Sitting of 11 July 1845

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN. For West Suffolk, Philip Bennett, Jun., Esq.
BILLS. Public.—1°. Turnpike Roads (Scotland); Games and Wagers; Jurors' Books (Ireland); Bail in Error;

395
Turnpike Acts Continuance; Loan Societies; Highway Rates; Militia Ballots Suspension; Stock in Trade.
2°. Church Building Act Amendment; Grand Jury Presentments (Dublin); Spirits (Ireland); Excise Duties on Spirits (Channel Islands); Unclaimed Stock and Dividend.
Reported.—Commons Inclosure; Drainage of Lands; Lunatic Asylums (Ireland); Merchant Seamen.
3°. and passed:—Bankruptcy Declaration.
Private.—1°. North Walsham School Estate.
2°. Rothwell Gaol.
Reported.—Gravesend and Rochester Railway.
3°. and passed:—Guildford, Chichester, and Portsmouth Railway; Brighton and Chichester Railway (Portsmouth Extension); Direct London and Portsmouth Railway; Lady's Island and Tacumshin Embankment.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. Balfour, from Provost, and others, of Haddington, in favour of Universities (Scotland) Bill.—By Mr. S. Wortley, from Parramatta, for Repeal of certain Acts relating to the Colony of New South Wales.—By Mr. Borthwick, from Churwell, for Inquiry into the Anatomy Act.—By Mr. Heathcote, from several places, in favour of the Ten Hours System in Factories.—By Mr. T. Duncombe, from Henry Walker, Chemist, 59 St. John Street, for Inquiry into the Treatment of Lunatics, etc.—From Governors of York Lunatic Asylum, for Alteration of Lunatics Bill.—By Mr. Bunbury, from Apothecaries of Carlow, for Alteration of Physic and Surgery Bill.—By Mr. Balfour, from Provost, and others, of Haddington, for Postponement of Poor Law Amendment (Scotland) Bill.—By Sir J. Y. Buller, from David Phillips, and Jaspar Parrott, for Investigating Truth of Evidence of J. Parrott, before the Poor Law Medical Relief Committee (1844).

LUNATICS.
Lord Ashleymoved the Order of the Day for the House to go into Committee on the Lunatics' Bill.
Mr. T. Duncombedeprecated the further progress of the Bill at so late a period of the Session. His objection to the principle of the Bill was so great, that he would move its postponement until the next Session.
Sir J. Graham, addressing the House, said, that the Government had intended to bring in a Bill similar to that before the House; but knowing the great interest which his noble Friend (Lord Ashley) had taken in the subject, and his perfect acquaintance with it, they had gladly handed over the matter to his charge, but they did not for an instant wish to get rid of the responsibility themselves; on the contrary, the Government took upon themselves the whole responsibility of the measure, which they felt would be of great public benefit. He hoped the House would give its sanction to a measure of so much importance, even although it had been unavoidably delayed to a late period of the Session.
Order of the Day read.
Lord Ashleymoved, "that the Speaker do now leave the chair."
Mr. T. Duncombesaid, he had to present a petition complaining that a man, named William White, a poor brother of
396
the Charter-house, had been detained in a private lunatic assylum for nine years, although he had certificates of four surgeons that he was of sound mind, and not a proper person to be so confined.
Lord Ashleysincerely hoped the hon. Member for Finsbury, now that he stated the object he had in view in opposing the Bill, would allow the House to go through the preliminary forms, so that the measure might be fully and dispassionately considered and discussed in Committee. He also hoped that nothing which might fall from the hon. Gentleman or any other hon. Member would tempt him to infringe the rules of the House, or induce him to reply in any way that exhibited aught in the nature of irritation or ill-feeling. When he heard the hon. Gentleman say that the Commissioners, in the discharge of their duties, and particularly in their examinations, had conducted themselves with arrogance and intolerance, he must take leave to say that the hon. Member had been most grievously misinformed by those who had made such a statement to him. He would ask him to consult his own heart and his own feelings, and if in his heart and his feelings he found that it would be possible for him, in so solemn an inquiry—an inquiry of so delicate a nature, and affecting, as it did, the happiness of human beings — to behave with arrogance and intolerance, then he (Lord Ashley) would admit that his brother Commissioners and himself were open to the charge. But he would undertake to prove to the House that nothing could be more inaccurate than such a charge. It was quite true that the hon. Gentleman gave him notice that it was his intention to bring under the consideration of the House the case of Captain Digby. He had stated to him in private that if it were necessary for the Commissioners to be put upon their defence, and to show their reasons why they could not authorize the liberation of that party, he feared, from the documents which would be produced, that the case would issue in a painful result. He had hoped that he should not have to weary the House by any further statements; and he felt that he was acting with exceeding boldness when he brought forward this measure. He had hoped that his preliminary observations would have been sufficient; but since it was the will of the House that he should make a further communication on this matter, he would request

397
them to receive the explanation he was now about to offer. It would be necessary, in the first place, that he should describe the constitution of the Commission, and retrace the history of legislation upon this subject. In 1828, Mr. Gordon, then a Member of this House, introduced a Bill which afterwards became the Act under which the operations of the Commission were conducted, and was, in fact, the law under which their operations were conducted up to the present time. If the House would allow him, he would give a short view of the state of the law by which private asylums were regulated previously to 1828, in order that they might see how they had gone on progressively improving in their legislation, and how they might continue to go on progressively improving; for this was a difficult and delicate question, and no step could be taken without deliberation, and every such step must be justified by past experience. Previously to 1828 private asylums were regulated by the Act of Parliament passed in the 14th year of George III. That was a most important Act, but very defective. There was no power contained in it for punishing an offence, not even for revoking or refusing a license. There was a great laxity in the signature of certificates, one only being deemed sufficient, and that one might be and often was signed by a person not duly qualified, or the proprietor of the madhouse (in his medical capacity), to which the alleged lunatic was consigned. Houses licensed under that Act were not required to be visited more than once a year. There was no power under the Act to discharge any patient who might prove to be of sound mind. Licenses could be granted only on one day in the year. Pauper lunatics were sent to the madhouse and admitted without medical certificates, and no return of pauper patients was ever made to the Board. No plans were required of houses previously to the granting of licenses; no returns of the cases of lunatics kept singly in houses for gain; and, moreover, no visits of medical persons to the patients. That, in fact, was the state of the law from 1777 down to 1828, when Mr. Gordon introduced a Bill which remedied these defects. That Act gave power to the Board to revoke or refuse a license. Sundry offences were specified in the Act, not specified in the old Act, which might be punished as misdemeanors. Separate visits by two medical
398
men were required; and these gentlemen were to be members of one of the three authorized medical bodies. These visits must have been paid to the alleged lunatic within a period of not more than seven clear days before his admission into a licensed house. Every licensed house was to be visited at least four times in the year (many of them not having been visited at all under the old law), and in practice now some of them were visited oftener. A power was also given for discharging any patient who might, after due medical investigation of the case, be considered of sound mind. Licenses could be granted on any of the quarterly boards: and certificates were necessary for the admission of pauper lunatics, as well as returns of them regularly made, and lists of them kept, so that each pauper was seen, and, when requisite, examined on each visit of the Commissioners. Plans of all houses were required, and also of such alterations as might, from time to time, be made therein; and returns of patients in single houses under certain well-guarded provisions for insuring secrecy, were to be annually made to the clerk. Then, each house, containing more than a hundred patients, was to have a resident medical officer; and where the number was less than a hundred, was to be visited by a medical person twice a week. Mr. Gordon's Act was passed for three years, and the Commission was appointed for one year, to be renewed annually. That Commission consisted of several unpaid Members, and five physicians, and it was provided that these five physicians should be paid at the rate of one guinea an hour for their attendance, with power to carry into effect the new Act within the metropolitan district. This Act and Commission were renewed in 1832, and two barristers were added on the same terms. About 1834, after having been a member of the Commission, he (Lord Ashley) became the chairman of the Commission, which duty he had discharged up to the present time. Now, this Act was renewed periodically from three years to three years, until the year 1842, when his noble Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord G. Somerset) brought in a Bill for three years, the object of which was greatly to extend the operation of the metropolitan Commissioners. Let the House see how that Act extended the duties devolved upon these Commissioners. It extended

399
their duties over the whole surface of England and Wales, instead of confining them to the metropolitan district and a radius of seven miles round it, and directed that all asylums licensed by the justices should be visited twice a year by two Commissioners (a physician and a barrister), who were to examine the licenses and certificates, and inquire and report as to restraint, classification, occupation, and amusements. They were also to report on the condition of paupers on admission, diet, and so forth. They were bound to make entries as to particular patients in patients' book, and empowered to liberate patients in provincial asylums after two visits. The Act likewise directed a physician and barrister (members of the Commission) to visit county asylums once a year, and make inquiries and reports similar to those which he had already specified. Then, for the purpose of discharging any increase in their duties, the number of physicians had been augmented to seven, and of barristers to four. And it was also provided by the Act that the Commissioners should receive at the rate of five guineas a day during the performance of their duties in the provinces. Such were the provisions of the Act passed in the fifth and sixth of Her present Majesty's reign; and immediately after its enactment the Commissioners entered upon their enlarged duties. Now, let the House observe what were the duties which devolved upon the Commissioners. The result of the passing of that Act was, that in each year the establishments to be visited by them were seventeen county asylums, or asylums brought within the scope of the 9th Geo. IV. (the Act of 1828), being twelve county asylums, and five county and subscription asylums; eleven asylums of a mixed character, maintained partly by subscription, and partly by income from charitable foundations; and two military and naval hospitals. These would be visited once a year. Ninety-nine houses licensed by justices in session, fifty-nine of them receiving private patients only, and the remaining forty paupers and private patients, would be visited twice a year. Then, in the metropolitan district, there were thirty-seven houses licensed by the metropolitan Commissioners, thirty-three of which received private patients only, and the remainder (four large establishments)both pauper and private patients. These would be visited
400
four times in the course of a year. So that in the whole, 166 houses, spread over a large surface, were to be visited by the Commissioners, some of them once, others twice, and some four times a year. The result of these investigations was a voluminous Report from the Commissioners, which was presented to the House towards the close of the last Session of Parliament; and he very much feared that the size of that Report, although it was published in the most inviting form, had deterred many hon. Members from perusing it; because if the House of Commons had read the Report, there would have been very little hesitation manifested with regard to the two Bills which he had had the honour of introducing. Nor did he think that he should now have been called on to weary the House by these preliminary remarks. Well, upon the presentation of that Report, he proposed a motion for an Address to the Crown, praying Her Majesty to take it into Her serious consideration. A discussion arose in the House, and Her Majesty's Government stated that they were so impressed with the necessity of legislation upon the subject, that they promised that a Bill should be introduced in the succeeding Session of Parliament, in consequence of which he (Lord Ashley) withdrew his notice. His right hon. Friend (Sir James Graham) had already explained to the House why it was that he was entrusted with the introduction of the two very important Bills before the House. His right hon. Friend was pleased to think that, as he had served so long on the Commission, and performed the responsible and arduous duties of its chairman, he was the proper person to present these measures to the notice of the House. He undertook the task, because he thought it to be his duty so to do when asked by the Minister of the Crown, knowing at the same time how much that Minister was overwhelmed by the pressure of public business, and knowing also the great zeal and diligence which his right hon. Friend brought to bear in discharging the important duties that devolved upon him. The House might be assured that it was not from an overweening opinion of his own competency or ability that he (Lord Ashley) had complied with the right hon. Baronet's request. Quite the reverse. He shrunk from the task—not that he shrunk from the labour, or entertained a fear as to the reception which the Bills would

401
meet with at the hands of the House; but because he did not feel that he had either sufficient influence with the House, or a sufficient command of ability, to undertake a measure which he knew must extend over the length and breadth of the realm, and would introduce a new system on principles which he was quite convinced, if carried out judiciously, would place this country at the very pinnacle among the countries which undertook to legislate for this unfortunate class of their fellow subjects. The result was, the two Bills which he had introduced; the one to provide for pauper lunatics, and the other to render permanent the Commission, and provide rules for private asylums, and for general visitation. He would now explain why it was that these particular provisions existed in the Bills, and particularly the one which he should bring under the consideration of the House this morning. The duties of the Commissioners being so extended in point of surface, and so multiplied in number and variety, it became absolutely necessary to consider the present constitution of the Commission. It was quite clear that with the Commission, as at present constituted, they could not go on much longer in the discharge of duties which were multiplying every day. In the first place, then, it was absolutely necessary to have very many more Board meetings, in consequence of the rapid increase in the business they had to go through. When the Boards were held, they found a greater accumulation of business than they could discharge with that attention which was its due. In the next place, it was equally necessary that there should be more visitations. They found that nothing was so effective for the prevention of abuses as successive and unexpected visitings. But with the Commission constituted as it was, it would be impossible that they could to any great extent increase the number of their meetings. It was requisite, therefore, in order to obtain a due attendance, that they should secure the full, entire, and undivided services of professional men, abstracted altogether from any professional pursuits or practice. The accumulation of their duties had very much altered the capacity of the medical men and barristers to discharge them. So long as the duties were confined to the metropolitan districts, that was, London and seven miles round it, it would have
402
been much easier for the Commission, as now constituted, to meet and discharge their duties, although they too were in a great degree increased; but the moment the county duties were superadded, and it became necessary that the barristers and medical men should be absent from their private practice in London for whole days together in the provinces, it was perfectly clear, that then the proper discharge of the duties could only be secured by having persons altogether devoted to this work, and no other. It was necessary, also, to consider the progressively increasing expenses of the Commission. Observe how those expenses were growing, as shown by the Parliamentary Papers; from which it appeared, that in the year ending in August, 1844, they were within a fraction of 10,000 l. In that same year, the payments to the Commissioners alone, who were paid according to the time employed, had increased, as compared with the year 1842–3, by 918 l. Then, see how-many meetings of the Board took place. In 1842 they held fifteen, in 1840 they held twenty-four, and in 1844 they held thirty-one meetings. Now, the sittings of those Boards averaged at the very least four hours each, and were attended by eleven paid members, consisting of seven physicians and four barristers. At this rate, they cost in 1842, 660 l., in 1843, 956 l., and in 1844, 1,364 l., thus showing an increase in two years of 704 l. for expenses of the Boards alone. On this scale it might be estimated, that in two years' time, viz., in 1847, even if no additional duties were imposed, the expenses would have arisen to 12,640 l. a year; but, supposing additional duties were required, as proposed by the Bill now before the House, in the same period of two years, or in 1847, the expenses would have risen to 14,850 l. per annum. Let the House now observe the duties which the Bill, if carried, would impose upon the Commissioners. See the enormous extent of country to be travelled over, and the additional number of days that must be employed in the performance of that duty. In the first place, all workhouses in England and Wales would require visitation, for there were lunatics in the workhouses of every county, with two exceptions only. With a view, therefore, to efficiency and economy, the arrangement of a permanent Commission was devised, with six paid Commissioners at

403
salaries of 1,500 l. a year each. The total amount of salaries to the Commissioners would be 9,000 l. Now, he would beg the House to observe, that for this they were to have the exclusive and undivided services of those parties. It had been observed that such a provision was not made in the Bill; he could only say, that such was the intention, and he had since introduced the very strongest words which could be used, in order to show that their exclusive and undivided attention was to be given to the duties of their office, and that they were not to receive emolument from any other source, with the exception of private property. Under these circumstances it was necessary to hold out an inducement sufficient to invite into the service men of the highest talent and integrity. The Poor Law Commissioners received 2,000 l. a year, and it was proposed that 1,500 l. per annum should be given to the Commissioners under this Bill. Their duties would be of a very harassing nature. They must frequently be absent from home, devoting a considerable part of their time to travelling over the length and breadth of the country. They must necessarily be persons of high character, and would be taken altogether from their practice and profession, devoting themselves exclusively to the services of this Commission, which would be of an extremely difficult and delicate nature. As to the cost of the Commission, there would be a secretary at a salary of 800 l. per annum, and two clerks at a salary of 100 l. each; then he estimated the travelling expenses at about 2,150 l., and sundries at 430 l. making together a total expenditure of 12,583 l. That was the estimated expense of the Commission. As to the provision for superannuation, taking it at the utmost, and supposing the superannuation list to be full, the expense would only be increased 14,583 l. But, however, putting that out of the question, the expense of the Commission for many years would be 12,583 l. He would call upon the House to mark how very low an estimate they had taken of the expense, when they considered the additional duties which the permanent Commission proposed by the Bill would create. They had calculated upon only six additional board days—they ought to have at least two a week. [Mr. T. Duncombe: It ought to be every day.] Very well, then that would occupy their time
404
altogether, and they should be rewarded according to their services. The hon. Gentleman could not have said anything that so completely proved the necessity of a constant permanent Commission. But there was a new duty imposed on the Commission by this Bill. The Commissioners were to have the serious, delicate, but indispensable duty of visiting those wretched creatures who were shut up in single houses. It was a duty, the extent of which they could not as yet form a notion of. In half an hour's walk from the door of that House, he would undertake to say that he would find a hundred persons shut up in single houses. The Bill, provided, however, that notice should be given to the Commissioners in such cases, and a certificate signed. [Mr. T. Duncombe: That clause I approve of more than any other in the Bill.] He was very happy to hear it. To execute such a duty as the Commissioners would have to perform in visiting these houses, they must surely devote their serious and undivided services, and they must be proper and efficient men. The duty of visitation was one of the most burdensome that could be conceived. He had on a late occasion visited a house containing a number of private and pauper lunatics, and having reached it soon after eleven o'clock, the Commissioners had not finished the performance of their duty at seven—when he was obliged to come away and leave his Colleagues behind. It was not a common service to be performed, but one of great excitement, difficulty, and responsibility. It was necessary that visitations should be made repeatedly and unexpectedly. As the Chairman of such Commission, he should say, go and visit such and such a place ten or twelve times in the course of a year; and this with a permanent Commission would not increase the expense, but by the present system the Commissioners were paid upon each visitation a guinea an hour during the whole time they were engaged; the Bill before the House, however, would give a stationary income. At present the Commissioners made four hundred and four distinct visits in one year, they travelled 15,000 miles in the same period, they also attended 34 boards, they made 404 separate reports, and they also made 600 entries in the different books, some of which which were of great length. Upon the very lowest estimate, under the present

405
Bill, they must make 560 visits, travel 16,500 miles, hold 40 boards, make 500 reports, and about 900 entries. But this would not be enough, and unless the Commission was able to devote itself to these duties, and multiply both the boards and visitations, no effectual good could be done. If the House thought those duties were to be performed—the visitation of all the workhouses, containing 8,000 pauper lunatics—all the patients in single houses—and, as the hon. Member for Finsbury said, a board should be held everyday—if the House thought all this duty was to be performed, his (Lord Ashley's) belief was that, in a very short time, the expense of the present Commission would reach 25,000 l. a year. A clause was inserted in the Bill which would give a most stringent hold over the proper discharge of the duties of the Commissioners. At the end of every six months they would have to make a return to the Lord Chancellor of the number of visits which they had made, the patients whom they had seen, and the miles which they had travelled. Now, he would just point out to the House some of the provisions of the new Bill, to show how vast an improvement it would be on the existing law. It began by establishing a permanent Commission, and thereby secured the entire services of competent persons, and fixed the limits of expense now regularly increasing. It placed hospitals (or subscription asylums) under proper regulations, by requiring them to have the same orders and certificates as were necessary in licensed houses, and by subjecting them to the same visitation as county aslyums. It prevented persons of weak mind from being received in asylums in the character of boarders, in which case they had not the benefit of any visitation, and were sometimes induced to deeds affecting their property. It provided an additional security against the improper detention of pauper patients, by requiring that the person signing the order for their confinement should see and personally examine them beforehand; and that the medical officer who certified as to their insanity should see them within seven days previous to their confinement. Neither of these safeguards existed at present. It compelled every person receiving a patient to state his condition (mental as well as bodily) when first admitted, and the cause of his death when
406
he died. It directed every injury and act of violence happening to a patient to be recorded, and required a "case book" to be kept; thereby affording additional security against mismanagement, and showing how far the patients had the benefit of medical treatment. It provided against the liberation of dangerous patients. It authorized the visitors to enforce a proper supply of food (in licensed houses) to pauper patients, who were at present fed at the discretion of the proprietor. It enabled the visitors to order the admission of a patient's friends to visit him. At present they were admitted or excluded at the caprice of the person who signed the order for the patient's confinement. It enabled the visitors to sanction the temporary removal of a patient (in ill health) to the seaside or elsewhere. It enforced an immediate private return of all single patients (received for profit) and authorized the members of a small private committee to visit them if necessary. These returns were almost universally evaded at present, the law rendering it unnecessary to make any return unless the patient had been confined for twelve months. It enabled the Chancellor to protect the property of lunatics against, whom a Commission had not issued, by a summary and inexpensive process; and finally, it subjected all workhouses, in which any lunatic was kept, to regular visitation. Now, he would just show the House of what this last duty consisted. By the last returns to August, 1844, just presented by the Poor Law Commissioners, there were 17,355 pauper lunatics and idiots chargeable in the country. Of these, there were in county asylums 4,224, leaving 13,131 unprovided for in any public asylum. Of these last, there were in licensed houses 2,942, leaving in no asylum and under no supervision or care whatever, nearly 10,000. That was the existing state of things; and surely it proved the necessity of immediate interference. The treatment which the pauper lunatics often received was shocking to contemplate. He knew the case of a wretched woman who had been rather violent, and with regard to whom the matron, taking upon herself to incarcerate the poor creature when and in what manner she pleased, bound her with ropes, and leaving her in that state, in a short time the rope had eaten to the very bone; in consequence of which her arm was soon after

407
amputated. In all such places there would be a tendency to restrain and incarcerate frequently. It was easy to put such poor creatures in a strait waistcoat and get rid of them. That case occurred five years ago; but three days ago he received a letter from a visiting magistrate, who said, he was happy to find that the Bill had been introduced, as many of these wretched creatures were farmed out by the workhouses, and kept by their relations. He said, that he had been a visiting magistrate forty years, and a
"circumstance came under my observation of a female, who, during her pregnancy, became insane; and the person under whose care the parish officers had placed her had fastened the ligatures so tight round her ancles (the blood being in a sluggish state) that they mortified; and, upon my second visit, I found that her feet had dropped off."
She died afterwards, her reason having been restored; she made no complaint, but "these things would never have happened had she been sent to a proper asylum." He added—
"On my visit to another asylum, I found twenty-five lunatics crowded together in a small yard, with only a boy, under twenty years of age, to take care of them. They were all bound in waistcoats or handcuffs."
He (Lord Ashley) had seen no less than eighty lunatics in one yard, under the charge of a single person, in one of the private asylums in London for the reception of pauper lunatics. He hoped, however, that the Bill which was now about to pass for the erection of county lunatic asylums, would gradually be the means of diminishing these enormities. It was pleasing to contrast with such places the Han-well and Surrey asylums. In the former he had seen forty-eight patients together, engaged in horticulture, and using sharp and dangerous instruments; and in the Surrey asylum he had seen lunatics brought to use sharp weapons, such as axes, hatchets, &c. He wanted to approximate to that state of things as much as he could before these asylums were built, and therefore he wished all lunatics to be brought under immediate visitation. But if they imposed all these necessary duties, they must have a permanent Commission, and employ men who were well qualified, and willing to give their undivided attention to this difficult work. It was very well to talk of postponement; but many counties at this moment were waiting for the passing
408
of this measure, and had suspended their operations. He would instance Derby, Warwick, Worcester, Nottingham, and Stafford. In Sussex, the magistrates were preparing to fit up an old gaol as a lunatic asylum, and would no doubt do so if this Bill were delayed until next Session. St. Peter's, at Bristol, Haverfordwest, and several other wretched asylums, still received patients. Besides, in many places there was very little visitation, and in some actually none. If these places were visited and subjected to efficient regulations, a great many parties would, no doubt, be cured when placed under proper care, who might otherwise become incurable lunatics. By delay, and want of curative process, out of 700 curable lunatics in a year, barely one-tenth would be recovered; and he would ask the House to estimate the misery and expense of 630 lunatics being added yearly to the list of incurables. It was well known that when persons had laboured under the disorder for twelve months, it rarely happened that more than one-sixth could be cured. The postponing of the measure until another Session would involve at least a delay of six months, during which time, he would ask the hon. Member for Finsbury to recollect the number of lunatics who would be left altogether without superintending care. He would also ask the House to consider the difficulties by which the Commissioners were surrounded. They were compelled, in the Bill before the House, to take a middle course; they were bound to consider the patient, but they were also bound to regard the public. The hon. Member for Finsbury, with great propriety, took up the cause of the patient, and called upon them to take care that he was not confined a moment longer than was absolutely necessary. Other persons, however, held opinions contrary to those of the hon. Gentleman, and called on him to make the law far less stringent; and, as he had before said, it was necessary to take a middle course. He begged to thank the House for the great kindness with which they had listened to him. He could only say, that he took the deepest interest in the fate of this unhappy class of persons. He had been engaged for sixteen years in this matter, and thought the House would do him the justice to say that he was not actuated by any personal motive; all he asked was, that some little consideration might be given to the opinions of those who, without fee or reward, and whose only motive was to ameliorate the condition of the unfortunate

409
lunatic—he only asked that some little consideration might be given to the opinion of such persons. It was very well for those Gentlemen to talk of delay who knew nothing, by experience, of the horrors that were hourly perpetrated; it was very well for persons to talk of delay who had never seen the miseries which were constantly brought under his notice, and who did not know how painful it was to administer an imperfect law. The Commissioners knew the law to be imperfect—they saw the remedy—and they knew that a large proportion of the evils could be removed if only some little consideration were given to their opinions. They now applied to the House, from their own experience, for a remedy which was within the reach of the Legislature. If he was defeated in his effort to obtain the sanction of law for the Bill before the House, without any further delay, it would be to him a source of inexpressible regret; and he implored the House, by all the statements which had been laid before them, by all that they must know of their own knowledge, to lose no time in carrying into execution those means within their reach, of removing the great evils of the present system, which were not only the source of intolerable suffering to the unhappy beings in whose defence he was pleading, but which were a standing disgrace to this enlightened kingdom and this Christian land.
Mr. T. Duncombesaid, the Bill would not give that guarantee and security to the public which the noble Lord imagined. He did not underrate the great importance of the measure; but at this advanced period of the Session, and when there was no absolute necessity for it that he could understand, he thought that the Bill should be postponed until the next Session of Parliament, in order that an investigation might take place, not only as to the conduct of the Commissioners, but also with reference to the operation of the existing laws, under which great abuses did exist, and would continue to exist, in spite of the provisions of the Bill. The noble Lord could not tell him how any persons who had been unjustly confined could obtain relief by the Bill before the House; the same medical certificates were to be given, and interested parties would still have the power of imprisoning their victims under the plea of lunacy. He would call the attention of the House to the petition of Mr. Lewis Phillips, who asked for time,
410
and prayed the House not to legislate blindfolded. He (Mr. Duncombe) thought it was better that nineteen insane persons should go free, than that one rational being should be shut up under the plea of insanity. He had made inquiries, and believed every word in the petition of Mr. Phillips to be correct. The petitioner wished to be called to the bar—
"For the purpose of explaining the malpractices and workings of divers individuals desirous of placing Her Majesty's subjects in I such places of confinement, without the proper; and necessary steps which a British subject ought to be entitled to, and receive protection from a law to guard against any innovation, or tend in any measure to deprive the subject of the freedom he should properly enjoy."
He proceeded to say—
"That he was a partner in a large firm as a glass and lamp manufacturer, in Regent-street, St. James's, in the month of March, 1838, with his brothers, who were carrying on a prosperous business. That on the 16th day of March, 1838, your petitioner was on his usual rounds to the nobility, customers of the firm. That one of the said customers required your petitioner to call at Her Majesty's Palace that morning at eleven o'clock. That your petitioner did call, and the pretext thus arose for incarcerating your petitioner in a lunatic asylum. That without further entering into details, your petitioner was, in consequence of representations by his partners of his insanity to the magistrate, Mr. White, of Queen-square Police Court, given over to their care and custody. That your petitioner conferred with several friends and the police, who advised your petitioner to bring actions against all parties; on his again going to the Palace on the Saturday, the 17th of March, 1838, for the purpose of finding out the names of the parties who aided and abetted in his capture, he was seized at Pimlico by Leadbeater, without any cause, and neither did he intrude, or had any intention of intruding upon any part of the Palace; then conveyed to Bow-street station-house, locked up all night, and at six o'clock Sunday evening your petitioner was informed that he was liberated, and taken to receive some refreshment, by Leadbeater and an attorney; that without any further investigation, on the said Sunday evening your petitioner was removed in a hackney coach, closely guarded, to Dr. Warburton's lunatic asylum, Bethnal-green. That your petitioner was kept in close confinement until Sunday, the 9th of September, 1838, a period of six months, for, as his partners ridiculously stated, attempting to see the Queen. That during your petitioner's incarceration all sorts of practices were used in order to entrap your petitioner to make some confession to justify their conduct in accusing your petitioner of insanity. That

411
some strange female was introduced to your petitioner, in the lunatic asylum, dressed (on the Coronation-day, June 28, 1838, of Her Majesty) in paltry imitation of our Sovereign, to induce your petitioner to believe that it was Her most Gracious Majesty."
Any one might say all this was a delusion, but he was prepared to prove it. The petitioner proceeded to say—
"That the officers, both medical and otherwise, assisted in this nefarious scheme. That your petitioner has suffered the torture of mind and body through other acts and filthy observations and questions too disgusting to be mentioned, from the officers, medical and otherwise. That your petitioner has prayed to, and humbly requested those officers to desist from their torments. That your petitioner has been chained down and been brutally assaulted by the keepers of the lunatic asylum for having ventured to expostulate upon such ridiculous and wicked conduct. That on Tuesday, the 4th of September, 1838, one of the partners waited upon your petitioner, and with the resident doctor of the establishment, concocted an agreement for your petitioner to sign, requiring him to leave this country for Antwerp, and to be allowed 3l. per week, to be paid to him as necessity might require, through a man who was to follow your petitioner in the double capacity of keeper and servant, until your petitioner's partner should think proper to withdraw him. That your petitioner, on Sunday, the 9th of September, 1838, was again visited by his two partners, accompanied by the resident medical officer, and again urged to sign a dissolution of partnership, which your petitioner, after six months' horrid incarceration and torture, was induced to sign the following agreements for the dissolution of the co-partnership:—
"'September 8, 1838."
"'In consideration of Mr. Lewis Phillips retiring from business on the 11th of September, Messrs. Ralph and Samuel Phillips undertake to satisfy Mr. Lewis Phillips for his share of the property left in the business, by paying him a weekly sum for his maintenance.
(Signed) "'RALPH PHILLIPS.
SAM. PHILLIPS.
"'Witness, James Phillips (resident doctor).'
"'We hereby agree that the partnership which has existed between us be dissolved, and publicly announced in the Gazette of Tuesday next, the 11th of September, to the following effect, that Mr. Lewis Phillips is retiring, and that the business is to be hereafter carried on in the joint names of Ralph and Samuel Phillips.
(Signed) "'RALPH PHILLIPS.
LEWIS PHILLIPS.
SAMUEL PHILLIPS.'
"'September 8, 1838.
"'That your petitioner was immediately, the same hour that he signed the deed, conveyed
412
in a cab with the keeper to Saint Katherine's Docks, and there placed on board the Antwerpen, bound for Antwerp, at which place your petitioner remained about a fortnight. That in consequence of the keeper not being able to read a letter addressed to him, your petitioner was enabled to peruse it, and discovered that another scheme was again concocted to bring your petitioner back to his late place of torture. And your petitioner, in consequence, made his escape, and returned to his mother in England, who with your petitioner's partners assisted to recapture your petitioner in the following manner:—His mother invited him to her house, at 28, Oxford-terrace, Edgware-road, to arrange amicably with his partners, but in lieu of which other parties came, and attempted to seize your petitioner. That your petitioner having endured so much misery, was fully prepared for any design which might show itself; and seeing the manœuvres, immediately forced his way out of the house, crying 'Murder,' the keepers hallooing out 'Stop thief.' That your petitioner did since commence proceedings against all parties; but, on obtaining the advice of Mr. Chitty, special pleader, on the statement of facts, your petitioner found himself without remedy, as care had been taken to keep your petitioner in confinement and without money until the time, as expressed in the Act of Parliament of the 48th and 49th Section of the 41st chapter of 9th George IV., viz., 'which prescribes and directs that such actions must be brought within six calendar months next after the fact committed.' That your petitioner has been obliged to suffer great privations, and has since that time been deprived of all benefit in his business, and that his partners, previous to your petitioner's giving notice of trial, became bankrupts. That your petitioner has been obliged to gain his living in attorneys' offices, and is at present employed in the capacity of clerk to a solicitor. That your petitioner is able to detail further facts relative to other individuals confined in lunatic asylums, and fully to give such information most important to this honourable House in framing a Bill to meet fully the circumstances of any case, not only as to pauper lunatics, but as to the treatment of parties supposed to be insane or otherwise.
"And your petitioner will, as in duty bound, ever pray.
"LEWIS PHILLIPS."
Mr. Phillips brought an action against Dr. Warburton, but was advised by Mr. Chitty that, on account of some delay, he could not succeed, and he then indicted all the parties for a conspiracy, when his solicitor was paid 170 l. to compromise the matter rather than it should come before the public. All this had taken place under the existing Commission. Mr. Proctor, one of the Commissioners, saw him in the asylum, but said that he could do nothing for

413
him, as he must be visited three times before he could be released. He did not mean to attach any blame to Mr. Proctor, but such was the state of the law. It appeared, also, that a poor woman who was confined in Dr. Warburton's asylum, complained to Mr. Proctor, upon the occasion of one of his visits, that she had been ill treated; but as soon as he had turned his back, one of the female attendants told her husband that the poor woman had been making complaints to the Commissioner, when he took her to an upper part of the house, and beat her most cruelly, Mr. Phillips being able to hear her screams. On his return the man said he thought he had cured her of complaining to the Commissioner. Such cases, however, were of constant occurrence. No inquiry had been instituted since 1836, and it was time that the House of Commons should cause inquiry into the subject to be again made, with a view to better legislation. Why, then, were they pressing on this Bill at so late a period of the Session? Some portions of it he had before said were good, particularly that clause which enabled a Commissioner to visit a single patient: but he was not prepared to give such unconstitutional power to individuals as the Bill proposed; neither would he consent to make a Commission permanent, until he was satisfied that it had done its duty during the last twelve or fourteen years that it had been established. There was also a petition from William Bailey, who had been confined for five years, and who he believed to have been perfectly sane. He would not trouble the House by reading his petition; but there was the petition of Captain Digby, who said—
"That he was forcibly and violently taken out of his house, situate at No. 12, Beaumont-street, Marylebone, at night, on Sunday, May 5th, 1844, and conveyed to Moorcroft-house, Hillingdon, near Uxbridge, a private lunatic asylum, kept by the Messrs. Stillwell. That the Committee of the Metropolitan Commissioners in Lunacy visited this asylum on the 27th of May following, to whom your petitioner represented and explained the falsity of the imputation of insanity which had been made against him, and which could be confirmed by two clergymen of eminence, and all his friends with whom he lived in daily intercourse. That the Commissioners on three special visits examined your petitioner, at an interval of a fortnight between each visit; but your petitioner was not released until eight weeks subsequent to those visits, and during the interim was debarred all manner of intercourse and correspondence with his friends,
414
and his request to see his solicitor, Mr. Pemberton, was refused him, and he was kept in confinement during the space of sixteen weeks and two days. Your petitioner, therefore, humbly prays that, previous to any further legislation on the subject of lunacy, a Committee may be appointed to investigate the operation of the present laws, and the conduct of the Metropolitan Commissioners in Lunacy, with the view of ensuring that no Englishman be deprived of his liberty without full and sufficient cause."
Dr. Conolly, of Hanwell, who had seen Captain Digby, was of opinion that he was not insane; and perhaps the best proof of his sanity was the fact that he had been induced to sign a cheque just before he left the asylum, which immediately on his release he stopped the payment of. Those cases frequently occurring at police offices would show the nefarious attempts that were often made to imprison some people upon the ground of insanity. The following occurred in September, last year, at the Worship-street office:—
"Police sergeant, James Finn, 37, attended before Mr. Broughton, by direction of Superintendent Johnson, to show cause why he had immured his wife, Ellen Finn, in a lunatic asylum, she being at the time in a stale of perfect sanity. The case was first brought under the notice of the magistrate about a week ago, when the sister of the alleged lunatic appeared before him, and stated that her sister was married to the sergeant in Ireland about eighteen years ago, and that they had contrived, by their mutual industry, to accumulate a sum amounting to nearly 200 l., which had been deposited in the husband's name in the savings' bank. That they had lived very happily together until about twelve months ago, when repeated ruptures took place between them, and the sergeant taking advantage of some trivial acts of violence on her part, which his ill usage had provoked, had, by fraudulent means, induced two medical practitioners to certify that his wife was insane, and had thereby procured her incarceration in Dr. Warburton's Lunatic Asylum, at Bethnal-green, where she was then confined. The applicant added, that she felt so completely satisfied as to the entire sanity of her sister, that she had caused her to be carefully examined by a medical man of high eminence, whose voucher she had obtained to that effect. The applicant then handed the magistrate a certificate signed by Dr. Riding, of Eustonsquare, stating that he had seen Mrs. Finn, and, after a careful examination of her case, he was unable to detect any signs of insanity, and considered her therefore not a fit subject for confinement. Upon hearing the above statement, and perusing the certificate, Mr. Broughton directed Henley, the chief usher, to proceed to make inquiries at the madhouse,

415
and, if the woman's statement was well founded, to request the attendance of the medical officer of that establishment, in order that the case might be thoroughly investigated. Mr. Phillips, the medical officer of the asylum, subsequently attended before Mr. Broughton, and stated that Mrs. Finn had been received into the house on the authority of a certificate, signed by two surgeons, that she was of unsound mind; but Mr. Phillips felt bound to express, as his own decided opinion, that she was perfectly sane, and was not a fit object for admission into the asylum. Having the attestation, however, of two medical men to the contrary effect, they were compelled to detain her, but were ready to deliver her up to her friends on being legally authorized to adopt that course. Mr. Broughton made some strong remarks upon the monstrous state of the law, which enabled a person, at his own wanton caprice, to consign another to such a dreadful species of confinement, and gave orders for the attendance of all the parties before him. Saturday the wife, whose address and demeanour were perfectly quiet and collected, was examined at some length by the magistrate, and stated that in consequence of a disagreement that took place between them, her husband, about four months ago, placed her in the same asylum; but after remaining there a week he consented to her liberation, and agreed to allow her 10 s. a week, on condition that she went over to her friends in Ireland. She accordingly proceeded to that country, but returned after a short stay, and besought the defendant to receive her into his house, and it was in consequence of those importunities that she was again incarcerated in the madhouse. In answer to the complaint the defendant said that his wife had been guilty of the most outrageous acts of violence, having more than once attempted to stab him, and her whole conduct justified his conviction that her intellects were impaired. She was examined by two respectable medical men, one of whom had attended her for nine months; and, as they both testified to that fact, he considered himself justified in the course which he had pursued. Mr. Broughton, the magistrate, expressed it as his opinion that the woman was in as sane and rational a state as any one in court, and he considered that the defendant had been guilty of extreme cruelty and injustice towards her. Fortunately, however, through her sister's interposition, she was now restored to her friends, and he wished to know what arrangement the defendant was willing to make for her future maintenance. The defendant said that he had been paying 15 s. a week to maintain her in the asylum, and he was willing to allow her half that sum if she would promise not to come near or molest him again, as he had been in danger of losing his situation through her turbulent conduct. Holland, the summoning officer, said that at the expiration of her first confinement in the asylum, Superintendent
416
Johnson, with great kindness, received her into his house, in the hope of being able to effect a reconciliation with her husband; and her conduct during the week she remained there was uniformly good and perfectly rational. After some further discussion, it was finally agreed that the defendant should allow her 8s. per week, besides providing her with some clothes and other necessaries, and the parties then left the court."
Now, as to the subject of expenses, that had certainly been increasing since 1828 in a most extraordinary manner. The following was an account of moneys received and paid by the clerk of the Metropolitan Commissioners in Lunacy:—

Received for Licenses.

Paid Fees to Medical Commissioners.

Total Expense.

August, 1828,

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

To Aug. 1829

1,040

7

6

1,154

0

0

2,246

17

1

To Aug. 1830

974

12

6

1,244

0

0

2,036

8

3

To Aug. 1831

1,012

5

0

1,050

0

0

2,536

10

0

August, 1841,

To Aug. 1842

901

0

0

1,993

0

0

3,315

5

0

August, 1843,

To Aug. 1844

978

15

0

3,059

0

0

11,920

13

0

Extra fees and travelling expenses

5,850

16

0

At a meeting which took place in the city yesterday, the noble Lord the Member for Dorsetshire (Lord Ashley) said that he had been a Commissioner for twelve years; he admitted the horrors of private asylums, and said he would rather be a pauper in the Hanwell Asylum than be placed in a private asylum where his friends would have to pay for him. Why did not the question naturally arise, if the noble Lord had been a Commissioner for so many years, and had been cognizant of the evils which existed in private asylums—why was there no attempt to remedy them before? He (Mr. Duncombe) knew that he had no chance of success; but he should have the satisfaction of knowing that he had done his duty in exposing the defects of the existing law, and calling for a searching and rigid inquiry. The hon. Member concluded by moving "That all further proceedings should be postponed until next Session; and that, previous to any further legislation on the subject, an inquiry should be instituted into the state of the existing law."
Mr. V. Smithwas willing to rest his opinion that the Bill should not be postponed upon the arguments of the hon. Member for Finsbury, which all went to prove the necessity of most active and careful

417
supervision, and the sooner that was effected the better. The Bill did not propose to continue the Commission under which the evils complained of had existed, but to elect a new Commission altogether, with new powers, new duties, and new salaries; and he thought, of all the proposals in the Bill, that of a permanent Commission ought most readily to receive the approbation of the House. An admixture of medical men and barristers on the Commission was the best course that could have been adopted. The hon. Gentleman then passed a high eulogium on the exertions and talents displayed by Lord Ashley as Chairman of the Lunacy Commissioners, and expressed a hope that he would continue to exercise the duties of that office when the new Commission was formed.
Lord Duncanwas disposed to support the Amendment; but as it was then four o'clock, he moved the adjournment of the debate.
Sir J. Grahamhoped the hon. Member for Finsbury, and the noble Lord the Member for Bath, would be satisfied with the discussion which had already taken place, and would consent to take the sense of the House upon it, with the understanding that the House should go into Committee on Monday.
After a short conversation, Lord Duncan withdrew his Motion,
The House divided on the Question, that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question:—Ayes 66; Noes 1: Majority 65.

List of the AYES.

Ainsworth, P.

Egerton, W. T.

Arundel and Surrey, Earl of

Etwall, R.

Forster, M.

Baillie, Col.

Fuller, A. E.

Baird, W.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Baring, rt. hn. W. B.

Greene, T.

Barrington, Visct.

Grimston, Visct.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Hamilton, W. J.

Bodkin, W. H.

Harris, hon. Capt

Bowles, Adm.

Hatton, Capt. V.

Broadley, H.

Henley, J. W.

Brotherton, J.

Hollond, R.

Bruce, Lord E.

Jermyn, Earl

Bruges, W. H. L.

Johnstone, Sir J.

Buller, E.

Kemble, H.

Carew, W. H. P.

Knightley, Sir C.

Christie, W. D.

Lowther, Sir J. H.

Clive, Visct.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Martin, C. W.

Damer, hon. Col.

Mitcalfe, H.

Denison, E. B.

Morris, D.

Dickinson, F. H.

Mundy, E. M.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Nicholl, rt. hn. J.

418

Packe, C. W.

Thornhill, G.

Palmerston, Visct.

Turner, E.

Praed, W. T.

Villiers, Visct.

Protheroe, E.

Vivian, J. H.

Rolleston, Col.

Waddington, H. S.

Sandon, Visct.

Warburton, H.

Seymour, Lord

Wawn, J. T.

Sheridan, R. B.

Wynn, rt. hn. C. W. W.

Smith, rt. hn. R. V.

Yorke, H. R.

Somerset, Lord G.

TELLERS.

Spooner, R.

Ashley, Lord

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Cardwell, E.

List of the NOES.

TELLERS.

Duncan, Visct.

Duncombe, T.

Crawford, S.

Committee postponed to Tuesday.
House adjourned to five o'clock.

POOR LAW AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND).
The Order of the Day for going into Committee on the Poor Law Amendment (Scotland) Bill, was read.
On the Question that the Speaker do now leave the Chair,
Colonel Rawdonexpressed a hope that before the House went into Committee, the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department would state the intentions of the Government with respect to the clauses affecting the rights of Irish paupers, as the right hon. Gentleman had been requested to do by a deputation of the Irish Members.
Sir J. Grahamsaid, the best course to adopt would be to proceed with the Bill in Committee until the clauses referred to were arrived at.
Mr. Humesaid, if the Members for Ireland objected to particular clauses of the Bill, he should object to the measure altogether. The Government had already postponed a great number of measures, and he was anxious that they should adopt the same course with regard to the present Bill. It was so large, and contained so many provisions, many of them most uncertain and undefined, that it would, if carried, prove to be only an Act to create dissension and litigation. The time would be very brief until next Session, and in the mean time the measure might be fully and fairly considered in Scotland, and many important and necessary amendments suggested. The opinion prevalent among the best informed parties in Scotland was, that if the Bill passed into law in its present form, another measure to amend it, would, as a matter of course, have to be introduced next Session.
Mr. Ewartagreed altogether in what had fallen from his hon. Friend who had just sat down. The measure was one which all parties united in saying could not be satisfactory or successful, and the probability was, that if it now became law, it would have to be amended next Session. The delay would also produce the advantage of enabling those hon. Gentlemen who, though Members for Scotland, had unfortunately the misfortune not to be born in Scotland, to become better acquainted with the subject.
Mr. P. M. Stewartsaid, he would go a step further than the two hon. Gentlemen who had last addressed the House, and would ask the Government to apply their own principle to the Bill which they had relied on when another Scotch question had been before the House a few nights ago, and to allow their decision upon it to be regulated by the petitions that had been presented from Scotland on the subject. Though the measure was one which was of vast importance to Scotland, he believed there had not been a single petition presented in its favour, whereas numerous petitions from all persons interested in the state of the Scotch poor had been presented against the Bill. All these petitions concurred in representing the great necessity of legislation on the subject of the poor of Scotland, whereas they, at the same time, described the Bill introduced by the Government as an ill-digested and an ill-adapted measure. They stated, that it would not allay the discontent existing against the present measure, and that the poor had no interest whatever in it. That it would have the effect of overloading the Statute Book with eighty clauses, most of which would, as a matter of necessity, be repealed next Session. In fact, the measure was one which would do no good to the poor man, while it would have the effect of throwing him beyond the pale of the Constitution.
Sir J. Graham, in answer to the appeal of hon. Members opposite, would begin by stating, that if ever a measure had been brought before the House which was completely divested of party character, it was the Scottish Poor Law. It was also admitted that the law for the relief of the poor in Scotland, was in such a state as to require immediate alteration. There had been full inquiry, and ample materials for immediate legislation had been obtained.
420
The Report of the Commissioners had been before the public for twelve months, and had been under the consideration of Government during the whole of that time. If, therefore, the measure then before the House could be called crude and imperfect, the fault must lie with the Government who had prepared it, as ample time and full materials had gone to its preparation. Besides, the principle of the measure had been approved of by a very large majority of that House. Neither could it be said that the House had been taken by surprise. The Bill was introduced at an early period of the Session, and the second reading was postponed in order that the counties of Scotland might, in their county halls, have full opportunity of taking the matter into consideration. Neither was the absence of petitions in its favour any evidence of its unpopularity, as people seldom petitioned in favour of Government measures which were generally approved, except their success seemed doubtful. The principal petition against this Bill was from one parish which was peculiarly situated, and which, it was feared, would be affected by the 16th Clause; but that cause of petition was removed, as the clause was to be postponed. He thought that, as the principle of the Bill had been fully discussed and decisively affirmed by the House, and as they had made considerable progress in Committee, there was not any valid reason existing for its further postponement. If any hon. Member wished again to have the opinion of the House, the best plan would be to let the Bill pass through Committee, and take a division on the third reading.
Mr. Lockhartexpressed his satisfaction that the right hon. Baronet had not postponed the progress of the Bill.
Mr. Gibson Craig, as they had so far advanced in Committee, could not conceive the expediency of postponing the measure. His own opinion was, that, generally speaking, the Bill had been favourably received in Scotland, although certainly some alterations were called for in it.
Mr. Hastieobjected to the further progress of this Bill. The poor in Scotland were never so well looked after as in the present time. Therefore, in postponing the measure, no possible harm could result.
Viscount Duncantrusted that the

421
House would at once go into Committee, when there would be an opportunity of adopting any improvements. He had always found that the Lord Advocate had been willing to listen to suggestions for the improvement of the measure. The 16th Clause had been so much amended, as to remove nearly all the objections to it.
Mr. E. Elliceconfirmed what had been stated by the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Hastie). The condition of the poor of Scotland within the last eighteen months, compared with what it had previously been, had been made much better by the discovery of the actual state of the law with regard to them. This was not a party question here or in Scotland; he had conversed with men of all politics upon it, and had met with but one opinion—that, if the Bill passed in its present shape, it would be likely to produce very mischievous effects. The allegations of the petitions against it were, that, it would deprive the poor of their present remedy against the heritors, and subject them to an irresponsible power in order to put the law into effect. He gave the Government credit for honest intentions; but they only knew the state of the people of Scotland, through a prejudiced channel; with respect to Scotland, they appeared to be subjected to some influence that blighted all they took in hand. Had their measures with respect to the Scotch Church, or any other of their measures with regard to Scotland, been satisfactory to the people? Had they not all met with general condemnation? On a subject of such vast importance, ample time ought to be given for consideration; as the knowledge of the provisions of the Bill extended, the objections to it would increase. He hoped the Government would postpone it till next Session; if not, he hoped other parties in another place would prevent it from passing this year.
Mr. Duncanwas constantly receiving communications from Scotland stating objections to the measure. He felt that it was only common justice that it should be postponed to another Session. He had not received a single letter in favour of the Bill. He was anxious for an amendment of the present law; but, instead of this imperfect measure, they had better wait until next year, when they could get a well-digested Bill.
Mr. Rossfelt called upon to oppose
422
strenuously the progress of this Bill, in consequence of the injustice inflicted upon the Irish residents in Scotland by it. By one of the clauses an Irishman was prevented getting a settlement in Scotland; although he might have spent his youth and his manhood in that country, such an industrious man, engaged in manufactures for twenty or thirty years, was liable to be sent to Ireland at a moment's notice. Unless the right hon. Baronet abandoned the clause, he trusted that his hon. and gallant Friend would move that it be committed that day three months. If his hon. Friend did not do so, he certainly would.
Mr. T. Duncombesaid, that, it was rather singular that only on Wednesday evening last, one of the reasons urged by the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department, for the rejection of the Scotch Universities Bill was, that no petitions had been presented in favour of it; but to-night, in answer to the remark that there was no petition in favour of this Bill, he replied, that it was not customary to present petitions in favour of Bills, and, above all, of a measure like the present. He happened to know that there existed a very strong feeling against the Bill in many parts of Scotland, and more particularly in several of the large towns. He had no connexion with Scotland; but petitions had been intrusted to him against the measure from many places, some of which had thousands of signatures attached to them. The Scottish labouring classes generally considered that the Bill would place them in a worse position than before, it being altogether destructive of that right of appeal in their favour, which had only of late been discovered to exist.
Colonel Rawdonsaid, that almost every Scotch Member who had spoken on this subject had opposed the Bill, and on the part of the Irish Members there was a united action against it. He begged to move that the House go into Committee of the Bill that day three months.
Sir J. Grahamwould put it to the gallant Member whether, as the objections he and other Gentlemen near him advanced, were objections to details, it would not be better and fairer to discuss them in Committee? He had stated to a deputation of Members, who called upon him at the Home Office, and of which the hon. and gallant Member was, he believed,

423
one, that he intended to make considerable modification in many of the clauses objected to, adding, indeed, that he was not prepared to say, the principle of the Bill as to industrial residence ought not to be entirely abandoned.
Mr. Hamiltonthought it well to go into Committee; but certainly, when the clauses in question came before them, they would meet with his opposition unless considerably modified.
Viscount Duncanhoped the Members for Ireland would suffer them to go into Committee, on the full understanding that the clause more especially objected to by them, should, in Committee, undergo thorough investigation.
Lord Claude Hamiltonshould feel bound to oppose the progress of the Bill, unless some much more distinct statement was made by the Government as to the obnoxious clauses.
The House divided on the Question, that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question:—Ayes 90; Noes 38: Majority 52.

List of the AYES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Duncan, Visct.

Arbuthnot, hon. H.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Ashley, Lord

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Baillie, Col.

Fremantle, rt. hn. Sir T.

Baillie, H. J.

Fuller, A. E.

Baldwin, B.

Gaskell, J. M.

Balfour, J. M.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Baring, rt. hn. W. B.

Gladstone, Capt.

Barrington, Visct.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Bennett, P.

Gore, M.

Blackburne, J. I.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Boldero, H. G.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Borthwick, P.

Greene, T.

Botfield, B.

Hamilton, G. A.

Bowes, J.

Hampden, R.

Bramston, T. W.

Harcourt, G. G.

Broadwood, H.

Hawes, B.

Brotherton, J.

Henley, J. W.

Bruce, Lord E.

Herbert, rt. hon. S.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Hodgson, F.

Buckley, E.

Hogg, J. W.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Hope, Sir J.

Campbell, Sir H.

Hope, hon. C.

Cardwell, E.

Houldsworth, T.

Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.

Hughes, W. B.

Codrington, Sir W.

Hussey, A.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Jermyn, Earl

Corry, right hon. H.

Lincoln, Earl of

Courtenay, Lord

Lockhart, W.

Craig, W. G.

Lowther, Sir J. H.

Darby, G.

Lygon, hon. Gen.

Davies, D. A. S.

Mackenzie, T.

Dickinson, F. H.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Dodd, G.

M'Neill, D.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Milnes, R. M.

424

Mundy, E. M.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

Thesiger, Sir F.

Palmer, R.

Wakley, T.

Peel, rt. hn. Sir R.

Walsh, Sir J. B.

Peel, J.

Wawn, J. T.

Pringle, A.

Wellesley, Lord C.

Pusey, P.

Williams, W.

Scrope, G. P.

Wortley, hon. J. S.

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

Smollett, A.

TELLERS.

Somerset, Lord G.

Young, J.

Stuart, Lord J.

Lennox, Lord A.

List of the NOES.

Acton, Col.

Esmond, Sir T.

Archbold, R.

Ewart, W.

Baine, W.

Forster, M.

Bannerman, A.

Grogan, E.

Barnard, E. G.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Bernard, Vise.

Hastie, A.

Blake, M. J.

Hume, J.

Bouverie, hon. E. P.

M'Taggart, Sir J.

Browne, hon. W.

Morris, D.

Clements, Visct.

Morrison, J.

Colborne, hn. W. N. R.

O'Connell, M. J.

Cole, hon. H. A.

Pechell, Capt.

Collett, J.

Rashleigh, W.

Curteis, H. B.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Dennistoun, J.

Stewart, P. M.

Duff, J.

Villiers, hon. C.

Duncan, G.

Yorke, H. R.

Duncombe, T.

Dundas, A.

TELLERS.

Dundas, F.

Ross, D. R.

Ellice, E.

Rawdon, Col.

House in Committee.
On Clause 35,
Mr. Gladstonecalled the attention of the House to the expediency of rendering the law clear, that farm labourers and domestic servants were not liable to be rated to the poor. The present mode of rating generally in Scotland was most inquisitorial in its operation. The parochial boards who managed it were not in any way bound to secrecy, and they fixed upon each person precisely such a rate as they pleased. That system might be made the means of much oppression, and, though he was not prepared to say that the English system, as a whole, was applicable to Scotland, he would throw out that that system might be adopted as the basis of an improved system for Scotland. He hoped that the Lord Advocate would indicate his intention of taking the whole law of rating in Scotland into his serious consideration; for he was persuaded that it would be found impossible to allow it to remain in its present state.
The Lord Advocatesaid, with reference to what had been stated by his right hon. Friend the Member for Newark, he would

425
admit that there were difficulties in the way of assessment; but he had not selected the mode of assessment referred to in this Bill; it had existed for two centuries and more, and he had not ventured to abolish it. He had had representations from many parishes, assuring him that the system had acted satisfactorily. He had by the provisions of this Bill given to every parish the power of escaping from the difficulties of the present system, and had endeavoured to remove the existing inequalities.
Mr. Poulett Scropethought, that if any alteration were made in the law of assessment, it should be permanent in its character. Otherwise they should not interfere with it.
Mr. Humesaid, if there was ground for postponing a Bill, the want of power to explain how the many cases of difficulty that would arise were to be met, was ground sufficient. The only effect of this measure would be to unsettle that which was now settled. Under this Bill a Scotch proprietor, having 30,000 l. in the English funds, would be liable to be assessed to the Scotch poor-rate on the full amount of his income; the effect of this would be to drive people from Scotland.
The Lord Advocatesaid that, under the law as it at present stood, all personal property was liable to be assessed to the relief of the poor in the parish in which the possessor of such property resided; and the Bill now before the House did not, therefore, effect any alteration in this respect in the existing law.
Mr. Escottcomplained that funded property was liable to assessment. The practice operated most unjustly, and he hoped that it would not be allowed to continue under this Bill.
The Lord Advocatereplied, that by the law of Scotland, as it now stood, parties were liable to be assessed to the whole amount of their property; and he did not propose to make any alteration in that respect.
Mr. Escottsaid, suppose a man worth 10,000 l. a year were to live in lodgings, for which he paid 30 L. a year, how could he be assessed in the full amount of his property?
The Lord Advocateapprehended that in such a case the party would escape altogether from the rate.
Mr. Ewartwished to know upon what principle the assessment was to be made; that was, how the income of the party was to be ascertained? was it to be by a return, as in the case of the Income Tax, and if not, in what way?
The Lord Advocatesaid, under the existing law, parties were appointed to estimate the incomes; and in this respect, also, he left the law as he found it.
Mr. Duncancontended that these were matters which should be decided by the Legislature, and not left to local parties afterwards.
Sir J. Grahamsaid, that the hon. Members who contended for a uniform mode of rating were generally opposed to this Bill. The construction of the Act known as Mr. Poulett Scrope's Act, was to introduce into England one uniform and inflexible system of rating. The Act was very well intended, and was supported by the Government; but it had been found, to a great extent, inoperative, owing to the practical difficulties in the way of carrying it into general execution. It was found that, however desirable that there should be one general system of rating throughout England, yet that, from local circumstances and local peculiarities, it was impossible to carry that object into effect. Circumstances varied in different localities. In Liverpool, for instance, no occupier under 10 L. a year was assessed to the relief of the poor; in other places no occupier under 5l. But by the operation of the Act to which he had referred, every occupier to the extent of 40s. a year would be rateable for the poor. The Bill now before the House proposed no alterations, unless to remove doubts in peculiar circumstances. He admitted the difficulties with respect to rating property in Scotland; but unless they adopted the inquisitorial system adopted with respect to the Income Tax, he thought it was much better to leave this to be governed by local circumstances, and the local knowledge of the parties. He had been informed by the hon. Member for Greenock, that in that great commercial and maritime town the mode of rating by "means and substance," had been for a long time in operation, and had given the greatest satisfaction.
Mr. Bainecould not concur in the objections to this clause. He was sure that the adoption of a uniform rate of rating would

427
cause great dissatisfaction in Scotland. It appeared to him that the parochial boards would be desirous to give every satisfaction to the ratepayers, and to adopt that mode of assessment most to the benefit of their constituents and the objects they had in view. With regard to the means and substance system, it had been followed in Greenock for a number of years; the one-half being levied on lands and houses, and the other half on the means and substance of the inhabitants other than lands and houses, being very nearly the second plan described in the Bill. The assessment in Greenock was considered in Scotland to be a heavy one, being 6,000 l. in a town with 38,000 inhabitants. If that mode of assessment were given up, the effect would be to relieve the wealthy inhabitants at the expense of the middle and poorer classes. It was said that it was hard to assess funded property; but, for his part, he could not see the hardship. The mode of assessing on the means and substance was this. A pretty numerous committee was appointed, and among them there were always some who knew something of the circumstances of each individual in the town. They accordingly fixed a sum at which they estimated each man's income, and sent him an intimation of the sum on which they proposed to assess him. If he felt aggrieved, he complained to the board, and they appointed a day on which they would hear the reasons of appeal; and in almost every case an amicable settlement of the matter was come to. They did not assess on incomes below 40 l.; and on incomes between 40 l. and 100 l. they assessed on a reduced scale. On all incomes above 100 l. the rate of assessment was equal. The best proof that this system worked well was, not that it had existed in Greenock for twenty-eight years, but that all his communications from Greenock were in favour of preserving this mode of assessment.
Mr. Escottobserved, that if a parish adopted that first method, funded property would not be included in "means and substance," and would not contribute.
Mr. Darbywould support this clause, chiefly on the ground of the statement made by the hon. Member for Greenock; as he thought they ought not to alter a mode of rating which was found to have already worked well.
Mr. Edward Ellicewas clearly of opinion
428
that every man ought to contribute to the poor according to what he had—that was, according to his means and substance in the general sense of the term; and he congratulated Greenock that there the people seemed to meet without squabbling to provide decently for the poor. But did it follow that the same sensible course would be followed in every parish in Scotland? There did appear to be a strange obstinacy on the part of the Government—he did not use the word in an offensive sense—in adhering to the term "means and substance" without explaining what was to be understood by the phrase, and how they were to be got at. A meeting had been held in the county of Fife, where resolutions were passed generally favourable to the Bill, but concluding with a strong protest against inserting the phrase "means and substance" without defining its meaning. He objected also to the operation of the measure in cases where resident proprietors were to be taxed upon their whole means and substance, wherever situated, for half the support of the poor in the parish. Take his own case. He was the only resident proprietor in the parish where he resided. The effect of the Bill would be that he would be taxed for one-half the support of the whole poor of the parish, though his property did not amount to one-tenth of the parish. Such a mode of assessment was a premium on absenteeism. He did not say he should leave the parish; but if he did so, he might say, without any egotistical feeling, that his absence would be an injury to the parish.
Viscount Duncansaid this discussion showed that it was easier to find fault with a measure than to bring forward a good one; but he thought the House ought to leave the clause as proposed by Her Majesty's Government. The local boards would decide which of the three modes of assessment they would adopt; and then there was a safeguard against the operation of local prejudices by the controlling power lodged in the board of supervision.
Mr. Redingtoncomplained that under this clause an Irishman coming to Scotland would have his whole property rated, while, by the 72nd Clause, they refused relief to Irish paupers. The learned Lord Advocate stated that he did not wish to alter the law of Scotland with regard to the rating; he wished that he would be

429
equally unwilling to alter the law of Scotland in regard to the mode of acquiring a settlement.
Mr. Poulett Scropesaid, that his Act was declaratory rather than legislative, and that it had improved the system of rating throughout the country.
Sir J. Grahamsaid, that it was the uniform mode of rating proposed in the Act in question, which had proved a failure.
Mr. Edward Ellicesaid, that as the words "means and substance" were not sufficiently defined, he should divide against the clause.
The Committee divided on the Question, that the clause stand part of the Bill:—Ayes 92; Noes 32: Majority 60.
Clause agreed to.
On Clause 53 being put,
Viscount Duncanproposed as an Amendment, to add the words on "parochial boards" to this clause. He did not propose this in any feeling of hostility to the Bill, but with the view of allaying public feeling in Scotland against the board of supervision. He felt this so strongly that he should take the sense of the Committee on the subject.
The Lord Advocatethought that it would not promote any public object to adopt the Amendment of the noble Lord. He thought it would destroy the independent action and the efficiency of the inspector to have him dependent on the parochial board; but on any reasonable ground of complaint they could always apply to the board of supervision, who would dismiss him. He, therefore, must resist the Amendment.
The Committee divided on the Question, that these words be there inserted:—Ayes 11; Noes 81: Majority 70.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 51 to 55 agreed to.
House resumed. Committee to sit again.
House adjourned at a quarter past one.

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—1a. Field Gardens.
2a. Law of Defamation and Libel Art Amendment.
3a. and passed:—Documentary Evidence; Real Property (Lord Chancellor); Seal Office Abolition.
Private.—1a. Brighton and Chichester Railway (Portsmouth Extension); Guildford, Chichester, and Portsmouth Railway; Glasgow, Barrhead, and Neilston Direct Railway; Direct London and Portsmouth Railway.
2a. Preston and Wyre Railway; Runcorn and Preston Brook Railway; Norwich and Brandon Railway (Diss and Dereham Branches); Glasgow Junction Railway; Bermondsey Improvement; Londonderry and Coleraine Railway.
Reported.—Middlesbro' and Redcar Railway; Waterford and Limerick Railway; Dublin and Drogheda Railway; Newry and Enniskillen Railway; North Union and Ribble Navigation Branch Railway; Irish Great Western Railway (Dublin to Galway); Cromford Canal; Reversionary Interest Society.
3a. and passed:—Cork and Bandon Railway; Lynn and Dereham Railway; Glossop Gas; Great Southern and Western Railway (Ireland); Cockermouth and Workington Railway; North Walsham School Estate (Lord Wodehouse's).
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Stockholders and others of the Colony, residing at Maneroo, for Alteration of Law relating to Territorial Revenue and Disposal of Land (New South Wales).

PRIVILEGE.
The Lord Chancellorlaid upon the Table the Report from the Committee appointed to search for Precedents in reference to the petition of Thomas Baker for Protection. Read, and ordered to lie on the Table; and to be printed.
The Duke of Richmondwould now move that Thomas Baker be called to the bar, to deliver in the declaration he had received.
The Lord Chancellorstated the course he would recommend: The Report was of some length, and it would be some time before it could be printed, and in the hands of their Lordships. He would merely now call the petitioner before them to identify the transaction; after which the plaintiff and his attorney, if their names could be ascertained, should be ordered to attend on Monday. By that time the Report would be printed, and before any other step, such as calling them to the bar, was adopted, there might be a discussion; and those noble Lords who dissented from the course proposed might state their objections.
Lord Campbellentirely approved of the course proposed by his noble and learned Friend.
Lord Radnorhad no objection to the course, except that when the petition was presented, a Committee had been appointed to search for precedents; and now, when the Report had only been handed in, and not printed, they were called upon to take a step.
The Lord Chancellordid not consider

385
this a step by which the House would commit itself.
Lord Broughamdid not object to calling in the petitioner, which was a very different matter from calling the plaintiff and his attorney before them.
Thomas Baker was then called in, and examined by the LORD CHANCELLOR.
Were you examined before a Committee of this House in the month of April of last year?—Yes.
What was that Committee?—A Committee to inquire into the Gaming Laws.
Were you aware that that Committee was appointed to inquire into the laws affecting gaming?—Yes.
Did you give evidence before that Committee?—I did.
Have you since been served with a declaration in any suit, or with a copy?—I received one, which is now in the hands of my attorneys.
Is your attorney in attendance?—Mr. Barnes is here.
Will you ask him for the declaration? Is that the declaration?—Mr. Barnes informs me it is the copy of one filed against me in the Court of Queen's Bench.
Have you read it?—It has been read to me by the clerk of Mr. Lyons.
Does the statement in the declaration correspond with the language used by you before the Committee?—It don't make use of the whole language made us of before the Committee.
By Lord BROUGHAM.—Do you find any of your evidence before that Committee made use of?—Some of it.
By the LORD CHANCELLOR.—In the declaration do you find those words of yours charged?—Yes.
Do the words charged correspond with part of the evidence given by you before the Committee?—Yes.
Did you ever before any other Committee make precisely the same statement as is contained there?—Not precisely the same.
By Lord BROUGHAM.—Did you make anything like the same statement?—Not with respect to him.
Not with respect to Mr. Harlow?—No.
Never?—Never.
By the LORD CHANCELLOR.—Did you make any statement with regard to him except that to which you were sworn, and before a Committee of the House?—Never.
Is that a copy of the declaration which was delivered?—Yes.
By Lord BROUGHAM.—Did you say anything with respect to Mr. Harlow except before this Committee?—No.
By Lord CAMPBELL.—Have yon any doubt that this action is brought for the evidence given by you?—I believe it is solely brought for that evidence.
Do you know the names of the plaintiff's solicitors?—Messrs. Ward and Harbin.
What solicitors do you employ?—Messrs, Lyons, Barnes, and Ellis.
Are they in attendance?—Mr. Barnes is.
Then Mr. Barnes was called in, and examined by his Lordship.
Did you receive a declaration of the plaintiff in this suit?—No; it was filed by the plaintiff's attorney, and taken out by my clerk.
Is that a copy?—That is the original.
Who is the plaintiff's attorney?—Mr. Peter Tait Harbin.
By Lord BROUGHAM.—How did you know it was filed?—Notice was served on the defendant.
By Lord CAMPBELL.—With a notice to plead?—Yes.
By Lord BROUGHAM.—What notice?—Eight days. The declaration was filed on the 7th of July.
By the LORD CHANCELLOR.—Do you know where the plaintiff's attorney lives?—The address on the back of the writ is 16, Clement's Inn.
Thomas Baker was recalled, and examined by the LORD CHANCELLOR.
Do you know where the plaintiff lives?—Yes, my Lord, in Leicester Square.
By Lord BROUGHAM.—What number?—16.
What sort of a shop does he keep?—A tobacconist's.
Thomas Baker and the other parties in attendance were then ordered to withdraw.
The Lord Chancellorthen moved, that Peter Taite Harbin and John Harlow do attend their Lordships' House on Monday next.
Lord Broughamwould not at this stage of the proceeding take an objection to the course suggested, which, however, was not the same matter of course as that of calling the petitioner before them. He purposely abstained from raising the question at that moment; and he trusted that those who agreed with him would also abstain; and he would take such objection as he might be advised, if any further proceeding should be urged against the plaintiff, or if he should be called to the bar. The present, however, was a material step, and he should content himself with protesting against it.
The Lord Chancelloralso reserved his opinion, and upon the same grounds. Their Lordships could not be properly prepared to discuss this question till the Report of the Committee should be printed;

387
but for the purpose of saving time, he proposed that the parties should be ordered to attend.
The Marquess of Clanricardehad not had the good fortune of attending the Committee, as he had been obliged to attend a Railroad Committee; but it now appeared that no inconvenience would have been felt if the House had proceeded last night in the straightforward course he had suggested. The same course they were now about to take could have been taken yesterday, and the House might have taken it whether they bad found a precedent or not. It was a gratification to him, as he had entered a Protest on the Journals against the step taken yesterday, that the opinion he had recorded had now met with unanimous approval.
Motion agreed to, and
The Lord Chancellormoved that the Lords be summoned.
Lord Campbellwas so delighted at the turn the matter had taken, that he would not charge their Lordships with inconsistency, though they were no doubt reversing their decision of last night.
Lord Stanleysaid, there was this material difference in the two courses; last night it was moved that the parties be summoned to the bar, when they had not determined what to do; whereas now they had the advantage of precedents.
Lord BroughamAfter a few words from Lord Brougham,
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, the great difference in the position of the House that evening, and the position last evening, was this:—a petition was presented by the noble Duke sitting on the cross-benches yesterday evening: he (the Duke of Wellington) for one, believed every word contained in that petition: but they were in a different position that night as a House of Parliament. He last night believed in the statements of the petition, as the noble Duke had vouched for them; but that night they had evidence before them on oath, that this man had given evidence before the Committee; that the evidence was the same as the words contained in the declaration, and that he had never stated anything respecting these matters anywhere else. Therefore this declaration must have reference to the evidence given before a Committee of their Lordships' House, and to nothing else. That was the difference of the situation in which they stood that night; and he thought it would turn out that the
388
plaintiff who had filed this declaration would rather find himself in a difficulty.
Motion agreed to.

RAILWAYS AND THE BOARD OF TRADE.
The Earl of Dalhousielaid upon the Table of the House a Minute of the Lords of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade, dated the 10th day of July, 1845, relative to the constitution and mode of proceedings of the Railway Department of the Board of Trade. As the subject was one of considerable importance, he felt himself called on to state shortly, the alteration which it was intended to make, and the grounds upon which they proceeded. Their Lordships would recollect that, at the commencement of the last Session, a Committee had been appointed by the other House for considering the subject of Railway Legislation generally. That Committee sat for many months, and made a very full Report on various matters connected with railways. Upon one point in particular, it reported very fully—viz., the degree of supervision which the Government ought to exercise over schemes before they were brought under the consideration of Parliament. That Report was laid before the House, and adopted, and the Government proceeded to carry into effect its recommendations. It had now become necessary for the Government to consider what provisions should be made for the future conducting of railway schemes. They had found that the circumstances connected with the subject differed materially from those which existed at the beginning of last Session. Having maturely considered the question, and having due regard to the constitution and operations of the Committee of the House of Commons, and to the feeling which had been evinced by Parliament in the course of the present Session, the Government had come to the conclusion, that the Board of Trade should not, in future, prepare or submit to Parliament any Report upon the merits of railway projects. But in relinquishing this function of reporting upon the merits of schemes, previously to their being considered by Parliament, their Lordships must not be induced to consider that the Board had failed in the object for which it had been instituted. He had seen it stated as a curious fact — and curious it, no doubt, would be if true—that only one

389
decision of the Board of Trade had been approved of by the House of Commons, and that that one decision had been reversed by the House of Lords. But what were the real facts of the case? The Railway Department of the Board of Trade had reported on 247 schemes, comprising nearly 8,000 miles of railway; of these 58 had been withdrawn, and 19 had failed upon the Standing Orders, leaving 160, which had been read a second time in the House of Commons. Of these 160, nine still remained undecided, making the number, actually decided on, 151; and of these 151 schemes decided on both by the Board of Trade and the House of Commons, there were only six in which the House of Commons had directly reversed the opinion of the Board of Trade, which six schemes were involved in what was termed the gauge case, and only nine other cases in which the opinion of the Board of Trade had not been confirmed, owing in the mean time to a change of circumstances, or to a compromise between the contending parties; so that, out of 151 schemes which the House of Commons had decided upon, only 15 had been rejected, while 123 of the decisions of the Board of Trade had been absolutely confirmed. He thought he was, therefore, entitled to say that the Board of Trade had not failed in discovering the truth, and that their Reports were not to be considered as waste paper. The Minute of last year proposed that a distinct Committee of the Board of Trade should be appointed for railway business; but it was now intended to discontinue that Committee, and allow the business to be carried on by the ordinary Committee. The same preliminary steps on the part of railway companies which were now required, such as depositing with the Board of Trade a copy of the plan and a statement of the objects of the Bill, would continue to be required. They would also be expected to deliver a copy of the Bill when prepared; and if, upon the examination of its provisions, it should appear to the Board of Trade to be desirable, on public grounds, to direct the attention of Parliament to the nature of those provisions, the Board of Trade would be at liberty to submit to Parliament a Report upon the subject; but in no case to pronounce any opinion upon the merits of the Bill. That was a considerable change from the former system; and he ventured to think that it would be impossible for
390
either House to feel, under the remodelled form of procedure, that there could be any invasion of their powers in deciding upon such matters.
Lord Broughamthanked the noble Earl for his very fair and candid statement. The noble Earl said that a new arrangement had been made. It might well be called a new arrangement. It was just such an arrangement as took place in the body natural, when it was consigned to its parent earth, and suffered decomposition in the course of nature. He condemned the system of delay which was pursued in Committees by the opponents of different Bills for the purpose of insuring their defeat; and particularly instanced the case of the London and York Bill, which had now been about fourteen weeks in Committee. He had always been opposed to the appointment of the Board of Trade Committee, considering that their proceedings were calculated to encourage gambling, and being convinced that they could not have the materials before them which would enable them to come to a correct conclusion. He, however, could not see any objection to the plan now proposed.
Report to be printed.

RAILWAY AND OTHER BILLS.
Lord Broughamthen asked their Lordships if it was their intention to proceed with the Adjourned Debate on the following Resolution, as amended, which, he thought, would put a stop to a good deal of hardship and oppression, viz.:—
"That where any Party or Parties have appeared and contested any such Bills at the Bar or in the Committees of the House, it shall be lawful for the House or Committees, if in their Discretion they shall think fit, to direct the Expences of such Party or Parties incurred in the Proceedings before this House or its Committee to be paid by the opposite Party promoting the Bill; the Amount of suck Expences to be ascertained and certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments or Clerk-Assistant, by like Taxation and in the same Manner and upon the same Terms in all respects, as Costs on Appeals and Writs of Error are directed to be ascertained and certified by the Standing Order of this House, of the 3rd of April 1835 No. 215; and that the Petitioners for any such Bill, or some of them, as shall be approved by the Clerk of the Parliaments, shall, before the same is read a Second Time, give Security to the said Clerk, by Recognizance to be entered into to The Queen, of the Penalty of 5,000 l., conditioned to pay all Expences which may be ordered by the House or the Committee to be paid to any Party

391
or Parties opposing the Bill: That where any Committee has directed Expenses to be paid by any such Party, it shall report such Direction to the House specially, with the Circumstances inducing them so to direct."
The Duke of Richmondsuggested, that where the opposition was vexatious, the parties opposing should be made to bear the costs.
The Earl of Wicklowsaid, that in all ordinary suits the person who lost was made to pay costs; and it certainly appeared rather absurd to him that in these suits those who were in the right, if they happened to be promoters of the Bill, should have to bear costs.
Lord Broughamexplained that, in ordinary cases where an action was brought, it was presumed that the defendant held some property belonging to the plaintiff. If a verdict were found for the plaintiff, he had, for a certain time, been kept out of that which belonged to him; and therefore the defendant was saddled with all costs. In this case the fact was different, for parties appearing to contest any of these Bills were about to have their property taken from them whether they would or no; and for that reason he thought that, even if unsuccessful, the House or Committees should have the discretion of directing the expenses to be paid by the party promoting the Bill.
Lord Monteaglesupported the Resolution. As powerful companies would, in the progress of railroads, become opponents of Bills, unless security were taken against undue opposition to, as well as undue promotion of, railways, injustice would be done. He proposed that recognizances should be taken on both sides.
Lord Broughamaltered the Resolution conformably to this suggestion.
Lord Redesdaleobjected to the requiring recognizances, which would operate to the exclusion of the poor man.
Lord Broughamsaid, that in the case of a poor man, recognizances, to whatever amount, would, in effect, be merely nominal.
The Duke of Richmondsaid, it was well known that in this city there was a certain class of low attorneys, who had no character to lose, who could get up opposition to Bills, and that was what he wished to guard against. He believed that by and by the great body of the people would not be satisfied unless they had
392
a railroad within a mile of their own houses.
Lord Wharncliffesaid, the power of inflicting costs should be given by Act of Parliament. He should take the sense of the House upon the Resolution. It was certainly wrong to do it by means of a Standing Order.
Lord Ashburtontook the same view of the subject.
The Earl of Wicklowsaid, the Resolution as it stood would interfere with the right of petitioning. If a petition was presented and referred to a Committee, the poorest man must be prepared with his recognizances. Were their Lordships ready to place such a bar against the right of petitioning?
Lord Broughamsaid, the Resolution could never injure any man whose property was affected by a railway. It was monstrous to say that the opposition of a man against his property being taken away without his consent, could be frivolous. Noble Lords were running away with a false idea. If this Resolution were to be put off day after day, he should wash his hands of it. He had reported the Resolution from the Committee, which was unanimous, and the House were now about to reject it, and pass a Bill. They might do so, and send their Bill down to the other House, and then (as had been done with some of the best Bills) a Minister might get up and say, "I have considered this matter, and I think there is not time to pass the Bill this Session." And men's property would be taken away without the possibility of getting the costs of resistance. He would, however, defer the Resolution till Monday.
Lord Wharncliffesaid, the House had no right to exercise the power, if they had it, of requiring every person coming there against a Bill to give recognizances. No alteration could reconcile him to the Resolution.
Lord Brougham: That seals the fate of the Resolution. If Her Majesty's Government oppose the Resolution, I, as an individual, must submit.
The Lord Chancellor: I do not consider this to be a question of the Government's.
Lord Wharncliffe: I speak as a Member of the House of Lords.
Lord Brougham: The Resolution does not interfere with the right of petition; even the Amendment does not interfere with that right. It does not prevent the

393
presentation of petitions, but the granting of the prayer of the petition. The right of petition is not the right to have the prayer of the petition granted, but to have it received and read.
Lord Portmanthought that all this matter should be regulated by Act of Parliament. The proper way was to send a Bill for the consideration of the other House, or to receive a Bill from that House for their Lordships' consideration. There was a reference in the noble and learned Lord's Resolution to a Standing Order, which was made effectual by an Act of Parliament brought in by Lord Eldon, who must have considered it necessary to have an Act of Parliament to tax costs. It was the first time it was ever proposed by a Standing Order to give costs in their legislative proceedings. He thought the House would be wise if they adopted the view of the President of the Council, and negatived the Resolution.
Lord Broughamsaid, he had never heard so many mistakes in any one speech as in that which the noble Lord who had just sat down had thought proper to make.
The Earl of Devonobjected to the Resolution in toto. It held out to the people this:—"We must receive your petitions, but we will put such a clog upon the right as will make it nugatory." He would not be a party to such a Resolution.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, his noble and learned Friend did not press the Resolution now; he wished to withdraw it, and to bring it forward amended on Monday.
Lord Wharncliffe: The noble and learned Lord has no right to withdraw the Resolution without the consent of your Lordships.
The Marquess of Lansdowne: Then I move that my noble and learned Friend have leave to withdraw the Resolution. I move this without giving any expression of opinion. The only modes of proceeding are by Resolution or by Act of Parliament, and the best course is, to allow my noble and learned Friend to consider between this and Monday whether it should be by Resolution or by Bill.
The Lord Chancellorobserved, that it had been stated that the House of Commons were disposed to concur in the Resolution; if so, they would agree to a Bill.
Lord Broughamwas repeating several of his arguments in explanation, as well as in support of the Resolution, when
The Earl of Devonmade an observation which was not distinctly heard, relative to the number of times the noble and learned Lord had spoken in the course of the evening.
Lord Broughamcontinued, and said he should speak in that House as often as he pleased, without considering whether it was pleasing to the noble Lord or otherwise. If the noble Lord did not like his speeches, he was not compelled to listen, to them, and he certainly did not care for the noble Lord's attention. When the noble Lord sat at that Table he was compelled to listen to him, but he was not compelled now; and, therefore, if the noble Lord did not wish to do so he had the means of relieving himself. He (Lord Brougham) did not object to listen to the noble Lord; but when he did so, instead of interrupting him, he should adopt those means and relieve himself.
The Earl of Devon: My Lords, I shall not comment upon the good taste and the personal feeling which have prompted the noble Lord to make the observations which your Lordships have just heard. I do not know whether it be a well-merited observation; but as the noble and learned Lord has now avowedly and openly put himself in a position of defiance of this House, it becomes necessary to consider what are the rules and orders of the House upon this subject; and I tell the noble and learned Lord that, although he tells us in the strong language he is accustomed to use, that he will speak in this House as often as he likes, when he does again speak twice or thrice on the same question, contrary to the rules of this House, I shall call upon your Lordships to vindicate and enforce these rules.
Lord Brougham: I hope there will be equitable justice extended to all, on both sides of the House. I never rise frequently unless other noble Lords do so.
The further debate thereon, adjourned to Monday.
House adjourned.