Sitting of 24 March 1862

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1o Merchant Shipping Acts, &c., Amendment.
2o College of Physicians (Ireland); Public Houses (Scotland) Acts Amendment.
3o Bleachfields (Women and Children Employment).

EDINBURGH, DUNFERMLINE, AND PERTH JUNCTION RAILWAY.—REPORT.
Report from Select Committee on Standing Orders in respect of the Petition, for leave to deposit a Petition for leave to bring in the Edinburgh, Dunfermline, and Perth Junction Railway Bill, read.
MAJOR CUMMING BRUCEsaid, that he wished to move that leave be given to deposit a petition for a Bill upon this subject, pursuant to the prayer of the petition, upon which the Standing Orders Committee of the 14th of March had reported. He made the Motion on the grounds that the works proposed to be authorized would
1954
be of great importance to the counties of Fife and Kinross and the whole North of Scotland, and that a Bill for a partially competing scheme had been already introduced.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That the Railways and Works proposed to be authorized by the Bill to which such Petition relates being of great importance to the counties of Fife and Kinross, and all the North of Scotland, and it being extremely desirable that they should be considered in the present Session, in which a Bill for authorizing a partially competing scheme has been introduced into Parliament, leave be given to deposit a Petition for a Bill, pursuant to the prayer of the said Petition."
MR. WEMYSSseconded the Motion. The line proposed in the Bill of the Edinburgh, Dunfermline, and Perth Junction Railway had the support not only of the district through which it passed, but was of national importance. It was a saving of twenty miles direct to Perth.
COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, he wished to explain to the House the view which the Standing Orders Committee took of the Bill. The House was well aware that all railway companies were bound to give notice of the powers they asked for, and of the property which they intended to take. The House was particularly cautious with regard to amalgamation Bills in requiring due notice to be given. Now, there was a proposal for an amalgamation in the Bill with the East and West of Fife Line; but of that no notice had been given, and that constituted one ground for the rejection of the Bill by the Standing Orders Committee. But a still more serious breach of the regulations laid down by the House was that they had professed in their notice to take the Queen's Ferry—an important point, well known to all Members who had travelled northwards—under an equitable agreement with the owners, whereas the Bill itself proposed to take compulsory powers. What made the matter worse was that the company had done the very same thing last year, and the only excuse made this year was that the promoters of the Bill were not the same parties. But in truth the clause was precisely the same as that of last year, and the Standing Orders Committee—who could have no possible feeling upon the subject—had no option but to reject the Bill after that double infraction of the orders of the House. He thought the Standing Orders Committee were bound to do what they had done in order to protect private in-

1955
terests, and to ensure respect being paid to the orders laid down by the House. He made these remarks without prejudice to the merits of the line, which was a matter with which the Standing Orders Committee had nothing to do. The decision of the Standing Orders Committee was unanimous.
SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDsaid, that as a member of the Committee he joined in its rejection; but believing it to be for the interest of the district that the line should be made, he hoped the House would pass over the error that had been committed by the promoters.
MR. ADAMSsaid, he thought there were exceptional circumstances in connection with the Bill which should induce the House to allow it to be resuscitated. He trusted, therefore, that the House would not allow a question of technical detail to override the real justice of the case. The Bill was intended to confer a real benefit on the district over which it was proposed the line should traverse.
SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, it would not be fair to the proprietors who petitioned against the Bill to expose them to the expense of opposing the line a second time in the same session. The House ought not to dispense with the Standing Orders on light grounds.
MR. R. HODGSONsaid, he should support the reinstatement of the Bill, on the ground that it would be beneficial to the community, and that there was a competing scheme before Parliament. There were three Bills now before Parliament, and amongst them the East and West of Fife line, seeking for powers of amalgamation, so that the scheme of amalgamation would not be done away with by refusing to reinstate the Bill.
MR. HENLEYdefended the course adopted by the Standing Orders Committee, which he thought under the circumstances was the only one open to them.
MR. MASSEYsaid, that the promoters of the Bill were entitled to very little consideration, as a similar infraction of rules to that on which the report was founded had been committed by them in reference to a previous measure. The House should, however, consider whether the public interest was involved in the matter to such an extent as to induce them to take the exceptional course proposed. Having listened attentively to the case made, he did not think it sufficient to justify the setting aside of the report.
MAJOR CUMMING BRUCEsaid, that after the opinions which had been expressed by various Members of the Standing Orders Committee, he did not feel justified in going to a division, and he would therefore withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

THE POST OFFICE AND INTERNATIONAL EXHIBITION.—QUESTION.
LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Post Office authorities have undertaken to act as Agents in the International Exhibition for certain Railway Companies, for the issue of tickets, forwarding of parcels, and advising applicants as to the routes to be taken; and whether this had been done under the sanction of the Treasury?
MR. PEELsaid, it was in contemplation to have an office in the Exhibition for giving information with regard to the means of transit in this country and between this country and abroad; but the office was in no respect in connection with the Post Office, and there had been no correspondence on the subject with the Treasury. What had occurred with reference to the Post Office was this, the Inspector General of Mails, Mr. Page, being the author of the suggestion, and having brought it before the Commissioners, had been requested, and, with the sanction of the Post Office, had undertaken to organize the department, which in all other respects was a private undertaking.

THE BANKRUPTCY LAW.

  QUESTION.
  MR. VANCEsaid, he wished to ask Mr. Attorney General, Whether it be the intention of the Government to introduce any measure to alter or amend the Bankruptcy Bill of last Session?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, it was not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce any such measure as that referred to by the hon. Gentleman. The chief difficulties which had been encountered in the working of the Bill of last Session arose from the irregular attendance of three of the five London Commissioners. A Return would be shortly laid upon the table of the House, by which it would appear that one of those gentlemen had attended only thirteen times since the 11th of October, and that the two others attended only twice a week,

  1957
  and that for very short periods. There had been also some inconvenience experienced from the want of a sufficient number of Registrars. Directions had, however, been given by the Lord Chancellor for the correction of those evils, and also with respect to the attendance of the Commissioners. It was hoped that those instructions would have the desired effect; but if they had not, undoubtedly a Bill would be introduced in the present Session on the subject. He might mention that the number of Petitions in Bankruptcy in London lodged since the 11th of October was from three to four times as great as for the corresponding period of last year.

  DEPOTS FOR THE RECEPTION OF EMIGRANTS.—QUESTION.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he would beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he has any objection to direct the Emigration Commissioners to report upon the expediency of establishing Depôts in the Ports of London, Liverpool, and elsewhere, for the reception of Emigrants awaiting embarkation?
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, that if the hon. Gentleman would address a letter to the Colonial Office, specifying the information he required, the noble Duke at the head of that Department would direct the Emigration Commissioners to furnish it, and it could then he laid upon the table of the House.

CAPTURE OF THE "LABUAN."

  QUESTION.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If the attention of the Government has been called to the reported capture in Mexican Waters of the British Vessel Labuan, laden with cotton, by a cruiser of the United States?
  MR. LAYARD: In reply, Sir, to my hon. Friend, I beg to say that the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to the capture of a vessel named the Labuan in the port of Matamoras. The circumstances of the case have been brought under the notice of Lord Lyons, who has made a representation to Mr. Seward on the subject. I am unable at present to state the course which will be taken in the matter, but I may mention that the Government have considered it right to order a vessel of war to proceed
  1958
  to the port of Matamoras for the purpose of defending British interests there.

POOR RELIEF (IRELAND) (No. 2) BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, that before Mr. Speaker left the chair he wished to take that opportunity of bringing under the consideration of his right hon. Friend the Secretary for Ireland a matter of considerable importance as regarded the administration of the Poor Law in Ireland. As notice had been given that the Poor Relief Bill was to be discussed that evening, there was a large attendance of Irish Members, many of whom had been chairmen or members of boards of guardians in Ireland, and he might appeal to them whether the maintenance of the central authority—namely, the Commission—was not of the greatest importance to the carrying out of the Poor Law. That being so, it was their duty to do all in their power to prevent any collision between that authority and the guardians. But there was one stumbling-block of offence and cause of dissension which every body who was conversant with the administration of the Poor Law in Ireland must be aware of—namely, the mode in which Roman Catholic chaplains were dismissed from their appointments. He was not going to offer any opinion as to the course pursued by the Commission in dealing with the chaplains. No doubt, in a great number of instances the Commissioners were right and the chaplains were in error. On the other hand, it was a notable fact that in the last session of Parliament the House of Commons declared that in one instance a Roman Catholic chaplain was in the right and the Commissioners were decidedly in the wrong. His object was, if possible, to remove a cause of dissatisfaction, and the removal of which, he believed, would render the working of the Poor Law infinitely more satisfactory in Ireland. Fortunately, that cause of offence might be taken away without the slightest sacrifice of principle. He would propose that on all occasions when a Roman Catholic chaplain was to be remonstrated with or dismissed, a communication should be made in the first instance to the spiritual authority by whom he had been virtually appointed. Every body acquainted with the discipline of the Roman Catholic Church must know that no chaplain

  1959
  could hold office for one moment unless he had the sanction of his spiritual superior; and it was also well known that when a chaplain was dismissed by the Commissioners the bishop was subsequently applied to, to name the person whom he wished to have appointed. That was the principle, he believed, which was observed in the administration of the English Poor Law. He did not, however, propose to take away the ultima ratio of the Commissioners, for in case of their being dissatisfied with the decision of the bishop, he wished to leave them free to take whatever course they might please. If that recommendation were adopted, he believed they would remove one great source of dissatisfaction that now impeded the working of the Poor Law. Roman Catholic bishops felt themselves in a false position. According to the practice of their Church, they could not recognise the removal from a spiritual appointment by secular jurisdiction. They found themselves consequently obliged to maintain a chaplain, or rather to object to his dismissal; whereas, had the case come before them in first instance, they would not have hesitated as to his dismissal. His right hon. Friend knew very well from two cases that had lately occurred, when a Roman Catholic bishop had been appealed to in reference to the misbehaviour of one of his clergy, that in each such case the prelate at once took cognizance of the charge. and punished the offender. If such an arrangement as that he (Mr. Gregory) suggested were made, there could be no doubt that the working of the Poor Law in Ireland would go on much more smoothly than under the present system. He had no wish to introduce any clause into the Bill, but he hoped his right hon. Friend would make arrangements with the Poor Law Commissioners that in all cases where it was proposed to visit Roman Catholic chaplains with reprehension application should be first made to their spiritual superiors.
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, that he was anxious, seeing the right hon. Gentleman the chairman of the Select Committee which sat last year on the administration of the Irish Poor Law (Mr. Cardwell) in his place, to ask him for some explanation of the circumstance, that while the Committee had given a very voluminous blue-book and a short report, it had wholly omitted any mention of or explanation of a most extraordinary phenomenon attending Poor Law legislation. That phenome-
  1960
  non was, that while the number of persons receiving parochial relief in England was one in 23 of the population, and in Scotland one in 24; in Ireland, on the other hand, (according to returns that had been published) the proportion was only one in 140. If those figures represented the true state of the case, he wished to know why so extraordinary a fact was not mentioned in the Report of the Committee?
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, the question brought before the House by the hon. Member for Galway was one of the most serious character and importance. It had been put to a Member of the Government who was responsible for the due administration of the law in Ireland, in such a manner that the public, if not the right hon. Baronet, the Chief Secretary for Ireland, might naturally assume that the authority of the House was in favour of the principle urged by the hon. Gentleman who made the suggestion, if the matter were passed over in silence and no objection were raised. Now, what the hon. Member for Galway asked the House to recognise was the authority by which the Roman Catholic bishops stated that they felt bound, inasmuch as they stated that they were bound by oath to the head of their Church to refuse their assent to the removal of any chaplain of any poorhouse who had not incurred the censure of his spiritual superior. He did not think that the House would be prepared to go to such a length as to admit that the legal appointments of chaplains to workhouses in Ireland made under the authority of the Crown should be subject to the authority imported into these dominions by a foreign power. Let it be mentioned, to the honour of several Roman Catholic bishops in Ireland, that they resisted that foreign authority until Legate Cullen arrived in Ireland, as the plenary representative of that authority, and arrogated to himself, after convening a Synod which was his mere instrument, the right of interfering with the constituted authorities of the Queen. These prelates paid due allegiance to the Sovereign of these realms. No formal and public attempt had previous to the Synod of Thurles been made directly from Rome to supersede the legal authority of this country. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman, in his reply to the question put to him, would manifest every disposition to treat the Roman Catholic bishops in Ireland with all courtesy and deference due to

  1961
  their spiritual functions, but at the same time that he would decline to commit himself, as the representative of the Crown, or by implication assume the consent of that House, to such a proposition as that any of Her Majesty's subjects could be held bound by an oath to resist the legal authority of Her Majesty in the removal of any officer appointed by Her authority, however much he might have misconducted himself in the performance of his functions.
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, that in reply to the hon. Member for the King's County he had to state that the Committee had not, perhaps, been of opinion that it was a reproach to the Poor Law when it did not extend to a particular amount of population, or, on the other hand, they might have thought that it was a recommendation of the Poor Law when it did not extend to a large proportion of the population. But the Committee did not think it was necessary to enter into that part of the subject after it had been recently discussed in Parliament and in the Report of the Poor Law Commissioners. That part of the subject was only the preamble to a conclusion, and the point on which the Committee had to arrive at a conclusion was whether the Poor Law now in force in Ireland was in such a state that important changes ought to be made in it, and whether larger powers should be given for granting out-door relief. If the hon. Gentleman should be of opinion that the Committee had failed to give due attention to the subject, or if he supposed that the House was not fully possessed of the opinions of the Committee, the best answer was to refer him to their resolutions, the first of which stated that the present powers possessed by the guardians for granting in-door and out-door relief were sufficient, and that an alteration of the statute was neither necessary nor desirable. The second resolution was that the administration of the Poor Law guardians had been such as to justify Parliament in conferring the powers upon them which they possessed, and that it was not expedient to give to the Commissioners or to any other authority compulsory power to control them in the exercise of their discretion. The hon. Member was entitled to differ from the opinion expressed by the Committee on the subject of the Poor Law in Ireland, but he was not at liberty to assume that the Committee had not most plainly given to the House all the information which they obtained in reference
  1962
  to the administration of the Poor Law in Ireland.
  MR. BRADYobserved, that he could not understand the conclusion to which the Committee had come, when the fact was apparent that in England only 16 per cent of the children of the poor received in-door relief, while in Ireland the proportion was 27 per cent. It was also notorious that mortality amongst the children in the workhouses in Ireland was something extraordinary, as compared with what it was in England. He was sorry that the system of poor relief in Ireland should be different to that followed in England. If out-door relief were permitted in Ireland, the cost of each pauper would be very considerably less than at present.
  MR. BAGWELLsaid, the Bill of the right hon. Baronet had been circulated throughout Ireland, and had been carefully considered. The first clause had received the general approval of the ratepayers in towns, who were suffering from a continual influx of poor from the rural districts. The clause as originally printed would have been an improvement on the present law, but now it appeared that the right hon. Baronet intended to propose an Amendment which would completely alter the character of that clause. Such a proceeding seemed almost a breach of faith, and if the Amendment were persisted in, he would prefer the withdrawal of the Bill.
  MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, he thought that the details of the Bill might safely be left till the House went into Committee. There could be no doubt of the excellence of many of the clauses; but as the administration of the Poor Law depended upon the Poor Law Commission, it would be well before the Speaker left the chair to consider the constitution of that body. Of the three paid Commissioners two were importations from England, and both were of what was termed the "Reformed religion," while the third, the medical commissioner appointed in 1851, although an Irishman, also professed the Protestant faith. He did not complain of that, but in dealing with a country like Ireland he thought the House would agree with him that at least one member of the Commission ought to be acquainted with the feelings of that Roman Catholic population who formed nine-tenths of the recipients. In 1848, when the Board of Charitable Bequests was formed, one-half of the members were Roman Catholics, and that was a good example to follow in a country

  1963
  where the last census showed that 4,500,000 of the population were Roman Catholics, and 1,300,000 of different denominations. The head Commissioner of the Poor Law Board was an Englishman and a Protestant. For nine months Mr. Ball, an Irishman and a Catholic, was a. member of the Board, but on his resignation another Englishman, Mr. Senior, was imported. Having got rid of Protestant ascendancy in so many other forms, he thought it ought not to be revived in this instance. In England and in Scotland the Commissioners were Englishmen and Scotchmen respectively, and professed the national faith. In Ireland, however, not only were the members of the Board Protestants, but the head clerk was also a Protestant, and a large proportion of the clerks were also of that faith. Now, a Poor Law could not be successfully worked in a Roman Catholic country when the Commissioners were Protestants and Englishmen. If one Roman Catholic gentleman were placed on the Commission, he believed that they would escape a great deal of conflict with the authorities; and, however excellent in other respects the Bill might be, it would fail of its effect unless the administrators were men who knew the feelings and the prejudices of the people.
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Gregory) had asked, in reference to the Roman Catholic chaplains in workhouses, that the Roman Catholic bishop should be communicated with before their removal in any cases of misconduct. Now, in his experience, he had not found that great dissatisfaction existed on that score. He should wish to pay every respect to the religion of the great majority of the Irish people, but he did not think it implied any disrespect that the Commissioners should act towards Roman Catholics exactly as they acted towards Protestant chaplains. Protestant chaplains were removed without reference to the Protestant bishop, and no complaint had been addressed to the Government on that account. He must, therefore, beg respectfully to decline to accede to the proposal of the hon. Member.
  The hon. Member for Clonmel (Mr. Bagwell) had stated that the insertion of an Amendment in the paper amounted to a breach of faith on his part. Now, he did not think that by proposing the omission of the word "continuous" he had been in any way guilty of a breach of faith. That Word had been introduced in error; it was
  1964
  not recommended by the Committee of last year, and it had no particular sense. He therefore thought that it would be very properly withdrawn; and it was his intention on going into Committee to propose a more explicit clause referring to that very subject, which he hoped would meet the approval of the Committee.
  He was surprised to find that his hon. Friend (Mr. B. Osborne) entertained so unfavourable an opinion of the working of the Poor Law Commission; but he had not accurately stated the facts connected with the constitution of the Board. Mr. Ball was appointed under the Lieutenancy of the Earl of Carlisle, not because he was a Roman Catholic, but because he was then the most efficient inspector, who stood next for promotion. His successor was appointed by the Earl of Eglinton, who selected Mr. Senior, not because he was a Protestant, but because he was the most efficient inspector who stood next for promotion. It would be very injudicious to try to introduce sectarian feeling in the selection of the members of the Commission; and, whether they were Protestants or Catholics, he was sure they would discharge their duties with fairness and impartiality. As to the personnel of the office, there was, a few years ago, a large majority of Protestants, but now a majority of the clerks were Catholics. He did not put that forward by way of excuse. It was simply owing to the fact that the Roman Catholics had proved themselves the most efficient men that could he selected. The hon. Gentleman had asked, why not do what was done in England and Scotland? But the hon. Gentleman, when he asked that question, should have been sure of the facts of his case. Why, in Scotland, the President of the Poor Law Board was an Episcopalian, and so, too, was the Secretary to the Board. [Mr. BERNAL OSBORNE: They are Scotchmen.] No doubt; but they were appointed not because they were Scotchmen, but for their especial fitness for the office. So, in Ireland, he had no doubt that if the next candidate for a vacancy was an efficient man, even though he were a Roman Catholic, he would receive the appointment, whatever Government held the reins of power. From his own experience of Mr. Senior and Mr. Power, he could say he had never known two officials who had shown a more lively desire to ferret out every case of distress that might require relief and assistance. He entirely dis-

  1965
  sented from the observations of the hon. Gentleman.
  MR. MAGUIREsaid, he rejoiced that the question had been raised by a Protestant Member of that House, because if a Roman Catholic had done so, it might have been said that it was all owing to bigotry. The right hon. Baronet was quite wrong when he spoke of the question as not worth raising. If the right hon. Gentleman had known what had transpired before the Committee of last year, over which the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Cardwell) had presided with so much fairness and ability, he would he of a very different opinion. The Roman Catholic bishops, priests, and laymen who had been examined before that Committee were unanimous that there was a strong feeling of dissatisfaction in Ireland upon the subject. In the first place, nothing could be more unsatisfactory than that a law which dealt with so large a proportion of the people should be administered by men who were necessarily ignorant of matters on which the people felt a deep interest, who had no sympathy with the people's feelings, and who charged them with bigotry when they were merely asserting principles which they might consider sacred. He confessed that, as a Roman Catholic, he looked upon the administration of the Poor Laws by those gentlemen as a badge of slavery. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen might laugh; but if they were Roman Catholics, they would understand his feelings. He considered the present system as, to some extent, a perpetuation of the odious Orange ascendancy, which had excited the hostility of the population of Ireland. Where three-fourths of the population were Roman Catholics he contended there ought to be at least one Roman Catholic on the Board; and if that were so, many of the difficulties which had arisen with the Board would have been smoothed away. The hon. Member for Galway had drawn attention to a matter of very considerable importance—the removal of chaplains without regard to the wishes of their bishops. But, beyond this, he would say the Commissioners endeavoured to override the spiritual power, by appointing chaplains to workhouses against the will of the Roman Catholic bishops; and there had been instances in which en deavours had been made to thrust disgraced clergymen into those places.
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he rose to order. The hon. Member had asserted
  1966
  that the Poor Law Commissioners had endeavoured to thrust disgraced clergymen into the workhouse chaplaincies. He begged most explicitly to deny that such was the case.
  MR. MAGUIREsaid, he would ask whether he had been out of order. The right hon. Gentleman, who held so high an office, ought to have been better acquainted with the rules of the House, or ought to have consulted the Speaker. He would repeat what he had stated that the Commissioners had attemped to force into positions in the workhouse clergymen upon whom lay the ban of their bishops—it might not have been for a very weighty cause, but who were pro tanto disgraced, and consequently not in a position to administer the rites of their religion. Every Roman Catholic gentleman to whom he had spoken felt that an insult was inflicted upon his co-religionists by not having a Roman Catholic on the Board.
  MR. O'BRIENsaid, that as a Roman Catholic Member of the House, he wished to disclaim all feelings of sectarianism in connection with this question. He thought, however, that if there were a Roman Catholic on the Board, many of those matters which had excited much odium and bad feeling throughout the country would never have occurred, because a little explanation given in private would have removed much cause of misunderstanding.
  SIR FREDERIC HEYGATEsaid, that as he had known Mr. Senior for many years, he wished to defend him from the charges which had been made against him. Upon the formation of the Irish Poor Law Board, Mr. Senior, who had been already employed under the English Poor Law Board, was transferred to Ireland that he might give to that country the benefit of his great experience. During eleven or twelve years he travelled all over the country, and no man, of whatever politics or religion, who was brought into contact with Mr. Senior but must have acknowledged that he was a man of great fairness and ability. When a vacancy was caused by Mr. Ball's resignation, Mr. Senior, to the surprise of himself and his friends, was chosen to succeed, and it would be admitted that there was no more fair or honest officer. He could speak to the fact that the class of rate-payers who paid poor rates in Ireland were a very different class to those who paid such rates in England. There were many small farmers in Ireland in a struggling state, and who, by a slight ex-

  1967
  tension of the provisions of the law, would almost become eligible for the receipt of relief themselves.
  MR. POLLARD-URQUHARTsaid, that he did not suppose that any one desired to impugn the manner in which Mr. Senior discharged his duties; but he would suggest that, as a matter of feeling and a mark of respect to the great majority of the Irish people, there should be a Roman Catholic on the Poor Law Commission. It was desirable that the Government should take an early opportunity of showing that, on that point, they were not insensible to the feelings of the Roman Catholic prelates and people of Ireland.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, that he had understood the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for Ireland to tell the House, that the removal of Protestant chaplains could take place without the concurrence of the Protestant bishops, and he believed their appointment could also take place without the concurrence of the Protestant bishops.
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, that generally the chaplains must have the consent of the protestant bishop to their appointment. There must generally be a licence.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, he believed the licence was sometimes dispensed with. But when the right hon. Baronet had argued from that that the appointment or removal of a Catholic priest could take place without the consent of his bishop, he had fallen into error. He (Sir. G. Bowyer) would state, for the information of the House, that such a a thing could not be done in the Roman Catholic Church, as a priest could not officiate in a workhouse without "faculties" from his bishop.
  COLONEL GREVILLEsaid, that being acquainted with the feelings of the people of Ireland from a long residence there, he differed from the right hon. Baronet, who said that the matter was not worth much consideration. What would the people of England feel if the English Poor Law Board were composed of Irishmen and Catholics? He thought that the Irish people were entitled to have at least one Roman Catholic on the Poor Law Commission.
  SIR EDWARD GROGANsaid, he wished to ask whether it was desired that a Protestant Commissioner should be dismissed, in order to make room for a Roman Catholic, or that a Roman Catholic should be appointed as an additional Commissioner, or that, when a vacancy
  1968
  occurred, a Roman Catholic should be nominated to fill it, simply because he was a Roman Catholic. When the Poor Law system was introduced into Ireland, it was absolutely necessary, for its successful working, to get gentlemen who were competent in every sense of the word to regulate the intricate provisions required for the conduct of the business, and he asked whether, at that time, any Roman Catholic gentleman was qualified for the task? The real point at issue was, whether the law of the land was to be made subservient to the canon law of Rome, and whether the Commissioners were to be precluded from carrying out the intentions of the Legislature unless the previous assent of the Roman Catholic archbishops and bishops in Ireland were obtained. It was not until recently, he might add, when those dignitaries began to issue their pastorals, and to meddle in the working of the Poor Law, that the complaints to which attention had that evening been called had arisen.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, that the hon. and gallant Member for Longford (Colonel Greville) had asked whether there would be dissatisfaction in this country if the Poor Law Commission were exclusively composed of Irishmen and Roman Catholics. He (Mr. Whalley) would reply, that there would be no dissatisfaction. There would be no dissatisfaction with regard to the present question if the Roman Catholic bishops and archbishops had in view merely the religious education of the people, and there was not involved in it that system of canon law which left nothing at rest, either social or political, in any country. [Cries of Oh!] Living in a country where there was a larger proportion of persons dissenting from the Established Church than was the case in Ireland—he alluded to Wales—he could assert that the fact of the Poor Law being administered by members of the Church of England never gave rise to a single complaint. In such cases Protestants deemed it to be their duty to act in obedience to the law, while the Roman Catholics interfered, not with the view of satisfying any consientious scruple, or bringing about an improvement in religious education, but simply with the object of extending their power. Their desire was, as had been justly observed by the hon. Baronet who had just spoken, to extend the canon law of Rome, and the House knew what were the doctrines which that law laid down, [Cries of Quote, quote!

  1969
  Read, read!] He would not trouble the House on that occasion. There was only one allusion he wished to make. Some three or four years ago that House appointed a Commission to inquire into the action and operation of the Roman Catholic system in Ireland as administered in the College of Maynooth. [Laughter.] He was not going to say anything in particular about Maynooth at that moment; he merely wished to illustrate his argument by a reference to the fact that there were on the Commission two Roman Catholic gentlemen, and that one of them not merely set at defiance the Royal Commission, and treated with contempt the power and authority of that House, but by his connivance a copy of the report found its way to Rome, where it was rewritten and altered. If one Commissioner could do that [Name, name!]—hon. Members would find the matter recorded in Mansard, with all the circumstances, and he hoped he should not be obliged to name the hon. Member—he would ask if he were not justified in saying there was something more in the question than merely the putting at the Board persons of different denominations? If Roman Catholics were placed in these posts of trust, they would be under the influence of the canon law of Rome, which would set everything at unrest, and militate against the social and political interests of this country.
  LORD NAASsaid, he wished to say a few words on the subject which had—but he thought not very wisely—been broached by the hon. and gallant Member for Liskeard; although he would admit that the subject of the constitution of the Poor Law Commission had been a good deal discussed in Ireland during the last few months. When Mr. Senior was appointed, the selection was made for departmental, not sectarian, reasons. The question considered was simply who was the most experienced and efficient person that could be found to administer the Poor Law. Prior to the appointment numerous applications were made from political friends to the then Government in favour of the claims of many gentlemen. The Earl of Eglinton, then Lord Lieutenant, disregarded all such applications, and appointed Mr. Senior, on the sole ground of official fitness, and on those grounds alone. He (Lord Naas) contended that it would be most injurious to the public service, as well as most unfair to Mr. Senior himself, to pass over his claims on the ground that he was a Pro-
  1970
  testant. He would also observe, that before the Committee which had sat last year not a single instance had been adduced by the bitterest opponents of the Poor Law as administered in Ireland of the display of sectarian bias on the part of the Commissioners in the discharge of their duties. It was further shown before the Committee that no change in the policy of the Commission was consequent upon the resignation of Mr. Ball, but that the policy continued to be precisely the same as when he held office. It would, of course, have been a question deserving the consideration of the Government whether, if a gentleman equally well qualified as Mr. Senior to take Mr. Ball's place had presented himself, the fact of his being a Roman Catholic might not have been an additional recommendation in favour of his appointment; but, as the matter stood, the man who possessed the highest qualifications had not—as he thought was perfectly right—been excluded from advancement on the score of his religion. He repeated that the administration of the Poor Law in Ireland could not fee justly charged with the exhibition of any sectarian bias, and he was sure that it was the desire of each successive Government to avoid such an evil. He felt persuaded that it would be found that every decision of the Board had been made irrespective of any particular religious prepossession; and be might add, that if it had been otherwise, the Commission would not have commanded the confidence which was extended to it from every portion of the country.
  SIR GEORGE GREYthought that the noble Lord had completely vindicated the Government of which he was a Member, supposing that any charge had been brought against them for appointing Mr. Senior; but he (Sir George Grey) did not understand his hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard (Mr. Bernal Osborne) as at all objecting to the appointment of Mr. Senior. The noble Lord had laid down the rule which ought to govern those official appointments—namely, that of official fitness. When the Poor Law was about to be introduced into Ireland, gentlemen who were perfectly familiar with the law in this country were sent over there with a view to bring it into operation in that country. Mr. Power was one of those gentlemen; and he (Sir George Grey) could testify that it had been Mr. Power's desire to discharge his duties with the most perfect impartiality in all respects, and in

  1971
  a manner quite irrespective of any national or religious feeling. He was sure that the same testimony would be borne by all those who had watched the administration of the Poor Law in Ireland. The rule to be laid down in all these cases was to appoint the most efficient person that could be found; but he readily admitted that it was desirable, so far as it could be done without violating that principle, to pay every deference to the wishes of the people among whom that law was administered. He did not think it likely, however, that any Government would select a man, simply with regard to his religion, and without reference to his official fitness, and he hoped Parliament would never expect any Government to act upon that principle. He had himself been guided by the principle of official fitness in an appointment which he made under the Fisheries Act, adopted last session. He had transferred a gentleman—an Irishman—from Ireland to England with an increase of salary, simply on account of the experience he had gained in the administration of the fishery law in that country.
  THE O'CONNOR DONsaid, the hon. Member for Galway did not wish that the Roman Catholic bishops should have the power of dismissing or continuing in their offices Roman Catholic chaplains who might be complained of by the Commissioners. He merely desired that, before proceeding to extreme measures, the Commissioners should communicate with the ecclesiastical superiors of the offending chaplains, in order that disagreeable circumstances might be prevented from arising. If the bishop should refuse to accede to their wishes, then, of course, the Commissioners would be at liberty to follow their own course, as at present.
  House in Committee.
  Clause 1 (Existing Enactments as to Chargeability repeated—Chargeability according to Residence).
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, that he had several Amendments to propose in the clause, and although they did not alter its spirit or terms, yet for clearness' sake he had drawn up a new one, which would, he thought, better express his intentions. He would, therefore, propose that the first clause should be postponed till the other clauses of the Bill had been gone through.
  LORD NAASsaid, he hoped they would have an opportunity of considering the new clause in Committee.
  SIR ROBERT PEEL: Certainly.
  MR. LONGFIELDand other Members were of opinion, that as the first clause was one of the most important in the Bill, it would be better to discuss it then, as they were prepared to do.
  The CHAIRMANsaid, that it being a new clause, it must be brought up after the other clauses had been considered.
  Clause postponed.
  Clause 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Guardians may admit any poor person requiring Medical or Surgical Aid in Hospital).
  MR. CORRYsaid, he wished to propose the insertion of words, the effect of which would be to preserve those useful institutions, county infirmaries, in their present status as infirmaries of the entire county. The Amendment proposed would effect this object in an indirect manner; but practically that would be its result. If the clause passed in its present shape, there would not be a county infirmary in Ireland two years hence. The workhouse hospitals would be no adequate substitute for the county infirmaries, the latter being, as a rule, much superior in point of healthiness, medical treatment, and efficiency, to any possible state to which the former could be brought. Moreover, the industrious poor in Ireland had an insuperable repugnance to seeking relief of any kind within the workhouse. If his present Amendment were rejected, it would be better that the clause should be entirely omitted from the Bill, because it would be inflicting a grievous injury upon the poor of Ireland to deprive them of the county infirmaries, and merely offer them in their stead workhouse hospitals, which the vast majority of them refused to enter. His Amendment would amount to little more than the confinnation of an existing Act of Parliament, because the 64 Geo. III., c. 62, provided that no second public infirmary should be established within ten miles of one previously in operation. He would, therefore, move to insert in line 39, after "workhouse," the words "of all unions except those in which a county infirmary is at present established."
  MR. GREGORYsaid, he should oppose the Amendment, as he feared its operation would be to make the entire county pay for institutions which only a few of the population of the county comparatively could avail themselves of.
  CAPTAIN DAWSONexpressed his intention to support the Amendment. Great care should be taken in bringing within

  1973
  the walls of a workhouse that class of patients which new received medical relief in a manner much more agreeable and satisfactory in the medical establishments of the county.
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he could not consent to the Amendment, which would render the clause quite impracticable. The object of the clause was to afford to the poor residing in distant parts of counties the means of obtaining medical and surgical assistance. It had been founded upon a recommendation of the Committee of last year, and it was one of the most important provisions in the Bill. If the Amendment was carried, there would be, in addition to an hospital in every union, an infirmary, for which the whole county would have to pay, while its benefits would be mainly restricted to the population resident in the immediate neighbourhood, it being found that 80 per cent of the patients treated in the infirmaries were resident within a radius of ten miles. According to the present law, £1,400 a year might be voted for each infirmary. The total sum paid by presentments was £24,255. The country at large paid over £24,000 a year for institutions which only provided in the whole 1,689 beds. The distribution also was unequal, for Galway, with a population of 315,000, had only 50 beds in the county infirmaries; while Carlow, with 68,000 inhabitants, had 40 beds, These facts proved that some alteration in the law was requisite, and he thought that the clause as now proposed would be found a beneficial provision for the destitute poor.
  MR. POLLARD-URQUHARTsaid, he feared that workhouse hospitals and county infirmaries could not exist together, and it was for the Committee to choose between them.
  MR. LONGFIELDsaid, he did not doubt that the effect of the clause would be to diminish subscriptions to the county infirmaries, and that ultimately those institutions would disappear, but he thought that the destitute poor would be gainers, because more convenient and better institutions would be provided. He would suggest the adoption of an Amendment which would recognise the existing infirmaries, and also provide that as they died out the act should come into effect.
  MR. MACDONOGHsaid, he would have preferred the total rejection of the clause. He thought the right hon. Baronet was in error in stating that the clause was based upon the recommendation of the Commit-
  1974
  tee. The seventh resolution of the Committee was to the effect that it was expedient in cases of sickness and accident to extend the powers possessed by the guardians in regard to fever cases, under the 15th and 16th sections of the 6 & 7 Vict. c. 92. Under the 15th section of that Act the guardians had power to remove destitude poor from workhouses to hospitals or infirmaries, and the 16th section gave them power to grant out-door relief to destitute persons suffering from fever. The proposed legislation was not for the relief of the destitute, but would include the non-destitute poor, such as members of the constabulary, artisans, and others. It was proposed that there should be a general hospital annexed to the poor-house, and into that every person who wished it was to be admitted, paying the average cost of maintenance. Now, such legislation struck at the root of the Poor Law system, which was founded for the relief of the destitute poor alone; and it was at variance with the law of England; whereas the great object should be to assimilate the law of the two countries. It appeared to him that the great object in view by the promoters of the Bill was to discourage and destroy the utility of the established county infirmaries. In the Report of the Commissioners of 1854 that object was indicated when they proposed that so soon as a union was declared to be provided with an efficient general hospital, it should be exempted from contributing to the support of the county infirmaries. Ever since that period the idea had been kept alive, and was now sought to be realized in the present measure. It was difficult to understand the reason for that course, because the county infirmaries, so far from being a failure, had surpassed the expectations of even their most sanguine founders. There was abundant evidence to prove that amongst the poor Irish artisans there was a strong repugnance to enter the workhouse. Nevertheless, the measure was framed for the purpose of compelling such persons to enter those establishments. He therefore called upon the Committee to strike out the clause, which was totally at variance with the very principle and object of the Poor Law. It was said that the power of giving relief in county infirmaries was limited to a radius of ten miles. That, however, was not a fact. To prove how untrue that statement was, he might refer to a return of the Tyrone Infirmary, from which it appeared that the relief

  1975
  given within a definite period numbered 6,184 persons within the ten miles radius, and 6,990 beyond the ten miles radius. He should support the Amendment, believing that the proposed legislation was unnecessary and uncalled for.
  MR. MAGUIREsaid, if the county infirmaries were animated beings, and could be brought in bodily presence to that House, they would be ashamed of the character given of them by the hon. and learned Gentleman. Now, he (Mr. Maguire) would give a description of one of those magnificent establishments in the county of Cork. The population of that county in 1841 was 830,000, but by the last Census it was only 550,000. For the last five or six years there was a wretched but on the roadside of Mallow which was dignified by the title of an infirmary. That grand establishment had fifteen beds to accommodate the whole population around, them. He believed in its best days it had never more than twenty beds. He thought that the hon. Member for Cork had rendered a great service by proposing to do away with that miserable humbug of a county infirmary in Mallow, and in obtaining the assent of the grand jury for the erection of an hospital in Cork, with at least 150 beds. He thought that the clause under consideration was one of the best provisions of the Bill, and was dictated, not only by expediency, but by the best feelings of humanity. By the existing law, if a poor man fell sick, and his disease was not infectious, he could not obtain admittance into the hospital unless every member of his family consented to enter the workhouse. Could anything more inhuman be perpetrated under the cover of giving relief? He repeated the clause was the most valuable clause in the Bill, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be firm in resisting its exclusion.
  MR. BLAKEobserved, that he concurred in thinking the clause one of the most important in the Bill.
  LORD NAASsaid, he objected to the principle of the clause, which for the first time applied a tax levied for the relief of the destitute to another purpose. It was true that in many counties the county infirmaries did not effect as much good as they ought to do; but the reason was, because of late years an opinion had prevailed that the Government were about to discontinue the aid given to them, and through the medium of the Poor Law
  1976
  machinery to create rival institutions. If, however, it should be made known that it was not the intention of the Government to press these clauses, not only would the present infirmaries be well supported, but new ones would arise, and a great amount of relief would be given to poor persons, not being destitute, through the medium of private charity.
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTONsaid, he should have voted in favour of the clause but for the observations which had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Peel); but having heard those observations, which he considered a death warrant to county infirmaries he could no longer retain the favourable impression the clause at first had made upon him. The county infirmaries Were the most valuable class of institutions in existence, and the clause was evidently intended to compass, in course of time, their entire abolition. He should therefore oppose the clause; but he was also opposed to the Amendment, because it did not in his opinion sufficiently relieve the clause from the objections which he felt existed to its adoption.
  MR. CARD WELLsaid, that the object of the clause was to extend the utility of the workhouse hospitals to a most urgent class of cases, and to give relief in those instances in which the present system of out-door relief was not sufficient, as administered under the Medical Charities Act. The clause ought not to be rejected. It was proposed in no spirit adverse to the county infirmaries; and the aid it extended was of a kind not liable to the same abuses as other descriptions of relief from the poor rates. He thought that the Amendment which had been proposed would not assist the county infirmaries.
  MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he should support the Amendment. The consequence of the Bill would be that the Government would next year introduce a short measure to levy fresh sums of money from the counties to defray the expense of that novel plan. Did the new plan, he would ask, apply to England, and were poor persons in this country called destitute persons? According to the definition given, poor persons were translated into destitute persons. The real meaning of the clause was—first, to translate the word "destitute" into "poor;" next, to increase the expense of the Poor Law administration; and, finally, to destroy the county infirmaries.
  MR. O'BRIENsaid, he must deny that

  1977
  those who were in favour of the clause had any wish to injure the county infirmaries. The only thing they had to consider was the condition of the destitute poor. It was a very desirable object to bring medical and surgical aid within reach of those who required it, instead of their being compelled to go a distance of twenty or thirty miles to the county infirmary.
  SIR EDWARD GROGANsaid, that the destitute poor were already amply provided for, and the question at issue really was, whether the whole system of poor relief in Ireland was to be changed; and whether the same medical relief was to be extended to poor persons as to those who were destitute. The Government apparently meant by their proposal to make the hospitals the means or relieving all classes of suffering humanity, and he regarded the clause as a departure from the original purpose of the Poor Law. The experiment was perilous, and would lead to the destruction of the county infirmaries, introduce a system of centralization, and eventually involve the county in a large additional expenditure, It would also discourage that spirit of independence which induced the people to do anything rather than accept public aid, What would be the consequence of passing this clause? Why the Government would have to build new hospitals for this class of patients. No one had petitioned for such a change, nor did anything of this kind exist in England. Such a system would not be tolerated in a country where the people managed their own affairs. The poorhouses of Ireland were rapidly becoming little more than lying-in institutions. Let the House pass this Bill, and the only check upon the unlimited increase of such cases would be removed.
  MR. M'CANNsaid, he did not believe that the Bill would have the effect of abolishing the county hospitals of Ireland. He looked upon the extension of medical relief to the poor, as the greatest boon that could be conferred on the people of Ireland.
  CAPTAIN STACPOOLEobserved, that he entirely agreed with the hon. Member who had last addressed the Committee.
  COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he would express a hope that there was no intention to do away with the infirmaries in Ireland. They had been of immense benefit to the country, and had been a means of raising the charac-
  1978
  ter of their medical practitioners to a very high degree. He thought that no cases of chronic or permanent disease should be sent to the poorhouse hospitals. The Committee ought to lay down a rule defining what class of cases should go to the poorhouse, and what to the county infirmary. His own opinion was that only sudden and urgent cases should be sent into the workhouse infirmary; and that the clause should contain some such limit as "Provided always that there shall be room in the hospital over and above what is required for the poor."
  MR. BRADYsaid, he would admit that the county infirmaries had done great good in Ireland; but there were many cases in which those institutions did not meet the wants of the people. It was therefore the duty of the Committee to sustain and encourage the medical officers of the various unions.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. COREYsaid, he thought it would be more convenient to take the division upon the clause itself.
  Question put, "That clause 3 stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided: —Ayes 96; Noes 69: Majority 27.
  Clause 4 (Poor persons of sufficient ability to pay the Cost of their Maintenance in Hospital, or part thereof, required to pay the same).
  MR. POLLARD-URQUHARTsaid, he wished to move the insertion of the following words after the word "Ireland," in the 21st line:—
  "Provided also, that if such poor person deny his or her ability to pay the cost of his or her maintenance while in the hospital, or such portion of his or her maintenance as the guardians may demand, it shall be incumbent on the guardians, in seeking to recover the same, to bring satisfactory proof of suck poor person's ability to do so."
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he could not agree to the Amendment. It would be an extremely difficult thing for the guardians to bring satisfactory proof of a poor person's ability to pay the costs. He hoped the hon. Member would not persevere with his Amendment.
  MR. BRADYsaid, he should support the Amendment. He could not understand the objection to it, as he thought the guardians could easily ascertain the circumstances of life of these poor persons.
  MR. O'BRIENremarked, that he thought that the Amendment was unnecessary.
  MR. M'CANNsaid, he was of opinion that the matter might well be left to the guardians in each case.
  Amendment withdrawn.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  SIR HUGH CAIRNSproposed the introduction of the word "domestic" into the clause, so as to make it include domestic servants.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 5 (Admission of Constabulary Patients).
  COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he would propose to add, after "daily maintenance," the words, "and establishment charges." The constabulary ought to pay the entire cost connected with their medical treatment, and not merely a part of it.
  SIR HUGH. CAIRNSsaid, he thought the object of the Amendment would be attained by the clause as it stood, as the word maintenance included establishment charges.
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, that it would be impossible to apportion the amount of the establishment charges; and therefore he could not agree to the Amendment.
  LORD NAASsaid, he believed there would be no difficulty in fixing a proportion of establishment charges payable on account of the class of patients referred to.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISobserved, that inasmuch as there were no additional officers, no additional expense for warming and lighting, &c., he was at a loss to see on what ground an additional charge was to be made on the establishment.
  LORD JOHN BROWNEsaid, he would not dispute the legal interpretation of the word "maintenance" with the hon. and learned Member for Belfast, but it was not understood in Ireland by those who had the carrying out of the law to include establishment charges.
  MR. DAWSONsaid, he should support the Amendment.
  SIR HUGH CAIRNSsaid, he would suggest that, to remove all doubt upon the point, it should be distinctly provided that the latter words—which recurred in several other clauses—should be taken to embrace "establishment charges" as well as any others.
  COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he would adopt that suggestion, if the right hon. Baronet, the Chief Secretary, would assent to it.
  SIR ROBERT PEELthought the best plan would be to adopt the words "medi-
  1980
  cal and surgical treatment," included in another clause. There would be considerable difficulty in ascertaining the amount of establishment charges.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he entertained doubts as to the equity of the proposal. It would be perfectly reasonable to pay for the maintenance of constabulary patients, but establishment charges were a fixed quantum, which those patients did not in any way affect.
  SIR HUGH CAIRNSsaid, the Bill as it then stood, included the cases not only of constabulary patients, but of poor persons not destitute. According to the right hon. Gentleman's argument, those persons, however numerous, or however much they might swell the establishment charges of hospitals built out of the county-rates for the maintenance of the destitute poor, ought to defray none of the extra expenditure incurred on their account.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISobserved, that his argument was not refuted by an extreme case. If the numbers were doubled by the admission of the police, so that the building had to be enlarged or the staff augmented, then the objection would apply; but as the charges under these heads remained fixed, it would be unreasonable to require repayment on account of them.
  COLONEL DUNNEremarked, that it was the first time he had heard the Irish constabulary were under the protection of the Secretary at War. He would remind the Committee that the district which had the greatest number of paupers in it had to bear the greatest proportion of the establishment charges.
  MR. H. HERBERTsaid, he thought the hon. and gallant Member was in error; the payment was made in proportion to the property valuation of each union.
  MR. MAGUIREsaid, that taking into account the very moderate pay of the policemen, he was willing to make the cost of their relief during illness as light as possible.
  SIR HUGH CAIRNSsaid, he must press hon. Members to bear in mind that irresistible claims for increase of salary by all the existing officers of these establishments would inevitably attend the increase of business thrown upon the institutions.
  MR. CONOLLYsaid, there was a distinction to be drawn between those who paid for relief and those who received it.
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he wished to know whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman intended his Amendment to refer to the whole establishment charges, or solely to the hospital charges?
  COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he meant the whole charges of the establishment.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsuggested, that it should be left to the guardians to assess the average cost of relief.
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTONsaid, he hoped that the Committee would state their own intentions, and not impose the duty of interpreting them on the guardians.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. BAGWELLsaid, he would then propose the addition of the following proviso to the clause:—
  "Provided always that the medical officer of such union be paid for medical and surgical attendance by the constabulary authorities as if such attendance had been given out of the workhouse."
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he thought it impossible to adopt the Amendment, especially after the decision at which the Committee had just arrived.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 6 (Poor persons claiming to pay cost of their maintenance not to be disfranchised).
  SIR EDWARD GROGANsaid, he would move as an Amendment the insertion of words providing that the register containing the names of those who had received relief without payment should be open to the inspection of such persons as desired to examine, or take extracts from it free of charge, and that a copy of the entries, under the seal of the guardians, should be legal evidence of the facts stated in it.
  SIR ROBERT PEELwould assent to the Amendment; but he would suggest that the hours for inspection should be specified.
  SIR EDWARD GROGANhad no objection to the addition of the words "between the hours of ten and four o'clock."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 7 (Guardians may send inmates of workhouse to hospital).
  LORD NAASasked, whether the provision was meant to apply to paupers only, or to other persons as well?
  SIR ROBERT PEELreplied, that it would apply to all classes of inmates.
  SIR HUGH CAIRNSsaid, that it would be dangerous to extend the provision to persons not paupers, because the previous clauses had given power to recover the cost
  1982
  of their maintenance in the workhouse only and not in other hospitals to which they might be sent. He would therefore move the insertion of words to restrict the operation of the clause to cases where special treatment was required, or where the union had not special hospital accommodation.
  SIR ROBERT PEELassented to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman. The term "inmate" included the poor as well as the destitute.
  MR. E. P. BOUVERIE MR. E. P. BOUVERIE moved the insertion of words so as to provide for the repayment of the expenses of conveyance to and treatment in the hospital as well as of maintenance.
  SIR HUGH CAIRNSsaid, that the word "inmate" in the clause was rather indefinite. If the guardian sent a constable, for instance, from the workhouse to another hospital, there should be some means of recovering the coat to which the union would be thereby put.
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, the amendment of the hon. Member would meet the difficulties of the case.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 8 (Guardians to have same authority as parents in cases of children under fifteen years of ago relieved without parents).
  MR. NEWDEGATEobserved, that the clause authorized the guardians to give up the child to any relative. He thought that such relative should not be allowed to have the child unless he took upon himself the maintenance.
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, if a relative took a child out of a workhouse, he thereby became liable for its maintenance.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he thought words should be inserted to render such intention clear.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, he would propose these words to meet the difficulty—
  "Any relative who in the opinion of the guardians is a fit person to be intrusted with the custody of the child and of sufficient ability to maintain it."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause agreed to.
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he would print the Amendments which he proposed to introduce in the future clauses before the Committee on the Bill was resumed.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again on Thursday.

  PIER AND HARBOUR ACT AMENDMENT BILL.—COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  House in Committee.
  Clauses 1 to 7 agreed to.
  Clause 8 (Consent of Commissioners on Woods and Forests).
  Mr. E. P. BOUVERIEsaid, he would move the omission of the next clause, which provided that no harbour for pier shall be constructed below high water mark without the consent of the Woods and Forests. There had been many disputes lately between the Crown and private persons as to the property in the foreshores, and the clause seemed to be inserted in the Bill for no other purpose but quietly to establish a claim on behalf of the Crown.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONexplained, that the clause had been inserted for convenience, and that it could not be acted upon without the consent of Parliament. However, it was not necessary, and therefore he was quite ready to omit it from the Bill.
  Clause withdrawn.
  Clauses 9 to 26 agreed to.
  Clause 27 (Power to amend or repeal Local Acts).
  MR. E. ELLICE(St. Andrews) said, he objected to the clause on the ground that it gave extraordinary powers to the Board of Trade; by its provisional order the Board could supersede or virtually repeal an Act of Parliament. He should oppose the clause.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONexplained, that the provisional order only did away with the necessity of coming to Parliament for special powers. The order would have no force unless affirmed by the House of Commons. There was no reason for omitting the clause altogether.
  CAPTAIN JERVISsaid, he thought it would be better to omit the clause.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, there were many precedents for giving the power to make such provisional orders; they were intended to obviate the expense of private Bills. Such an order was always embodied in a Bill, to be affirmed by Parliament, but it was not necessary for it to pass the preliminary ordeal of going before a Committee upstairs.
  MR. E. P. BOUVERIEsaid, the real objection to the clause was that the full notice required by the standing orders would not be given. He spoke from some experience of these things, and he could say that the only notice that would be given to repeal an act of Parliament, affect-
  1984
  ing perhaps valuable private property, would appear in the Gazette, and 99 out of 100 would not be likely to see it. When a Bill was brought in by a public department there was a long schedule of 70 or 80 pages, embracing those provisional orders which nobody would take the trouble to read, and the whole force of the Government would be brought to bear in support of the measure. Except with regard to the Board of Health there was really no precedent for conferring such a power on a Government Board.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, there was a clause in the Bill which was to the effect that in case any petition should be presented to either House of Parliament against any provisional order made in pursuance of the Act, that petition might be referred to a Select Committee.
  MR. E. ELLICE(St. Andrews) said, there was no doubt that such notice would not be given as would be sufficient for the parties interested.
  Question put, "That Clause 27, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 35; Noes 71: Majority 36.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  Clause (Saving rights of Duchy of Cornwall) brought up, and read 1o, 2o.
  MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, that the clause was not printed. He should be glad to know its meaning.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, that the clause was merely intended to reserve the rights of the Duchy of Cornwall. It was not meant to confer any new rights on the Crown.
  MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, that the rights of the Crown were saved already, by previous clauses in the Bill. The clause was unnecessary, and he should oppose its insertion.
  Question put, "That the clause be added to the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 71; Noes 27: Majority 44.
  Clause agreed to.
  On the question that the preamble be agreed to,
  MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, he would move that the Chairman report progres; and, in order to justify himself in dividing the House on the last clause, he wished to state that last session a clause of the kind had been introduced, and between the passing of the bill and the Royal assent three suits were instituted by the Duchy of Cornwall against the

  1985
  owners of as many properties in Cornwall, although it was understood that no suits would be instituted previously to the Bill passing. It was things like these that brought the Duchy of Cornwall into disrepute.
  Amendment withdrawn.
  Preamble agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered on Wednesday, and to be printed. [Bill 60.]

  MUTINY BILL.—COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  House in Committee.
  Clauses 1 to 21 agreed to.
  Clause 22.
  MR. WHITEsaid, he wished to move the omission of Clause 22. which authorized flogging in the army. He thought it worth while to mention that flogging in the army, to which he had much repugnance, had very considerably diminished since he last had the honour of bringing the subject forward. He would not detain the House, but would jump at once into figures. The flogging during the year 1860–1 was—the Infantry, in 40 regiments, 96 men were flogged; the Cavalry, in 28 regiments, 29 men were flogged; the Royal Artillery, 41 men were flogged; the Engineers, I man was flogged; and the Military Train. 12 men were flogged; total, 179. In 1858–9, no flogging in 65 regiments; in 1859–60, no flogging in 34 regiments; in 1860–1, no flogging in 19 regiments. In 1858, the lashes given on an average per man were 42; in 1859, 44; and in 1860, 48. The men flogged in the army and militia, in 1857, were 112, and they received 5,240 lashes; in 1858, 218, and they received 9,338 lashes; in 1859, 512, and they received 22,565 lashes; and in 1860, 179, and they received 8,597 lashes. The Committee would perhaps be struck by the great discrepancy between 1859 and 1858. It was believed out of doors that that was owing to the interpolation of two words into the Mutiny Act. He had referred to Hansard, and taken some pains to inquire into the matter, and he was forced to the conclusion, that if the Mutiny Act of that year was managed in the same manner as that of this year—that was to say, no printed copy laid before the House till about two hours before going into Committee—it was quite possible that at the instigation of the military authorities words
  1986
  might have been interpolated providing for an augmentation of punishment. He was encouraged in that belief by the Returns. He found that in the Returns for 1857, desertion did not appear to be punished by flogging; in 1858, there were floggings for desertion in four cases; in 1859, 257 cases for desertion out of 512 flogged; and in 1860, 43 cases for desertion out of 179 cases of flogging. He would not trespass longer on the time of the House. Sixteen years ago the Duke of Wellington said that he felt confident the time would come when punishment by flogging would be abolished, and he hoped to live to see the day. It was, however, still continued, and was, he (Mr. White) believed, detrimental to the discipline of the army, degrading to the national character, and subversive of Christian feeling. He should move the omission of the clause, and as long as he was honoured with a seat in the House he should do the same.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISobserved, that while the number flogged in the army was, is the hon. Gentleman correctly stated, 179 in 1860–1, it had amounted to 512 in 1859–60; so that a material change had taken place in that respect within a period of two years. That change, he added, was due to the Order in Council which had been issued in November, 1859, and which was to the effect that all persons entering the army were to be exempted from the punishment of flogging until they happened to have been degraded, by the commission of some serious offence, from the first, in which they were placed on their entrance, into the second class. He might further observe that, although a soldier might be reduced to the second class, he might, after a certain period of good conduct, be restored to the first class, in which case he would again become free from liability to the punishment of which the hon. Member complained. It was quite clear, from the figures he had quoted, that a material diminution in the number of men who were flogged had been the result of the change to which he referred. He might also state that the maximum number of lashes which would be inflicted was reduced to fifty, as set forth in the clause which the hon. Gentleman sought to annul, and, looking at the necessity that existed for maintaining discipline, which could not be done without some such sharp discipline, he thought the Committee would not be justified in abolishing it altogether, however much they might be

  1987
  disposed to take that course on the ground of humanity. He hoped that the General Order which had been recently published would receive a fair trial and that the clause would be retained.
  MR. PEASEsaid, he was convinced that flogging was not necessary for the maintenance of discipline. He would support the Amendment,
  Question put, "That Clause 22 stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 67: Noes 14; Majority 53.
  Clause agreed to, as were also Clauses 23 to 25.
  Clause 26.
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, he objected to Clause 26, which provided that when an offender was dismissed from the army he should be branded upon the right breast with the letters "B. C." He supposed that meant "barbarous custom."
  1988
  He should move the omission of the clause.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, the letters "B. C." stood for "bad character," and the object was, when a soldier had once been discharged for bad conduct, to prevent his being re-enlisted. The branding was not a painful operation. It used to be done with a hot iron, but the mark was now made with gunpowder.
  MR. COXsaid, he understood that the letters were formed with a needle steeped in gunpowder. The custom was a brutal and demoralizing one, and ought not to be tolerated in a civilized age.
  Clause agreed to.
  Remaining Clauses were also agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read 3o To-morrow.
  House adjourned at half after One o'clock

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1aCharitable Uses Act (1881) Amendment; Sir John Soane's Museum.
2a India Stocks Transfer.
Royal Assent.—Consolidated Fund (£ 18,000,000); Exchequer Bills.

LUNACY REGULATION BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to, with verbal amendments.
  Clause 3 (Nature and Limit of Inquiry under Commissions of Lunacy).
  Numerous alterations in the clause were proposed and agreed to, the most important of which was the substitution of "time of inquiry" for "date of the commission."
  On the Words of the Clause relating to the Medical Evidence,
  LORD ST. LEONARDSsaid, he could not approve of the 3rd section of the Bill. The Act of 16 & 17 Vict., sec. 47, carefully confined the inquiry as to the lunacy to the time of the inquiry: he had thus confined the inquiry because it had been usual unnecessarily to carry back the inquiry; but power was carefully preserved for the Lord Chancellor to carry back, under special circumstances, the inquiry as he might see fit. The first part of Section 3 was therefore mere repetition, and is open to the objection, that whilst Section 47 of the Act of 1853 is to remain unrepealed, this Section 3 in the Bill does not give to the Lord Chancellor the power which is reserved to him by the existing Act. But Section 47 does not limit the time to which the evidence may be given; nor is it wise to do so, for evidence prior to two years—the limit in the Bill—may be most important, and ought not to be excluded. It may be required in order to show that a delusion under which the lunatic labours is really founded upon what actually took place more than two years ago, and thus take from it the character of lunacy. The case mentioned by a noble Lord (Lord Shaftesbury) a previous evening of a barrister, who, after five years' quiet conduct in an asylum, was partially released, and sent to his house for his writing-desk, and in two hours after he received it was found dead from poison, shows that he was always
  1938
  intent on self-destruction, and remembered that he had concealed poison five years before in his desk. Evidence of his former condition could not properly have been shut out upon a later inquiry. Many other instances might be given. The objection to the clause was not obviated by the words "unless the Judge or Master shall otherwise direct," for the parties would not know till the trial what evidence would be received. The exclusion of the opinion of medical practitioners, as evidence of insanity, is altogether inadmissible as it stands. The law sufficiently excludes their opinions, simply as such; but this enactment, whilst, of course, it would not exclude their evidence of facts, would prevent them from stating how far, in their opinion, those facts were evidence of insanity. Their abstract opinions ought not to govern; but their opinions of facts within their own knowledge—for example, where they have visited, and observed, and talked with the alleged lunatic—are entitled to great weight; for, generally speaking, they are men of science, who have dedicated their lives to the treatment of mental disease. Upon these grounds he altogether objected to Section 3.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYobserved, that they must be careful, in altering the clause, not to exclude medical testimony altogether. He understood that the object of the Lord Chancellor was to limit the evidence of medical witnesses to matters of fact; and to check those speculative flights in which they were apt to indulge. He believed that end might be attained by the insertion of words so as to make the clause read thus:—"Nor shall the opinion or conclusion of any medical practitioner, unless founded wholly or in part on facts indicating insanity observed by himself, be admissible in proof of the insanity of the alleged lunatic."
  Amendment moved, to leave out after "practitioner," and insert "unless founded wholly or in part upon facts indicating insanity observed by himself."
  LORD CRANWORTHthought the words very objectionable. Medical men might sometimes indulge in wild speculations, but those speculations would be counteracted by the good sense of the Judge who directed the jury. The medical attendant on an alleged lunatic might say that he had known him all his life; that he was a capricious boy; that he was a capricious man; but that the strange conduct deposed to was quite consistent

  1939
  with sanity. Another medical practitioner might say that he had attended, him, and that his conduct proved him to be perfectly insane. Between those two opinions the jury, under the direction of the Judge, would have to decide. But if the proposed Amendment were agreed to, the effect might be to exclude evidence Which, in the opinion of the Judge, was material to the issue. The provision would introduce a principle for which there was no precedent in any other branch of the law. Medical testimony was received on the most delicate questions in every other branch of legal inquiry. In criminal procedure a man died, and the question was whether his death was from poison or natural causes. Again, in testamentary inquiries a man who had made a will died some years afterwards, and the question was raised between the heir-at-law and devisee, whether the testator was of sound mind at the time Medical evidence was often conflicting, and might mislead; but it was a short way of cutting the knot to say it should not be listened to at all, and that a Judge of a superior court should be guided by this legislation as to what was revelant, and not by the ordinary rules of law.
  Motion (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Further Amendments made.
  Question proposed, that the Clause, as amended; stand part of the Bill.
  LORD CHELMSFORD,who had given notice to move the omission of Clauses 3, 5, and 7, said, he rose to move the first Amendment of which he had given notice, the omission of the third clause. He was apprehensive that their Lordships would be led to consider that this was a mere question of words and immaterial clauses instead of one, as he conceived, of very great importance. They were legislating confessedly under circumstances of pressure, arising from a late proceeding under a commission of lunacy. The extraordinary length of that trial, the nature of the evidence given, the contradictory character of the medical testimony, conspired to raise in the public mind a feeling that the law was defective and required amendment. He was always apprehensive that when the Legislature yielded too easily to a demand for an alteration of the law there was danger lest they might be hurried into some legislation which they might afterwards regret. He was not afraid to say, notwithstanding all the objections which had been made,
  1940
  that he believed that the law of 1853, for which they were indebted to the noble and learned Lord (Lord; St. Leonards) worked exceedingly well, and answered almost every object that could be desired. It was a matter worthy of notice that since the passing of that Act, which came into operation in October, 1853, there had been no less that 561 commissions of lunacy issued, out of which 20 only had been determined by juries; 12 of these 20 Were settled in less than a day, and the rest, with two or three exceptions, in a very short time. No fewer than 541 of these commissions had, therefore, been decided without; the intervention of a jury, and merely by the judgment exercised by the Master on evidence brought privately and quietly before him. Nothing could be of more interest than these facts, for they showed how much the feelings of many families had been spared, whilst the necessary protection had been afforded to the unfortunate objects of the inquiries. But the proceedings to which he had adverted had made the public anxious that some means should be devised by which, if possible, the length of such inquiries might be restricted. In order, therefore, to meet the wishes of the public in this respect, the third clause of this Bill was proposed. It contained two provisions, which it was assumed would have the desired effect. The first of these provisions was to the effect that evidence as to anything done or said by a person who was the subject of an inquiry, or as to his demeanour or state of mind, at any time being more than two years from the time of the inquiry, should not be received; the second provision was that the opinion of a medical practitioner should not be admissible as evidence of insanity. He thought he should be able to satisfy their Lordships that both these provisions were exceedingly objectionable. Seeing that the 47th clause of the Act of 1853 was not repealed, he could not see the necessity for the first portion of the clause now proposed. He did not think that this clause was necessary while the 47th clause of that Act was retained. That clause presented this advantage, that it gave the Lord Chancellor power, under special circumstances, to direct that the inquiry should be carried back either indefinitely or to a specified time. This power was extremely useful, because, supposing that the alleged lunatic had executed a deed at a particular

  1941
  date, the Lord Chancellor could direct the inquiry to be carried back to a period embracing the date of the deed, so as to be furnished, by the verdict of the jury, with the means of deciding upon its validity. He quite agreed that the 47th section directed that the inquiry should be confined to the question whether or not the party was of unsound mind at the time of the inquiry; but still it did not limit the period as to which evidence could be given; and to determine the question of insanity at the time of the inquiry it might be necessary to take a very wide range. If it were a case of acute mania, of course it would be sufficient to produce the person before the jury, and the state of his mind would be at once determined; but where it was a case of chronic insanity, the growth of years, and in which there might have been lucid intervals, how could they limit an inquiry by an arbitrary line, drawn at any particular point? In the case of delusions which had been long kept down by the soothing care and attention of the family, but which in the end broke out, and a commission was issued, it would be necessary to go back to a distant period to show the existence of these delusions, and the continuance of them down to the time in question. In considering this matter their Lordships might be too apt to look only on one side. It was proposed to prevent the petitioner from giving evidence of what took place before the commencement of the two years; but would they preclude the alleged lunatic from doing so? This might be fatal to the interests and to the happiness of the party charged with lunacy. Suppose a case of evidence of alleged delusions within the limited period, but the alleged lunatic were able to establish by proof of facts prior to the two years that the supposed delusions were not merely the creations of his imagination, but were founded upon circumstances actually occurring; surely it could not be intended to exclude evidence of this kind? It might be answered that the Judge would direct when such evidence should be given; but then the evidence might not be known by him to be necessary until the whole case of the petitioner had been gone through; and if the alleged lunatic were to give evidence extending beyond the period of two years, the petitioner must of course be allowed some opportunity of rebutting it. Another consideration was this—their
  1942
  Lordships were well aware of the extreme reluctance of families to resort to a commission of lunacy; but if the inquiry should be limited to two years, and the relatives knew that they would be shut out from important evidence if they did not proceed, they would feel themselves in many cases compelled, however reluctantly, at once to obtain the commission, and thus the number of these painful cases would be materially increased. It was said that this was not an absolute and peremptory rule, for the Judge, whenever he thought it expedient, might direct that the evidence should be extended beyond the period of two years. But was it intended that the Judge should receive this as a general rule laid down for himself, or was he to consider it as a rule that was subject to exception in every case in which he chose to exercise his discretion? If the latter was intended—if this was to be a perfectly flexible rule—then it was utterly unnecessary, because in every case the Judge would, in a delicate inquiry of this kind, feel compelled to submit himself to the discretion of the counsel conducting the case. If, however, it was to be a rigid rule laid down for the Judge, which he was to break through only upon extraordinary occasions, then it would be productive, not only of very great mischief, but of the greatest possible hardship and injury to the unhappy parties who would be subject to its influence. He could not help thinking that the only possible effect of this limit of two years would be to embarrass the Judge by fettering his discretion, and compelling him to confine himself within the limit, unless he was almost forced by the peculiar circumstances of the case to cross the line; and wherever this arbitrary line was drawn they were sure to be in danger of excluding evidence of a most important character. He also contended that the provision was not necessary, as was proved by the 561 cases of lunacy which he had referred to as having been tried under the existing law. Their Lordships would further observe that this clause was not confined to cases of trial by a jury only, and that the Master, in the cases which were disposed of by him, would feel himself equally fettered by it. Now as regarded that part of the clause which referred to the exclusion of medical testimony, he was not clear upon the wording of the clause, whether it was intended to exclude medical evidence generally, or only medical evidence

  1943
  not founded upon some ascertained facts; and he thought that this should be stated more exactly. His own opinion was that there was considerable doubt how far the mere opinion of a medical man, not founded upon ascertained facts, was evidence. He knew that upon Commissions of Lunacy it had been considered that a medical man who had not seen the alleged lunatic, but who had heard the evidence from beginning to end might be asked, "Having heard the whole of the facts, what is your opinion? He could not help thinking, however, that that evidence was highly objectionable, for the question, whether the facts established one conclusion or another, was what the jury was to determine; and to ask a medical witness a sweeping question of this kind seemed to be to put him in the position which the jurymen alone should occupy. The question how far medical evidence should be allowed to go was dealt with in the case of M'Naghten, who was tried and acquitted upon the ground of insanity. Their Lordships asked the Judges this question—
  "Can a medical man, conversant with the disease of; insanity, who never saw the prisoner previously to the trial, but who was present during the whole of the trial and the examination of all the witnesses, be asked his opinion as to the state of the prisoner's mind at the time of committing the crime, or whether he knew he Was acting contrary to law, or was under a delusion?"
  And the Judges answered—
  "We think that a medical man under the circumstances supposed cannot in strictness be asked his opinion, because upon the truth of the facts depends that upon which the jury is to decide; the question is not merely one of science, but became such only when the facts were not disputed. It may be convenient to allow the question to be put in that general form, though it cannot be insisted upon as a matter of right."
  Such evidence, therefore, was scarcely, if at all, admissible. He had himself had some experience in cases of this kind, and he was not aware of a single case of evidence of this kind being given where the medical man had not examined the alleged lunatic himself. His evidence was generally founded upon questions he had himself put to the alleged lunatic and the answers given; so that his evidence was as to facts and his own conclusions founded upon them. If the clause was meant to exclude evidence of that kind, he thought that it would be highly prejudicial, by breaking in upon a course of evidence which had always been considered to be of the highest importance; though he should be glad to see medical men prevented from
  1944
  stating mere opinions without stating the facts which led to their conclusions. What he had already said only referred to inquiries where the alleged lunatic was still living; but were they to refuse to receive the evidence of medical men where the. question, in cases of disputed wills for instance, was as to the sanity of a dead man, and to which cases the answer of the Judges in M'Naghten's case would not apply? The vast majority of cases decided by the Master, without the assistance of a jury, were decided to a great extent upon the evidence of medical men, and he thought that it would be impossible altogether to exclude evidence of this kind For these reasons he would move the omission of the clause.
  Amendment moved, to leave out Clause 3, as amended.
  LORD CRANWORTHsaid, he entertained the strongest objection to any enactment altogether excluding medical testimony, which was often of the very greatest assistance in such an inquiry. He quite agreed as to the necessity of abridging these inquiries, for he believed that these investigations had been sometimes carried back to an unnecessary extent. But he thought that a real and sufficient control would be exercised over this tendency in similar inquiries if the trial of the case were intrusted to one of the Judges of the superior Courts. By a word or a look a Judge was in the habit of saying to counsel, "Are you not carrying this to an unnecessary extent?" During many years' experience as a common law Judge he had never seen counsel resist a suggestion of that kind. All this might, therefore, safely be trusted to the Judge, in the same way as in the ordinary trial of a common issue before the Judges of the Superior Courts; and he felt convinced that the Judges would take care that the inquiry was kept within proper limits, irrespective of any legislation on the subject.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he hoped he should be able to satisfy their Lordships that the present clause was absolutely requisite to bring back the course of procedure in these cases to the rule and standard of reason and common sense. He admitted, that in addition to other proofs of the necessity of bringing a Bill before Parliament for the purposes for which it was proposed, his attention had been thoroughly arrested by the enormities that took place on a recent trial. He would admit the wisdom of being exceed-

  1945
  ingly cautious in not hurrying on legislation under the pressure of a particular case. But after examining most carefully that, as well as other cases, for the purpose, of eliciting what were the vices of the present system, of which just complaint had been made, he came to the conclusion that there were two evils and two anomalies. One was, that there was no limit to an investigation in a question of insanity; so that when the point was whether the unfortunate subject of the inquiry was or was not insane at some particular time, the inquiry might be carried back so as to admit proof of what he said and did during an indefinite period. He thought that no man could be expected to come prepared to rebut testimony given with regard to something in his conduct fifteen or twenty years ago. He would take the evidence of the first witness in the recent case to which he had alluded. It was not necessary to mention names, but the witness was a man of considerable eminence in his profession. This gentleman was asked when he became acquainted with the alleged lunatic. He replied that he knew him when he was four years of age. Being asked what he observed at that time, he said his opinion was that he was of infirm mental organization, and that this was congenital. He then used the following expression:—
  "He has always shown evidence of congenital mischief, such as I should have expected to ripen into idiotcy in after-age."
  The jury were told what was the mental condition of a boy of four years old, and the speculative conclusion of the medical man thereon. The witness was asked whether there was anything in the shape of the boy's head that assisted him in coming to a conclusion, and he replied that the head was larger in proportion to the the face than it ought to have been—"his forehead was not in due proportion to the back part of his head." So that the shape of the boy's head of four years of age was actually gravely taken as a legitimate indication of what his mental state was when he was twenty-four years of age, and a surgical judgment was arrived at from the fact that the forehead in infancy was not in due proportion to the back part of the head. Then the witness was asked, "Have you had much experience with reference to persons whose minds are not sound with regard to their laughing? Have you listened to laughing so as to form a judgment?" The answer
  1946
  was, "I know a laugh that is the laugh of an imbecile from the laugh of those who are not so." Now, was it reasonable to go back twenty years with such inquiries? Was it reasonable to have a judgment taken on an issue so framed as to depend on the shape of the head at four years old, and the laugh being that of an imbecile? What could be more dangerous? He, therefore, desired to lay down two rules to govern these inquiries, and bring them within the standard of sense and reason. He had been told that this clause excluded medical testimony in these inquiries; but it did no such thing. He did not exclude the evidence of what a witness might have himself seen, heard, arid observed. What he wished to exclude was the evidence of speculation, fancy, and idle theory, not warranted by any inductive reasoning founded on facts. For instance, was it an opinion or a fact, that was stated in the evidence in the case he had quoted, that the head of this child of four years old measured 22½ inches, when the standard of sanity required that it should be 22 inches and no more? What was it that the law wanted to ascertain? It wanted to come to a moral conclusion, and not to ascertain whether a man was a maniac or a monomaniac—whether he suffered from dementia or amentia, melancholia, or mania combined with fatuity, or any of the hundred and one definitions of mental disease given in the vocabulary on insanity. The law wished to arrive at this practical conclusion—whether a man had the capacity to govern himself and his affairs. Whom had the law made the judges of that? The law had made the judges of that fact a jury of common men. They were to take the facts and to derive their conclusions from those facts. He could not better illustrate this than by the sensible answer of two physicians to a sensible question put to them in the same case. The question was of this nature, "Do you concur with me that in cases of this description it is a matter of evidence and a question of degree?" The answer was, "Yes, a matter of evidence and a question of degree." Again, "Then, are experienced laymen as well able to form a satisfactory opinion on this subject as any medical gentleman?" Answer, "I think a case like this speaks for itself. I think laymen or men of the world are quite as competent as myself to come to a right conclusion, having all the facts of the case before them." If a physician were to tell

  1947
  a jury that a man did so and so, and so and so, and that therefore he thought that man mad the production of the physician would he a mere piece of supererogation; because, if the conclusion at which he had arrived were from antecedent facts, it was for the jury; and when the conclusion he drew was nothing but an inference from facts, which facts he gave in evidence, it was the business of the jury to arrive at a conclusion from those facts. He quite admitted that a medical witness might be a more accurate and acute observer than others; but what he wanted to exclude was evidence of opinion without the production of the facts upon which the opinion was founded, that such a man had a diseased brain, that that disease of the brain accounted for this or that fact, and that therefore the man was mad. In such a case the conclusion that the brain was diseased was arrived at by the medical man from particular grounds known only to himself, upon which the jury, therefore, could found no judgment, and as to which there was no satisfactory standard laid down by the experts themselves so as to secure unanimity of opinion in the profession. In a case in which half a dozen medical witnesses could be had on each side, there might not, perhaps, be so much danger of wrong to the patient; but in the case of an unfortunate man who could not procure medical testimony, the joint opinion of two doctors—if two could be got to agree to a conclusion—would be sufficient to have the subject of their inquiry confined on speculative theories. Noble and learned Lords who had had experience in lunacy oases would easily call to mind instances in which medical men would be liable to fail, and in which lawyers would fail when they came to depend on medical testimony. In the law there were terms which were annexed to certain ideas and certain conclusions; but when they came to the medical vocabulary they found different notions and different conclusions attached to the same terms. It frequently happened that medical men used particular phrases and terms known in law, and to which the law attached certain conclusions of fact; while in reality those phrases and terms were used with different meanings by different medical men. He would illustrate that by what had occurred in a case in which medical men were called on to define lunacy. Half a dozen medical gentlemen gave their opinions that there was no lunacy, because they attached
  1948
  to lunacy the existence of delirium or delusion, which they did not find in the case in question; but half a dozen other professional gentlemen, however, regarded lunacy as incapacity of the persons to manage themselves or their affairs; and as the person, the subject of the inquiry, had shown herself incapable of taking care of her affaire, they said it was a clear case of lunacy. In another case an inquiry took place at an expense of £3,472. It lasted five days and the result was that the Commissioner and jury went to see the alleged lunatic at the end of the inquiry, and returned with the conclusion that it was a clear case of insanity. In another case, half a dozen medical witnesses went to see the subject of the inquiry, and the evidence given by one was that the decay of mental power might be set down as part due to mania and part to paralysis; and that if the paralysis had occurred without mania, the probability was that he should have found her mind in a state of decay without delusions. The doctor adduced as proof of the patient's insanity that she could not tell him how much £100 a year was a week. But on cross-examination the counsel asked him, in his turn, if he could tell, and the learned doctor was observed to hesitate. Said the counsel, "Don't be nervous, how much is it?" Said the doctor, "I decline to state." Said the counsel, "Is it that you will not, or that you cannot tell?" Said the doctor, "I decline to answer." Nevertheless this medical gentleman covered his retreat with a cloud of "sesquipedalia verba," and said, "I should call the case a mixture of chronic mania and dementia; or. speaking in popular language, a mixture of fatuity and mania in a mind which had previously been sound." Another learned physician examined the same lady, no doubt with great cleverness, and thought he would try her knowledge of law. He therefore asked her several questions about the constitution; but when similar questions were addressed to him by counsel, he himself betrayed considerable uncertainty and hesitation. This was the way in which these inquiries had been abused, until the very idea of a mad doctor's examination had become a by-word. These were matters arising from the vices of the present system, and the humble attempt which he was now making had for its object to discover where the abuses and the causes of error lay which had rendered such inquiries generally odious, and the

  1949
  examination by mad doctors little better than a farce. With regard to the limit proposed to be put to the time of inquiry, it had been objected to the provisions of this clause that they introduced a novelty unknown in any other branch of legal inquiry. The effort was, undoubtedly, a novelty; but if it were sanctioned by their Lordships, it would go far to take out the evil by the roots, and prevent the recurrence of scenes which were a reproach to the courts of this country. Why should they wander over the life of a man to ascertain his state of mind at a particular period, when the sole question was whether the man was mad to-day? It was easy to see how the practice had arisen. In former times the point was to find when the title of the crown to the custody of the lunatic accrued, and it was necessary, therefore, to travel back in order to know what claim the sovereign had to the rents and profits of the sufferer's estate? But when the question was merely as to the man's present state of mind, nothing could be more cruel or unjust than to embark upon an inquiry into his conduct during the last ten years. It was, moreover, unjust as affecting third parties. The justice of English law, and of every law, held as a maxim that the conclusions to which a court of justice might come were binding only upon the litigants, and that because they alone were the only persons who had been represented, and had had an opportunity of being heard. Nothing obviously could be less in accordance with the principles of equity and right than to allow the decision of a commission of lunacy, acting upon mere ex parte evidence, to set aside deeds executed some time before, and affecting persons who had not been allowed to interfere in the inquiry. To revert to the question of the medical evidence, the opinions of medical men with regard to the state of mind of an alleged lunatic were perfectly different from the evidence given as to post-mortem examinations at criminal trials. In the latter case they had before them a dead body; they were dealing with the particular state of the tissues, the coatings of the stomach, or an analysis of its contents, and they came to their conclusions upon actual facts. If there were any process by which, in the case of a lunatic, a man's skull could be out into, and the different coats and linings of the brain exposed, so as to exhibit whether they were too much gorged or the circulation impeded, there
  1950
  might be something in the plan. But medical science had not yet attained that pitch of development, and medical men imagined external things to be the indices of things unseen. They therefore made issues hardly less important than those of life and death depend on evidence which after all amounted to no more than an uncertain guess. On this point, though referring to proceedings of a more ordinary character, he would quote to their Lordships the opinion of an eminent commentator on the law of evidence—a man who died much too early for the profession he adorned—Mr. J. W. Smith. Mr. Smith said—
  "The opinion of witnesses possessing peculiar skill is admissible whenever the subject-matter of inquiry is such that inexperienced persons are unlikely to prove capable of forming a correct judgment on it without assistance—in other words, where the matter so far partakes of the nature of a science as to require a course of previous habit or study in order to the attainment of knowledge with regard to it. It does not seem to be contended that the opinion of witnesses can or ought to be received where the inquiry is into a subject-matter the nature of which is not such as to require any peculiar method or study in order to qualify persons to understand it."
  Now, was that the case in questions of soundness or unsoundness of minds? Was any such aid necessary to enable a jury to say whether a thing said or done was consistent with reason? Was it indispensable that persons should have studied in the School of Medicine, listened to lectures, and walked the hospitals, in order to form a conclusion whether a man was or was not a lunatic? Yet by the existing law that was the very absurdity they were daily committing. Men were denied the power of forming a moral judgment as, to facts upon which every man of rational understanding was competent to form an opinion, and as to which every member 01 the jury was bound to decide; and they were forced to adopt, instead of their own moral conclusions, which they were perfectly able to form, and which it was their duty to form, the speculative views of members of the medical profession. Was that consistent with law or reason? He perfectly agreed with the noble and learned Lord near him, that the law of evidence ought to exclude these speculative opinions; but practically it did not do so, for an evil habit had grown up into a precedent with judges and juries of assuming that insanity was a physical disease and not a subject of moral inquiry, and therefore that they were bound to accept medical

  1951
  testimony in reference to it. But the facts relating to the physical condition of a morbid brain were very obscure; even medical men sometimes fell into egregious errors—they never made allowance for peculiars idiosyncrasies. A celebrated Scotch judge administered justice for many years with great skill and knowledge of the law: after his death, which took place suddenly, a post-mortem examination was held, when it was proved that he had been subject to extensive softening of the brain, and that it had been going on for several years. If he had not been misinformed, something similar, though not perhaps to as great an extent, happened recently in the case of one of our own Judges, who died suddenly, and who, it was then found, had been suffering for years under the same malady. The only safe ground on which to proceed was the evidence of the words and facts, conduct, and demeanour, of the alleged lunatic. But then it was said, "Why do you limit the terms of the inquiry?" To which he would reply, "How can you form a judgment upon a man's state now, from what he said or did five years ago?" He granted, however, that a retrospective inquiry might sometimes be useful to the alleged lunatic himself. There might be cases in which a man might account for loss of memory by a reference to an accident. In defence of a man's sanity he would allow the inquiry to be carried back; but he saw no reason why it should be extended to the whole of a man's life in order to come to a conclusion which ought to be founded upon his state at the time. He, therefore, hoped that their Lordships would retain this clause.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYagreed that it was both cruel and unjust to ramble over a man's past life when the sole question was whether or not he was mad at the present time; but he wished to explain that when the other evening he expressed the opinion that it was unnecessary to carry back the inquiry into a man's sanity for more than two years, he expressly excepted cases in which the existence of homicidal manias was alleged. In other cases you had only to deal with the present state of mind of the individual, and he therefore did not see why the investigation should be extended beyond that period. That seemed to be the opinion of Lord Eldon, because in a case which was tried before him that noble and learned Lord Said, "Where insanity has not previously
  1952
  existed, proof of insanity is not to be made out by rambling through the whole life of the party, but must be applied to a particular date." He confessed he had been very much astonished to hear the observations of the noble and learned Lord (Lord Cran worth), for the law already required in the certificate a recital of acts Which had to be observed by the medical men themselves. Formerly a general expression of belief in the person's insanity was sufficient, and he had known a lady consigned to an asylum on a certificate which actually ran as follows: "'She has certain impressions with respect to certain persons which are not accurate or true." Since then an Act—and a most necessary Act it was—had been passed requiring the mention of facts observed by the two certifying doctors themselves before a person could be deprived of his liberty and he thought that the same rule ought to be insisted upon before they allowed him to be deprived of the management, of his affairs.
  LORD CRANWORTHagreed that the Legislature had very properly required the certifying medical men to detail facts observed by themselves, in a certificate on which alone, without any public inquiry, it was proposed to confine a person in an asylum; but he believed that this was the first instance when evidence which, ex hypothesi, was material to enable the jury to come to correct conclusions, was sought to be excluded by law.
  On Question, Whether the said Clause shall stand part of the Bill, their Lordships divided:—Contents 38; Not Contents 26: Majority 12.

  CONTENTS.

  Westbury, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Torrington, V.

  Worcester, Bp.

  Newcastle, D.

  Saint Albans, D.

  Belper, L.

  Somerset, D.

  Camoys, L.

  Crewe, L.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Dartrey, L. (L . Cremorne.)

  Townshend, M.

  De Tabley, L.

  Airlie, E.

  Foley, L. [Teller.]

  Albemarle, E.

  Hunsdon, L. (V. Falk land.)

  De Grey, E.

  Ducie, E.

  Keane, L.

  Granville, E.

  Leigh, L.

  Russell, E.

  Lyveden, L.

  Saint Germans, E.

  Manners, L.

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Methuen, L.

  Spencer, E.

  Overstone, L.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.) [Teller.]

  Eversley, V.

  1953

  Rivers, L.

  Skene, L. (E. Fife.)

  Sandys, L.

  Suffield, L.

  Sefton, L. (E. Sefton.)

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Buckingham and Chandos, D.

  Dungannon, V.

  Marlborough, D.

  Abinger, L.

  Chelmsford, L.

  Bath, M. [Teller.]

  Colchester, L.

  Exeter, M.

  Colville of Culross, L. [Teller.]

  Normanby, M,

  Salisbury, M.

  Cranworth, L.

  De Ros, L.

  Amherst, E.

  Grantley, L.

  De La Warr, E.

  Kingsdown, L.

  Derby, E.

  Redesdale, L.

  Devon, E.

  Rollo, L.

  Lanesborough, E.

  Saltoun, L.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Wynford, L.

  Nelson, E.

  Resolved in the affirmative.
  Clauses 4, 5, and 6, severally read, and disagreed to.
  Clauses, "Inquiries before a Jury to be made by means of an Issue to one of the Superior Courts of Common Law;" "Reference in other Acts to Inquisition to apply to Verdict on Issue,"—moved and agreed to.
  Further Amendments made; the Report thereof to be received on Thursday next; and Bill to be printed as amended (No. 40).
  House adjourned at half-past Eight o'clock, till To-morrow a quarter before Five o'clock.