Sitting of 18 March 1852

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN.—For Kildare, William Henry Ford Cogan, Esq.
PUBLIC BILL.—1° Property Qualification.

OUTRAGE ON A BRITISH SUBJECT AT LEGHORN.
COLONEL RAWDONwished to call the attention of the Government to a matter of ssme importance. He had seen a letter, dated from Florence, on the 11th of this month, in which it was stated that a British officer, in the full uniform of the Royal Marines, had been cut down in the streets of Leghorn by the Austrian authorities. He wished to know whether Her Majesty's Government had received any information on the subject of this transaction, and, if so, whether any measures had been taken to obtain redress?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I believe it to be quite incorrect that a British officer, in the uniform of

1245
the Royal Marines, has been cut down, as stated, at Leghorn. But information has reached the Government to the effect, that a petty officer of Marines, being on shore on leave of absence from his ship, has been maltreated by the Tuscan Customs police at Leghorn; that, in consequence, the commander of the vessel, the Firebrand, Captain Codd, communicated with Mr. Scarlett, our Secretary of Legation at Florence, between whom and the Tuscan Minister much correspondence had taken place; and that the result was, that the head of the police, who, it appears, was involved in the transaction, has been imprisoned for eight days. That is the substance of all the information that Her Majesty's Government has received upon the subject.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I should wish to put to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question on a subject which may be said to be in some respects similar to the matter that has just been mentioned. It may be in the recollection of the House that some time ago an outrage of a very aggravated character—an outrage which would have been unmanly under any circumstances, but which, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, might be said to be cowardly—was committed on an unarmed British subject at Florence, by an armed officer of the Austrian service, who was marching at the head of his regiment, That outrage was made the subject of an inquiry in this House; and the noble Lord who was then at the head of Her Majesty's Government stated that communications having reference to the officer were going on at the time, and he did not hesitate to express it as his opinion, that reparation was unquestionably due on the part of the Austrian Government to Mr. Mather, the English gentleman who had been so shamefully outraged. Now, I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware whether the Austrian Government have inflicted any punishment on the officer who so grossly misconducted himself, and whether any kind of reparation has been made by the Austrian Government to Mr. Mather?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: As the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton has not given me notice of his intention to ask me any question on this subject, I must be pardoned if I cannot immediately give him an answer upon this particular point. But, Sir, although the noble Lord has not given notice of the
1246
question, I am in a position to assure the House that Her Majesty's Government have insisted on the Tuscan Government giving reparation to Mr. Mather; for the Tuscan Government, being an independent Government, is not in an condition to avail itself of the excuse in the case of an outrage of this kind, that it was committed by the Austrian authorities; and we have, therefore insisted upon reparation from the Tuscan Government. With regard to the correspondence between the British Government and the Government of Austria on the subject, I believe—though I could have spoken with more certainty had notice been given—I believe I may say that it has terminated, or is approaching to a speedy termination, and that the result will most probably be satisfactory to the House.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he wished to know whether the inquiry into this transaction that had been promised on the part of the Tuscan Government had taken place; and if so, what had been the result?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I must repeat my regret that due notice has not been given me of these questions. I will, however, be prepared to give all possible information on the subject to-morrow.

THE CUFFE-STREET SAVINGS BANK, DUBLIN.
MR. REYNOLDSsaid, he rose to move that the House resolve itself into a Committee, to consider the losses sustained by the sufferers in the late Cuffe-street Savings Bank, Dublin; and to make some arrangement for granting them a compensation. He had had the honour of placing Her Majesty's late Government in a minority twice in the same night on this subject; but, unlike other Members who had done the same, he had not received Her Majesty's commands to form a new Ministry. A Select Committee had been appointed to consider the losses sustained by the depositors in the late Cuffe-street Savings Bank in Dublin. That Committee sat in 1848, 1849, and 1850, and in the month of August, 1850, they made a Report favourable to the claims he advocated. His object in bringing forward his present Motion was to obtain the balance of 34,000 l. still due to the sufferers by the failure of this bank. When he accepted the sum of 30,000 l., he did so as an instalment, and he gave notice then that he should press for the balance. He did not

1247
seek this as a gift, or solicit it in the name of charity or benevolence, but as a right; and he undertook to prove that this money was due from the public Exchequer to the unfortunate persons whom he repoesented. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer moved that 30,000 l. be voted for the depositors; and, on his own showing, admitted that if the Commissioners for the Seduction of the National Debt had notified the insolvency of the Cuffe-street Savings Bank in 1838, the assets would have enabled them to divide 16 s. 6d. in the pound. If they had closed the bank in 1845, the Report stated that there would have been 15 s. in the pound to be divided. But he (Mr. Reynolds) had proved from the books of Mr. Higham, the Assistant Controller of the National Debt Office, that from the year 1833 to 1849 inclusive, the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt had official knowledge that the Cuffe-street Savings Bank was insolvent, and that this knowledge had been concealed from the depositors on "grounds of public policy." Being asked for the meaning of this term, he said, it meant that if they had closed the Cuffe-street Savings Bank, it might have led to a panic, and that a run might have taken place upon all the savings banks in the United Kingdom, the total balance to the credit of the depositors in which amounted to not less than 33,000,000 l. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon (Sir J. Graham), in the debate on this subject last year, repudiated altogether the repayment of the money lost by the depositors upon the grounds of charity. He said if the claim were founded in equity, the Government ought to pay it in full; and if it were not so, that none should be paid. He added that it was unworthy of the British empire to compound for 10 s. in the pound with a parcel of paupers. His hon. Friend the Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright) said he would willingly vote for the payment of the whole 64,000 l. His right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Napier) also supported him. The right hon. and learned Gentleman expressed an opinion that the Commissioners were liable for the debts of the bank; and he believed it would be found that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's opinion on that point had undergone no alteration. The 30,000 l., or at least a portion of it, was paid, but not until the Government had sent over Mr. Martin to make a thorough examination of the accounts. After a year's investigation
1248
of the books, he found that the total defalcation was 64,976 l. 10 s. 7d.; and, when the unclaimed allowances and the claims disallowed for informality had been deducted, there was a balance of 56,229 l. 16 s. 4d. due to the depositors, to whom there was paid, including about 600 l., the expenses of the Commission, the sum of 28,767 l. 11 s. 5d., leaving a surplus of 1,230 l. 8s. 7d. in hand. Of the 1,977 depositors who received the grant—and he mentioned this to show the misery which the failure of the bank must have occasioned—there were 507 whose deposits did not exceed 5l., 306 not exceeding 10 l., 354 not exceeding 20 l., 238 not exceeding 30 l., 233 not exceeding 50 l., and 294 exceeding that amount. About two-thirds of these poor persons were females—old, decrepit servants, who had placed their savings in this bank as a small provision against a rainy day, and who were therefore placed in circumstances of extreme misery by the fraud of which they had been the victims. From the report of Mr. Martin, it appeared that in 1830, the bank was insolvent to the extent of 4,448 l. 10 s. 5d.; in 1831, 17,888 l. 13 s. 5d.; in 1832, 22,825 l. 17 s. 3d.; in 1838, 35,211 l. 2s. 1d.; in 1845, 56,415 l. 16 s. 6d.; in 1846, 58,341 l. 7s. 11 d.; in 1847, 60,839 l. 6s. 5d.; and in 1848, 64,683 l. 7s. 1d. It might be asked why they did not look to those who had acted as trustees and managers? He had a very simple answer to that question. The Savings Banks were established under the 9th of Geo. IV., c. 92, the ninth section of which made the trustees personally liable for their wilful neglect or fraud; but in 1844, when the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt were aware that the Cuffe-street Bank was insolvent to the extent of more than 40,000 l., they repealed that section, and made the trustees only liable for the amount to which they would sign a guarantee. And how many of the trustees of this bank did they think had signed? Just two, for 100 l. each. Surely, then, the Government ought to make good the whole of the deficiency. It was established by Mr. Higham's evidence that every account from 1833 showed a deficiency, beginning with 3,671 l. in that year, and amounting to 32,000 l. in 1847. These were not the real deficiencies, for Mr. Martin, the accountant sent over, found them to be above 60,000 l. All this time the Commissioners of the National Debt were aware of this insolvency; and yet, when it amounted to upwards of 64,000 l.,

1249
there was only 83 l. to meet it. When the Motion was last before the House, the whole of the daily papers had condemned the course pursued, and said that the whole amount ought to have been voted. Though he and the hon. Member for Kerry (Mr. H. Herbert) had carried the Motion for a Committee, they had not even been allowed to name the Committee; and the Government had striven all in their power to obtain a less favourable report than was given. The case of the Cuffe-street Savings Bank was essentially different from those of the Kerry and Tralee Banks. In the latter cases the Commissioners did not know of the insolvency. To a tribunal of honourable and honest men he confidently appealed for the payment of the remaining instalment of the debt.
Motion made, and Question put—
"That this House will, upon Tuesday next, resolve itself into a Committee, to consider of an humble Address to be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty may be graciously pleased to take the case of the sufferers in the Cuffe-street Savings Bank, Dublin, into Her Royal consideration, and to grant them a compensation for their losses, and to assure Her Majesty that this House will make good the same."
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, this was one of those distressing cases with which every Member of the House must sympathise. No doubt a large number of poor persons, in Ireland, had suffered severely by the failure of this Cuffe-street Bank; and he was rather surprised that the hon. Gentleman who brought forward this Motion, while he was so indignant against certain branches of the Administration for their assumed negligence, had not bestowed some of his indignation on the managers of the bank, whose conduct had certainly been as profligate and iniquitous as could well be imagined. The House must not allow itself to be wholly carried away by sympathy for the sufferers, without inquiring into all the circumstances. There were many cases where Savings Banks had been conducted with a great want of ability and honesty, and a very considerable loss had necessarily occurred to the depositors; but no one could contend that it was the duty of Government to come forward and offer compensation for the want of ability and want of faith with which these institutions had been managed. The only ground on which an appeal had been made to the House in respect to this Cuffe-street Bank was, that there were some peculiar circum-
1250
stances which distinguished it from the usual instances where great losses had been experienced by the depositors from the malversation or mismanagement of the trustees. The question had been frequently discussed in the present Parliament, and had been the subject of the elaborate inquiry of a Committee. Were it viewed in a very rigid spirit, he thought they must arrive at the conclusion that no relief whatever ought to have been granted. He did not regret that that rigid decision had not been arrived at. Instances would arise where it was not politic, and hardly possible, to come to a conclusion which could be supported by very severe principles of justice. There were certain appeals which, under peculiar circumstances, would enter into the management even of pounds, shillings, and pence; and, although he was not bound to support, still he could fairly say he sympathised with the case, and could comprehend how, after a painful and elaborate discussion, first the Committee, and then the House, had sanctioned the arrangement which took place in 1850. But this was the real state of the case. The grant of 30,000 l. was then brought forward by the Government, and accepted, he believed, by the majority who required it, as a settlement of the question. It was very possible that one or two Members, while voting for that grant, might have protested against accepting it as a settlement of the case; but he insisted upon this as the proof that it was so offered by the Government. He could comprehend and sympathise with the arrangement thus made in 1850, and having carefully examined the subject, he could discover nothing to induce him to believe that the Government, under the circumstances, could have made a more considerate arrangement. The exceptional circumstance which marked the case of the Cuffe-street Bank from other Savings Bank failures in England and Ireland, no doubt arose from a certain appearance of negligence on the part of the Administration, which was alleged as the real cause of the loss; but he was certain that, were the case examined rigidly with respect to its merits, they could not, upon the conduct of the Commissioners of the National Debt and the Government of the day, found any legal or equitable claim for compensation. That being so, he might be asked upon what principle the 30,000 l. had been voted. It was not necessary to go into that question. He remembered

1251
the temper of the House with which that proposition was received and sanctioned; but it was brought forward by the Government, he asserted, as a settlement of the question; and though there might be originally ground for disputing the wisdom, justice, or expediency of making a grant at all, or, if it were proposed, of proposing a complete one—as far as that House was concerned, the Vote at which it arrived was most certainly a settlement of the question. Believing this, and having great doubts, and more than doubts, whether with a rigid application of those principles of justice to which the hon. Member had referred, the Government would have been authorised in making any advance whatever—Seating the question as a settled question—though he hoped he sympathised as much as any one with those who had suffered from the conduct of the trustees nnd directors of the Cuffe-street Bank—he did not feel authorised to accede to the Motion of the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, considering all the circumstances of the case, and the prolonged malversation that had occurred, the hon. Gentleman's clients might consider themselves very fortunate to have obtained the assistance they had done from Parliament. He did not know one instance where the sufferers from the mismanagement of a Savings Bank had been so compensated. Under these circumstances, it was his duty to resist the Motion. He did so with unaffected pain. It would be very agreeable to him to consent to a proposition which would give an entire repayment to those depositors; but the House must recollect that a great number of them had made deposits in contravention of the well-known laws and regulations of Savings Banks. Therefore, they had suffered not merely by the mismanagement of the trustees and directors, but they had made deposits which they were perfectly aware were contrary to the rules of the institution. These cases were mentioned in the Report, in the schedule of rejected claims, A woman named Doherty, of St. Stephen's-green, Dublin, had three accounts, all in fictitious names, altogether amounting to nearly 300 l. Her claim was consequently discllowed. The hon. Gentleman could hardly say that that was an instance of suffering which had entirely arisen from the mismanagement of the trustees and directors. There were several cases of the same kind, which had been disallowed: in one the depositor had taken out three pass-books;
1252
in another, the party claimed under a will without having proved it. Of course, such cases could not be entertained. A sum of nearly 30,000 l. had been appropriated amongst the depositors, and it was very difficult to establish the justice of that original Vote. He should be sorry to seem to oppose what any one thought a just claim, on the part of a suffering class; but if the House established a precedent, after having settled a case of this kind by a very liberal arrangement—if they once admitted as a claim to relief the plea that the Government had been cognisant of the mismanagement of a Savings Bank, there would be no end to the claims that might be made. The Cuffe-street Savings Bank, instead of being a case of unprecedented hardship, was remarkable for receiving relief, which no other, sufferers had obtained. He trusted the hon. Gentleman would not press his Motion. The whole subject of Savings Banks was now under the consideration of Government, with the most anxious wish to meet the great difficulties of that very difficult subject, and, if possible, to place their affairs on such a footing as to render catastrophes like this impossible in future. With regard to the victims in the present case, remembering what had occurred, he could not feel it his duty to sanction the views of the hon. Gentleman, and he must be placed in the painful position of opposing the Motion.
MR. H. HERBERTcould have wished the subject not to be again discussed on the present occasion. Considering the impossibility of the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer having yet devoted his attention to it, it was to be regretted that the hon. Member for the city of Dublin had now brought it forward. He (Mr. H. Herbert) had been the original mover of this question, for the appointment of a Committee, and not the hon. Member for the city of Dublin, as he had stated. He (Mr. H. Herbert) contended that this was not merely an Irish question. It was one equally affecting England, as there had been as many failures of Savings Banks in this country as in Ireland. He admitted that if the trustees had done their duty, no loss would have been incurred; but it should be remembered that in 1844, up to which time they were legally responsible to the depositors, the Legislature had stepped in and relieved them from that responsibility. The consequent was, when the failures occurred, the depositors had neither the responsibility of the trustees nor the

1253
Government. In the failure of a private bank, the creditors could come on the private resources of the banker; and why should not the depositors in Savings Banks have some such security? It had been thought necessary, by reason of the great sums now deposited in Savings Banks, to relieve the trustees from their responsibility; but surely some substitute should have been provided. It was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that this was the only case where the sufferers had been compensated by the Legislature. But in the case of the Exchequer Bills' frauds in 1844, where the sufferers were rich merchants, compensation had been provided; and surely the poor depositors in Savings Banks, who had suffered, had as good a claim. He rejoiced to hear that the whole question was under the consideration of the Government. After that pledge was fulfilled, he should bring forward a Motion on the subject. Till then he would recommend that the Motion of the hon. Member for the city of Dublin should be withdrawn. If the hon. Member divided, he (Mr. H. Herbert) should support the Motion, being an advocate for a full measure of justice.
MR. NAPIER,would also strongly recommend the hon. Member for the city of Dublin to withdraw the Motion, at the same time he was bound to say a few words in explanation of the opinions he had formerly expressed on the question. He still retained those opinions, and had formed them in consequence of the admissions in the Report that the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt had greatly neglected their duty in not exercising the powers with which they were entrusted. No question was of more importance to the community than that of Savings Banks, and he rejoiced to know that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was about to direct his attention to the subject. He hoped—indeed he had reason to believe—that arrangements were in contemplation for putting those institutions on a basis which would give that security to depositors to which they were entitled. Under these circumstances he recommended the hon. Gentleman not to press his Motion to a division.
MR. HUMEsaid, the evil arose in consequence of the fault of the public officers, whose duty it was to ascertain the solvency of the bank. The depositors in the Cuffe-street Savings' Bank had lodged their money with as much confidence in its safety
1254
as if they had placed it in the Exchequer chest. He believed that the Government was liable to make good those losses; but he put it to the hon. Gentleman the Member for the city of Dublin, whether, after the declaration of the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer, he would press his Motion to a division, as he did not think he would gain anything by taking so premature a course.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, that the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt permitted the Cuffe-street Savings Bank to go in long after its affaire had become insolvent. In his opinion, the House was bound to find the remaining 34,000 l., because, as the Legislature had stepped in, and taken away the responsibility of the trustees, it was only just and fair that it should make good the losses caused by the ignorance and misconduct of public officers. Put Savings Banks under the care of the Comptroller General, or of some responsible persons, and these malversations would no longer occur. He should vote for the Motion if it went to a division.
MR. SCULLYdid not think the Motion could with justice be resisted, for the Report of 1850 showed the Cuffe-street Bank to be wholly distinct from every other Savings Bank in the United Kingdom. The fact of the House of Commons having sanctioned the vote of 30,000 l. two years ago, was an admission of the principle that the depositors ought to be fully compensated. He believed that the depositors in this bank had suffered very severely from its stoppages, and that the fault lay with the public officers, who had neglected their duty. Should the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer give a promise to the hon. Member for the City of Dublin that he would consider the case of the Cuffe-street Bank, per se, when the general question should come before the House, he (Mr. Scully) would advise the hon. Member to withdraw his Motion; but to press it in the absense of such a promise.
MR. GROGANhad heard with great pleasure the announcement made by the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer that the whole question of Savings Banks was to be fully considered; but the right hon. Gentleman's statement, to the effect that he considered this question finally settled by the grant of 30,000 l., pained and disappointed him. A Committee, consisting of the leading financiers of that House, had been appointed solemnly to

1255
consider this subject, and the result was that the late Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed a vote of 30,000 l. for the mitigation of the injuries suffered by the depositors in the Cuffe-street Savings Bank. Now, if the guardian of the public purse, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, found the case so strong as to induce him to make that proposition, on what ground could the remaining 10 s. in the pound be withheld? He admitted that the moment chosen for bringing forward the question was premature; but that did not alter the justice of the case, and he wished to be understood that he was not advocating the claims of those depositors who had violated the Act of Parliament.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, in this case the public had been placed in a most unfortunate and anomalous position, for if the principle were laid down that these losses should be paid out of the public taxes, every other Savings Bank would have an equal claim. He trusted the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer would take into consideration the propriety of making an alteration in the existing law so as to afford protection to the public as well as to the depositors.
MR. REYNOLDS,in reply, said, he must decline to respond to the appeal made to him to withdraw the Motion, after the declaration of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that these depositors were fortunate in getting so much as they did, and had made a most capital bargain. Were the right hon. Gentleman to promise, without pledging himself to any particular decision, that when the whole question of Savings Banks was investigated, the particular case of the Cuffe-street Savings Bank would also be considered, he would, in that case, withdraw the Motion for the present. He had been asked privately why he did not bring forward this subject last year. His answer was, the Ecclesiastical Titles Assumption Bill stood in the way. Until the dogdays almost there was hardly a single night in which he had not some quarrel with Her Majesty's Ministers about that Bill, and from the cat-and-dog life he then led with them, they were, of course, anything but disposed to go out of their way to accommodate him with reference to this or any other subject. But now the case was altered, because he found upon the Ministerial benches opposite no fewer than seven hon. Gentlemen who voted with him in 1850, including the noble Lord the Mem-
1256
ber for Tyrone (Lord C. Hamilton), the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Portarlington (Colonel Dunne), and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Napier); and, therefore, he thought it a favourable opportunity to bring the subject again before the House. He regretted that the eloquence of the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland had had so little effect upon the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He had hoped he would have taken counsel of his Irish advisers on this subject, for they knew its merits well, and could give him good advice upon it. He begged to say that he had no anxiety to call for a division on this occasion, provided he had something like a reasonable ground to hope that, when the whole question of Savings Banks came to be considered, this subject would be taken into consideration at the same time; but, unless this assurance were given him, he must divide now.
House divided:—Ayes 40; Noes 169: Majority 129.

INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT PARTNERSHIPS.
MR. SLANEY, after presenting two petitions in favour of Industrial and Provident Partnerships, proceeded to move for leave to bring in a Bill to legalise the formation of such partnerships. He said that the discussion which had just taken place was not a bad introduction to the Motion of which he had given notice, showing, as it did, how difficult it was for the humbler classes of society in this country to find a safe mode of investing their scanty savings. His attention had been devoted to the subject for many years. So far back as 1830 he obtained a Committee of the House to consider the means of lessening the evils arising from the fluctuation of employment in manufacturing districts. On that Committee he had the able assistance of the late Lord Spencer, and the Report which the Committee afterwards presented to the House stated the difficulties under which the working classes laboured with respect to their investments, and pointed out certain remedies for the purpose of removing those difficulties. In 1840 it was his good fortune to obtain another Committee on the evils affecting the humble classes in large towns; and it was his lot, in connexion with that inquiry, to meet with many intelligent operatives in different parts of

1257
the Kingdom, who all expressed their earnest desire that facilities should he given to them to make investments of their savings. In 1850 he was fortunate enough to obtain a Committee to investigate the legal obstacles which stood in the way of investments of the middle and humbler classes, and those obstacles were clearly pointed out in the Report of that Committee. Last year a Committee sat upon the Law of Partnership, and the obstacles which that law placed in the way of these humble parties, and they reiterated the recommendations stated in the first report, that those obstacles ought to be removed which prevented the advantageous employment of small savings. The main principle which affected the welfare of the wages of the people, was simple and clear. It was too often neglected, but was of the first consequence to be understood. Their wages must depend upon the proportion of the supply to the demand, and the amount of capital employed. The legal obstacles which stood in the way of the accumulation of capital, and of the use of that capital in the demand for labour, were extremely great. When these parties joined together their capital and industry, if one single person took hold of the partnership property, there was no tribunal before which he could be brought to answer for his misdeeds; there was no mode in which they could sue or be sued. What they asked was this: the enactment of a simple law, enabling them to invest in directors of their own choice their own property, and the establishment of a simple tribunal for the settlement of those disputes. They did not ask for unlimited liability, but simply that the provisions of the Friendly Societies Act (13 & 14 Vict., c. 115) should be extended to them.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, that on the part of the Government he should not offer any objection to the introduction of the Bill, the details of which could be discussed on a future occasion.
Leave given; Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Slaney, Mr. Sotheron, and Mr. Tufnell.

BORNEO—SIR JAMES BROOKE.
MR. HUMEmoved—
"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, a Copy of Letter from Mr. Robert Burns to Viscount Palmerston, dated Singapore, 28th day of June, 1851, with its Inclosures, complain-
1258
ing of the obstructions and discouragements he had received to his commercial affairs in Borneo, at the hands of Her Majesty's Commissioner and Consul General to the Sultan and independent chiefs of Borneo, whilst prosecuting his lawful commercial proceedings in that country; together with Copy of any Answers thereto."
MR. HENRY DRUMMONDsaid, the lion. Gentleman a few nights ago had given notice of a Motion similar to the present, but that Motion contained a statement that was not the fact. The same operation was performed by the hon. Gentleman several times last year. He kept continual Motions on the paper relating to the conduct of Sir James Brooke; and, upon the same principle, he (Mr. H. Drummond) supposed, that calumny, like flattery, should be laid on thick enough, so that some of it at last might stick, the hon. Member had contrived to keep that gentleman's name before the House until the end of the Session. The hon. Gentleman had had the kindness and urbanity to write him a private letter to bog him to take the earliest opportunity, when this subject came before the House, to make some amende respecting some observations which he (Mr. H. Drummond) had made as applied to a Mr. Miles last year. He (Mr. H. Drummond) replied to the hon. Gentleman in general terms that he would not do in private that justice to Mr. Miles which the hon. Gentleman had requested him to do, but he would do that justice to Mr. Miles in his place in that House whenever an opportunity occurred. Repeatedly had he sought that opportunity, but never had he been able to get one; and he was not now going to apologise for, or extenuate, or deny one word he had said last year; on the contrary, he only insinuated last year that which now he was going to assert positively, that this Miles was a runaway convict. The hon. Gentleman had himself not clean hands with respect to this Miles, for he had published in the papers read in this House a letter from this Miles, which he (Mr. Drummond) had shown to be a forgery. He proved it to be a forgery from the handwriting of that gentleman—a gentleman he would not call him—of that man, and that he could neither spell nor write. Nevertheless, that false testimony the hon. Gentleman made use of, and never had he explained either to Sir James Brooke or to that House why he brought forward that false testimony. He (Mr. H. Drummond) had asserted that Miles, upon whose information the hon. Gentleman relied, was a runaway convict. He

1259
insinuated it before; he now said it, and he said that Miles was worse—that he was a thoroughly worthless fellow, and he would now proceed to prove what he had stated. He had an affidavit by a Mr. Henry Adams, which was as follows:—
"Western Australia, Perth, Oct. 10, 1851.
"I, Henry Adams, late of Adelaide, in the province of South Australia, but now of the colony of Western Australia, master mariner, master and owner of the schooner Unknown, solemnly declare as follows:—That is to say, that I was in the police force in the province of South Australia for about fifteen months; that a person who passed by the name of Peter Loyd kept a house of ill fame called the Scotch Thistle; that the police force always had their eyes on the said Peter Loyd, as he was considered a very had character, and that the Scotch Thistle was frequently searched by the police for stolen goods, and for persons suspected of robberies; that I saw a man called William Miller accuse the said Peter Loyd openly upon a racecourse in South Australia of having picked his pocket, when several bystanders declared they had seen the theft committed by the said Peter Loyd, and when I saw the said Peter Loyd return the said William Miller the sum of 3s., being the amount alleged to have been stolen from him on that occasion by the said Peter Loyd; that the stores of Messrs. Murray and Gregg, of Adelaide, were robbed, and that there was very strong ground for suspecting the robbery had been committed by the said Peter Loyd and a man named—Ring; that a reward was offered by the local Government for their apprehension, and the police were sent in search of them, but were unable to arrest them, as they rode to Cape Jervis, and succeeded in getting on board a vessel shortly before the arrival of the police in pursuit; that I knew him, Peter Loyd, well during his residence in Adelaide, and that he there lived with a woman who passed as his wife, and who escaped with him from Cape Jervis; that I heard this woman state that he, Peter Loyd, was a runaway convict: that I did not again see the said Peter Loyd, until the year 1844, when he arrived at Freemantle, in the said colony of West Australia, as owner of the Buffalo, from Singapore, and passed under the name of William Henry Miles; that I at once recognised him, and could not be mistaken as to his identity; that I then heard he was about to be married to a daughter of a Mr. Wickstead, who kept a public-house at Freemantle, and that I conceived it to be my duty to, and I accordingly did, communicate to Mr. Wickstead what I knew of the said Peter Loyd or William Henry Miles, and particularly that I had reason to believe he was then a married man; that I afterwards met at Singapore several persons who informed me that the woman whom I had formerly known as the wife of the said Peter Loyd, or William Henry Miles, at Adelaide, and also Mrs. Miles, the daughter of the said Mr. Wickstead, whom the said Peter Loyd, or William Henry Miles, married at Freemantle aforesaid, had both been resident at Singapore together; but I did not on that occasion see the said Peter Loyd, or William Henry Miles, as he was then at Labuan, where I learned he had gone to lease or work a coal mine.
(Signed) "H. E. ADAMS."
1260
"Subscribed by the abovenamed H. E. Adams in my presence, at Perth, Western Australia, this 10th day of October, 1851.
(Signed) "W. H. MACKIE, J.P.,
Commissioner of the Civil Court of Western Australia, and Chairman of the Court f Quarter Sessions."
It was upon the authority of that man that the hon. Gentleman brought forward all his charges against Sir James Brooke last year; and that was the man whom the hon. Gentleman called upon him, on the authority of a respectable London merchant, to do justice to. The respectable London merchant stood godfather for the respectability of Peter Loyd, a partner in his veracity and in his respectability. Would the hon. Gentleman be so good as to tell the House who was that respectable English merchant? Respectable!—yes, perhaps he kept a gig.
MR. HUMEhoped the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken would tell the House where he had got the document from which he had just read. For himself, he would say that he did not believe a word of the allegations contained in it. He had stated to the hon. Gentleman, that as he had in his place calumniated Mr. Miles, he thought it was an act of justice to explain it, and he asked the hon. Gentleman whether he had seen the proceedings that had taken place in the Court of Singapore against the Singapore Free Press for a libel, in consequence of the statement mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. Mr. Miles's letter was given to him by a merchant on whose authority he relied, and he published it on that authority—the authority of a respectable English merchant in this country. The hon. Gentleman had on a former occasion produced a document, and said that Mr. Miles could not write. The letter, certainly, was badly spelt; and, if that was a type of what that individual could write, he should say it was not very creditable. But how did that letter get into the possession of the hon. Gentleman? Was it stolen when the troops made the attack which had before been referred to, at the suggestion of Sir James Brooke? and did that hon. Gentleman know that Mr. Miles had brought an action in the Court of Singapore against Sir James Brooke or his agent? In the opinion of the Judge at Singapore, the real libeller was the hon. Member for West Surrey. As to Sir James Brooke, his conduct had continued as monstrous as it had begun. Before any satisfaction had been made for his previous excesses, Sir James Brooke,

1261
on the 31st of July, had an ambush laid for 4,000 persons, whom, in order to create a pretext for plundering them, he; chose to call pirates, whereas they wore not pirates, nor anything of the sort: they were Dyaks. If there were any pirates, they are Malays. Of those 4,000 persons, 500 were barbarously slaughtered, and 1,500 more or less injured; for the massacre and injuries of these poor people the Government had to pay 20,700 l.; yet no inquiry was to be granted into this barbarous and disgraceful outrage.
Notice taken, that forty Members were not present.
House counted, and forty Members not being present,
The House was adjourned at Eight o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL.—1a Patent Law Amendment (No. 2).

COPYHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT.
Several noble Lords presented Petitions praying for the enfranchisement of Copyhold Property on equitable principles.
The LORD CHANCELLORpresented a petition from Solicitors practising in England and Wales to the same effect. He considered that the emancipation of copyholds, tending as it must to simplify the laws of property, would be of great advantage; but such a measure would require great consideration. They should take care, on the one hand, not to inflict any injury on the lord or on the tenant; and, on the other, they should be careful how they interfered with the property of a tenant who did not desire to alter the tenure by which he held, and who probably might not have money to spare to purchase the enfranchisement of his tenure and to improve the property. They would find it necessary to be very careful not to impose burdens upon such persons.
LORD BROUGHAMentirely joined in the opinion which had been expressed by his noble Friend.
LORD CRANWORTHthought that in the consideration of this question there were two points which must be regarded. They had in the first instance to regard the interest of the community, and in the next place the interest of the copyholder. The present system might be considered as having in many respects an injurious effect on the interests of the country, so far as it affected timber, mines, and a
1224
variety of other things; but it should also be recollected that by altering that system they would deprive small copyholders holding an acre or two of land, or a rood or two of land, of the great benefits they now enjoyed.
The LORD CHANCELLORadmitted the advantages which were conferred under the present system by a local registry, which was open to none of the inconveniences, dangers, or troubles that attend a general registry. He should be sorry to see it abolished, but in general measures of improvement it frequently became necessary to submit to particular sacrifices.
LORD REDESDALEreminded their Lordships of what had taken place under the Bill for voluntary enfranchisement. He thought that many persons who would act under that measure, refrained from doing so, because they thought they would be able to drive a better bargain when a compulsory Bill was passed. All small copyholders were interested in keeping up the copyhold tenure, because they enjoyed under it a cheap system of registration in the court of the lord; and nothing could be more unjust than to compel the lord of a manor to keep up the court after the enfranchisement of copyholds, merely for the purpose of having such a registry.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS—THE ARGENTINE CONFEDERATION—REFUGEES—OUTRAGE AT LEGHORN.
LORD BEAUMONT: Seeing my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in his place, I take the opportunity of giving notice that I shall on an early day ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are prepared to lay before Parliament any information relating to the present state of affairs in the Argentine Confederation. The information which I shall ask for is only that which touches the maritime and commercial relations of this country with that Confederation. I believe that this is the time for obtaining from that Confederation, by peaceable means, that which we attempted to obtain some years ago by forcible means, which we were then justified by circumstances in employing. I will also move, at my noble Friend's convenience, for the production of additional papers to the correspondence which has already been produced between the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in this country and the Ministers of foreign countries on the subject of refugees in this country, and the protection of British, subjects from insult and outrage abroad. I

1225
hope my noble Friend will forgive me when I say that a report is abroad that another outrage has been committed by a Tuscan or Austrian officer on the person of a British officer in the port of Leghorn. There is a rumour now very rife that an officer of one of Her Majesty's ships of war now in Leghorn Roads has been cut down or insulted or otherwise ill-treated in his uniform, while on shore, by the local authorities either of the Tuscan or of the Austrian Government at Leghorn. Will my noble Friend tell me whether that rumour is correct or not?
The EARL of MALMESBURY: As to the first question, on the subject of the Argentine Confederation, I can assure my noble Friend that Her Majesty's Government appreciates as much as he can do the great importance of our relations with that Confederation, and the favourable opportunity which now presents itself to us or obtaining a settlement of our claims in that quarter. As to my noble Friend's second question, relative to the laying on the table any additional correspondence on the subject of foreign refugees, I believe that the Government would have no objection to its production; but, generally speaking, it is not thought advisable to lay such correspondence piecemeal before Parliament, and before it is concluded. As to my noble Friend's third question, respecting the insult offered to an officer of Her Majesty's Navy in the port of Leghorn, I think that my noble Friend has allowed rumour to exaggerate the real facts of the case very largely. The facts are these:—A petty officer, a corporal of Marines, belonging to Her Majesty's ship Firebrand, now lying in Leghorn Roads, went ashore one Sunday night on leave of absence. While on shore, and with little provocation on his part, he appears to have offended a gendarme or police authority of the Tuscan Government. This authority seized him very roughly, maltreated him, took him to the station-house, and there placed him in chains both hand and foot, and that, too, while the corporal was wearing his uniform as an officer in Her Majesty's service. But I am glad to say that by the active interference of our Secretary of Legation at Florence, Mr. Scarlett, the matter has been satisfactorily arranged, and the Tuscan Government has placed the chief officer of the gendarmerie at Leghorn in prison for eight days as an atonement for the outrage which he committed on this subject of Her Majesty.

THE RURAL POLICE IN ENGLAND— VOLUNTEER RIFLE CORPS.
The EARL of ELLENBOROUGHmoved an Address for Returns, showing the Number and Charge of the Police in Ireland, and also the Number and Charge of the Rural or Municipal Police in each County and Borough in England and Scotland (in each case the amount of such charge defrayed out of the Public Revenue to be specified), and said, that his object was to point out the incongruity which prevailed in the systems now in force in Great Britain and Ireland, and to draw the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the connexion between the rural police of Great Britain and that great measure of national military defence which was then of necessity under the consideration of his noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Derby). In Ireland the police was diffused over the whole country, and the expense of it was borne by the Government, except when a special force was sent into a disturbed district, or when a permanently increased force was required for the protection of a particular district. In this country there was no uniform system of rural police. In the year 1839 an Act of Parliament was passed which left it altogether to the discretion of the magistrates in quarter-sessions assembled to establish or not in their county such a force as they might think necessary, and to fix a limit to the extent to which it was to be carried. It was intended that there should be a certain proportion between the number of police and the amount of population in each county. Under that Act he believed that about half the counties of England had adopted a police force; but this force was by no means of equal amount in different counties, nor had the variation of its amount in different counties any reference to the exigency of the case. That depended on the wise liberality, or the shortsighted economy, of the different bodies of magistracy in quarter-sessions. The expense of the force upon the ratepayers was felt in some instances as a hardship. In the county with which he was connected, the expense of the police was equal to half the amount of the whole county rates; and it was with some difficulty that he had persuaded the magistracy some years ago to continue the force on the same footing as before, and which was absolutely necessary for the maintenance of order. It was quite obvious that if the police force were uniformly distributed all throughout the coun-

1227
try, their utility and efficiency as a police force would be much greater than it was at that moment; for in those counties where there was no rural police, crime was generated, and subsequently diffused itself over the adjacent counties. He suggested to his noble Friend opposite the propriety of introducing a compulsory measure to establish an uniformity of police for England as well as for Ireland. He did not mean to say that there should be the same numbers, but only that there should be an uniformity of system, and that the same measure of justice should be dealt out to the ratepayers in England as was dealt out to those of Ireland, and that a large portion of the expense in England should be defrayed, as it was in Ireland, by the Government. At present the only case in England in which the Government came to the aid of the ratepayers was in the metropolis, where nearly 100,000 l. a year was expended by the Government on the police; out he could not see why the metropolis had a larger claim on the liberality of the Government than the country districts. The point, however, to which he wished to call the particular attention of his noble Friend was the connexion between the rural police and the measure for the national defence of the country. It must occur to his noble Friend, when he came to consider the course necessary to protect the country in the field against an invading force, that the very moment in which an invading enemy set foot on our shores, the operation of the law would be practically suspended from one end of the country to the other. Everywhere crime would break loose, and property would be in danger; and one great reason why he wished for the establishment of an uniform system of police throughout the country was in order that there might be an uniformity of protection when those who would have to defend us from the enemy were withdrawn. He therefore was of opinion that his noble Friend ought to revise the Act for calling out special constables, for, as the Act now stood, though such a force might be good for an unexpected emergency, it was not qualified to give permanent protection to the country when an enemy was within it. He therefore wished to ask his noble Friend whether he intended to adhere to the decision of the late Government not to give any aid to volunteer rifle corps? He should hear with great regret that Her Majesty's present Ministers had come to any such decision. The decision of the
1228
late Government had thrown a damp over the exertions of individuals, and had checked the formation of those corps. It was evident that in case of invasion they would be of great value. The parties forming them would not be of the same age and condition as the persons forming the militia to be established by law, but would be of a higher condition and a more advanced age. In peace, such a force would arm property with protection; and in time of war, with discipline and good arms, it would be a valuable aid to the regular Army by hanging on the rear and flanks of an invading enemy. With assistance from the Government, various things essential to the efficiency of volunteer corps would be furnished to them, which it was impossible for them to obtain without; as, for instance, an uniformity in the calibre of the arms they used. In his opinion, without such uniformity of calibre, such corps could not serve efficiently, even for a week. The noble Earl then formally moved for a return, showing the number and the charge of the rural or municipal police in each county, county of a city, and borough in England and Scotland; and also, for a return showing the number and charge of the police in Ireland; stating in each case the amount of such charge defrayed out of the public revenue.
The EARL of DERBYhad no objection to the production of these returns. He was sure that his noble Friend would not be surprised at his declining to enter at present into the differences existing in the systems of the police force in England and Ireland respectively, or into the reasons which rendered it necessary to take either the one or the other course. With regard to the Irish police force, his noble Friend was quite correct in stating that the expense of the Irish police force was paid by the Government. Some years ago, when an Act was passed for establishing that force, one-half the cost was to be borne by the Consolidated Fund, and the other half by the counties. Since then, another Act had been passed, whereby the whole cost was to be defrayed from the Consolidated Fund. He agreed with his noble Friend that the irregularity and want of uniformity in the rural police in this country, and the different principle and proportion by which it was distributed in the different districts, was a matter well worthy of attention; and he also agreed with his noble Friend that the expense of it being paid out of the county rates pres-

1229
sed heavily on one description of property: and possibly it would be right that the expense of that force should be borne by the Consolidated Fund, for it protected personal property and persons as well as real property, but being defrayed by the county rates fell exclusively on the latter class of property. The transfer of that expense, however, was a question involving a large national expenditure, and he could not hastily express an opinion upon it. He did not see the connexion which his noble Friend had drawn between a rural police and the force which was to be raised for the internal defence of the country in case of invasion. He knew that he should not satisfy his noble Friend when he said that Her Majesty's Ministers had come to the conclusion that the decision of the late Government not to give aid to volunteer rifle corps was a sound and reasonable decision. He was prepared to adhere to the same view, and should certainly not give aid to such corps at present. He would not enter now into any description of the objects of the Bill which would be shortly introduced into Parliament for the organisation of the militia. He hoped that when his noble Friend saw that Bill he would find it to be less objectionable than he anticipated. He agreed with his noble Friend in one respect, that where volunteer corps were established and sanctioned by the Government, it was important to have an uniformity of calibre in their arms; and it was a condition imposed by the late Government, that, though they furnished their arms at their own expense, they j should be of the calibre recommended by the Board of Ordnance; for it was important that all the arms of such a force should be of a calibre suitable for the supply of Government ammunition. His noble Friend would now be aware that the Government was not prepared to give aid to the formation of volunteer rifle corps; but he hoped that the absence of such aid: would not damp the patriotic ardour of which his noble Friend had spoken, and which no man could appreciate more highly than Her Majesty's present Ministers.
The EARL of ELLENBOROUGHsaid, that there was one thing which the Government ought to do, and without which there would be no uniformity. Even if the Government would not furnish these corps with arms, it ought to contract for a supply of such arms by means of the Board of Ordnance, and should insist that all volunteer corps should furnish
1230
themselves with arms from the Government stores. They would thus obtain their arms at a lower rate than they could otherwise obtain them, and with this advantage into the bargain, that they would all be of uniform calibre.
The EARL of DERBYsaid, that that was a matter at present under the anxious consideration of the Commander-in-Chief.
Address agreed to.

CRIMINAL LUNATICS.
The EARL of SHAFTESBURY,after presenting a petition from the Chairman of the Visiting Magistrates of the Lunatic Asylum of the county of Leicester, praying for an alteration of the law respecting Criminal Lunatics, proceeded to move—
"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will be graciously pleased to take into Her consideration the expediency of establishing a State Asylum for the care and custody of those who are denominated 'Criminal Lunatics;'"
and said, that the subject which he was about to introduce to the notice of their Lordships, though never propounded before in a specific form, could not be novel to them as magistrates and curators of provincial affairs. The care and custody of criminal lunatics had acquired of late a more than ordinary interest. The great care bestowed of late on both our public and private asylums had called attention to the fact that the custody of these criminal lunatics had been a great bar to the improvement of those institutions. The grievance had at last become intolerable—complaints had arrived to him from all quarters—and he had been requested to bring it under the notice of their Lordships. He must, however, exonerate in the first place the magistrates; for they had protested over and over again against the evil. He must also exonerate the Commissioners in Lunacy: they had done their duty, and had reported in 1849, in 1850, and in 1851, to the Lord Chancellor on the annoyances, perils, and injurious effects of the actual system; and they proposed remedies for the evil. They had also reported at various times to the Secretary of State, and had prayed relief, setting forth such circumstances as these—that there was one criminal lunatic who had escaped from Gateshead Fell four times in a few months, and that there was another who had escaped from Hoxton six times within very nearly the same period; but all to no purpose. All these parties had done their duty; it was the Government and the Go-

1231
vernment alone, which had steadily refused the necessary assistance. The term "criminal lunatic," seemed to him to involve something of a contradiction; nevertheless it was the ordinary and received term, and the only one, therefore, he could use on the present occasion. It was a term which embraced every class and description of person and crime, from the most miserable idiot that had perpetrated some act of violence, to cases of persons in a condition approaching to reason, if not, as in instances of simulated insanity, actually in possession of it. Now, these unhappy persons, who were termed "criminal lunatics," might be divided into four classes. The first class consisted of persons having become actually lunatic at the time fixed for their trial, in which case their trials were deferred. The second class consisted of persons who, being sane at the time of trial, were found (by special verdicts) to have been actually lunatic at the time of committing the offence. The third class consisted of persons who had become lunatic after sentence; and the fourth class of persons who were confined under summary conviction, vagrants, or parties committed for want of sureties, who had become insane. Now, the statutes by which these criminal lunatics were confined were three, the: 39 & 40 of Geo. III., chap. 94; the 1 & 2 of the Queen, chap. 14; and the 3 & 4 of the Queen, chap. 54. Under the various sections of these Acts of Parliament provision was made for every indictable offence which could be committed by' those unhappy persons. Those persons, as he had stated, might be included in four classes: the first consisting of those who were tried and acquitted of felonies and misdemeanours at the time of trial on the ground of insanity; the second consisting of those found insane on arraignment or trial, or on being brought up to be discharged for want of prosecution; the third consisting of those convicted, and who had become insane while in prison, under sentence of death, transportation, or imprisonment; and the fourth, of those who had been committed and become insane before trial, and had not been brought before the court. In addition to the four classes whom he had described as "criminal lunatics," there was yet another class of lunatics, who under the 3 & 4 of the Queen, were treated as criminals. They were persons who were afflicted with some derangement of mind, and who, unless restrained, were in danger of com-
1232
mitting offences. Formerly these persons were very hardly dealt with, and. any one magistrate might commit them to gaol or other place of safe custody under the 39 & 40 Geo. III. But by the Act of the Queen to which he referred, their condition had been somewhat alleviated, inasmuch as it required that two justices of the peace should commit the parties, and that they should not be sent to a gaol, but to an asylum or licensed madhouse. There were not many cases of that sort, be believed; but in considering the law which governed the Kingdom their Lordships must bear in mind that none of these parties, except those who had been committed by justices of the peace, could be again discharged, unless by the authority of the-Secretary of State. He would now proceed to state the number of these criminal lunatics, and, as far as possible, their condition. The total number of criminal lunatics, so far as he had been able to ascertain them, was, in England and Wales 439, of whom 360 were males and 79 females. But when he came to examine the offences for which these persons were detained, he found that the heavier and more fearful crimes against society very greatly predominated. For offences against life—and under that term were included, not simply assaults, but every injury directed against life, shooting, cutting, and maiming—there were kept in detention 138, of whom 104 were males and 34 females. For offences against property and person, inclusive of all violences short of attempts to murder, but many of them of the grossest nature, 188; 163 males, 25 females; for misdemeanour, 40; 35 males, 5 females; committed for want of sureties, and become afterwards insane, 43; summarily convicted for minor offences, and become insane, 30. These parties were distributed in various asylums, and; were maintained by Government or at the expense of their localities; in Bethlehem there were, 103; in the asylum at Fisherton, near Salisbury, sent by the Secretary of State, 59; the remainder were in various asylums, and their treatment and condition were the same as that of those with whom they were associated. That the House might judge of the evil effect produced by these criminal lunatics among the other inmates of the asylums in which they were confined, let them look at the usual habits of these lunatics. Let their Lordships consider who they were, what their former habits had been, and whence

1233
they came; the long course of violence and profligacy they had pursued, and that the lunacy under which they laboured was very often the consequence of their own excesses. It must be borne in mind, that many of the ordinary patients in the asylums into which these persons were introduced, were simple, pure-minded, sensitive persons. "Many of them," said the report from Lancaster, "were timid, desponding, and ignorant, and imagine the asylum to be a prison, and that they are sent there for punishment. Their association with criminal lunatics confirms the impression, and so retards their recovery." In order that their Lordships might form some estimate of the character of the criminal lunatics, he would read to them some special cases derived from the following lunatic asylums:—
"County of Lancaster—J. B., Larceny; During imprisonment murdered a fellow-prisoner.
"County of Lancaster—R. B., Assault; Attempt to shoot a clergyman.
"Leicester—W. T., Murder; Expelled from militia for irregularities and vicious life; murdered his wife. Now sane.
"Leicester —T. J., Assault; Stabbed a man; recently violently assaulted his attendant; treacherous, malignant, and revengeful; most mischievous and painful to other patients.
"Leicester —H. B., Larceny; Most violent, revengeful, treacherous, and malignant; has repeatedly injured patients and attendants.
"Leicester —J. D, Assault; Several times released and recommitted, occasionally very violent.
"Leicester —H. C, Stabbing; When excited, violent and highly dangerous.
"Leicester —M. A., Larceny; Highly dangerous to herself and others.
"Leicester —D. T., Want of sureties; Occasionally very violent.
"Leicester —E. S., Larceny; Suspected of simulation; had been formerly a patient; now perfectly rational.
"Leicester —W. C., Assault; Formerly a soldier; violent and dangerous.
"Nottingham—T. B., Maliciously stabbing; Stabbed his brother; dangerous; has attacked the gardener with a spade.
"Nottingham —Irishman, Rogue and Vagabond; Dangerous, particularly to Patients.
"Bethnal House—S. W., Want of sureties; Committed for two years for setting fire to his house."
Now, among these were two cases in which the parties had been committed for want of sureties; but it was not to be inferred there-from that their criminality was small. Now, the case being such as he had described, their Lordships would not be surprised at the strong language used by the medical superintendents of asylums and other persons experienced in the management of lunatics, against the detention of these cri-
1234
minal lunatics with the other patients in these institutions. He held in his hand a list of the principal reasons assigned by the superintendents of asylums, almost without exception, for the non-association of criminal lunatics with ordinary lunatic patients. They were as follows:—
"It is unjust to ordinary patients to associate them with persons branded with crime. The lunatic is generally very sensitive, and both he and his friends feel aggrieved and degraded by the association. The moral effect is bad. The conduct of criminal patients is frequently very violent; their habits and language, the result of previous habits, are frequently offensive, and their influence on other patients injurious and pernicious. By the fact of stricter custody being required, and greater responsibility felt for criminal patients, the general classification of patients in an asylum is interrupted, and the improved discipline and proper treatment of other patients interfered with; the expense is also increased for safe keeping. The common delusion that an asylum is a prison is strengthened by lunatic patients being compelled to associate with persons who have been in prison; and, in fact, higher walls than those ordinarily in use have been considered necessary (and in one case erected) for the security of criminal lunatics associated with other patients. The association is injurious even to the criminal patients. It exposes them to taunts from the other patients, and the stricter confinement imposed on themselves irritates them. They are irritated also when other patients are liberated, and they left in confinement. When criminal patients are confided in (in the same way as other patients), it is generally found that they are unworthy of trust; that they try to escape and induce others to do so, and that insubordination and dissatisfaction are generally produced by their influence. The criminal patients concentrate attention on themselves, and attract an undue share of care and supervision from the attendants. Cases of simulated insanity are (supposed to be) not unfrequent with patients received as criminal lunatics. In those cases the patients are mostly patients of the worst character. They create discontent among the other patients, and oppress those who are weaker than themselves, and they generally try to escape. Patients of the criminal class, even when unsound at the time of committing the offence, possess criminal propensities, and in some cases their insanity has been caused by vicious habits."
The most efficient remedy for this state of things, would, in his (the Earl of Shaftesbury's) opinion, be the establishment of a State asylum for the separate care and custody of those who were termed criminal lunatics; and for this he had the approbation of almost all the medical superintendents and persons most conversant with lunacy throughout the United Kingdom. He had also in its favour the high testimony of the noble Lord who was now seated on the woolsack, and which was delivered by him at the time he filled the

1235
office of Lord Chancellor in Ireland. The noble Lord said—"Solid objections exist to criminal lunatics being received into district asylums, which were never intended for prisons. The advantage of bringing all the criminal lunatics together under the eye of the governor is obvious." The opinion the noble and learned Lord then pronounced had since been confirmed by the admirable experience which had been obtained of the manner in which the lunatic asylum at Dundrum, in Ireland, had been conducted, and the beneficial effects which had resulted from the system there. Many questions would arise when such a measure was propounded in the shape of a Bill, which it was not necessary he should now discuss. He was prepared to propose such a measure himself, if the privileges of the House of Commons did not preclude him from doing so. He contented himself, therefore, with advocating the principle. In the first place, they would have to inquire at whose expense the lunatics were to be maintained, whether by the State or from local resources; and, secondly, what discretionary powers should be given as to the parties who should be liberated by the Secretary of State; and, thirdly, what effect was to be given to the plea of insanity which both Judges and juries now had evidently a tendency to allow, but which must be qualified by some such experimental statement as the following:—
"Parties have seen that men who have become homicides, it may be in an insane paroxysm, are comfortably housed, well clothed, and fed for life. May we not fear that, in the minds of many, the dread of punishment, which might deter them from violence, has been lessened by the experience we have taught them, and that, by our association of criminal lunatics with the unfortunate insane, we are breaking down a barrier which, to a large extent, avails to protect society from violence and wrong at the hands of a class of persons who know full well that they have the plea of previous insanity ready to save them from the punishment of the outraged law?"
But it was not necessary for him to discuss the question how far, and when, the plea of insanity should be allowed; his purpose was to show that the presence of those persons in asylums was subversive of all comfort and discipline. They sowed discontent, formed confederacies, and led disturbances. Madmen could not combine (that was the security of an asylum), but those men (criminal lunatics) gave head to, and power of uniting, which the others (the real lunatics) did not possess. As a proof of the necessity for the attention of Parliament being directed to
1236
this class of suffering humanity, he might state that he knew of a case in which a human being had been confined by his relation in a dark cell for ten years, chained, and in a state of nudity. This was in Devonshire. A correspondence between the local committee and the Commissioners of Lunacy led to a prosecution, and the offending party was tried and convicted. Since the lunatic had been in the asylum, a period of more than nine months, he had been uniformly quiet and well-conducted. But (said the noble Earl) there is no argument of greater weight that I can adduce than the assertion that the presence, of these peculiarly afflicted persons nullifies, or at least impedes, the operation of the non-restraint system. This system—the great and blessed glory of modern science,—having taken its rise in Prance—Oh, si sic omnia!—and introduced here by the Society of Friends, has become the especial pursuit of professors of this department of medicine in the three kingdoms. By the blessing of God it has achieved miracles. I have, perhaps, a right to say so, having officiated now as a Commissioner in Lunacy for more than twenty years, and having passed, as inspector, from the very depths of misery and neglect, to the present height of comfort and ease. The filthy and formidable prison is converted into the cleanly and cheerful abode; the damp and gloomy courtyard is exchanged for healthy exercise and labour in the field and garden. Visit the largest asylum, and you will no longer hear those frightful yells that at first terrified, and always depressed the boldest hearts. Mechanical restraint is almost unknown; houses, where many were chained during the day, and hundreds, I will assert, during the night, have hardly a strait waistcoat or a manacle in the whole establishment; and, instead of the keeper, with his whip and his bunch of leglocks, you may see the clergyman or the schoolmaster engaged in their soothing and effective occupations. Add to this, my Lords, the kindred subject—the education of idiots, now undertaken in these asylums, and yon will see and sympathise with the alarm of those who tremble lest anything should mar so wholesome a work; for it is thus "we gather up the fragments" of the human mind, "so that nothing be lost;" and, viewing that which appears to us as the wreck of an immortal intellect—"majestic, though in ruin," we endeavour to do what we should ourselves

1237
require were it the will of Almighty God to afflict us with a like calamity. These are the reasons, my Lords, which have induced me to come forward on the present occasion; and I shall, I trust, be forgiven for having submitted the whole subject to your deliberate and humane consideration. The noble Earl then moved—
"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will be graciously pleased to take into Her consideration the expediency of establishing a State Asylum for the care and custody of those who are denominated 'Criminal Lunatics.'"
LORD BERNERScorroborated the statement made by the noble Earl, and made a few observations which were very indistictly heard.
The EARL of DERBYsaid, that he was sure that his noble Friend who had introduced the subject with as much ability as good feeling, had no necessity for making any apology to their Lordships for directing their attention to a matter which was one of deep and great importance, and one which the noble Earl was peculiarly qualified to bring under their notice. The noble Earl had for the last twenty years devoted his unremitting and humane attention to this subject, as he had also directed his attention to almost every other form of human misery and suffering, even of the most repulsive character, and had with the most laudable of Christian motives given up his time, talents, and means to the alleviation of these distresses and misery. He trusted that neither himself nor any of their Lordships could be supposed to undervalue the immense improvements which had been introduced by the altered system adopted in the treatment of lunatics generally. He believed that, within the last few years, no greater improvement had taken place in any branch of science, at least in that particular branch devoted to the alleviation of suffering humanity, than that which dealt with the case of persons afflicted with mental disease. He was of opinion, moreover, that, as science had advanced, not only the sufferings of the people so unhappily afflicted had been most materially diminished, but that there had also been great and essential advantages gained in the proportionate number of patients cured. He felt certain, therefore, that neither upon his part nor upon that of their Lordships could there be any desire to interfere in the smallest degree with that most humane and beneficial alteration which had been made in the treatment of lunatics. He
1238
confessed, however, that he was somewhat at a loss exactly to trace the connection which his noble Friend appeared to find between the existence of that treatment so generally adopted in all well-managed lunatic asylums in this country, with the peculiar Motion which the noble Earl had brought under the consideration of their Lordships. His noble Friend had adverted, but very briefly, to that which was, indeed, an anomaly in expression, and almost a contradiction in terms—the familiar expression "criminal lunatics." The word "criminal" implied a knowledge of guilt, and the word "lunatic" the absence of the knowledge and the power of distinguishing between good and evil; and it was certainly a contradiction in terms to say that a man could at the same time be a "criminal," that was, responsible for his actions, and also a "lunatic," that was, a man irresponsible for his actions, and incapable of distinguishing between good and evil. He confessed, therefore, that he felt some difficulty in drawing the line which the noble Earl seemed disposed to draw between "criminal lunatics" and "lunatics" of a different description. If the noble Earl were to carry into effect his principle, he would find it necessary to extend it much further, and apply the same principle which he sought to apply to the criminal lunatic, to all who were violent or dangerous lunatics. For the only difference between them was this, that one of them was in that state of mind in which he had actually committed that act which, in a sane condition of mind, would render him liable to punishment; while the other was in the same condition of mind, but had not as yet committed that which at the same time would render him subject to a criminal prosecution. He was far from saying that the existing law with respect to criminal lunatics—to adopt the familiar expression—was in a satisfactory position. He was at a loss to understand upon what principle the law had been framed with respect to the two classes of criminal lunatics. The 39 & 40 Geo. III. applied to persons who had actually been found not guilty of the offence with which they had been charged, upon the ground of insanity, comprising not only felonious offences, but also misdemeanours, which were similarly dealt with under the 3 & 4 Vict., which also dealt with those who had not been brought to trial; but who, upon investigation, and after committal, had been found to be lunatic, and were not consequently brought to trial

1239
of sent before a jury, and were, by the authority of two magistrates and two medical officers, transferred to a county or district lunatic asylum. He confessed, that with respect to these two classes of persons, he was unable to account for the distinction which prevailed in the mode in which they were treated. There was, he believed, in England at this moment between 450 and 470 of all descriptions of criminal lunatics; of which number about 100 were maintained in the two wings of Bethlehem Hospital, which were specially built for the reception of criminal lunatics, and it was at the expense of the country that they were maintained. As a general rule, he believed that of all those guilty of offences, and who were acquitted upon the ground of insanity, the practice had been to transfer to Bethlehem Hospital the most violent and most dangerous characters. The consequence had been, that there had been assigned a separate asylum in the neighbourhood of Salisbury, where the patients or prisoners, just as the noble Lord chose to call them, were maintained and kept at the expense of the Government, though the asylum itself was a private one. It appeared that in the Bethlehem Asylum the cost of the maintenance of lunatics per head per annum was 34 l., and in that at Fisherton, near Salisbury, it was 30 l. per head per annum. There remained somewhere between 250 and 300 other lunatics under precisely the same circumstances and of precisely the same class, but who were distributed through the different asylums and prisons of the kingdom; and because they were so distributed, the expense of their maintenance fell, not upon the public at large, but upon the different parishes or unions from which the lunatics came. Clearly there could be no ground for that distinction; and he was of opinion that the custody of criminal lunatics was not a charge which ought to be thrown on the county, but was one which ought to be borne by the country at large, seeing the object was one of national importance, in which all classes and all denominations without exception were concerned, inasmuch as all might be alike subject to the same unhappy casualty. He did not, therefore, say that the existing law did not stand in need of some amendment. He repeated, that he thought the expense of maintaining criminal lunatics was one which ought to fall on the public funds. But then the House must also take into
1240
consideration how difficult it was to step there, and to draw a line of distinction between criminal lunatics and dangerous lunatics. In fact, there was no other distinction between them except that the one had actually committed an offence, and the other might commit one; consequently they stood in precisely the same position. The case to which his noble Friend had alluded, where a person was confined for the space of ten years, was probably that of a dangerous lunatic, of a person who had exhibited dangerous propensities, and who, perhaps, had been in the care of persons of moderate means; for their Lordships would know that in the minds of the common people an exceedingly strong disinclination existed against sending to a lunatic asylum any of their relatives who might become afflicted with insanity, and that, rather than do an act which was so repugnant to their feelings, they would undergo the most grievous hardships to maintain their insane relations under their own eye in preference to seating them to a lunatic asylum, where they had a notion—though a mistaken one—that they would not be well cared for. Then his noble Friend said the association of those criminal lunatics—whose lunacy might have been induced by the depravity of their previous habits, and the debauched lives they had led—with persons labouring under mental though harmless delusions, was an injury and an evil to both parties, but particularly to the harmless patients. But he (the Earl of Derby) would ask where was the county or district lunatic asylum in which those two classes were so mixed up together? If there were any such cases, then be could only say that such a practice was contrary to all the rules and regulations laid down for the management of those establishments. He believed the practice was not to draw a distinction between the criminal lunatic and the violent lunatic, but to effect that which ought to be effected—the separation between the dangerous lunatic and the lunatic who was not dangerous, but was labouring only under harmless delusion. Some few years ago he had visited the lunatic asylum in Lancaster, and he was struck with the exceeding order, regularity, and admirable management which prevailed there. The great majority of the unfortunate inmates were engaged in the industrial occupations of the house; some working in the garden others performing all the menial offices in

1241
the establishment, and all regularly and usefully employed. Undoubtedly it was necessary to make a distinction between those who could be so trusted in the performance of those duties, and those who could not; but, as he said before, the difficulty was to draw a line of distinction between criminal aad dangerous lunatics. Then, with regard to the question of expense, his noble Friend said he moved for this Address to the Queen because he saw all the difficulties in the way of legislating on the subject. But he (the Earl of Derby) knew if he were to bring in a Bill in this House for the purpose of carrying out the views of his noble Friend, it would be considered an infringement of the privileges of the House of Commons, because it would involve the expenditure of a considerable sum of money for the building of a State Asylum—
The EARL of SHAFTESBURYsaid, the terms of his Motion were, that Her Majesty should be pleased to take into Her consideration the expediency of establishing a State Asylum.
The EARL of DERBY: Well, to consider the expediency—but he said, unless they had fully considered all the consequences to which the distinction for which his noble Friend contended would necessarily lead, and all the expenses to which they were about to subject the country—while he quite agreed with him that it was expedient and desirable to amend the law relating to the custody and maintenance of lunatics—a subject which he would assure the House should not be lost sight of by Her Majesty's Government—he thought it would not be desirable to pledge their Lordships to address the Crown with reference to an alteration of the existing law, and that, after all, not of a material point. The expense of building Bethlehem Hospital—or rather the two wings of that structure which are assigned to the residence of criminal lunatics—must have been very large. The annual cost of the maintenance of patients, there was, he thought, 34 l. a head, and at Fisherton 30 l. a head; while in the various lunatic asylums throughout the country, the average annual coat was about 26 l. a head. Their Lordships bad also to consider that the expense of building such an establishment as his noble Friend contemplated, to say the least would probably exceed 50,000 l., and perhaps would be nearer 100,00 l. Besides, he (the Earl of Derby) did not see why in
1242
the different county lunatic asylams the same distinction and discipline might not be effected and preserved as that which his noble Friend had in view in the proposed State Asylum. But his noble Friend said the adoption of that principle would necessarily lead to ulterior operations and further legislative measures, which would require great consideration. Then he (the Earl of Derby) said it would be better to consider what amendments might be made in the existing law before their Lordships pledged themselves to an Address to the Crown, simply with the view of building a State Asylum for the reception of criminal lunatics, for the regulation and management of which it would hereafter be necessary to legislate. The whole of this question, though it had not been fully considered by a former Government, was one that should be taken into deliberate consideration by the present Government, though rather with the view of dealing with the existing law as a whole than any single portion of it, which his noble Friend opposite had with such ability and good judgment brought under the consideration of the House; and with that assurance on the part of the Government, that the question should not be lost sight of, he hoped his noble Friend (the Earl of Shaftesbury) would be satisfied.
LORD CRANWORTHsaid, probably on the assurance given by the noble Earl who had just sat down, that this subject would speedily engage the attention of the Government, his noble Friend (the Earl of Shaftesbury) would not now object to withdraw his Motion. He (Lord Cranworth) rejoiced to hear that the noble Earl at the head of the Government was ready to enter upon the consideration of this subject, and that it was his opinion that the whole bearing of this question should be looked into. His noble Friend (the Earl of Shaftesbury) stated some doubts, in which he (Lord Cranworth) entirely participated, whether the whole law with reference to the plea of insanity was not framed altogether on an erroneous principle. It had been said in the course of discussion, that it was too much the habit of the Judges, in cases where the plea of insanity was set up, to cast all responsibility from themselves on the jury; and for the juries, on the other hand, to yield at once to that plea to avoid a result which was painful to their feelings. Having, whilst he had the honour to occupy a seat on the Common

1243
Law Bench, been concerned in administering the Criminal Law for a considerable time, he (Lord Cranworth) might be supposed to speak with some prejudice on this subject; but he believed his noble Friend was wrong in saying there was the least bias in the minds of the Judges on this question in the direction in which he supposed them to lean. On the contrary, he (Lord Cranworth) knew there was a desire prevalent among the Judges to stand between the jury and their inclinations in cases where they thought they saw any attempt to shrink from responsibility. He did not hesitate to say that the question "sane or insane" was not a question safely to be committed to the determination of the jury which had to try whether a person was guilty or not guilty of the offence charged. He had known cases within his experience where there had not been the semblance or the least ground of insanity, but in which juries had given a verdict of "Not guilty, on the ground of insanity." What, then, was to be done? Suppose a man had committed murder, or that which would be murder in the case of a sane person, and it was suspected he was insane; what was the course to be pursued? It might perhaps be idle for him to hazard at the present moment an opinion as to what alteration should be made in the law upon this subject; but he (Lord Cranworth) thought that the question as to the lunacy of a criminal when on trial for killing another under such circumstances as would amount to murder if he were not insane, ought not to be left to the jury by whom the general charge is tried; the man ought to be found guilty, and the question of insanity should be the foundation for an inquiry by another tribunal, which might be presumed not to be acting exactly under the influence of the same feelings as that jury. What that tribunal should be, or of whom it should be constituted, he did not pretend to have considered; but that it should not be fully the same jury was a matter of which he had no doubt whatever. The privilege which was given them of deciding in such cases, he feared, led them into the continual violation of their oaths, and to the escape of persons who had perpetrated serious crimes from the punishment which the law attached to their commission. With regard to the necessity for something like the distinction proposed by his noble Friend (the Earl of Shaftesbury), he (Lord Cranworth) thought there was not altogether a distinction in
1244
genus between violent criminal lunatics and other violent lunatics, but he believed that the feeling among ordinary lunatics that they were mixed up with those whom they considered criminals, had often an injurious tendency on the inmates of an asylum where the association was permitted. The noble Earl at the head of the Government had objected to the strict accuracy of the term "criminal lunatics," as employed by his noble Friend, and said he should like to know how many persons so designated were criminals, and how many were lunatics. He (Lord Cranworth) believed the error too often committed was in adding the word "lunatic," and not in adding the word "criminal."
The EARL of SHAFTESBURYbriefly replied. He was understood to defend the use of the expression "criminal lunatics," as signifying a class of lunatics who were not strangers to crime, but were distinguished from others by their cunning and dexterity. He expressed the gratification he had experienced from the manner in which the Motion had been received by the noble Lord at the head of the Government; and, with the permission of the House, begged to withdraw it.
Motion, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
House adjourned till To-morrow.