Sitting of 23 July 1844

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—1o. Charitable Donations and Bequests (Ireland); Art Unions; Spirits (Ireland); Militia Pay.
2o. Three-and-a-Half per Cents. Dissentients; Transfer of Licenses.
Reported. — Joint Stock Banks Regulation; Joint Stock Companies Registration and Regulation; Railways; Grand Jury Presentments (Dublin); Clerk of the Crown in Chancery; Marriages.
3o. and passed:—Church Endowment.
Private.—1o. Lord Le Despencer's Estate; Bowyer's Estate.
2o. Leeds Vicarage.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Viscount Ebrington, from Barnstaple and Southmolton Turnpike Trusts, against Exempting Mail Coaches from Tolls.—By Mr. Bannerman, from Aberdeen, for accelerating Mails to Scotland.

TREATMENT OF LUNATICS.
Lord Ashleyin rising to bring forward the Motion of which he had given notice, for an Address to the Crown, praying Her Majesty to take into her consideration the Report of the Metropolitan Commissioners in Lunacy to the Lord Chancellor, presented to the House by command of Her Majesty, said it would be necessary for him shortly to explain the reasons which actuated him. First, the nature of the subject and the protraction of inquiry had inevitably delayed the production of the Report to this period of the Session. Secondly, the statute under which the Commissioners acted would expire in the next Session, and it would be necessary to call upon the House to consider in what form and to what extent power should be confided to any administrative body for the government of lunatics throughout the Kingdom. It was desirable, therefore, that the country should not be taken by surprise, but that these weighty matters should be maturely considered during the approaching recess. He had been unwilling to bring forward this subject at all, but his colleagues in the Commission had thought that the novelty of the subject, the great expenses incurred and the vast numbers who were subject to this jurisdiction, would justify him in calling
1258
the attention or the House to it. Though the Report embraced a variety of matters, those with which he had to deal were limited to the civil and external government of lunacy; it was the duty of the House to prescribe the conditions under which a man should be deprived of his liberty, and also those under which he might be released; it was their duty to take care that for those who required restraint there should be provided kind and competent keepers, and that, while the patient received no injury, the public should be protected. Insane patients were lodged either in single houses, in public or county asylums, or in private asylums where paupers were received. With respect to the first class there were no Returns, the Commissioners were precluded by the statute from any interference in such circumstances, and he must take the opportunity of saying that he thought this a most unfortunate enactment, not that he wished to claim for the Board the invidious and burthensome power of examining and censuring the neglect of private families, but because he believed that a power of this kind ought to be confided to some hands that would hunt out and expose the many horrible abuses that at present prevailed. No doubt there were many worthy exceptions, but the House had no notion of the abominations that prevailed in those asylums. It was the concession of absolute secret and irresponsible power to the relatives of lunatics and the keepers of the asylums, and exposing them to temptations which he believed human nature was too weak to resist. There were many patients in these single houses for whom were paid not less than 500 l. per annum. This was a temptation to keep such a patient in perpetual confinement, because with the returning health of the sufferer the allowance would be discontinued. So strong was his opinion of the bad effect of this, that if Providence should afflict any near relative of his with insanity, he would consign him to an asylum in which there were other patients, and which was subjected to official visitation. The only control they had over the single houses was this—that if a patient resided in one more than a twelvemonth, the owner of the house was compelled to communicate under seal the name of that patient to the Clerk of the Commission. But for the most part no notice whatever was taken of this law, and

1259
it was frequently evaded by removing the patient, after a residence of eleven months, to some other lodging. He knew the delicacy of the subject, but it was one with which the Legislature ought to interfere. The second class of houses was the county asylums. The total number of lunatics and idiots chargeable to unions and parishes on the 1st of January, 1844, was 16,821; in England, 15,601; in Wales, 1,220. In county asylums there was provision for no more than 4,155 persons, leaving more than 12,000, of whom there were in asylums under local acts 89, in Bethlehem and St. Luke's 121, in other public asylums 343, while others were disposed of otherwise, leaving in workhouses and elsewhere 9,339. Although a few of the existing county asylums were well adapted to their purpose, and a very large proportion of them were extremely well conducted, yet some were quite unfit for the reception of insane persons. Some were placed in ineligible sites, and others were deficient in the necessary means of providing out-door employment for their paupers. Some also were ill-contrived and defective in their internal construction and accommodation. Some afforded every advantage of science and medical treatment; others were wholly deficient in these points. All of them, however, had the advantage of constant supervision, and of not giving any profit to the superintendents, so that it was not necessary that the keeper should stint and spare his patients in the articles necessary for the curative process, with the view of realising a profit. Some of the country asylums were stated in the Report to be admirably managed. It might be invidious to specify, but he would mention those of Wakefield, Hanwell, Lincoln, Lancaster, and Gloucester. Why, then, were not these institutions multiplied? At this moment there were twenty-one counties in England and Wales without any asylum whatever, public or private. The expense was one cause; in some cases the cost of construction had been exceedingly great; the asylum most cheaply constructed was that of Wakefield, of which the average cost per head was 111 l.; while the highest priced was that of Gloucester, which had cost, on the first accommodation, 357 l. per head. In many cases, the cost of construction had exceeded 200 l. per head. The cost of the Bedford asylum, for 180 patients, was
1260
20,500 l.; that of the Gloucester, for 261 patients, 51,366 l.; that of the Kent, for 300 patients, was 64,056 l.; that of Hanwell, for 1,000 patients, was 160,000 l., exclusive of 36,000 l. paid since July, 1835, for furniture and fittings. On the other hand, the best constructed union houses in the country had not cost more than 40 l. a-head. No doubt a lunatic asylum was more expensive, but not in that enormous degree. The reason of this difference he did not know, except that many of them had been constructed with a great display of architecture. The Commission had no wish to advise the erection of unsightly buildings, but they thought that no unnecessary cost should be incurred in the erection of asylums. Some asylums were far too large, and on this subject the Report said,
"The asylum for Kent will contain 300, for Surrey 360, for West Riding 420, for Lancaster 600, and for Middlesex 1,000. From the best opinions that we have been able to collect, and from the result of our own observations and experience, we think it is highly desirable that no asylum for curable lunatics should contain more than 250 patients, and that 200 is perhaps as large a number as can be managed, with the most benefit to themselves and the public, in one establishment."
The principle had been recognized in the district asylums of Ireland, and they had the great authority of Dr. Conolly for saying that 100 persons were the highest number that could be managed, with convenience, in one of these asylums. It would be better to have two of a moderate size than one very large, to which patients would be brought from a great distance. The asylums of Lancaster and Middlesex were so excessively overgrown that it was impossible to do full justice to the patients kept in them. And yet he feared that further enlargements were in contemplation. The third class was that of private asylums, which received persons who paid their own expenses, and also paupers. The total number of private patients in asylums of various descriptions, on the 1st of January, 1844, was 4,072; of these there were in metropolitan licensed houses, 973; in provincial, 1426. The paupers in private or licensed houses were—metropolitan, 854; provincial, 1,920. With respect to these a very serious question arose, how far any house should be licensed to take patients or paupers for payment. He knew there were some very good houses of that description, but the

1261
principle was very dangerous. Whatever might be the opinion of the House as to places of reception for wealthy and independent patients, he considered there could be very little doubt as to cases in which paupers were sent to such houses to be maintained, at the low rate of seven or eight shillings, out of which the proprietor was to feed, and clothe, and house the patient, and carry on the remedial process, paying all these expenses, and still getting a profit. In the metropolitan districts, at one time, the competition was so great that they were preparing to take persons at seven and even six shillings a-head; but the Commissioners had done everything they could to discountenance this, and to a certain extent they had succeeded, though they were still taken at eight and nine shillings. But in the country this evil was still altogether unchecked, as the extracts from the Report, which he should now read to the House, would show:—
"Many asylums had formerly been private houses; the mansion was sometimes engrossed by the proprietor and a few private patients, while the paupers were consigned to buildings formerly used as offices and outhouses."
The following were the remarks of the Commissioners on some of these houses:—
"West Auckland—Thirteen males, sixteen females; the violent and the quiet, the dirty and the clean, shut up together; only one small yard, and when the one sex was in it, the other shut up; in the day room of the males five restrained by leg locks, and two wearing, in addition, iron handcuffs and fetters from the wrist to the ancle, all tranquil, but they would otherwise escape; chains fastened to floor in many places, and to many of the bedsteads; the males throughout the house slept two in a bed. Wreckenton, near Gateshead—Chains attached to the floor in several places, and it was the practice to chain patients by the leg upon their first admission, in order, as it was said, to see what they would do; bedding filthy, cell offensive, also sleeping room; improved by visitation, but still unfit. Licensed house at Derby—Damp, unhealthy; bedding in a disgusting condition from running sores. At Lainston, in Hants—Even on third visit seven female paupers in chains; these seven and three others chained to their beds at night; the usual accompaniments of dirty, wet, and ill-clothed. Kingdown-house, at Box—the same details. House of Industry, Kingsland, near Shrewsbury — Containing from eighty to ninety insane persons. They were nearly all fastened to their beds by chains to the wrists. Union House, Redruth, in
1262
Cornwall—Forty-one insane persons, several violent and requiring restraint. Ditto at Bath—Twenty-one insane persons. At Leicester—Thirty insane persons; namely, eleven males and nineteen females, of whom three males and nine females were dangerous. Of the males, W. K. was a noisy maniac, very cunning, and occasionally striking the other men in the ward. P. R. was subject to maniacal attacks, during which he was placed in a strait waistcoat; he was raving mad about two months before our visit, and was consequently fastened to his bed at night, to prevent him from injuring or annoying the other inmates. A. H. was violent and passionate, and tried to cut others with knives, and all these persons were dangerous. Amongst the other cases J. L., an epileptic; J. D., a case of melancholia; J. G., formerly in the asylum, and still insane, noisy, and abusive: the rest of the males of the class appeared to be either harmless idiots, or in a state of mental imbecility. The three most dangerous of the females were C. B., admitted June 12, 1839, a destructive and dangerous idiot; M. H., admitted the 23rd of February, 1839, an abusive and dangerous lunatic: she was brought to the workhouse in a state of violent excitement by two policemen. M. A. R., admitted the 24th of February, 1841, a quarrelsome and dangerous idiot, once knocked out the teeth of a child. To these may be added the following as properly coming within the description of dangerous lunatics:—M. B., a sullen, ill-tempered person, who refused to be employed, and had threatened, when at home, to kill her mother. A. W., in the workhouse three years, an abusive lunatic, who had occasionally struck most of the women in the ward, particularly a paralytic patient, who could not defend herself. J. S., an irritable mad woman, who threw knives at those whom she happened to have a dispute with, E. H., a violent, irascible person, subject to maniacal excitement, and dangerous when irritated. She had been twenty-six weeks in the county asylum, having become unmanageable at home after the death of her mother sixteen years ago, and was said to strike the inmates maliciously. A. H., a harmless lunatic, with delusions, was most improperly sent to the workhouse instead of the asylum four years ago, Besides the above, there were in the house six quiet female lunatics, all confirmed cases, and five idiots. Workhouse at Birmingham—Seventy-one insane persons, amongst them was an unusual proportion of epileptics, namely, eleven males and sixteen females. Several of these were idiots, others were subject, after their paroxysms of epilepsy, to fits of raving madness or epileptic fever, during which they were stated to be excessively violent. Besides these, there were several patients who were occasionally under great excitement and furiously maniacal, two of the females had strong suicidal propensities, and one of them had attempted suicide. There is no class of persons more dangerous

1263
than are those epileptics who are subject to attacks of epileptic furor or delirium."
Of Plympton, in Devonshire, the Commissioners said,—
"In one of the cells in the upper court for the women, the dimensions of which were eight feet by four, and in which there was no table, and only two wooden seats fastened to the wall, we found three females confined, there was no glazing to the window, and the floor of this place was perfectly wet with urine. The two dark cells which adjoin the cell used for a day room, are the sleeping places for these three unfortunate beings, two of them sleep in two cribs in one cell. The floor in the cell with the two cribs was actually reeking wet with urine, and covered with straw and filth, and one crib had a piece of old carpet by way of bedding besides the straw, but the other appeared to have had nothing but straw, without any other bedding. In the other cell, the patient who had slept in it had broken her crib to pieces, and a part of it was remaining in the cell, but the straw was heaped up in one corner, and as far as we could rely upon what was said, she had slept upon the straw upon the ground, at least one night. The straw itself was most filthy, the floor was perfectly wet with urine, and part of the straw had been stuck to the wall in patches with excrement. It must be added that these two cells, and one other adjoining to it, have no window and no place for light or air, except a grate over the door, which opens into a passage. The persons of these three unfortunate women were extremely dirty, and the condition in which we found them and their cells was truly sickening and shocking. Adjoining to the two sleeping cells of these women, and opening into the same passage, was a third cell, which was occupied as a sleeping place by a male criminal of very dangerous habits and an idiotic boy. This cell was dirty and offensive, and the floor of it wet with urine, but it was not in so filthy a state as the other two. The criminal was fastened at night to his bed with a chain. We strongly objected to these men being confined in a cell closely adjoining to the females. The whole of these cells were as damp and dark as an underground cellar, and were in such a foul and disgusting state that it was scarcely possible to endure the offensive smell. We sent for a candle and lantern to enable us to examine them."
That asylum had since been improved, but it was in consequence of repeated visitations. To correct these evils (proceeded the noble Lord) there was no remedy but the multiplication of county asylums; and if advice and example failed, they ought to appeal to the assistance of the law, to compel the construction of an adequate number of asylums over the whole country. If constructed, however, on the same
1264
principles as had been adopted in many of those now existing, they would be little better than useless, and mere hospitals for incurables. Great benefit, it was to be observed, as well as great saving of expense, resulted from the application of curative means at an early stage of insanity. The keepers of all the great asylums stated that numbers of persons, especially pauper lunatics, were sent there at so late a period of the disease as totally to preclude hope of recovery. It was the duty of the State to provide receptacles for the incurable patients, apart from those devoted to the remedial treatment: it would be necessary also to enact that the patients should be sent without delay to the several asylums. On this subject he would read a few observations of the Commissioners. With reference to Hanwell they said:—
"The county asylum is nearly filled with incurable lunatics, and almost all the recent cases are practically excluded from it. When we visited it in March last, there were 984 patients, of whom only thirty were reported curable, and there were 429 patients belonging to the county out of the asylum, who, if they wait for the rota before they are admitted, will probably have become incurable, and will be lunatic annuitants upon the county or their parishes. Lancaster asylum contains 600 patients, of whom 546 are considered incurable; and there are more than 500 pauper lunatics in the county for whom it has no accommodation. Surrey Asylum opened in 1841, on 1st January, 1844, number in asylum, 382, of whom 362 are reported incurable; there are belonging to the county of Surrey 591 pauper lunatics. This was a most costly system. The superintending physician of Hanwell Asylum published a table in 1842, to show how long each patient had been confined there. There were 936 in the asylum; 696 had been there more than two years, and were pronounced incurable. The average duration of confinement of these 696 was upwards of six years and nine months. The yearly cost was about 22 l. 4s. for each patient; each patient, therefore, will have cost 140 l. "It should not be forgotten," the Report said, "that many pauper lunatics have families, who would no longer be thrown on parishes for support, if their mental maladies could be removed, or even materially ameliorated."
But the benefits of early attention were most evident from the following statements. It was impossible that they could press too much upon the attention of all parish officers the immense benefit which arose from early attention to all cases of lunacy, and an early attack, medicinally,

1265
upon the disease, before it became confirmed. In general, all the best practioners at county asylums complained of the late stage of the disease at which patients were sent in, and hon. Members would see that the Commissioners were obliged to make frequent complaints upon that subject, and the state of filth and rags in which the poor creatures were transmitted from their parishes. Into the asylum at Forsten, in Dorsetshire, during the course of last year, out of thirty-seven pauper lunatics, six had been sent in within three months of their being attacked with the disorder, and the result was most cheering, for out of the six, five were dismissed cured within four months after their arrival, and the sixth, although a female of seventy-five years of age, was in a state of convalescence, and he had no doubt she was also now restored to her family. Into St. Luke's it was well known that no patient was admitted after he had been labouring under the attack for more than twelve months. He was astonished to find, from the Returns made from that hospital, that, in 1842, the cures averaged 70 per cent, and that last year they reached 65 per cent. His curiosity was so excited upon the subject, that he wrote a letter to Dr. Sutherland, the visiting physician, to ask him whether those cases were merely temporary, or whether they were real and substantial cures. In answer the Doctor said,—
"All the cures mentioned in the Report, page 81, are permanent. Our rule is, that if any patient, who has been discharged from the hospital as cured, relapses within three months, he is re-admitted, not as a fresh but as a relapsed case; the period he has been at home is deducted, and he is kept in the hospital to the end of the twelve months, or till he is again cured; but all such relapsed cases are deducted from the list of cures; however, we very seldom have instances of relapses, three or four during the year is the average."
Was not that a most satisfactory statement? Contrast that with reports from other parts of the country. The Commissioners report that
"In the asylums of Lincoln, Leicester, Nottingham, and Northampton, the superintendents and visiting physicians have expressed their unanimous opinion that pauper lunatics are sent there at so late a period of their disease as to impede or prevent their ultimate recovery. Opinions to the same effect from almost every county lunatic asylum" Chester may be taken as a sample. "Paupers are
1266
brought in a very bad state, in filth and rags, and from too long delays, in a state where there is little or no chance of recovery."
He believed that one reason why parochial authorities were so backward in sending in patients, was their ignorance of the great benefit arising from early care and medical attendance, partly, too, the want of a sufficient accommodation, but the great inducement was the increased expense. They liked much more to keep such unfortunates in the workhouse at an expense not exceeding 2s. per week, rather than sending them to the county asylum, where the minimum charge was 7s. per week. He verily believed that even in the matter of expense, a first outlay, which might be considerable in the beginning, would prove eminently profitable in the end. His full conviction was, that the number of cures which would be effected, and looking at it merely as a question of expense, would fully repay the expenditure in ten years. Now, it was true, that they could show but few instances of restoration to reason; how was it possible? They could show a mighty improvement in the condition of the sufferers, the alleviation of their state, their occupations and amusements (all, with some bright exceptions, of recent date), and that the services of religion had infused a momentary tranquillity; but they could show little else; and unless the Legislature should interfere, and bring these unfortunates by force within the reach of sympathy and care; for every one restored to his senses, we should see a hundred in whom the light of reason would be extinguished for ever. Next, there were two points of deep interest to which the House would do well to advert for a moment—the questions of restraint, and the admission and liberation of patients. Upon restraint, it was unnecessary to dwell very long, as it was a matter of internal arrangement, and beyond their immediate legislation; but he wished to direct the attention of the House to the chapter in the Reports which handled that subject, that it might share the general satisfaction, and give praise to those good and able men, Mr. Tuke, Dr. Hitch, Dr. Corsellis, Dr. Conolly, Dr. Vitrè, Dr. Charlesworth, and many more, who had brought all their high moral and intellectual qualities to bear on this topic, and had laboured to make the rational and humane treatment to be the rule and principle of the government

1267
of lunacy. Respecting the admission of pauper-patients, it would be necessary to make very stringent regulations: for their admission into private asylums, a certificate was required, signed by a medical man; county asylums also, though not compelled by law, had made similar regulations for their own guidance; but for the transfer of them to any lunatic ward in a workhouse, no authority was required but that of the master. This power was open to the greatest abuses. The Report suggested that, until a sufficient number of asylums had been created, certain portions of stated workhouses should be licensed, and subjected to all the conditions and superintendence of the appointed visitor. The admission into licensed houses offered a better guarantee of security; the Commissioners were satisfied that it was, on the whole, well guarded, as they had not found a single instance of which they could say, that the first confinement was unquestionably, and beyond all doubt, improper: they have found some instances in which the confinement was unnecessarily prolonged. The question of liberation was very delicate: they had two parties to consider, the patient himself, and the public, which must not be exposed to the evil of persons, who may become violent and dangerous, being allowed to wander at large. What was to be done? There was one point to which he wished to direct attention with reference to this portion of the subject, and that was, the fact that no more frequent cause of insanity existed than was found in intoxication; the number of persons who were confined in lunatic asylums, and whose insanity originated in drunkenness, was very great, and would surprise any person who was not aware of the effects of this habit. In a majority of cases, a few days curative treatment produced a cure; but then the patient relapsing into former habits, became again insane, and underwent a series of repeated cures and repeated relapses; in many instances such persons, if set at liberty, endangered not only their own lives but those of others: this was one of the most difficult points to adjudicate. He (the noble Lord) had frequently urged upon the House, and especially in his Motion upon Education, the frightful consequences of inebriety, a habit fostered among the people, as much by the system of things, we permitted, and the temptations
1268
to which we suffered them to be exposed, as by their own tendencies. He would now call the attention of the House to the state of Wales with respect to pauper lunatics. In 1843, by the Poor Law Returns, the number of Welsh pauper lunatics was 1,177. Of these thirty-six were in English county asylums, forty-one in licensed houses in England, ninety in union workhouses, and 1,010 living with their friends. Many of these were in a wretched condition. The Commissioners stated—
"It has been represented to us, that many of the Welsh lunatics who have been in the English asylums, have been very violent, and have been sent to them in a wretched and most neglected condition."
He (Lord Ashley) had been charged for having included South Wales in a reproach that belonged only to the north; but what was the fact? In a letter from South Wales, one of the Commissioners, now on a visitation, stated—
"We have met with one case which we think most atrocious. A. B. was sent to the Hereford Asylum from near Brecon, on Nov. 28, 1843. She died on January 30; she was in such a shocking state, that the proprietor wished not to admit her; she had been kept chained in the house of a married daughter. From being long chained in a crouching posture, her knees were forced up to her chin, and she sat wholly upon her heels and her hips, and considerable excoriation had taken place, where her knees pressed upon her stomach. She could move about, and was generally maniacal. When she died, it required very considerable dissection to get her pressed into her coffin! This might be taken as a sample of Welsh lunatics."
But it had been urged as a reason for not building lunatic asylums in Wales, that the pauper lunatics could be easily provided for in the English lunatic asylums, and in consequence, it had not been attempted to institute a curative system in that country. This appeared to him, and, would, no doubt, appear to every one, to be a great cruelty. "The greatest of all cruelties," said Dr. Lloyd Williams, in speaking of this subject, "was to send the wretched pauper to a people whose language he could not understand;" and the general result was, that the lunatic—whose state of mind, in general, was characterised by suspicion of all who approached him, not being able to understand the language of those around him, or to communicate with them—became excited and

1269
inflamed, and passed from the incipient or curable stage of insanity, to confirmed lunacy. It was true that the foundation of an asylum had been lately laid at Denbigh; but the present activity of all parties must be ascribed in great measure to the inquiry which had been instituted by the Commission which had travelled throughout the country, and which had shown that it was the determination of Parliament not to permit these crying evils any longer to go unchecked and unredressed. He now came to the criminal lunatics. The number of whom in April, 1843, was 257, distributed in the following manner:—In gaols, 33; in Bethlehem Hospital, 85; and in various asylums, 139. With respect to those criminals who were confined in the various private asylums, he would put it to the House whether it was not an improper and unnecessary aggravation of their miseries towards the other lunatics to subject them to confinement in the same place and under the same regulations as criminal lunatics, he spoke not of crimes of a higher dye, but of those of whom some had committed the most atrocious crimes, such as murder and detestable offences. He assured the House it was felt by such lunatics to be a serious hardship that they should have to associate with these persons: the regulations also which were enforced in those places where criminals were confined were more severe than elsewhere, and their severity was felt by all the lunatics alike. They were likewise debarred from much indulgence which, under other circumstances, their melancholy situation would have procured for them. The whole course of experience, and the judgment of all the most enlightened and humane men who had reflected on the subject, went to establish the necessity of instituting and maintaining the most vigilant system of frequent visitation. It was in itself a most salutary mode of executing a duty so essential to the comfort of the unhappy objects whose welfare was concerned, while it afforded the opportunity of bringing to bear upon those institutions the influence of public opinion and public notoriety, and of exposing their administration to praise or blame. Now it was believed that within the metropolitan districts that vigilance had generally been exercised; but he could not say the same in the provincial districts, an exception could be made in favour of the County
1270
asylums, where the visiting Justices had shown the greatest attention, and in some few, though very few, the borough and rural asylums. In general this duty had been shamefully neglected. It would be needless for him to detain the House by enumerating facts that spoke for themselves; for if the parties to whom the duty of visitation had been entrusted had discharged their office with but common vigilance, the Commissioners would never have been able to have collected such materials for the Report that had been laid on the Table. But he should like to state to the House the beneficial effects of continual visitation. He would mention a case, which he felt warranted in doing from a sense of justice to the proprietor of a very great establishment in this town, whose asylum was the original cause of the Commission of Inquiry being appointed in 1818, but whose asylum now presented, as far as it was possible for an institution of that nature to present, a most agreeable and a most consolatory picture of what might be done by vigilant inspection. He spoke of Dr. Warburton's asylum at Bethnal-green. He remembered that the state of that asylum was so bad, that in 1826 a Commission of Inquiry was instituted, when scenes of the most cruel and disgusting nature were revealed, which made one shudder at the very recital of them. He remembered well the sounds that assailed his ear, and the sights that shocked his eye, when visiting that abode of the most wretched. But what was that asylum now? Altogether changed. There was, however, an original and inherent sin in all private asylums, because they must be made to yield a profit to the keeper. But Dr. Warburton had expended large sums to make improvements in his establishment. He had extended his grounds for affording opportunities of exercise, and had adopted every means for the amelioration and care of his patients. As a proof of the very great change in the system adopted at that asylum, he (Lord Ashley) would simply mention, that whereas, in 1828, there was commonly from 150 to 200 of the patients restrained by leg-locks, chains, and other fetters—certainly, during the night; in 1844 there were out of 582 patients only five whose violence rendered this species of restriction necessary; and even the confinement or coercion resorted to was of the most moderate description,

1271
and in the opinion of the visiting officers, most necessary. He would point to that case as to a sample of the salutary influence which was exercised by watching the proceedings carried on in these places of confinement, which but for such constant vigilance would again become dens of iniquity and oppression. Sir, these subjects may be dull, and want the light and shade of more exciting topics; but the expense which is incurred, the numbers that suffer, and the nature of their sufferings will, perhaps, justify the present demand upon your time and patience. The House possesses the means of applying a real and a speedy remedy. These unhappy persons are outcasts from all the social and domestic affections of private life—nay more, from all its cares and duties; and have no refuge but in the laws. You can prevent, by the agency you shall appoint, as you have in many instances prevented, the recurrence of frightful cruelties; you can soothe the days of the incurable, and restore many sufferers to health and usefulness. For we must not run away with the notion, that even the hopelessly mad are dead to all capacity of intellectual or moral exertion—quite the reverse; their feelings too are painfully alive—I have seen them writhe under supposed contempt, while a word of kindness and respect would kindle their whole countenance into an expression of joy. Their condition appeals to our highest sympathies,
"Majestic, though in ruin;"
for, though there may be, in the order of a merciful Providence, some compensating dispensation which abates, within, the horrors manifested without, we must judge alone by what we see; and I trust, therefore, that I shall stand excused, though I have consumed so much of your valuable time, when you call to mind that the Motion is made on behalf of the most helpless, if not the most afflicted, portion of the human race.
Sir J. Grahamwas certain that he was giving expression not only to his own sentiments and those of the House, but also to the sentiments of the whole country, when he declared that his noble Friend, so far from standing in need of an excuse for the statement which he had just made, was entitled to the grateful thanks of all his countrymen, for his indefatigable endeavours and the constancy he had displayed in pointing
1272
the public attention to the subject of his Motion. Although sensations of pity and commiseration could not but take possession of those who reflected upon the condition of a lunatic, yet the degrading associations, and the wretchedness by which that condition was characterised, too often induced the most philanthropic individual to turn his head away from so humiliating and fearful a spectacle, and to intrust the alleviation of that misery to those who were willing to undertake it from motives, in no degree akin to compassion. His noble Friend had, however, if proof of the readiness of some to step forward in such a cause were wanting, afforded a striking example of benevolence successfully exerted, and the example he had set was invaluable. The Act by which the present treatment and supervision of pauper and other lunatics was regulated would expire as his noble Friend had justly stated, in the course of the following year, and he was ready to admit the necessity which existed for bringing the subject under the consideration of Parliament. He had understood his noble Friend to admit that a very considerable improvement had taken place in the treatment and cure of lunatics, and that the means of coercion formerly resorted to were nearly, if not altogether abandoned, as in the instance of Mr. Warburton's establishment, where out of 582 patients confined during the present year, only five were under that species of restraint, whereas formerly every kind of cruelty and privation had been resorted to in that same establishment. With respect to what his noble Friend had said generally as to the course which it was expedient hereafter to pursue, he begged to say, there was no difference between his views and those entertained by the Government as to the leading points. In the first place, he did not deny the importance of an immediate resort being had to curative measures on the first symptoms of lunacy making their appearance. In the next place, he considered that it was highly expedient to separate the lunatic patients confined in public institutions, and to place those who were hopelessly insane, and consequently incurable, in a totally distinct part of the building, so that they could not influence those who were undergoing a curative treatment. He agreed in the opinion expressed by his noble Friend, and promulgated in the Report of the Commissioners, that in the great majority of the existing

1273
lunatic asylums the progress of cure was greatly impeded by the number of incurable lunatics confined with those not so hopelessly circumstanced. He was likewise convinced of the necessity for taking the state of the pauper lunatics throughout the kingdom into consideration at an early period of next Session. And with respect to the dangerous lunatics who were now, according to the statements referred to by his noble Friend, shut up in workhouses and other places where they ought not to be confined, he admitted that this subject must be taken into consideration with a view to their removal to some more appropriate place of constraint. The construction of the law was extremely doubtful upon this point; but, whatever the law might be, he had no manner of doubt that whether the subject were regarded in relation to the possibility of a cure, or to the safe custody of the person in a confirmed case of lunacy; in neither case was a workhouse a fit receptacle for such persons, whether they were dangerous lunatics or not; and he therefore was of opinion that the time was not far distant when some effectual means for remedying this evil would be devised, and that the Executive would take into consideration the means of providing places to which the cases of incipient lunacy might be removed at once, to the end that remedial treatment would be applied, and for providing distinct asylums for the incurable lunatics, where they would be entirely separated from those whose cases admitted the hope of cure. The expense of making such arrangements alone prevented them from being carried out; but he believed the law would hereafter compel the different Unions to incur the necessary outlay which would enable such asylums to be erected; and he must likewise express his conviction that in the end the expense would not be found much greater than it was under the present most imperfect and unsatisfactory treatment of lunatics. He, therefore, had no hesitation in saying that the condition of pauper lunatics generally would come under the consideration of the House next Session, and that proper provision would be made for them in Wales, where at present they were shamefully neglected. So likewise with respect to the criminal lunatics, the expense of maintaining them was considerable; but out of 257 persons thus circumstanced there were only eighty-five supported by the public, thirty-eight
1274
of whom were at Bethlehem, whilst all the other criminal lunatics were maintained at the expense of the counties where they were confined. He had no hesitation in declaring it to be his opinion that persons of this class ought to be collected together and confined in one or two distinct and separate buildings, and the statements already made by his noble Friend ought to weigh very strongly in inducing the House to be favourable to such a proposal. Having thus stated the points upon which he agreed with the views expressed by his noble Friend, he would point out in what respect he dissented from some parts of his plan. Though he did not doubt the accuracy either of the statements or of the deductions made by his noble Friend, with respect to the detention of single lunatics by their Friends in private dwellings, it was only necessary for him to remind the House of the caution necessary to be exercised in this respect, as the rights of relatives in these matters deserved some consideration, and that secrecy which was occasionally essential, and indispensable, would be violated by the Commissioners having the power to inspect such private houses. He therefore would recommend the House to approach the subject of private treatment of lunatics with great caution; for, notwithstanding the practice was open to abuse, yet it did not appear that such prevailed to any great extent. He had some doubts upon other points of his noble Friend's statements and suggestions, but he hesitated in giving expression to them, as he had not sufficiently studied the matter in its detail. He must, however, acquaint his noble Friend and the House, that he had not hesitated as to the assistance which he thought it his duty to afford the noble Lord in pursuing his humane inquiries, for he had given instructions on the subject during the last two Sessions, more particularly to the Poor Law Commissioners, to inquire into and Report on the lunatic paupers dispersed in the union workhouses throughout the country; and the result of these inquiries was a belief on his part that distinct asylums were requisite for the reception of pauper lunatics who were incurable; and he should therefore be prepared to submit for the consideration of Parliament some proposition respecting the matter, and also for providing means for separating criminal from other lunatics. He trusted therefore his noble Friend would not press his Motion

1275
for an Address to Her Majesty, as it would tend to raise expectations that might not possibly be realised. The Government was prepared to co-operate with his noble Friend, and to aid him in realizing those views of enlightened philanthropy which he had so well explained, and he himself joined his noble Friend in the benevolent determination not to let this matter slumber, but to perfect those ameliorations which the state of the case required. He therefore hoped his noble Friend would not press his Motion.
Mr. Sheilwished to mention a most important and painful fact—that in Ireland there were 300 lunatics scattered amongst the prisons—the evil was a most frightful one; murderers and maniacs were mixed up together. Some means must be taken to cure that state of things. It was sufficient to state the fact. He was delighted to find that the right hon. Gentleman was disposed to take this important subject up, and he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would take means to extend the beneficent provisions which he had in contemplation to the sister kingdom. He concurred entirely in what the right hon. Gentleman had said with respect the conduct of the noble Lord. It was a common phrase to say, "It does one good to see you," and in this instance it was impossible to deny that it did one good to see the noble Lord exerting himself in this benevolent work. There was a sort of "circum corda" about his labours, and whatever difference of opinion they might entertain on some of the noble Lord's new crotchets, on one point they all concurred—that he was worthy of the highest praise for the motives by which he was actuated, and the sentiments by which he was inspired. It was more than gratifying to see a man of his high rank not descending, but stooping down from his position—not permitting himself to be lowered by the pursuits of pleasure or ambition, but seeking the nobler gratification of doing good, and the virtuous celebrity with which his labours were rewarded. It may be truly stated that the noble Lord had added nobility even to the name of Ashley, and that he has made humanity one of "Shaftesbury's Characteristics."
Mr. Wakleyhoped that, after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department, the noble Lord would not press his Motion. A debt of gratitude was due to the Commissioners
1276
for the labour they had bestowed on this most important question. In some points he disagreed with them; but on the whole he thought they had laboured with great assiduity, and had brought before the House some very important details. There was now such a mass of materials as would enable the House to legislate upon the subject without further inquiry. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that he was prepared to legislate, and he (Mr. Wakley) rejoiced to hear it, because he was convinced from the declarations the right hon. Gentleman had made in his Address to the House, that he would legislate practically and usefully on this important question. The subject of insanity had engaged the attention of the Legislature for many years, and it was evident, both from the statement of the noble Lord and the Report, that vast improvements had been made within a very limited period—in fact, the amount of improvement in reference to the humane part of the question was immense; in the scientific part the advance had not been so rapid as it ought to have been. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to be fully persuaded by the statement of the noble Lord and from having read the Report, that it was absolutely necessary that two different courses should be adopted with reference to curable and incurable lunatics. In fact, one of the most important features in the whole subject was that difference of treatment. It was a lamentable fact that the asylums in England, from one end of the kingdom to the other, were crowded with incurable patients. In the Middlesex Asylum there were only thirty curable patients out of 900, and some had been there from the very first week it opened—now fourteen years ago. At the same time, it was perfectly notorious that in every union workhouse of this country there were at this moment numbers of pauper patients—many recently afflicted with insanity, who could not get admission into that asylum. He rejoiced then that the right hon. Gentleman approved of the system of establishing district asylums for incurable patients. The noble Lord had particularly dwelt, and so did the right hon. Gentleman, on the necessity of early attention to these cases, and if they lost sight of that great fact—if their minds were not impressed with the necessity of attending to them at the earliest possible period, they would never adequately understand the subject, or

1277
adequately apply the means which science afforded for the relief of these afflicted persons, It was not within the first three months, nor the first three weeks; but within the first three days, if they could discover that insanity existed, that remedies should be applied. There were some peculiar features about insanity which had not come before the Commissioners, but which frequently came before him in his official capacity as Coroner. In this county he had had twenty-four suicides before him in twelve days—not one having committed suicide in a public or private institution, and in a great majority of them insanity had been entirely unobserved by the whole of their relations and friends: and in fact at the inquest, in the most searching investigations, in the majority of these cases not a single symptom of insanity had shown itself. But what did they find? The relatives of the suicides were generally called before them. They were asked, "Did you observe nothing particular in your relative?" "No," was the answer; "nothing extraordinary—nothing out of the way." "Did he do nothing odd or strange—something he never did before, to attract your attention?"—"No." "Was there anything new or peculiar in his habits?"—"No." "Did he complain of no ailment?"—"No, nothing in particular," "Did he apply to a medical man?"—"No." "Did he complain of no ailment whatever?"—"Only a little uneasiness in his head." That was the answer he found almost invariably given in these cases. "In what part of the head did he feel the pain?"—"He said he felt uneasiness in his head—a pain in his forehead;" but yet it was not enough to induce him to go to a medical man, or for his friends to make him apply to one. In almost all these cases he found that the symptoms were pain and uneasiness in the head. The poor head was the last part of the whole body that was attended to. If a man hurt his foot his family sent him to the doctor, because he might be prevented from attending to his work and supporting his family, but not so with the head. If one poor man asked another "How's the old woman?" the answer frequently was, "Oh, she's nothing very bad; she's only got the headache." If their horses or cows were bad, they would be sending for a surgeon, but in their family they thought so little of head affections, that application
1278
to a medical man was delayed for weeks and months together until the mischief was established, and insanity made its appearance. Now, he was satisfied that the system which the noble Lord had hinted at—the establishment of institutions for the treatment of insanity as soon as it manifested itself—would not only be a work of humanity but of economy too, and he was thoroughly persuaded by experience, that they would not have, in the course of years even, with an increased population, more than two-thirds of the number of lunatics they had now. That was his firm conviction, and he believed that medical men were beginning to be impressed with the same conviction, because now it was well known, that insanity never existed without some organic affection of the human body—that the mind never became deranged or disordered in its functions but from some derangement in the structure of the human frame; so that every person aware of that fact would feel how necessary it was to apply remedial means in the beginning of an attack. In general there was an inflammatory attack going on, requiring to be treated and subdued, and when subdued the derangement disappeared. He was delighted to find that the right hon. Gentleman was so strongly impressed with this view of the question that he declared he would sanction the establishment of institutions for incurables, and of others for curables; and upon that part of the subject he would not detain the House further. But he must express his regret at the manner in which the "restraint" and "non-restraint" system were referred to in the report. A part of it had a very strong leaning in favour of the restraint system, but it could not have been written by the noble Lord, for he had spoken as strongly in favour of the mild system as could be, and had told the House what effects he had seen where that system was adopted towards 582 patients. Now, at page 138 of the report he found these words:—"It seems to us that these measures" (there were two systems, restraint and non-restraint) "are only particular modes of restraint, the relative advantages of which must depend altogether on the results." Doubtless they did; everyone would admit that. Now, the noble Lord had given them, in his own glowing terms, a picture of the restraint-system which he witnessed twelve years ago, and he also, in the happiest

1279
terms, gave a full description of the non-restraint system. But the report went on to say, "The advocates of these two systems, to which we have called your Lordships' attention, appear to have been actuated by a common desire to improve the condition of the insane." That persons who chained them down—who confined them—placed them in cells—should be actuated by the same desire as those who adopted a milder system, and from which treatment such happy results followed, was strange indeed. But, said the report, "Those who employ, as well as those who do not employ mechanical restraint, adopt an equally mild and conciliatory method of managing their patients." The deuce they did; it was the oddest in the world. So that a man who whipped his child every morning before breakfast adopted just as mild a system of treatment as the father who endeavoured to admonish his child into the path of duty and happiness. He thought, therefore, that the report had not been drawn up with that care which the case required. He thought, too, that that there almost lurked about it something of a sneer at the Hanwell Lunatic Asylum. What did he find at page 147? One of the most curious things he ever saw. It was not a fit subject to be discussed in that House, but the sentence ought not to have been there. This was a very grave subject, and they who wished to get rid of trouble, and to carry on an asylum at the least possible expense, knew very well that chains, ropes, gloves, strait waistcoats, and bonds, were not so expensive as rational and humane and kind attendance, and, consequently, they were inclined to practices of that sort, and turned them at once to the disadvantage of the patient, if care were not taken. Now, here was a remark on cleanliness and dirtiness, and he was surprised to see such a sentence in the Report. The Commissioners could not have read it. It was this:—"At the Middlesex Asylum it has been attempted to defeat dirty habits by the administration of aperients." Without explanation, that was a sort of sneer or sarcasm at the conductors of that establishment. [Lord Ashley: Read on.] At the Lancaster asylum good effects have been produced in obviating, and in many cases in entirely removing, such habits, by assiduously endeavouring to invite due attention to the calls of nature." Yes; but they gave no explanation of the former
1280
sentence, and it was not fit to be explained in that House. It was calculated to raise a sneer at the institution of Hanwell, and in his opinion a most unjustifiable one; because it was known that in some cases the administration of medicine such as was described in that sentence had had the effect of curing patients of dirty and vicious habits. But that was not stated, and it was calculated to have a bad effect on the character of that institution. He had seen a great deal of the conduct of the managers of that asylum, and never had witnessed more humanity exhibited in any institution in his life. They had done everything to do away with every painful restraint, and now persons who used to be confined in close rooms mixed together playing about on the grass and in the pleasure grounds, and apparently enjoying themselves from one week's end to another. He regretted that the Commissioners should have introduced a single word into their Report which should be calculated to throw a slur upon that asylum. He hoped it was not meant—in fact, he found in another part of the Report that the state of Hanwell Asylum was strongly commended, and was blended with the institution at Lincoln, where the non-restraint system was first adopted. But if what he had referred to went forth to the world unexplained it would be most injurious to that asylum. He hoped the next Session would not be allowed to pass away until towards the end of it without some measure being introduced on this subject. It might be thought to be a difficult and complicated one, but if treated in a common sense way it would be greatly simplified. But he would ask the noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman whether they considered it right and justifiable that a great number of persons should be confined in this country by their relations in houses not licensed, or not subjected to any superintendence, or to any supervision, or to any visitation whatever from any person? Now, the Lunacy Commissioners had the power, if they went into a town with 100,000 inhabitants, where only two persons were confined in any house, being a licensed house, to visit that house; but if in the same town there were 100 persons confined singly, they had not the opportunity of going into any one of those houses in which these unhappy beings were incarcerated, for the purpose of seeing how

1281
they were treated by their most affectionate relations. The fact was, that individuals were confined for the purpose of some relations seizing their property. Persons were employed, with a very large salary, as keepers; and, unfortunately, those persons had an object in the patient's remaining lunatic, and in not being cured. He knew nothing more objectionable or more inhuman; and if any measure were brought in on the subject of lunacy it would be a most serious deficiency if it did not touch that part of the question.
Lord Eliotsaid, that after the observation which had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Sheil) he was most anxious to assure the House that the subject of the pauper and criminal lunatics in Ireland had engaged the serious attention of the Government. As to criminal lunatics, it was proposed to grant a sum of public money towards the erection of a central asylum in Ireland.
Mr. V. Smithsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department had stated that he had issued an order to the Poor Law Commissioners that they should attend to the early admission of pauper lunatics into lunatic asylums. But the difficulty was this, that there was no means of compelling the relatives to disclose the state of the patient. Their wish was to conceal it. That was one point to which he hoped the attention of the right hon. Gentleman would be called, that he should show the manner in which that early discovery could be best achieved. The principal doubts expressed by the right hon. Gentleman on the statement of the noble Lord were first as to the prohibition of private asylums. Upon that point he was inclined to agree with the noble Lord that it was desirable to prohibit, if not to prevent, private asylums. He thought that, in this unfortunate condition of man, as in other evils to which he was subject, publicity was one of the means of cure, and he believed that that opinion was gaining ground among the public in general. He fully admitted that the subject was one of the greatest delicacy, and he quite understood the feelings of the right hon. Gentleman. It must to a certain extent be known if a person were confined in a public asylum; but he must say, that if any man maturely considered this with reference to the case of his relative, rather than to the concealment of the misfortune which had befallen his family, he would have no
1282
doubt that a public asylum was infinitely preferable to a private one. The next point upon which the right hon. Gentleman said he had a doubt was as to the size of these asylums. The noble Lord said he considered the size of the present county asylums as much too great; but the right hon. Gentleman turned upon his noble Friend and said that one of the complaints had been the excessive expense, and that a division of asylums in counties would be more expensive than having one large one. But he thought the right hon. Gentleman had not paid so much attention to that part of the noble Lord's statement as he did to the other parts of it, for the noble Lord dwelt more particularly on the distinction between asylums for curables and for incurables. No doubt, according to the evidence of Dr. Conolly, asylums for curable patients should be small, but he did not think the same objection could be made to hospitals for incurables. Now, if the right hon. Gentleman intended to carry into execution the system which he understood him to say he should do, he would procure a diminution of expense; but undoubtedly, in considering this question, expense occurred at every turn. It applied to the question of a mild or severe treatment. The latter was much more economical, and more he believed on that account, than from any regard to the sufferings of the patient, that system was adopted. Mild treatment was more expensive, it was carried on by the supervision of others, and when they considered what was required for the supervision of lunatic patients, how much temper, firmness, and vigour of frame, not for the purpose of violence, but to inspire awe in the patient, they would see how difficult it was to provide keepers for asylums where mild treatment was adopted. With respect to the Hanwell Asylum, the Commissioners had no intention whatever of casting any slur upon that institution. Where they had found fault with asylums, they had done so directly, and in a positive and fair manner. It must, however, be considered whether it was not better to adopt some permanent coercion than to use great violence occasionally; for instance, if they had a patient who had committed any offence that obliged them to drive him back into a cell, the effect upon him was more injurious than if he had been under coercion previously. With respect to the cases which had been brought forward from Wales, they were some of the strongest that were

1283
adduced before the Committee; and such as ought to be brought forward—as they had been by the noble Lord—in the strongest manner. He contended that the Commissioners sent down for the purpose of visiting asylums were much more likely than the local magistrates to discharge that duty efficiently. In saying this he did not mean to cast any slur upon the local magistrates; but they were gentlemen who were not professionally educated, and who knew comparatively little about the state of lunatic patients in these asylums. He repeated that he intended to throw no imputation upon the magistrates; but he would suggest to the right hon. Baronet opposite whether it might not be advisable to extend the powers of the Commissioners to visit, with respect to all county asylums, so as in many cases to supersede the powers of the county magistrates. It frequently happened that the county asylums were left to the superintendence of medical men, over whom there was no power of control; and the visitors did not visit the asylums so frequently and so unexpectedly as would be the case if the power of visitation was vested in the Commissioners. The superintendents of asylums, if they were anxious to disguise anything, were well aware when the visits of county magistrates might be expected. He must say he considered that great neglect existed with respect to the present system of visitation, and that when visits were made to asylums, they were in a great measure useless. The visiting magistrates walked round the asylums, scarcely knowing what inquiries to make; and, however good might be their intentions, however humane their feelings, their habits of life did not fit them to detect and investigate the abuses which might exist in such institutions. He would invite the attention of the right hon. Baronet to the Report of the Commissioners of Poor Law Inquiry in Scotland. In an Appendix to that Report—Appendix No. 3, he believed—there was a statement made by Dr. Hutchison, of Glasgow, with reference to the Isle of Arran. That Gentleman stated that there were 123 lunatics in the island, who were lodged in cottages and other places, some of them being placed in cells and garrets, in which they were compelled to remain in a crouching position. It appeared from the Statement to which he alluded, that during the day these unfortunate persons were allowed to rove about the island. Indeed, the statements in this Report portrayed a
1284
scene like that of Bedlam broke loose; and the only excuse made was, that it was better for these lunatics that they should be allowed to ramble about the island than that they should be placed in confinement. Certainly, if such statements had not been made by Dr. Hutchison, and reported by the Commissioners, he (Mr. V. Smith) should scarcely have thought them credible. He hoped then, that while the right hon. Baronet extended his consideration on this painful subject to England and Wales, and while he also paid regard, as he had promised to do, to the state of Ireland, Scotland would not be forgotten or overlooked. He hoped that, when the right hon. Gentleman took into consideration the renewal of the Act for the appointment of the Commission next Session, he would direct his attention to several points which in his (Mr. V. Smith's) opinion were worthy of notice. One subject to which he wished to call the attention of the right hon. Baronet was the expense attending the Commission. That expence was running up to a very considerable sum. There were at present eleven Gentlemen who were paid Commissioners; and he thought it would be well if the right hon. Gentleman would consider whether the object he sought could be best obtained by the employment of those Commissioners—whether it might not be more advisable to have persons whose services would be more permanently at command. Some of the present Commissioners were Gentlemen of great eminence in the medical profession, and others were very accomplished lawyers; but in travelling through the country they did not confine themselves to the business of the Commission—they had other claims upon their attention. There was also a certain number of unpaid Commissioners, whom he thought it would be well for the right hon. Gentleman to retain in conjunction with the paid Commissioners; for, though he was of opinion that it was better for the State to rely upon paid than upon gratuitous services generally, yet he thought that, upon Commissions of this nature, gratuitous services were especially valuable. In the first place, he believed that an impression prevailed among the unfortunate persons visited by these Commissioners in favour of those Commissioners whose services were given gratuitously; they conceived that in cases of oppression or injury, they would be more likely to obtain redress from persons who devoted their time and attention to the subject without remuneration, than from

1285
those who were the paid servants of the country. He regretted that he had not been enabled to pay more attention heretofore to his duties as a Member of this Commission; but he must say, it was impossible to overestimate the services of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Ashley) in connexion with this subject. The noble Lord since he had been Chairman of the Commission, had given his constant and unwearied attention to the condition of these unfortunate lunatics, and although with reference to other occasions on which the noble Lord had advocated the cause of humanity, some persons might have accused him of doing so from a desire to obtain notoriety, such motives could not in this case be imputed to that noble Lord, for he had been toiling in comparative obscurity on behalf of this class of persons. The noble Lord could have done this from no hope of fame; for the unfortunate people on whose behalf he had used his exertions had no fame to give. But still they had something to bestow: and he must say that, when visiting those unfortunate persons, he d frequently seen them exhibit a feeling of gratitude, and a sense of kindness, which their saner brethren would do well to imitate. Although, therefore, his noble Friend might have toiled unobservedly, he had not toiled thanklessly; and he was convinced that the noble Lord would deem the gratitude of these unfortunate persons a sufficient reward for the time and trouble he had devoted to this subject.
Mr. Sanders Davisas a Member connected with Carmarthenshire, entered into an explanation of the circumstances connected with the lunatic asylum of that country. Previous to the issuing of any Commission, the three counties of Carmarthen, Pembroke, and Cardigan had done all in their power to carry the Act into operation, but had found great difficulties in their way. He referred to reports of the Commissioners to show that improvements had been made in the asylum. He did not make the statement in justification of the circumstances stated by the noble Lord; but he was sure the magistrates would be delighted to have sufficient power to administer the law for the benefit of these unfortunate persons.
Mr. Haweshad read the statements of Dr. Hutchison, to which the hon. Member for Northampton had referred, and he considered that they deserved the serious attention of the House. He would beg to
1286
call the attention of the right hon. Baronet opposite to one or two of those statements, in order that, while considering the condition of lunatics in England, he might be induced to take into his consideration the state of that unfortunate class of persons in Scotland. His right hon. Friend (Mr. V. Smith) had stated that there were 123 lunatics in the Isle of Arran, but the report stated that the number was probably much larger. He believed that these unhappy persons were confined in that island in direct violation of the law; and in his opinion, the treatment experienced by these persons in one or two cases he would mention, afforded a not unfair illustration of the general treatment to which such persons were subjected, whether in Scotland or in the Isle of Arran. The first case mentioned was that of a weaver, who was imbecile, and a Mrs. Nicholl, in whose care he was placed, admitted that sometimes he did not sleep at home for some months together, and that when he did so he slept upon straw in a corner: she also confessed that he frequently slept in a loft without bed, bed clothes, or even straw, the place being without light, ill-ventilated and abounding with filth and vermin. The facts were not denied by Mrs. Nicholl, in whose presence the statements were made. Another case was that of a lunatic named John Campbell, who had been subjected to the most cruel usage. He was placed in the care of a person named Mackinnon and his wife, both of whom, it appeared, had frequently beaten him with ropes and sticks. Mrs. Mackinnon attempted to deny this; but when confronted with a neighbour who had witnessed the ill-usage, she did not persist in her denial. It was proved that this unfortunate man was frequently flogged with a cat-o'-nine-tails made of rope, till the blood ran down his back. Numerous cases of this sort were mentioned; but he referred to these instances of ill-treatment in order to draw the immediate attention of the right hon. Home Secretary to the subject. Out of the 123 lunatics discovered on the island 118 had come under the observation of Dr. Hutchison, and by far the greater proportion of them had been sent there without any medical certificate, without the warrant of the sheriff of the county, and they were confined in unlicensed houses. It might not, perhaps, be generally known that all persons harbouring those lunatics were liable to a penalty of 200 l. or three months' imprisonment. This was a case

1287
involving a direct violation of the law; and he had, therefore, thought it right to call the attention of the right hon. Secretary of State for the Home Department to the subject.
Mr. Stafford O'Briensaid both sides of the House seemed fully agreed that some remedy should be provided for the evils to which their attention had been directed; but, why should there be a year's delay in the application of that remedy? It was evident from the statements which had been made as to the condition of the lunatic asylum in Dublin, that the case was most urgent.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerfelt in some difficulty as to this question. Up to the present moment he had not received any plan and estimate which would enable him to know what would be ultimately necessary to be taken, and he could not yet tell what vote he should take. Where a building was to be erected, it would be impossible to take a vote without an estimate, or he would not delay any longer to forward a subject on which he felt as deep an interest as any hon. Member who had spoken.
Lord Ashley, in reply, said it was well known that moderate restraint was useful, and that the lunatics, finding an attack coming on, would often ask for restraint; but this was very different from harsh coercion.
"In the asylum for the county of Dorset, we found a patient whose suicidal propensities were so determined that he had once determined to drown himself, twice to hang himself, once to cut his throat, and also to choke himself by thrusting his sheets down his throat, and to strangle himself by twisting his handkerchief round his neck. The restraint of muffs was resorted to; and although previously restless and trying continually to get out of bed, this person began to sleep comfortably, and was, when we saw him, tranquil and apparently convalescent.
"The superintendent at Lancaster hesitates in giving an opinion decidedly in favour of the non-restraint system; he thinks that although much may be done without mechanical restraint of any kind, there are occasionally cases in which it may not only be necessary, but beneficial. The superintendent of the Suffolk asylum considers that in certain cases and more especially in a crowded and imperfectly constructed asylum, like the one under his charge, mechanical restraint, judiciously applied, might be preferable to any other species of coercion, as being both less irritating and more effectual."
He felt grateful for the expressions of
1288
the right hon. Baronet, and for the way in which the Motion had been met; and, in full confidence that the subject would receive attention, he would withdraw it.
Motion withdrawn.

GUERNSEY.
Mr. T. Duncombesaid, that in the modified form in which he was about to submit to the House the Motion of which he had given notice, he hoped there would be no objection on the part of the right hon. Baronet opposite to consent to the production of the Papers for which he asked. He begged to move,
"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, Copies of all Despatches and Correspondence that have passed between the Government and the Lieutenant Governor of Guernsey, from the 1st day of April last, to the present time."
He had on a former occasion postponed his Motion, at the request of the right hon. Baronet, because certain judicial proceedings were pending in Guernsey; and he wished it to be distinctly understood that he now moved for no Papers which had reference to any pending judicial investigations; but he thought something in the shape of explanation was due from that House and from the Government to the inhabitants of Guernsey. The people of Guernsey complained, that in the month of May last, to their great astonishment and surprise, a very large military reinforcement, consisting of 600 men, with ammunition and military stores landed in that island. He believed that no persons were more loyal and well-disposed towards this kingdom than the people of Guernsey and the adjacent islands; and they might well be surprised to find this large armament landed on their shores. He before asked the right hon. Baronet opposite whether that force was sent to Guernsey in consequence of any apprehensions entertained by the Government of internal commotion or foreign aggression; and the right hon. Baronet said he had felt it his duty to send that force, in consequence of representations made to the Home Government by the Lieutenant Governor of Guernsey — a gallant officer in whom the Government reposed the greatest confidence. The right hon. Gentleman said that the circumstances were then undergoing investigation, and that an inquiry

1289
had been instituted by the Government to ascertain whether the charges made against some of the inhabitants were well-founded or not. The troops remained for some weeks on the island; but he believed they had now been altogether withdrawn. He did not blame the Government for the course they had adopted, after representations had been made to them by the Lieutenant Governor and by other persons on the island; but he thought it was evident they had been grossly imposed upon. It appeared that the Rev. Mr. Dobree, a minister of the Established Church, made some representations to the Lieutenant Governor. These representations were made by a person of the name of Moulin, who died at the Rev. Mr. Dobree's house. Moulin made a confession, when upon his death-bed, that he had been poisoned. The Rev. Mr. Dobree communicated this circumstance to the Government. After Moulin died, the force of which he complained was despatched to the island. The Lieutenant Governor ordered a post mortem examination of the body, and it was established that there was not the slightest foundation for the suspicion that Moulin had been poisoned. The alleged conspiracy became a matter of inquiry. The Royal Court sat several days to investigate the question. Mr. Dobree was examined by the Court. He then repeated the confession which Moulin had made on his death-bed. He would not state who the parties were who were engaged in the conspiracy; for this he was committed for contempt of court, and kept in confinement for several days. There was not the slightest foundation for the assertion of Mr. Dobree. His evidence was completely set aside by the jury. The parties tried for sedition were all honourably acquitted. The right hon. Baronet must be aware that there existed in the island considerable excitement in consequence of this charge of conspiracy. The most respectable portion of the inhabitants of that island met and voted an address to Her Majesty, expressive of their loyalty. The militia of the island also considered themselves greatly aggrieved. In consequence of the representations of Mr. Dobree it was believed that a portion of the militia had conspired against the life of the Lieutenant Governor, and intended to assassinate him when they met to celebrate the Queen's birthday. He (Mr. Duncombe) wished the right hon. Baronet to
1290
come forward and declare that not the slightest imputation rested against the loyalty of any person connected with the island. He thought that the right hon. Baronet could do so conscientiously. It was perfectly competent for the House of Commons to require these Papers and Correspondence. The expense of sending this additional force to the island would, no doubt, form an item in the Army Estimates; but, independently of that argument in favour of his Motion, he again repeated that so large a body of people, the most peaceable and loyal in the kingdom, had a right to see those Papers, and to have some public declaration from the right hon. Baronet on the subject.
Sir James Grahamsaid, it was true that he had asked the hon. Gentleman to postpone his Motion; but on the part of the Crown it was necessary that he should exercise discretion with reference to the production of the Papers which the hon. Gentleman had moved for. No one could regret more deeply than he did the misunderstanding which had arisen in one of the Channel Islands between the Governor and a portion of the inhabitants. He had stated on more than one occasion, what he now would with great satisfaction repeat, namely, that with respect to the loyalty and attachment of the great body of the inhabitants of Guernsey, there could be no doubt—no suspicion whatever could be cast upon them. Nevertheless there was reason to believe, and he still did believe, that a plot was formed against the life of the Lieutenant Governor, and he believed that it was intended to carry that plot into execution on the birthday of Her Majesty, when the militia would be assembled. The House was aware of the general character of the Lieutenant Governor of that island; he was amongst the most distinguished military men in the service of Her Majesty—a man of strong nerve and firm mind, who was not likely on slight grounds to apprehend danger; and yet that gentleman had informed him, about ten days before the birth-day of Her Majesty was to have been celebrated, that the wicked intention to which allusion had been made was formed, and was to be carried into execution on that particular day. The militia were consequently prohibited from assembling, and an additional force sent to the island; and the Government also sent a confidential legal adviser to collect evidence.

1291
The Gentleman to whom had been confided that trust was a Gentleman of strict integrity, and considerable legal knowledge, and, from the evidence which had been obtained, he (Sir J. Graham) again repeated the solemn statement, that he did believe such a plot existed. A person worthy of credit first gave information of the existence of that plot, and the particular day on which it was to be carried into execution. He feared that further legal proceedings must arise out of this transaction; questions were still pending intimately connected with those matters. He repeated that he had no suspicion of the loyalty of the island generally, but there existed against the Lieutenant Governor in certain quarters the most bitter and implacable animosity. There was nothing to impugn his impartial conduct. He was bound to say that at the present moment questions were pending in immediate connection with the administration of justice, and it would be, therefore, in the highest degree inexpedient that he should grant the Correspondence moved for by the hon. Gentleman. Having given an explanation which he hoped would be satisfactory to him, he hoped he would not press his Motion; if, however, the hon. Gentleman did so, he should feel it his duty to resist it.
Mr. Duncombesaid, that as the right hon. Baronet said that further proceedings would be instituted with reference to this subject, it would be most improper for him to press his Motion for the production of the Papers. But he must be allowed to say, at the same time, that he could not help thinking that the declaration made by the right hon. Baronet would cause great grief and disappointment in the island. He did not believe that there was a single individual in that island, notwithstanding what the right hon. Baronet had said, upon whom he could place his finger and say that he was a disloyal subject. It all turned upon this: did the right hon. Baronet and the Lieutenant Governor place the least credit on the statement made by the Rev. Mr. Dobree? Did they place confidence in the evidence of a man who at the Royal Court the other day, it was well known, perjured himself? The Rev. Mr. Dobree sometimes fancied, not only that persons were going to shoot the Lieutenant Governor, but that they were going to shoot himself. They had only his word, and
1292
that of Mr. Moulin, and he believed they would not find one person in the island who would give credit to the fact. Sometimes this Mr. Dobree, when he fancied that he was going to be shot at himself, nailed down the windows, and having wrapped the union jack around his pulpit, sat in it, and fancied himself under the protection of the British flag. And yet upon the statement of such a man, which he said had been given him by a person who was dead, two thousand of the loyal militia of the island were not allowed to assist in the celebration of Her Majesty's birth-day. He did not believe that there was the least foundation for any of the charges which had been made.
Sir James Grahamsaid, the hon. Gentleman assumed that the charge rested on the statement of one Gentleman only, but it was not so, for it rested in the first instance, on the deliberate opinion of the Lieutenant Governor himself, and General Napier was a man of as sane and strong a mind as could exist. It rested on evidence first given to the Lieutenant Governor, which had since been sifted by Mr. Daniel, and he (Sir James Graham) would again repeat that he believed such a plot existed.
Motion withdrawn.

QUARANTINE LAWS AND REGULATIONS.
Dr. Bowringsaid, that he had again to request the attention of the House to an important subject which he had, on other occasions, called upon them to listen to; and it was not in the spirit of complaint of the Government, or of doubts as to the Government doing its duty, but because these discussions strengthened the hands of the Executive, and created that public opinion which alone would enable them to supersede a system which bad nothing but credulity and ignorance for its foundation. The Quarantine Laws must disappear when inquiry and investigation were directed towards them. True it was, that difficulties were in the way of their total and immediate removal. Inattention and prejudice, and what was far mightier, pecuniary interests, and other interests of place and power, were leagued together for the support of a state of things which was an opprobrium to an age of philosophical investigation, and which represented the grossest superstitions of the human race. But as already some concessions had been made, and the frights and the follies of men had been in some degree, controlled

1293
by the results of experience, so he hoped, that in the process of time, the harassing vexations—the costly sacrifices—the impediments to commerce and communication—the uncontrolled despotism of the Quarantine regulations would be wholly and for ever overthrown. Lazzarets had been introduced by the Venetians four centuries ago, and were it possible to present in one view the enormous mass of oppression and misery—of losses and annoyances—of damages to person and property which they had created, the amount would startle credulity itself. Our own law was to be found in a Statute of 6 George IV. cap. 78; and was in itself a pretty picture of interference and harshness. The neglect to deliver a paper specifying the name of the port whence the vessel started, and of all ports at which she had touched, was visited by a fine of 500 l. Another fine was imposed of 200 l. for disobedience to Quarantine officers, and another of 100 l. for refusing to hoist a given signal. These regulations apply to all vessels coming from the Mediterranean or Barbary, or having touched there, or taken in goods at any of their ports. They applied exclusively to the Levant, though nobody could contend that the yellow fever of America in the West Indies, was less contagious than the plague, and against it no precautions were taken. Then came a multitudinous list of vexatious questionings, and all masters of ships were obliged to answer twenty-five preliminary, and thirty Quarantine inquiries; but one question was so involved and so entangled with others, that there really were no less than 123 replies to be given to the interrogatories of the Quarantine inquisitor. The topic has at different periods obtained some share of attention, and he could not pass over in silence the merits of one gentleman, Dr. Maclean, who had been a martyr to his zeal in uprooting the contagion fallacies upon which our Quarantine legislation was founded. Too much neglected, and too soon forgotten, he had been one of the most indefatigable and most useful labourers for the emancipation of trade from the manacles placed upon it by superstitious ignorance, and had preferred in the fulfilment of this mission to be associated with neglect and poverty—to any success which might have grown out of the flattery of the baneful interests and prejudices which have been too long omnipotent. The whole theory of the Quarantine system rests on the supposition that the plague
1294
may remain for some time latent in the individual, and that it is necessary while there is uncertainty as to its existence in the persons who come from plague countries, to hold them in durance, and to take precautions to avoid communication with those who may possibly be infected. The period of time in which the seeds of plague may lie dormant in the individual is pretty generally allowed even by contagionists, not to exceed fifteen days. The Proto-medico of Malta, in his Report of 1813, says, no case was ever known of a distance greater than fourteen days between commnnication and disease; and the French Commissioner, M. Segur Dupeyron states, that the physicians who have studied plague generally, concur in this, that the power of plague cannot remain more than fifteen days latent in the human frame. But the author of the laws and regulations against plague are deaf to all testimony of a philosophical or disinterested character; and the latest regulations of the Board of Health at Marseilles given in p. 113, of the Parliamentary Papers, declare that no period of time shall allow a clean bill of health to be received from Egypt and Syria; while from the other parts of the Ottoman dominions, a year and a day must have been passed since the last case of plague in order to admit a vessel to free pratique. We sometimes boast of the return we make to the East, for the favours our forefathers received from those regions. Our last good gift was the curse of the Quarantine Laws. If we sent back our wisdom, instead of our folly, our enlightened experience instead of our narrow and childish superstitions, we might take some credit to ourselves. But in this case, if we had recommended a more judicious police, attention to ventilation and to draining,—the removal of offal—the cleansing the streets and houses; instead of the absurd and ludicrous, but most oppressive enactments of the Quarantine system,—instead of misdoers which we have been, we might have become benefactors. The Turks would understand well all the despotic and arbitrary part of the affair; and in looking through the correspondence he perceived (p. 103), that no European's life was safe under the interpretation given by the Ottoman authorities to the Quarantine Laws; and the British Ambassador is called on to interfere in order to prevent what after all appeared to him (Dr. Bowring) a very natural and allowable construction; for in despotism the most barbarous, the Quarantine

1295
Laws begin; and through despotism the blindest is effect given to them. Lazzarets in Turkish forsooth! To say nothing of the fact that one of the most desolating plagues which has ravaged Egypt, broke out in 1835, four years after the establishment of Quarantine, the cases are abundant in which healthy individuals and healthy crews have been sent into Lazzarets—the focuses of plagues and pestilence—and in these very prisons have sickened and perished. Many such cases had occurred in Syria, where the Lazzarets were generally constructed in the midst of swamps and miasmata, and in which to escape disease was great good fortune. There is little difficulty in discovering the sources of the plague,—still less in tracing the circumstances which cause its spread in its worst and most dangerous forms. Where no attention is paid to the accumulation of filthy matter,—where there is no drainage to remove nauseous accumulations,—where foul air and stenches remain unventilated, and are allowed to create an active pestiferous influence, — where streets are foul and narrow,—where the houses are inconvenient and overcrowded,—where stagnant waters abound, and the remains of dead animals and putrid vegetables are brought together, there you will find the elements out of which plague has its birth; and in these places in the East, where these various nuisances are concentrated, plague takes up its natural abode, and reigns in its most despotic power. The Pontine and Tuscan marshes exhibit an example of the desolating influences of malaria. They cover a region once among the most populous of ancient Italy. The great Etruscan cities were there. In the process of time, the waters of the sea have broken in and mingled with the fresh rivers from the interior. Lakes and swamps have been formed. Coarse algæ and various vegetable productions have grown in the marshy soil, and the whole atmosphere has been tainted with damp and unwholesome miasmata. The region had become uninhabitable, except at the utmost risk of life. The reigning Grand Duke of Tuscany has, however, successfully attempted to introduce salubrity. The marshes have been either drained or filled up with depositions from the rivers; and gradually, a population is introducing itself into districts which, but a few years ago, were nearly abandoned by man; and in the course of years, there can be little doubt but that the old Etrurian
1296
regions will see villages and towns, and cities grow up and land fertilized, and a whole district recovered from the pestilential influence which has so long presided over it. And what is true of localities, is also true of races and individuals. When the plague breaks out, its ravages are always greatest among the poorest and least civilized of the population. The proportion of the Europeans who are attacked, is invariably small, and the cities and the parts of cities which are most distinguished for comfort and cleanliness are seldom attacked at all. In Constantinople, Pera and the Frank districts, enjoy almost an immunity against plague. In Damascus, it is mainly in the close and crowded portions of the city that the plague breaks out; the neighbouring villages, some of which are neatly and judiciously built, are generally retreats of safety. When once conversing with the Governor on the subject of the health of the city, and the establishment of Lazzarets, he agreed that the unhealthiest parts of the place were those where dead dogs and camels and heaps of decayed vegetables were deposited, and acknowledged that it would be desirable to try the experiment of removing them. But in Syria, a plague interest is now growing up, and as people are paid for propagating contagious delusions, no doubt new arguments, inventions, and facts will be found or fancied to support theories, by which money is to be got. At Cairo, in the plague of 1835, when 33,733 persons died, only 515 were Christians. In Alexandria, the ravages of the plague may be distinctly traced to the un-healthiness of the situation—the stagnant waters in the ancient cisterns—the adjacency of Lake Mariottis—the filthy habits of the Fellahs. Even in ordinary circumstances, the yearly mortality of Alexandria was one in ten. Dr. Laidlaw says (in a letter from which Dr. Bowring read the extract):—
"The mortality within the walls is more than a tenth of the whole population in one year alone; four times the mortality of London, and double that of Calcutta and Bombay. Yet we have here a much finer climate than in any of these places. The causes of disease are local miasmata—dirt and filthy habits—want of clothing and wholesome food and want of drainage and ventilation. The climate has, in my opinion, nothing whatever to do with it. The crews employed on board the British fleet in the Mediterranean do not average a mortality of more than 1 per cent."
And in the same letter, he was happy to find on the authority of Dr. Laidlaw,

1297
whose valuable services in the diffusion of correct opinions on the subject of the plague was deserving the highest eulogiums, that ancient prejudices were now passing away, for he says—
"It is curious to observe the effect of steady resistance to the bigotry and superstition connected with this question of contagion and Quarantine. Many of the most sturdy and obstinate of its supporters here are now wavering, and disclaim opinions they maintained violently only four or five years ago."
In fact, it is impossible to resist the accumulation of evidence which shows that the ravages of plague are not to be checked by superstitious fears and dreams, but must be controlled by that general attention to the public health which is now applied to stop the progress of other diseases. But plague countries afford admirable illustrations of the general principle that the amount of disease depends on the condition of the people. In the plague in Alexandria in 1835, the grade of opulence and of social position determined the amount of mortality. Among the English, French, Russians, and Germans, the classes possessing the greatest amount of comforts, the mortality was five to 1,000. Among the Italians and Maltese, who occupy the lowest position of European society, the mortality was seven to 1,000. The Turks among the Mussulman races, are by far the best off; and the mortality there are twelve to 1,000. Among the Arab soldiers, fifteen; among the Egyptian peasantry (Fellahs), sixty-one in 1,000; and in the lowest social scale, the negro population, the mortality was eighty-four in 1,000, being nearly seventeen times greater than among the richest classes of Europeans. And in Alexandria itself, there is an improved state of the public health from the removal of all the cemeteries beyond the walls of the city, and from the establishment of a Commission of Public Improvement under the auspices of Mehemet Ali, which is charged with an inspection over all buildings, and with such provisions for the health of the place as may be connected with the destruction of old or the erection of new edifices. Nor ought it to be forgotten that since Algiers has been in the possession of the French, it has ceased to be a plague-producing country, and vessels from them are admitted to pratique without difficulty. We need not go so far for evidence of the effects of proper precautions upon the health of the people. Mr. Chadwick's Sanatory Report is full of the
1298
most valuable materials on this subject. In the same town, Leeds for example, there is one district where the annual deaths are one in twenty-eight, while in another they are only one in fifty-seven. There are it appears fourteen counties in England, in which the mortality is one in thirty-nine, and fourteen others in which it is but one in fifty-four. Nor would it be difficult to prove that the plague was a frequent visitor in many of our unhealthy localities—for typhus in its worst forms cannot be distinguished from it—and he (Dr. Bowring), had heard from a physician of the highest eminence well acquainted with plague, that he had had not unfrequently from five to seven patients in London, with every symptom that characterises the oriental plague, such as buboes and carbuncles, and that he was convinced of the perfect identity of the disease, and of its very common existence in this country. It is an error to suppose that the plague was extirpated by the great fire of London. Down to about 1730 its victims are found constantly cited in the Bills of Mortality—scarcely a year without some reported deaths—and he was persuaded a return of mortality from plague might be made up yearly to the present hour. But if plague under certain circumstances be contagious, so are other disorders, against which no Quarantines are directed. Dr. W. Currie says—
"I am convinced that the yellow fever is only contagious or communicated from those that are sick or affected by it, to those who are in good health in situations where the air is confined and rendered impure by exhalations, from putrifying vegetables or other putrifiable substances."
And so Dr. Hosack, "The yellow fever is only communicable through the medium of an impure or vitiated atmosphere." Now both these doctors are contagionists, and have written in favour of the contagion of yellow fever. Dr. Russell, one of the greatest of plague authorities, in his description of the plague of Aleppo in 1762, acknowledges that the mortality was in proportion to the extent of poverty, and that the people of rank suffered least of all. The history of disease is crowded with evidence of the effects of foul atmosphere and absence of ventilation upon the health of man. What plague was ever more murderous in a narrow sphere than the jail fevers of our own country? In 1577, the Judge, Sheriff, and 300 persons died at the Oxford Castle Assizes in forty-eight hours. Many such cases are mentioned by Lord

1299
Bacon. Look at the frightful mortality of the Calcutta Black Hole in 1756, when of 170 persons, 154 died in a single night. What sweeping diseases ravaged our Navy, when in 1778, Dr. Johnson described a man-of-war to represent "the extremity of human misery—such crowding, such filth, such stench." And examine through Dr. Wilson's Medical Returns, the wonderful improvement in the health of our Navy, where in 1779, the annual mortality was 1 in 8; in 1811, 1 in 32; in 1830 and 1836, no more than 1 in 72. And if we want to learn how plague is generated we have only to look to the wynds of Glasgow, the cellars of Liverpool, the hovels of St. Giles's and Whitechapel, as lately described by an observant Frenchman Leon Faucher; or read the accounts of some of the quarters of Paris, as portrayed in a public report—"houses in ruins—straw beds in a state of putrefaction—darkness—damp—infectious smells—filth without example."—Or in the wretched corners of Brussels from another official report, "no pumps—no privies—no sewers—rotten ladders for staircases—suffering adults—pale ricketty children—neither light nor air." Could the same inquiries penetrate into the miserable quarters of Constantinople and Cairo—of Damascus and Alexandria—no one would wonder that disease and death, in all their pestilential varieties should be omnipotent there. But it is easier to excite the fears than to enlighten the understandings of men—and so it is that the huge machinery of Quarantine has been constructed. It had its origin in regions and in ages of ignorance. The Italians, to whom we owe its introduction, are, in matters of disease, among the most credulous of nations. The phthisis in Italy is almost universally believed to be contagious—and the clothes of persons dying of consumption are destroyed lest the infection should spread. And in Europe generally, the cholera was deemed contagious, and all the absurdities of Quarantine regulations were even in England directed against it. But whether contagious or not, Quarantines were soon laid aside as useless, if not pernicious, by all the civilised states of Europe. The presence of the disease wrought an almost unanimous opinion as to the folly of Quarantine regulations — they were abandoned by common consent, and he doubted not such would be the result of a visitation of the plague—and that such visitation would at once overthrow the antiquated notions as to the value of such
1300
precautions. Still it is greatly to the discredit of our authorities abroad, that after even the Austrian Government had abandoned all cordons against cholera as idle and injurious, our officials in the Ionian Islands stuck to them with all the ignorant pertinacity which distinguished the petty Italian states. But in Corfu too many live on the delusion, and of course men will be for maintaining the abuses by which they profit. To carry out the theories of contagion, all substances are divided into two classes, the susceptible and the non-susceptible articles—those which will, and those which will not communicate plague. The Venetians have added an additional bit of absurdity, and have established a class of semi-susceptible articles, but this nonsense they have monopolized; the susceptible articles consist of all animal substances, such as wool, silk, feathers, and many vegetables, such as cotton, linen, paper, &c., while wood, metals, fruits, &c., are called non-susceptible. The whole division may at once be denounced as nonsensical and visionary. It is grounded upon the merest caprice. There has never been an examination into the matter—never an experiment. Yet upon these distinctions all the costly contrivances—the annoyances—the delays—the exactions of the Lazzaret establishment are alone to be justified. But was there ever a case of communication of plague by such susceptible articles? He (Dr. Bowring) had moved for a Return of all persons who in our Lazzarets had the handling of susceptible goods, and who had taken the plague, or had died of the same. The Return is nil—absolutely not one! Why, a century and a quarter ago, Dr. Brown ridiculed the idea of cotton conveying infection, and defies his celebrated opponent Dr. Mead, to prove a single case. He did not; he could not. Our Malta Commissioner strongly represents (p. 84, of the Correspondence on Plague), the absurdity of grounding distinctions upon supposed susceptibilities of divers matters, without any evidence whatever on the subject. Dr. Davy (who has thrown much useful light on the subject) says,
"From all the information that we were able to collect, it would appear that no accurate method has been employed in determining the non-susceptibility of any one article in regard to contagion, much less so many and so different."
He expresses his belief that the whole system of classification was introduced during panic by ignorant and affrighted people,

1301
whose dicta have become sanctified by time. He says, that of the articles declared susceptible, none have been tested by experiment, that they are constantly handled in the Lazzarets—that no instance is on record of any individual so handling them contracting plague—and that all logic and philosophy and experience prove, that the articles now called susceptible are precisely those which do not communicate the plague. Dr. Davy gives eight cases of inconsistencies and absurdities to which he had himself been subject in the East, with which he (Dr. Bowring) would not trouble the House; but he ventured to say that no hon. Gentleman could have passed a day in a Lazzaret without blushing for the obstinacy, the ignorance, and the credulity, which had preserved such a chaotic mass of absurdities for so many centuries. It is curious enough, that the very articles which are denounced as most susceptible, are precisely those whose transit from place to place and person to person, is most easy and constant—wool is held to be peculiarly susceptible, yet flocks of sheep wander across the frontiers of plague countries—woollen garments are sold in enormous quantities in public bazaars, whose possessors and wearers have died of plague, and never fetch one para the less in consequence. Silks go down hereditarily in families from generation to generation. Feathers are by the flight of birds brought from and to every region of the globe. The cotton wool which comes from Egypt is often impregnated with the pus of plague-sufferers who have died upon it; and it is circulated through the whole of our manufacturing districts, without any precaution or any alarm. Paper, coming from Turkey and Egypt in ten thousand forms, where does it not penetrate? Even in Russia, where the ignorance of the people co-operates with the Government in giving the severest interpretation to Quarantine regulations, our Consul at Odessa says, that though it is notorious that infected articles had been stolen from the Lazzarets, yet they had never been known to communicate the plague. Dr. Bulard says—
"That in the Esbekir Hospital at Cairo, the same beds, linens, drawers, shirts and sheets, which during six months had been employed for from 2000 to 3000 plague patients were used for general purposes, for those suffering from fever, wounds, ophthalmia, dysentery, syphilis, without other precautions than simple washing in water without alkali or soap. Aprons were lying about impregnated and
1302
almost wholly covered with the pus of buboes, the sores of carbuncles and pestiferous blood."
Dr. Bulard is a contagionist, but he acknowledges no evil results took place from this state of things. And hear Dr. Abbot, a medical man in the service of the Pacha of Egypt:
"In February, 1835, in consequence of the existence of the plague in Alexandria, our fleet was ordered to sea. It was necessary that provisions, clothing, and stores of all sorts, blankets, tarbouches, shoes, and other woollen and leathern articles, all supposed to be highly susceptible should be embarked. The wives and families of the sailors also brought tarbouches, blankets, cloth dresses, &c., which were all received on board without precaution, in utter neglect of Quarantine—yet no plague was introduced."
It would be wearying to multiply examples—but he (Dr. Bowring), had reason to believe that some years ago a large quantity of plague-infected garments were introduced into this country, for the purpose of experiment, and distributed and worn, without the shadow of danger or suspicion of danger. In the application of the Quarantine regulations, there is no absurdity which is not in daily practice. The object of Quarantine is acknowledged to be the protection of the community from the disease which may be latent in goods or passengers coming from a plague country; one would suppose the longer the period since which a vessel had left a plague country, the shorter the time necessary for the public security. Quite the contrary. A steamer shall come from Alexandria, and make her passage in eighteen or twenty days at most, and in a day or two her passengers and their luggage will be on shore. A merchant ship shall have been, two, three, or four months on her voyage, and she will be probably subject to forty days Quarantine. Often does it happen that two vessels departing on the same day, and in one case after a short voyage one shall be reloaded and on her way back, before the other has entered the Quarantine; and be it not forgotten that contagionists are almost unanimous in declaring that plague cannot be latent more than fifteen days. But the land regulations are still more unjustifiable—for communication by land cannot be prevented—every reptile that crawls—every insect or bird that flies—every animal that wanders—evesy fish that swims, passes from one country to another. No doubt the regulations against plague facilitate the operations of the multitudes of

1303
smugglers who crowd upon limits of the districts. But Land Quarantines are generally much neglected. It is in ports that Boards of Health are important—influential—highly paid functionaries — and it is therefore against sea-imported plague that all these precautions are directed. And he (Dr. Bowring) had known cases where, when the severest restrictions are placed upon vessels arriving from foreign ports, and from ports in which there was no disease—there was not any, the slightest impediment to communication with places in the interior where the plague was raging. Alexandria has its Quarantines against Turkey—but what protects Cairo against Alexandria—or El Siout against Cairo? Nothing whatever—and yet it is notorious there are many regions in Egypt where the plague is unknown—it has never made its way to the south of Essouan—it has never penetrated into the Fayoum—though so close to the capital. Pilgrims by tens of thousands pass through Egypt in the plague season to the Holy Cities—they have never conveyed the plague to Arabia. What precautions do we take in our vast Indian Empire? None! None whatever. For travel east from Egypt—there are no Lazzarets — no Quarantines — no inquiries whatever. And why? Because there is universal incredulity. There are no Boards of Health paid to keep up delusions—and now happily there is little danger of the introduction of Quarantines. A few years ago he (Dr, Bowring) understood the then Governor General of India, Lord Auckland, sent a Commission to the north-western provinces to report on the plague and on the establishment of Lazzarets as a protection against it. Happily the Commission was composed of men of learning and observation, and they were unanimous in objecting to the establishment of a Quarantine system. It is well for India and the world that the matter was not referred to plague doctors, nor to any person having an interest in the propagation of absurdities. But if in the East, with a climate resembling that of Egypt—with a population near akin to that of Egypt in habits of religion—in social and domestic usages—there exist no Lazzarets—no system of Quarantine—why, when travelling West—at the same or a greater distance from the seats of pestilence—why should merchants and travellers — and sailors and merchandise — coming to civilized countries — removed from all pestiferous influence—why should they be subjected to the costs and vexations
1304
—to the dangers and the despotisms—to the losses and the delays, of a legislation begotten by ignorance—and born, reared, and supported by blindness and prejudice? In fact—there is no general law—every country has delivered over its arrangements on this subject to the caprices of authority. Every port—every station has laws of its own. If Naples be a little more stupid than Leghorn, to that the world must submit. If Corfu and Malta outbid Gibraltar in obstinate prejudices, so it must be—and all Her Majesty's subjects must bend to Ionian and Maltese despotism. If Marseilles goes beyond every other port in France in inquisitorial and ridiculous credulity—what avail the intelligence of Paris—or the complaints of mankind? It is high time that an end should be put to these local tyrannies! and he (Dr. Bowring) would venture to say that in the history of human folly and superstition, nothing would appear more incredible than the nonsense which has passed current from generation to generation on the subject of the plague. The light is however breaking through the darkness, and on every side evidence meets us showing the direction of opinion. Gaetano Bey the Physician to the Pacha of Egypt says:
"The disease is arrested by the hot weather—it always ceases in the month of June, and this is the month in which the garments of those who die of the plague are sold in enormous quantities in the Arabian bazaars—no cases of plague are known he says beyond the limits of Thebes."
Clot Bey gives evidence of a rapidly growing conviction that the Quarantine system is a gross delusion. He himself has treated thousands of cases of plague, and he expresses a strong opinion that there is no contagion beyond the circle of miasmatic influence. Egypt has indeed had an opportunity of witnessing the more than inefficiency—the absolute mischievousness of the Quarantine system—it was introduced in 1831—four years afterwards the plague broke out in its most murderous shape, and 200,000 persons are supposed to have perished. Our Consul at Alexandria (Mr. Thurban) observed, that the Quarantine regulations were one of the main causes of the frightful spread of the disease, and it was by their removal that its ravages were checked. In examining personally into the stories which are propagated respecting the communication of the plague, he (Dr. Bowring) had found for the most part that invention and exaggeration had been

1305
equally at work. Let any one read the nonsense written to account for the introduction of the plague at Malta in 1813. A smuggler is caught,—he is confined,—he is liberated, because no marks of disease appear, but before his confinement (it is averred), he had been drinking with the husband of a washerwoman, who had washed a pair of pantaloons from a plague country,—these pantaloons were the introducers of the plague. In the case of Borg, one of the earliest sufferers, the case is thus made out; he bought some linen to line shoes from a Jew, and the linen had come from Alexandria—but the Jew had never caught the plague,—and the linen had undergone the usual processes of Quarantine and purification. So another case quoted by Dr. Robinson and Dr. Hancock from Tully, where an old woman had received some money wrapt up in calico, for the purpose of being thrown over a stream of water—she was not seized with the plague herself—but communicated it (never having had it) to her daughter. Who can wonder at the conclusion to which Dr. Ferguson comes; that
"Quarantines upon merchandise are as vexatious as they are nugatory, and that upon living importation they may be modified without risk."
Why should there be any Quarantine where vessels come with their Bills of Health, and there is no disease on board? Why should it apply only to arrivals from the Mediterranean, while against the yellow fever of Mexico, the West Indies and the United States no precautions are taken? The reason is obvious. The Italian States had no intercourse with these countries, or their Boards of Health would soon have entangled them in the net of their legislation. But all sanatory regulations are turned adrift when very great men are concerned. In such cases who dreams of the public health? The Parliamentary Papers show how the Sanatory Laws were lately violated to avoid inconvenience to the Grand Duke Michael, and the French Princes. Our Governor at Malta can set them aside to gratify Redchid Pacha and his children. Our Consul at Damascus (Mr. Wood), does not hesitate to order the putting off or putting on Quarantine to serve the political purposes of the moment (Oriental Correspondence p. 51); nor ought it to be forgotten, that for the purpose of political espionage the Quarantine system was maintained by many countries.
1306
He had himself witnessed the opening of despatches addressed to the British Government for the professed purposes of fumigation,—but no doubt really to learn their contents. The Committee of Post Office Inquiry should look into this mode of violating correspondence,—for it had long been,—and was still practised on a large scale. No doubt, to the benefits of pecuniary gain, the Quarantine system added the pleasure of power—power unchecked—arbitrary—irresponsible—often exercised with the most capricious harhness—for the most provoking annoyances are often associated with the grossest injuries. To the merchant, the freight and the cost of goods were increased—they were subject to damages from delay,—to loss of market—and they were encumbered with heavy additional charges,—all falling upon the consumer indeed—but for the personal grievances no compensation could be found—the most childish interferences,—the most ungovernable caprices, — needless detentions,—long imprisonments in Lazzarets,—in vessels,—dangers from disease,—mental anxiety,—denial of necessaries and comforts—solitary seclusion—the violations of domicile,—in a word the subjugation of free men to all the visitations of uncontrolled authority,—are among the grievances complained of, and which ought to be redressed. At all events, great and speedy modifications of the system should be introduced. A Russian Commission sent to investigate the plague, reports from Cairo in June, 1843, that they had collected a large quantity of garments which had been thoroughly impregnated with the matter of the plague, and that they had been exposed during forty-eight hours to a heat of from fifty to sixty of Reaumur, that this heat can be easily and cheaply applied to bales of cotton and wool however compressed,—that it does not deteriorate the staple of the material,—nor affect the colour however delicate,—nor alter the lustre of metallic substances,—that sixty-six persons were compelled to wear these garments for fifteen continuous days, and that no case of plague appeared. The letter which communicates these important facts states that of thirty-five European physicians now settled in Egypt, scarcely any believe in the doctrine of contagion, and none (except those in the pay of the Sanità), are favourable to the Quarantine system. He (Dr. Bowring) had frequently used the opportunity the House had given him of showing how the path was facilitated

1307
for important relaxations, by the evidence which was gradually accumulating from all sides. Dr. Abbott says, that while he believes, Egypt is never free from plague in forms more or less violent,—he never knew it to be imported,—that no Cordons have produced any benefit,—that they never arrested the disease,—and that he had been in the habit of handling and treating plague patients without hesitation; and never caught the disease. Dr. Laidlaw avers, that on examining the subject, he was struck with the gross exaggerations as to the contagion of plague, and that nothing but a dereliction of reason could give credence to the absurd and monstrous stories of the Levantine contagionists—he states, that except in certain states of the atmosphere there is no danger, and he gives numerous cases proving that the current theory of contagion is wholly unfounded. Dr. Gregson says,
"I am not aware of having seen one case contagious—but on investigation, have found many so reported to be false. I feel confident, that contact will not produce the disease. Indeed those who saw most of it, cared the least. We dreaded the Quarantine more."
And Dr. Gavin after twenty-nine years experience in the Lazzaret at Malta, declares that neither by handling letters, or garments, or merchandise, or washing linen, from infected places, had any case of plague occurred, the number of persons performing Quarantine being from 800 to 1,000 a year. Clot Bey says,
"The contagionists are not only so wrong-headed that they will neither see nor hear but they hate and persecute all those who would wish them to see and hear;"
And Dr. Aubert in his work on the plague, says,
"In four years (he speaks of his residence in the East), I have been able only to hear of two pretended cases of contagion (his pages are crowded with evidence of the non-contagiousness of plague:) I have hunted in vain for any one fact demonstrating the communication of the plague as the consequence of mediate or immediate contact."
He acknowledges epidemic and endemic influence, but denies the theory of contagion altogether. The huge volume which has lately been laid on the Table of the House, contains evidence that considerable modifications in the Quarantine system have been introduced. Assuredly they have led to no evil consequences, and many proofs may be cited from that volume of
1308
the benefits growing out of the changes. It is somewhat humiliating to see Austria complaining of, and protesting against, the absurd severities of our Sanatory Code in the Ionian Islands; it is distressing to read the representations of our Admirals as to the damage done to Her Majesty's Service by the annoying interference of the Mediterranean Board of Health. A congress of the Great Powers was decided on in 1838, in order to consider what could be done in this matter. He (Dr. Bowring) knew not why it came to nought, but he trusted the negotiation would be resumed. There was much in the correspondence to show that the Governments of Austria, France, and England, felt that the existing state of things ought not to be maintained, and it was solely for the purpose of aiding the Executive in its attempts at further changes, that he proposed what he trusted the House would unanimously concur in, namely:—
Resolved.—"That this House approves of the various relaxations of the Quarantine Laws and Regulations which have from time to time been introduced; and desires that such further relaxations maybe urged upon the attention of Foreign Governments, and adopted at home, as may be found compatible with a due regard to the public health, and the commercial interests of the community."
Mr. Gladstoneremarked that there was not sufficient difference between the hon. Member and himself to make it desirable that he should occupy the attention of the House at any length; he should confine himself to the Resolution proposed by the hon. Member, and to the actual question as it stood between us and foreign countries. The first part of the Resolution was, as he understood it, to express approbation at the relaxation of the Quarantine laws that had been made by this country; and the second part, that foreign governments should be urged to adopt similar relaxations: and that the Government of this and other countries should be requested to enter upon the consideration, whether further relaxations should not be made. The Resolution of the hon. Member was clearly in conformity with the spirit in which the Government had acted. When the Government came into office they found that the attention of the previous Government had been directed to this subject, and that it had endeavoured to induce foreign governments to relax their laws; but it had failed in its attempt. But this he imputed to the differences in other matters which had then arisen. Her Majesty's present

1309
Government had introduced into the Quarantine laws of this country such relaxations as they thought could be expediently and safely made, and they had also drawn the attention of Foreign Powers to the subject, with the view of making similar relaxations. This, he admitted, was a matter in which men's minds might be strongly impressed as to the propriety of making most extensive relaxations, with the view of ultimately getting rid of those laws; but it might not be expedient to give effect at once to these opinions, as it might be productive of evil effects on the minds of foreigners, as they might be alarmed at the extent of the relaxation, and impose such regulations with respect to our ships as would operate as much greater restrictions on trade than existed at present. They had not yet arrived at such conclusions as to be able to pronounce a decided opinion as to whether the plague was contagious or non-contagious. As far as opinion went, he believed that the majority inclined towards the former. As, however, the hon. Member had truly said, that all the relaxations which had hitherto been made in these laws had been found safe and satisfactory in their results, therefore they had every inducement to extend relaxation. As far as regarded the Quarantine laws of this country, very important relaxations had been made by the Government under the powers conceded to them by the 6th George IV. Under the provisions of that Act, an Order in Council had been issued, dated the 6th of September, 1843, embodying these alterations and relaxations. The object of them was very materially to reduce the time for Quarantine as regarded ships and persons. At the present time our system of quarantine was much less stringent than that of the other great maritime powers in the Mediterranean—he meant more especially France and Austria. He admitted that previously to last year Austria had relaxed her Quarantine laws to a greater extent than we had; but at present, both as regarded persons and ships, that description of laws in this country was less stringent than those of Austria. He would shortly refer to some facts which would show this to be the case. Ships with clean Bills of Health, under our Quarantine laws, are now admitted after a pratique of twelve days, and of persons of five days; ships with suspicious bills were admitted after twenty days, and persons after eight; ships with foul bills from twenty-five to thirty days, and persons
1310
twenty days. Under the Austrian Quarantine laws, ships with clean bills were admitted after seventeen days, persons ten days; ships with suspicious bills twenty-two, and persons eighteen; ships with four bills thirty-two days, and persons twenty-eight days. He need not remark on the French Quarantine laws, beyond observing that they were more stringent than those of Austria, and consequently of this country. He hoped that they might be able to come to an understanding in a short time, and that these Foreign Powers would be induced to come to some arrangement with this country on the subject. A proposition had been made to France, Austria, and other powers, as to having a meeting in Congress on this subject. From France a satisfactory answer had been received, and that Power had agreed to send a representative to this proposed Congress, the place of meeting of which had not yet been determined. Austria, also, two months ago, had sent a most favourable answer to the proposition. Austria said, however, that it would be better in the first place to have a medical examination, and a Report of its Quarantine officers on the subject, and it therefore asked for a postponement of the Congress for a period of six months. Of course no objection could be made to such a proposal; and although therefore there would be some delay, he entertained sanguine hopes that by the period when Parliament met again he might be enabled to announce further relaxations in the Quarantine laws. He believed that if France and Austria could be induced to adopt such regulations as were desirable that there would be no great difficulty as regarded the other powers in the Mediterranean. He would only add, that it was very desirable to keep within the line of safety; and maintaining, therefore, a due caution, he was anxious to go to farther relaxation.
Mr. Humehad heard the observations of the right hon. Gentleman with great satisfaction. Nothing could be more beneficial to the commercial relations of this country than a great relaxation, or even the entire removal, of the Quarantine laws. He hoped that the adoption of the Resolution proposed by his hon. Friend would strengthen the hands of the Government in the course which they had been pursuing.
Resolution agreed to.

THE NAVIGATION LAWS—RUSSIA.
Mr. Wawnrose to move for a statement of the

1311
equivalent advantages, if any, which have been granted to British navigation by the Russian Government, in consideration of the exemptions conceded by Her Majesty's Government to Russian ships, by the second separate Article of the Treaty of St. Petersburgh, of the 11th day of January, 1843, which reserves to Russian vessels
"The exemption from Navigation Dues during the first three years, which is enjoyed by vessels built in Russia, and belonging to Russian subjects."
He had reason to believe that concessions had been given to Russian ships under this Treaty which gave them the greatest advantages over the owners of British ships, and which, if Her Majesty's Government could have contemplated before the Treaty was signed, they never would have conceded the point. He wished to learn from the right hon. Gentleman what advantages had been given to the owners of British ships as a return for their concession of our Navigation Laws. At present he had been informed that when a British vessel entered a Russian port all the provisions on board were put under seal until the vessel sailed, and they were obliged to obtain provisions from shore; this, he regarded as a great hardship, as no such restrictions are imposed on Russian vessels in this country.
Mr. W. Gladstonewould not go into a lengthened explanation on the subject, as he feared that he could not make it intelligible to the House without appearing tedious. The hon. Member had pointed out the advantages obtained by Russian ships entering our ports in being exempted from the payment of navigation dues for three years: and he had then asked what equivalent advantages was given to British ships in Russian ports. It was the practice of this country, when making Navigation Treaties with countries whose commerce was in a backward state, to allow certain relaxations of our Navigation Laws, without claiming corresponding concessions. For instance, in our Navigation Treaties with some of the South American states, it was provided that the strict provisions of our Navigation Laws, as regarded the owners and the manning, which were refused with regard to the ships of more important commercial states, should not be enforced. In many of those Treaties it was allowed that the ships of these countries might claim the benefit of the exemptions granted by these Treaties, although the ships were not
1312
navigated in conformity with our Navigation Laws. He had stated this to show that the principle alluded to in the Navigation Treaty with Russia was not entirely new. He would now give a direct reply as to the advantages given to British vessels under this Treaty, which were not awarded to Russian vessels in our ports, and this advantage was to be considered as an equivalent for the non-claiming navigation dues for three years on Russian ships. He would reply, without going at length into the terms of the Treaty, that the privilege of equality with Russian ships, as regarded dues and treatment in all respects in Russian ports, was to be conceded to British ships coming from any part of the world. That was, that our vessels might trade from a third country, as it was termed, as well as direct from this country. For instance, that a British vessel might at once proceed to a Russian port with a cargo from Brazils, without coming to an English port. He conceived that this might be regarded as being a fully counteracting advantage. Such a concession, with regard to fees, might not be expedient as regarded the ships of a great maritime power, but in the case of a power like Russia, whose vessels must compete with us under disadvantages, he thought such a concession but proper and reasonable. As for the statement respecting the difference of treatment of British and Russian ships as regarded provisions, he could only say that he had not heard of it before; but if any such case were made known to the Government, proper representations would be made to the Russian Government on the subject. There was, however, a case which had recently been brought under the notice of the Government, and with respect to which representations had been made to the Russian Government. He alluded to the great difference in the duty on herrings imported into Russia from Sweden and Norway and from this country. He was not prepared to make a definite statement on the point, as the correspondence with the Russian Government was still being carried on. With regard to the Motion, he would not accede to it; and indeed it was evidently one which the hon. Member had brought forward with the view of raising a discussion, and the information moved for could not be embodied in any return. All the information which the hon. Member required might be gathered from the face of the Treaty itself.
Motion withdrawn.

IRISH MAGISTRACY — MR. O'DRISCOLL.
Mr. Rossrose to direct the attention of the House to the grounds of the Motion with which he intended to conclude. He could say without affectation that up to that moment he had not been able to divest himself of a sense of the deficiencies under which he laboured in speaking before men, many of whom were, or ought to be, the first men in the nation. He appeared before the House to night in a new character—in a character distasteful to his own feelings—as a public accuser, and to impugn on some points a man for whose conduct in other matters he entertained great respect. He had also to accuse a Gentleman of advanced years and infirm health, a gentleman subject to a malady, as he had heard from the hon. Member for Cork, which above all others was calculated to cloud the intellect and sour the temper. If, in those circumstances, he found a disqualification for the magistracy, and at the same time a palliation for the conduct which that gentleman had pursued, it was no wonder that he felt, on this occasion, in addressing the House more than ordinary embarrassment. He knew nothing of that gentleman, except so far as related to those circumstances which were unfortunately for himself and for the country in which he resided notorious, and he could assure the House that no consideration of a party character could have induced him to bring forward a charge against an innocent man, or one who might be presumed to be innocent, or whose offence was of a venial character. When, on a former occasion, he put a question on this subject, the noble Lord opposite (Lord Eliot) rebuked him, because he described the conduct of Mr. O'Driscoll as insulting towards the bench, and tyrannical towards the individuals who had complained against him. Was not the noble Lord aware that Mr. O'Driscoll had apologized to the bench and admitted that he had insulted them, and, if that were the case, had not he (Mr. Ross) a right to say, that Mr. O'Driscoll's conduct was insulting? He had a perfect right, and if he sat down without convincing every rational man who heard him that the conduct of Mr. O'Driscoll towards the individuals he referred to—Sullivan, Dempsey, and Dineen, was in every respect tyrannical, he deserved to be called a calumniator. In showing that such was the conduct of Mr. O'Driscoll, he should refer to documents which had been laid on the Table of the House of Lords, and to
1314
the uncontradicted statements in the public newspapers. It appeared from the complaint of Dineen, addressed to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, that a man named Sullivan, a tenant of Mr. O'Driscoll, had fallen into arrear for rent, but not of a large amount; that in consequence of the arrear a distress was levied at a time when only a half year's rent was due. The distress was levied by a man named Hurley, who was what was called the "driver" of Mr. O'Driscoll, and he swept away everything from Sullivan, his cow, his ass, and even the potatoes he had for the support of his family. He felt it impossible to describe the feeling with which he read an account of that case. The counsel asked the witness Hurley, "Did you leave the unfortunate wretches a potatoe for their starving children?" and the answer of the witness was, "They stole some." That horrified him when he read it. They stole some! The starving family were obliged to steal some of the potatoes which were their only means of subsistence. It was not enough to take the cow and the ass, but the very potatoes which were to support the man's family were taken away. But that was not all. Sullivan had passed a bill for a half year's rent to Mr. O'Driscoll, and Mr. O'Driscoll had received the money for that bill at the time of the distraint. If on other grounds the Lord Chancellor of Ireland thought fit to put Mr. O'Driscoll out of the commission of the peace, this conduct to which he was directing their attention was an element to be taken into consideration as regarded his reinstatement. Hurley the "driver," in his cross-examination stated that he believed it was customary on the estate of Mr. O'Driscoll for tenants to sign a bill for rent before it became due, and the assistant barrister, before whom the case was tried, asked Mr. Bird the agent of Mr. O'Driscoll, if Mr. O'Driscoll had the money received upon the bill in his pocket when he made the distraint? To which question Hurley answered "He had sir." He then asked if the bill was due at the time at which the distraint was levied, and he answered that it was not, but he added in answer to a question from Mr. Galway at the suggestion of Mr. O'Driscoll, that he had not distrained at the suggestion of Mr. O'Driscoll, for that gentleman allowed him to act as he pleased. Now, with respect to Dineen. His land adjoined Sullivan's; and when the distress was made, the hedge dividing the farms was broken

1315
down, in consequence of which Dineen's cow strayed in upon Sullivan's land, and was seized. The cow was afterwards driven away by some friend of Dineen's: and Mr. O'Driscoll, suspecting that Dineen knew who the man was, summoned him to his own house, in order to obtain that information. Dineen obeyed the summons, and then came one of those parlour scenes which he (Mr. Ross) had hoped had terminated for ever in Ireland with the passing of the Petit Sessions Act. Mr. O'Driscoll having summoned Dineen to his house in his own case, presented a Bible to him, and asked him to swear to a certain fact, which he did not think himself bound to do, and Mr. O'Driscoll then said he would oblige him to answer, for that he knew who took away the cow. Dineen still refused, and in consequence of that refusal he was taken into custody by Mr. O'Driscoll, and brought to the house of Mr. Galway another magistrate, but he still refused to answer, and he was then sent to Bridewell and incarcerated four days without any committal or form of authority, for such imprisonment. He was kept in gaol till the fourth day, when he was brought before the magistrates, and they considering him contumacious, he was again committed from the 4th to the 13th. On that occasion the conduct of Mr. O'Driscoll was such that his brother magistrates remonstrated with him. Dineen made a complaint of those circumstances to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland; he stated that Mr. O'Driscoll had acted as a magistrate in his own case and had illegally committed him to prison. However, before Dineen's case went to the Lord Chancellor, another case occurred in which Mr. O'Driscoll was concerned. Mr. O'Driscoll went out on a hunting party with some friends, whilst he was out hunting he heard a shot fired, and he suspected that some person was poaching in the neighbourhood. He presently saw some little boys, and he rode at them, according to their account furiously; but according to his own account very quietly; however, whether it was the character of the man which frightened them or the manner in which Mr. O'Driscoll rode at them, they ran away in terror, and Mr. O'Driscoll on his hunter pursued them. The mighty hunter continued to pursue these little boys, and one of the little creatures named Dempsey was so terrified that he run into a neighbouring cottage, and hid himself under a bed. Mr. O'Driscoll followed him to the cottage, and desired, in language which he would not
1316
repeat to the House, that the child should be given up to him. In this part of the statement there was a flat contradiction between the account which the woman who lived in the cottage and the child gave, and the accounts which Mr. O'Driscoll gave. Mr. O'Driscoll said the child was not terrified, and that he asked the woman in a calm and quiet manner to send out the child. If the child were not frightened how then did it happen, that he fell upon his knees before Mr. O'Driscoll and asked his pardon. He must have been terrified, for the woman who lived in the cottage requested the child to go out as her own children were terrified, and said "Sure he will not hurt such a little creature as you." The little boy was then sent out, and Mr. O'Driscoll made a noose with his whip, in order to drag the child along with him, and he took credit to himself that he did not double thong the boy — that he did not beat him with the whip and the handle, for he said he merely struck him with the lash of the whip; but that was not the statement of the boy himself, for according to the boy's deposition, and the deposition of the woman who witnessed the transaction, he cruelly beat the little boy. That was the woman's and the boy's account, and the magistrates believed it, for they fined Mr. O'Driscoll forty shillings—one pound for public purposes, and the other to compensate the little boy Dempsey for the injury which he had received. But what was Mr. O'Driscoll's conduct on that occasion? He said he had not been done justice to, and that if it had been any other person against whom the charge was made, there would have been only a fine of five shillings awarded; and he told the Bench, in the most insolent manner, that their conduct was partial and unjust. It was said indeed by Gentlemen on the opposite side, that he made an ample apology. It appeared, however, that it was a sullen, grumbling, half apology which he made. After Mr. O'Driscoll had conducted himself in this manner, he met a stipendiary magistrate, Mr. Gore Jones, who persuaded him to return to the Court and make an apology to the Bench. Mr. O'Driscoll did make an apology except to Mr. Fleming, one of the magistrates, who had displeased him more than the others. The Chairman, however, refused to accept of an apology, unless it included all the Bench, and Mr. O'Driscoll then tendered an apology to the whole Bench. He would there observe, that up to this period, when the Lord

1317
Chancellor cancelled his former act—a righteous act—he was desirous to speak in no terms but those of praise of the noble and learned Lord; but when the Lord Chancellor was convinced that Mr. O'Driscoll had conducted himself in a manner which unfitted him to be a magistrate, why should he afterwards reinstate him in the Commission of the Peace? Mr. O'Driscoll wished to be let down easily; when he was about to be dismissed he pressed hard to be allowed to retire quietly on the score of age and infirmities—he begged and prayed that a triumph might not be given to his enemies, and said that if allowed to sit with his brother magistrates for a short time, he would take no part in their proceedings. The Lord Chancellor, however, told him it was on public grounds his dismissal was resolved upon, and his request refused. He did not bring forward this subject for the sake of Dineen, or Dempsey, or Sullivan, but for principle; for these were dangerous times in which to tamper with the feelings of the people of Ireland. With respect to the requisition calling for the restoration of Mr. O'Driscoll to the Commission of the Peace, they all knew, at least those who were acquainted with Ireland knew, that nothing was more easy than to get signatures to such a requisition by sending the baliff or agent round with an intimation that the landlord of the tenants amongs whom it might be sent was desirous that they should sign it. Nothing was more easy than to get up a requisition, but if that requisition was sufficient to obtain the restoration of Mr. O'Driscoll, then he would undertake to say that he could get a requistion calling for his dismissal signed by a 100 names for every one which was attached to the repuisition for his restoration. There was a strong feeling abroad that nothing but direct influence of the description to which he alluded on the tenantry could have obtained that requisition. If Mr. O'Driscoll had been deemed by the Chancellor unfit to continue in the Commission of the Peace some time since, what had occurred to alter that unfitness. He was not popular; but unpopularity appeared to be a good ground of promotion and advancement with this Government. It was only the other day that Mr. O'Brien, one of the most unpopular men in Ireland, who was distinguished for nothing but the most virulent attacks on the man who was the idol of the Irish people, had received an appointment. He lamented the turn which this affair had
1318
taken. It excited the hopes of one party, and depressed another. It was the duty of the Government to hold the balance fairly between all parties, and inspire the people with confidence in the justice of those in authority, and not to pursue a course which would destroy all confidence in the Government, and alienate the hearts of the people beyond the hope of recovery. The hon. Member concluded by moving,
"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying for the removal of Mr. Alexander O'Driscoll from the Commission of the Peace."
Mr. Dillon Brownerose to second the Motion. He would ask the Government if the restoration of Mr. O'Driscoll to the magistracy was calculated to promote tranquillity in Ireland, or give satisfaction to the people? If Mr. O'Driscoll had not been restored, would the most violent supporters of the Government have blamed the Lord Chancellor? This gentleman, who was restored to the Commission of the Peace, had violated the laws of the country, and outraged the liberty of the subject, by a violent assault upon an unoffending individual. Mr. O'Driscoll had been guilty of a gross contempt of court. He said that justice had not been done him by the Bench. Certainly it had not, for the case ought to have been sent to the assizes. Because Mr. O'Driscoll was splenatic and irritable, that was no reason why he should be allowed to violate the law. The opinion of the public was that Mr. O'Driscoll was restored to the Bench either as a criminal or a madman; either a man who had committed grave crimes, or one who was subject to a malady that rendered the administration of justice in his hands a delusion and a mockery. And why was this gentleman restored? in consequence of a sanatory certificate, or bill of health, signed by 2,900 non-medical persons of his restoration to magisterial capacity. If he chose to say that in consequence of ill health he had attended repeal meetings last year, but that he was now restored to health, would the Government reinstate him in the Commission of the Peace. This was one of those farces in the administration of justice in Ireland; which, however, were attended with such melancholy consequences. He contended that it was not the part of a gentleman to strike any one; certainly not to strike his inferior; and if the person whom Mr. O'Driscoll assaulted had been a man, and had retaliated, he might have slain Mr. O'Driscoll and been hanged, or

1319
at least transported, in consequence of the intemperance of this man who had been restored. He was sorry that the noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland, had deviated from the professions of impartiality which he had made upon entering upon his career of office, and countenanced measures which were calculated to alienate the feelings and destroy the confidence of the Irish people, instead of conciliating their affections, and impressing them with respect for the administration of justice. He would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, at the head of the Government, who would, he believed, if unembarrassed by party, be more inclined to do justice to Ireland, and for whose opinions he had a greater respect than for any other Member of the Government, whether the restoration of this man to the Commission of the Peace was calculated to remove the dissatisfaction and discontent which prevailed in Ireland.
Lord Eliotwas far from denying that there might be circumstances in which it would be the duty of that House to address Her Majesty to remove a Magistrate from the Commission of the Peace, but he thought that when a Member called upon the House thus to interfere with the Prerogative of the Crown, exercised by its highest Law Officer, the Keeper of the Great Seal, he ought to be prepared to show that the power had been exercised either corruptly or mischievously. The removal and the restoration of Mr. O'Driscoll were judicial acts which had not been done without mature deliberation by his right hon. Friend, the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, to whose talent, application, and attainments, he believed the whole Bar of Ireland did justice. He (Lord Eliot) did not stand up as the apologist of Mr. O'Driscoll. On the contrary, he frankly admitted, in the fullest sense of the term, that the acts for which that Gentleman had been removed by his right hon. Friend were highly blameable; but he said that the case had been too highly coloured on the other side; and although he did not assert that Dineen was less credible than Mr. O'Driscoll, yet he maintained that upon points on which the magistrates expressed no opinion, Mr. O'Driscoll's testimony was at least equally entitled to belief. And yet the hon. Gentleman opposite entirely overlooked it, although, in some particulars, it was confirmed by the Bench of Magistrates. It appeared that the boy Dempsey was not himself anxious
1320
to make any complaint; and it also appeared that his person did not present any bruises or marks of blood as if he had been severely injured. Mr. O'Driscoll himself declared, that he had struck the boy with his whip but once; although, on the other side it was stated that he had struck him three times. For the assault the magistrates fined him 40 s. and costs, against which Mr. O'Driscoll remonstrated in very unbecoming terms, he admitted; but his apology was accepted by his brother magistrates, and, therefore, it would appear that they did not consider his offence to be one of such enormity as was represented by the hon. Gentleman. And those magistrates are amongst the persons who petitioned the Lord Chancellor for his restoration, on the ground that he might with advantage be restored to the Commission of the Peace, which he had held for many years with credit to himself and benefit to the public. The hon. Gentleman complained of his having laid great stress upon the state of Mr. O'Driscoll's health. He certainly had stated it as one of the grounds assigned by the Lord Chancellor—none of which would have been sufficient of itself — but which, taken altogether, amounted to a justification of his removal. Such was the representation made to the Lord Chancellor for him to take into his consideration. Mr. O'Driscoll was not connected with persons of wealth or of power, but was a gentleman of ancient family, who had lived for many years constantly on his estate, dispensing charity, and had acted for thirty years as a magistrate. Under such circumstances, he trusted that the House would come to the conclusion that the course that had been taken, though Gentlemen opposite might not, under similar circumstances, think would be deemed the best and wisest to pursue, yet, on the part of his right hon. Friend, was one which the Government sanctioned as desirable to adopt, and as being in accordance with the wishes of a large portion of the community.
Mr. R. More O'Ferrallremarked, that the question before the House was, that an Address should be presented to Her Majesty for the dismissal of Mr. O'Driscoll from the Magistracy. He thought that the hon. Member for Belfast had had satisfactory grounds to show that Mr. O'Driscoll had been properly dismissed, and improperly restored. The noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland had risen for the purpose of replying, and he took it for granted that the

1321
object of the noble Lord in rising was to show that Mr. O'Driscoll had been properly restored. He now, then, appealed to the House—to every Gentleman in that House, who had heard the statement of the noble Lord—whether he had alleged a single ground for the restoration of Mr. O'Driscoll. There was an endeavour here to throw the responsibility of his restoration upon the Lord Chancellor of Ireland. He said of the Lord Chancellor, that there never was a man who held office in that country of higher character, or who deserved more the respect and confidence of every gentleman in that country. They had to recollect that the Lord Chancellor had gone to Ireland with English notions—that he supposed that every man who was a magistrate in Ireland was suited for the discharge of the functions of that office; that he was fitted, by his temper, education, habits, and moderation, for a seat on the Bench; and that, if such a man were betrayed into a momentary forgetfulness of himself, it might not be an unfitting exercise of mercy to restore him to the position which he had lost. So far, however, was this from being the case, that they should recollect that in Ireland some of the greatest evils that afflicted that country had arisen from the misconduct of those entrusted with the administration of justice, and from many of the magistrates themselves had arisen those very crimes which that House were so often called upon to legislate against. In such a state the Lord Chancellor required years of experience before he could deal with the circumstances that surrounded him. He ought to have been in treated not to proceed until he had acquired information from those connected with the country. He said that the Lord Chancellor ought to have been referred to some one connected with Ireland, and having shown to such person the grounds for dismissal; he was sure that the Chancellor would have been recommended, if he were anxious for the peace of Ireland, and to maintain respect for the law in that country, not to restore such a person to the Commission of the Peace. He ventured to say that there was not one man on the other side of the House who would not, under such circumstances, have given this advice. He himself had frequently been asked by gentlemen in this country why it was that the peasantry had their combinations—why it was that they entered into illegal associations to commit crime? His answer was, they would find a reason for
1322
these things in the case of Mr. O'Driscoll. The right hon. Gentleman, the First Lord of the Treasury, had appointed a Commission, for the purpose of inquiring into the relations of landlords and tenants in Ireland. It was a most useful Act. It was done, he was sure, in perfect sincerity, and if the right hon. Gentleman's intentions were carried out, he was convinced it would be attended with most useful results, and from that Commission many cases similar to the present would be brought forward. The right hon. Gentleman recapitulated the facts of the case, and continued. One of the cattle of Dineen, a neighbour of Sullivan's, was allowed to go on the farm of the unfortunate Sullivan. O'Driscoll, seeing the cattle on the land, put the law shortly in force—he took away the cow for the purpose of selling it for Sullivan's rent. He was taking away the property of one man to pay rent for a farm with which he had nothing to do; the property of a man who had nothing to do with O'Driscoll and nothing to do with Sullivan. It was a natural feeling for any man, even supposing him to have a knowledge of the law, but how much more so for one ignorant of the law, that he should feel incensed when he saw his cattle, that had strayed upon the land of the other, seized upon and appropriated to the payment of rent with which he had nothing to do. He might, to be sure, have resorted to a replevin, but how was he to go through all the processes of recovering his own property at the end of two or three months? He took the law into his own hands, and he acted as the magistrate afterwards did in his awn case. Let them, then, see what had happened. Dineen was brought by one magistrate before another and committed to Bridewell, and for his conduct in this proceeding Mr. O'Driscoll was dismissed — and then restored! What do the peasantry say to these things? Dineen was unjustly treated, Sullivan harshly, and O'Driscoll has been convicted of illegal conduct and tyrannical proceedings, and yet he has been restored to the Commission of the Peace without any reason whatever having been given for his restoration. There, then, was the origin of illegal combinations, and of those crimes against which punishments were enacted. The poor man seeing that there is no law nor justice for him, and sometimes when it chanced that law and justice combined to punish the rich, yet that immediately afterwards, and without rhyme or reason, the rich man was restored to his position, the

1323
poor believed that there was no justice for them. Various scenes of this kind occurred, and finding them to occur, the peasantry said, "Let us all combine together—let us bind ourselves by oaths to resist tyranny, and then we may have a chance to get justice." That this was the cause of these combinations, to suppress which the Government now sought to pass one of the most monstrous acts, and a more monstrous act had never been passed. If the Government wished to put down illegal combinations, they must deal out equal justice to the rich and to the poor, and if a magistrate transgressed the law, he should not without a sufficient reason be restored. He asked the House if the noble Lord had established a single mitigatory circumstance in favour of Mr. O'Driscoll, upon whom, no one would be disposed to press hardly considering his time of life. What, he asked, had been alleged in favour of this Conservative Catholic? of this great acquisition to the Conservative party? What do they state of him? "Though a Roman Catholic." The Conservative friends of this Gentleman say—"Though a Catholic!" He said that the Roman Catholic who sought for such support, on such terms, must be the basest of men living. "Though a Catholic" it seemed that he might be considered a loyal man. Such was the spirit in which the Catholic was spoken of, that he might be actually regarded as a loyal man, "though a Roman Catholic." The words of the memorial were, "Though a Roman Catholic, he never affected to conceal his sentiments." Meaning that Roman Catholics, as a body, did conceal their sentiments. And then it said, "he was, nevertheless, looked up to by persons of every creed." Yes, nevertheless his being a Roman Catholic, "as being entitled, on account of his integrity, to their confidence." And it seemed that Mr. O'Driscoll gave them no reason to regret their confidence, as he showed himself at all times ready to act against the unfortunate people. Any man in the position of a magistrate was bound to protect the poor; but for a Roman Catholic—he who knew what was the value of the poor—who must be aware of the sufferings they had endured for the sake of their religion—for such a man, a Roman Catholic too, to be found amongst the enemies and the oppressors of the poor—was doubly disgraceful to him, both by reason of his persuasion and his position.
Sir James Grahamwas anxious to address
1324
the House on this subject. They were not now trying the question as to whether Mr. O'Driscoll was a good or a bad landlord. Neither were they trying any question as to his religion or his politics; and he must, in passing, observe that the hon. Gentleman could not have read the memorial with attention, for he seemed to have conceived a wrong impression, as to the expression, "Though a Roman Catholic;" for as he understood the sentence, it meant this, that though Mr. O'Driscoll was a Roman Catholic, yet perfect confidence was placed in him by others, without reference to creed. As to the question that was before the House, it appeared to him to lie within a very narrow compass. The facts were undisputed. There might be palliation on the one, or exaggeration on the other; but it appeared from the statement of his noble Friend the Secretary for Ireland, that the conduct of Mr. O'Driscoll, which led to his being deprived of the Commission of the Peace, was, in the main, indefensible. Mr. O'Driscoll had arrested a person without a warrant, and had also beaten the boy, and still more, on being fined by the Bench, he denied, in terms of discourtesy, that justice had been done to him. In all these transactions the conduct of Mr. O'Driscoll was indefensible, and he thought that the Lord Chancellor was right in removing Mr. O'Driscoll from the Commission of the Peace. He begged of the House to consider that the removal of Magistrates in Ireland was of a twofold character. It may be either judicial, as relating to the conduct of a person as a Magistrate, or it may be a political act on the part of the Lord Chancellor, in which latter case it is more Ministerial than judicial. He thought it might be seen from the representations of this case that the decisions of the Lord Chancellor upon it were purely judicial, and not in the slightest degree of a political character. The removal was a judicial act, and in the restoration to the Commission there was neither directly nor indirectly an application made of a political character. The Lord Chancellor, when he decided on the removal of Mr. O'Driscoll, as well as when he determined upon restoring him, was not actuated by any political consideration. A compliment had been paid, and no one he was sure would think unjustly, to the judicial character of his right hon. Friend, Sir Edward Sugden, to whom might truly be applied those words of the poet upon another judge—

1325
"In Israel's courts ne'er sat an Abethdin,
With more discerning eyes, or hands more clean,
Unbrib'd, unsought, the wretched to redress;
Swift of dispatch, and easy of access."
The Lord Chancellor had considered, under all the circumstances, and upon receiving a memorial signed by the Lord Lieutenant of the county, a considerable number of the gentry, and by three thousand persons without distinction of political opinions or religious belief, that in mercy Mr. O'Driscoll could properly be restored to the Commission of the Peace. The question was, had or had not Sir R. Sugden acted justly or properly, or unjustly or improperly? He could not think that, viewing all the circumstances of the case, that they would pass a censure on the Lord Chancellor of Ireland. He was the last person who would wish to see the least taint cast upon the administration of justice in Ireland. He thought that the even tenor of justice was indispensable, in the present unhappy and divided state of that country. He was sure that it was his desire to maintain justice, and that it should be administered with care and caution. He admitted that he thought this subject a very proper one for the House to consider. But believing that the Lord Chancellor of Ireland had acted properly in all that he had done in regard to it, both in the dismissal of Mr. O'Driscoll and in his subsequent restoration to the Bench, and being quite willing to take his share in the responsibility of those acts, he still confidently appealed to a favourable decision from the House on the present occasion.
Mr. Sheil: The reference made by the right hon. Baronet to Dryden's celebrated lines is unfortunate—for if Ashley Cooper was eminent for his merits as a judge, as ex-statesman, as the leader of the Cabal, he has incurred the censure of history, and may be quoted as a proof that judicial virtue may be associated with political imperfections of no ordinary kind. Sir Edward Sugden to whom the right hon. Baronet has thought it judicious to apply the passage from the great poet, is a sorry politician indeed. The judicial duties of the Lord Chancellor are so distinct from his political functions, and the qualifications for their discharge are so different, that it has been often and not unwisely suggested, that they ought not to be associated, and that to the same individual questions of law and of public policy ought no longer to be
1326
submitted. A man who has passed the better part of his life in Lincoln's Inn, whose political horizon is almost as bounded as the prospect which he surveys from that domicile of conveyancers and of special pleaders; who has for twenty years, perhaps, expended twelve hours a day in the minute disquisitions of an almost scholastic profession, is nearly disqualified for the great functions which are suddenly imposed upon him, upon his elevation to the office to which so much political power is attached as that of Lord Chancellor of Ireland. Transferred from the contentions merely forensic, to the tempestuous agitation of Irish politics, he must be utterly bewildered and at a loss what to do. He must feel the utmost difficulty in regulating his course, and instead of acting on great principles and looking at high and conspicuous beacons, it is, if I may venture so to say, by what lawyers call the scintilla juris, that he is likely to steer his way. He is, as I have already observed an excellent judge, most anxious to do justice between man and man. But when he comes to arbitrate between contending parties, he is rash, precipitate and capricious, and affords too much reason to lament that with good intentions, so little capacity for their realization is combined. In dismissing and restoring magistrates, Sir Edward Sugden performs a political and not a judicial duty. The contrary has been alleged by the right hon. Baronet, but surely the right hon. Baronet will not maintain that, in depriving gentlemen of the Commission of the Peace for attending repeal meetings, he has not acted as a politician, and as a minister of the Crown, entrusted with executive power. Men of the highest respectability have been removed from the list of magistrates, merely for no other reason than their expression of an opinion favourable to the restoration of an Irish Parliament, while Mr. Alexander O'Driscoll has been restored to the Bench, under circumstances which Her Majesty's Ministers have found it more than difficult to excuse. How stand the facts? Mr. O'Driscoll distraining for rent due by his tenant Sullivan. He seises his potatoes, the only sustenance of the poor man's family, and causes several hundred cart loads of that miserable food to be conveyed to his own haggard. He distrains a second time. Sullivan's field is contiguous to Dineen's. Dineen's cattle stray through a gap into Sullivan's land, and Hurly, O'Driscoll's driver, seizes them for Sullivan's rent; they are rescued by a man whom Hurly

1327
does not know. O'Driscoll, acting in his own case, issues a summons signed by himself as a magistrate, and causes Dineen to be brought before him. He was wrong, says Sir Edward Sugden, in acting in his own case. We shall presently see what sort of case it was, but the phrase employed by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland was peculiarly mitigated, and indicates far less resentment than was to be expected from him. But does O'Driscoll content himself with issuing a summons? He causes Dineen to be confined in a Bridewell without a commitment, or a legal authority of any kind. It was observed, indeed, that it was Mr. Galway who had ordered Dineen to be imprisoned. But it is beyond controversy that it was at O'Driscoll's instance that this outrage was committed, and that O'Driscoll accompanied the police, in whose custody Dineen went to prison. Dineen was two days afterwards brought before the magistrates at Petty Sessions, and in the investigation of the case, what appeared? That Mr. O'Driscoll distrained for rent,—he had the amount in his pocket. You have issued a Commission to enquire into the relations of landlord and tenant in Ireland; you have expressed deep sympathy with the unfortunate occupiers of the soil, and the Lord Chancellor of Ireland with such facts before him, contents himself with stating that Mr. O'Driscoll was in the wrong, but that Dineen must be left to his remedy at law. At the very time that the enquiry into these facts was going on, another incident occurred, or rather another series of outrages commenced, at which even Sir Edward Sugden for a moment became indignant, although his virtuous anger underwent a rapid process of refrigeration. O'Driscoll himself, in his account of these transactions, has unwittingly presented to us a picture, which it would be difficult to exaggerate. He says, that when he was out hunting he saw a crowd of people and that one of them discharged a gun; the crowd ran away—O'Driscoll followed a boy, who sought refuge in the house of a poor woman, who begged O'Driscoll to have mercy on him. O'Driscoll insisted that the boy should be brought forward, and there being some delay, he himself, with his whip, coiled round the boy's neck, then dragged him out of the house. The boy fell on his knees, and as was sworn by the boy, and by a girl, who corroborated his testimony in every particular, he was cruelly horsewhipped by O'Driscoll. The case was brought before the Petty Sessions
1328
—Mr. O'Driscoll was fined by his brother magistrates, a sum of 1l. and charged 1l. for costs. Whereupon Mr. O'Driscoll broke out into a most vehement denunciation of the magistrates challenged the whole Bench to fight him, and gave the chairman to understand, that he would transmit to him a three cornered note. When the attention of the Lord Chancellor was drawn to these facts he called for an explanation, O'Driscoll made light of the matter, called the boy a poaching urchin, and relied on his being a Conservative Catholic. Sir Edward Sugden dismissed O'Driscoll. But if he acted with propriety in dismissing him, for his restoration it follows that he deserves the most unqualified condemnation. What fact occurred, what single circumstance was presented to the consideration of Sir Edward Sugden, by which he ought to have been induced to reverse his decision? Did the memorial, which was signed in favour of Mr. O'Driscoll, affect in the least degree the merits of the case? Was a single fact disputed? The memorial was signed by Lord Kingston. But Lord Kingston lives at a distance of thirty miles from Skibereen and had no knowledge of the circumstances. Did a single Roman Catholic clergyman sign the memorial, or was it signed by any one man, who can be supposed to have any knowledge of the feelings of the people in the neighbourhood, where Mr. O'Driscoll exercised his magisterial functions? It is perfectly manifest from Mr. O'Driscoll's own statement, that the memorial was got up through the instrumentality of Mr. O'Driscoll's Conservative associates in the county of Cork, and that his restoration was made by them a party object. The memorialists do not dispute the truth of any one of the charges adduced against Mr. O'Driscoll. Those charges have indeed been extenuated in another place, and Lord Wharncliffe is reported to have stated, that an allowance is to be made for a man, who beats a boy in the excitement of sport. The love of sport is English, but the assault upon a child is utterly the reverse, and I believe that there is scarce a man in this House who would not give up his hounds for ever, than act the part which Mr. O'Driscoll has pursued. Indeed my Lord Wharncliffe is the only individual of any weight by which this palliation for the conduct of Mr. O'Driscoll has been suggested; and a defence of this kind instead of reconciling the people of Cork to the restoration of Mr. O'Driscoll, is but an aggravation of the offence committed

1329
by the Government in their regard. Sir Edward Sugden does not appear to have taken the sentiments of the people, for whom Mr. O'Driscoll is recommissioned to administer justice, into any account. What must be the feelings of the peasantry, when they see lifted up to the Bench from the degradation to which he had been consigned, and by the very hand which had struck him down, a man, guilty towards his tenants of the most monstrous oppression, convicted of a gross outrage upon a poor child, and who had consummated his offences against humannity by a gladiatorial exhibition in the Court, where the Chancellor of Ireland has thought it becoming to appoint him to preside. Mr. O'Driscoll has been reappointed because he is a Catholic Conservative, but in point of policy as well as justice, a worse step could hardly have been adopted. But if the Lord Chancellor of Ireland has neglected his duty, let us not be forgetful of ours—and let the House of Commons to whom the Lord Chancellor of Ireland is responsible, interpose to rescue the magisterial bench from the discredit which must result to it from the restoration of a person so utterly unworthy of the trust so rashly confided to him, as the gentleman whom Sir Edward Sugden has selected as an object of favour of which by his political sympathies the only plausible solution is supplied.
Mr. Bellewagreed with the right hon. Baronet opposite, that this Motion could not be properly supported unless it was intended to accuse the Lord Chancellor of corrupt or improper conduct. He distinctly charged the Lord Chancellor with improper conduct in this case; and Her Majesty's Government, if they lent their sanction and authority to such a course of proceeding as had recently been going on in Ireland, in regard to the magistracy, would be utterly disabling themselves from carrying on the administration of the affairs of that country,
The House divided:—Ayes 59; Noes 92: Majority 33.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Brotherton, J.

Aldam, W.

Byng, rt. hn. G. S.

Archbold, R.

Chapman, B.

Arundel and Surrey, Earl of

Colborne, hn. W. N. R.

Collett, J.

Bannerman, A.

Craig, W. G.

Bellew, R. M.

Dawson, hon. T. V.

Bowes, J.

Denison, W. J.

Bowring, Dr.

Duncan, G.

1330

Duncombe, T.

Pechell, Capt.

Dundas, Ad.

Plumridge, Capt.

Esmonde, Sir T.

Ponsonby, hn. C. F. A.

Forster, M.

Rawdon, Col.

Fox, C. R.

Scott, R.

Gore, hon. R.

Sheil, rt. hn. R. L.

Hastie, A.

Shelburne, Earl of

Hawes, B.

Smith, J. A.

Hollond, R.

Smith, rt. hon. R. V.

Howard, P. H.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Howard, Sir R.

Strutt, E.

Hutt, W.

Tancred, H. W.

M'Taggart, Sir J.

Thornely, T.

Mitcalfe, H.

Villiers, hon. C.

Mitchell, T. A.

Wakley, T.

Morris, D.

Walker, R.

Murphy, F. S.

Wawn, J. T.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Wyse, T.

O'Connell, M. J.

Yorke, H. R.

O'Conor Don

O'Ferrall, R. M.

TELLERS.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Ross, D. R.

Ord, W.

Browne, R. D.

List of the NOES.

A'Court, Captain

Fuller, A. E.

Adderley, C. B.

Gaskell, J. Miles

Archdall, Capt. M.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Arkwright, G.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Astell, W.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Bankes, G.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Greene, T.

Barneby, J.

Grogan, E.

Barrington, Visct.

Hamilton, J. H.

Baskerville, T. B. M.

Herbert, hon. S.

Bateson, T.

Hodgson, R.

Beckett, W.

Hope, hon. C.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Hope, G. W.

Beresford, Major

Hornby, J.

Blackburne, J. I.

Hussey, T.

Blackstone, W. S.

Ingestre, Visct.

Boldero, H. G.

Jermyn, Earl

Bowles, Ad.

Jones, Capt.

Broadley, H.

Kemble, H.

Bruce, Lord E.

Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Lennox, Lord A.

Buckley, E.

Lincoln, Earl of

Bunbury, T.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Chelsea, Visct.

Maclean, D.

Clerk, Sir G.

Masterman, J.

Cockburn, rt. hn. Sir G.

Maxwell, hon. J. P.

Colvile, C. R.

Meynell, Capt.

Corry, rt. hon. H.

Milnes, R. M.

Cripps, W.

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

Damer, hon. Col.

Patten, J. W.

Darby, G.

Peel, rt. hn. Sir R.

Denison, E. B.

Peel, J.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Pringle, A.

Douglas, J. D. S.

Rolleston, Col.

Eaton, R. J.

Round, J.

Eliot, Lord

Rous, hon. Capt.

Farnham, E. B.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Flower, Sir J.

Sheppard, T.

Forbes, W.

Smith, rt. hn. T. B. C.

Forman, T. S.

Somerset, Lord G.

Fremantle, rt. hn. Sir T.

Sotheron, T. H. S.

1331

Spooner, R.

Trench, Sir F. W.

Stanley, Lord

Trotter, J.

Stuart, H.

Wodehouse, E.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Taylor, E.

TELLERS.

Thesiger, Sir F.

Young, J.

Tollemache, hn. F. J.

Baring, H.

House adjourned at one o'clock.

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—1a. Municipal Corporations; Land Tax Commissioners Names.
Reported. — Loan Societies; Western Australia; Parish Constables; Soap Allowances; Unlawful Oaths (Ireland); Sudbury Disfranchisement.
3a. and passed:—Colonial Postage; Assessed Taxes Composition, etc.; Detatched Parts of Counties.
Private.—3a. and passsed:—Bowyer's Estate.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Earl of Radnor, from Old Killpatrick, and several other places, against Dissenters Chapels Bill.—From Orkney, and numerous other places, for Legalizing Marriages solemnized by Presbyterian and Dissenting Ministers in Ireland.—From Aberdeen, for Abolition of Religious Tests in Scotch Universities.