hon. F. J.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G. White, L.
Henley, rt. hon. J. W. Wyld, J.
Hennessy, J. P. Yorke, J. R.
Knatchbull - Hugessen,
Layard, A. H. Mr. Brand
Lawson, W. Sir W. Dunbar
Martin, J.
Addington, hon. W. W. Cargill, W. W.
Archdall, Captain M. Clifton, Sir R. J.
Brooks, R. Cox, W.
Disraeli, rt. hon. B. Longfield, R.
Duke, Sir J. Macdonogh, F.
Dunne, Colonel Morris, D.
Fraser, Sir W. A. O'Brien, Sir Patrick
Gard, R. S. O'Loghlen, Sir C. M.
Hay, Sir J. C. D. Smyth, Colonel
Hotham, Lord Somes, J.
Hunt, G. W. Stacpoole, W.
Jolliffe, rt. hon. Sir W.
Langton, W. Gore Mr. G. Hardy
Lanigan, J. Mr. M. Smith
Lloyd, T.

said, he should not, after this division, more his other Amendment.


said, he had given an Amendment to his right hon. Friend (Sir George Grey), and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider it before the Report.


said, the Amendment related to certain facilities in sending criminals from one asylum to another, and it should be considered on the Report.


regretted that the important discussion which had just taken place had not occurred in the presence of a greater number of Members. Considering the small majority by which it had been decided to retain the word "death" in the clause, and considering also that some of those who had voted in that majority had not heard the discussion, but had come in to vote, he would urge upon the hon. and learned Member for Truro (Mr. M. Smith), or the hon. and learned Member for Leominster (Mr. G. Hardy), to raise the question again upon the Report, in order that the House might have an opportunity of reviewing its decision.

Clause agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.


moved the insertion of a clause (the charge of maintenance of insane prisoners to be borne by the common fund of the Union.)



Clause added.

House resumed.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered on Tuesday next