moved the Order of the Day for the House to go into Committee on the Lunatics' Bill.

deprecated the further progress of the Bill at so late a period of the Session. His objection to the principle of the Bill was so great, that he would move its postponement until the next Session.

, addressing the House, said, that the Government had intended to bring in a Bill similar to that before the House; but knowing the great interest which his noble Friend (Lord Ashley) had taken in the subject, and his perfect acquaintance with it, they had gladly handed over the matter to his charge, but they did not for an instant wish to get rid of the responsibility themselves; on the contrary, the Government took upon themselves the whole responsibility of the measure, which they felt would be of great public benefit. He hoped the House would give its sanction to a measure of so much importance, even although it had been unavoidably delayed to a late period of the Session.

moved, "that the Speaker do now leave the chair."

said, he had to present a petition complaining that a man, named William White, a poor brother of the Charter-house, had been detained in a private lunatic assylum for nine years, although he had certificates of four surgeons that he was of sound mind, and not a proper person to be so confined.

sincerely hoped the hon. Member for Finsbury, now that he stated the object he had in view in opposing the Bill, would allow the House to go through the preliminary forms, so that the measure might be fully and dispassionately considered and discussed in Committee. He also hoped that nothing which might fall from the hon. Gentleman or any other hon. Member would tempt him to infringe the rules of the House, or induce him to reply in any way that exhibited aught in the nature of irritation or ill-feeling. When he heard the hon. Gentleman say that the Commissioners, in the discharge of their duties, and particularly in their examinations, had conducted themselves with arrogance and intolerance, he must take leave to say that the hon. Member had been most grievously misinformed by those who had made such a statement to him. He would ask him to consult his own heart and his own feelings, and if in his heart and his feelings he found that it would be possible for him, in so solemn an inquiry—an inquiry of so delicate a nature, and affecting, as it did, the happiness of human beings — to behave with arrogance and intolerance, then he (Lord Ashley) would admit that his brother Commissioners and himself were open to the charge. But he would undertake to prove to the House that nothing could be more inaccurate than such a charge. It was quite true that the hon. Gentleman gave him notice that it was his intention to bring under the consideration of the House the case of Captain Digby. He had stated to him in private that if it were necessary for the Commissioners to be put upon their defence, and to show their reasons why they could not authorize the liberation of that party, he feared, from the documents which would be produced, that the case would issue in a painful result. He had hoped that he should not have to weary the House by any further statements; and he felt that he was acting with exceeding boldness when he brought forward this measure. He had hoped that his preliminary observations would have been sufficient; but since it was the will of the House that he should make a further communication on this matter, he would request them to receive the explanation he was now about to offer. It would be necessary, in the first place, that he should describe the constitution of the Commission, and retrace the history of legislation upon this subject. In 1828, Mr. Gordon, then a Member of this House, introduced a Bill which afterwards became the Act under which the operations of the Commission were conducted, and was, in fact, the law under which their operations were conducted up to the present time. If the House would allow him, he would give a short view of the state of the law by which private asylums were regulated previously to 1828, in order that they might see how they had gone on progressively improving in their legislation, and how they might continue to go on progressively improving; for this was a difficult and delicate question, and no step could be taken without deliberation, and every such step must be justified by past experience. Previously to 1828 private asylums were regulated by the Act of Parliament passed in the 14th year of George III. That was a most important Act, but very defective. There was no power contained in it for punishing an offence, not even for revoking or refusing a license. There was a great laxity in the signature of certificates, one only being deemed sufficient, and that one might be and often was signed by a person not duly qualified, or the proprietor of the madhouse (in his medical capacity), to which the alleged lunatic was consigned. Houses licensed under that Act were not required to be visited more than once a year. There was no power under the Act to discharge any patient who might prove to be of sound mind. Licenses could be granted only on one day in the year. Pauper lunatics were sent to the madhouse and admitted without medical certificates, and no return of pauper patients was ever made to the Board. No plans were required of houses previously to the granting of licenses; no returns of the cases of lunatics kept singly in houses for gain; and, moreover, no visits of medical persons to the patients. That, in fact, was the state of the law from 1777 down to 1828, when Mr. Gordon introduced a Bill which remedied these defects. That Act gave power to the Board to revoke or refuse a license. Sundry offences were specified in the Act, not specified in the old Act, which might be punished as misdemeanors. Separate visits by two medical men were required; and these gentlemen were to be members of one of the three authorized medical bodies. These visits must have been paid to the alleged lunatic within a period of not more than seven clear days before his admission into a licensed house. Every licensed house was to be visited at least four times in the year (many of them not having been visited at all under the old law), and in practice now some of them were visited oftener. A power was also given for discharging any patient who might, after due medical investigation of the case, be considered of sound mind. Licenses could be granted on any of the quarterly boards: and certificates were necessary for the admission of pauper lunatics, as well as returns of them regularly made, and lists of them kept, so that each pauper was seen, and, when requisite, examined on each visit of the Commissioners. Plans of all houses were required, and also of such alterations as might, from time to time, be made therein; and returns of patients in single houses under certain well-guarded provisions for insuring secrecy, were to be annually made to the clerk. Then, each house, containing more than a hundred patients, was to have a resident medical officer; and where the number was less than a hundred, was to be visited by a medical person twice a week. Mr. Gordon's Act was passed for three years, and the Commission was appointed for one year, to be renewed annually. That Commission consisted of several unpaid Members, and five physicians, and it was provided that these five physicians should be paid at the rate of one guinea an hour for their attendance, with power to carry into effect the new Act within the metropolitan district. This Act and Commission were renewed in 1832, and two barristers were added on the same terms. About 1834, after having been a member of the Commission, he (Lord Ashley) became the chairman of the Commission, which duty he had discharged up to the present time. Now, this Act was renewed periodically from three years to three years, until the year 1842, when his noble Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord G. Somerset) brought in a Bill for three years, the object of which was greatly to extend the operation of the metropolitan Commissioners. Let the House see how that Act extended the duties devolved upon these Commissioners. It extended their duties over the whole surface of England and Wales, instead of confining them to the metropolitan district and a radius of seven miles round it, and directed that all asylums licensed by the justices should be visited twice a year by two Commissioners (a physician and a barrister), who were to examine the licenses and certificates, and inquire and report as to restraint, classification, occupation, and amusements. They were also to report on the condition of paupers on admission, diet, and so forth. They were bound to make entries as to particular patients in patients' book, and empowered to liberate patients in provincial asylums after two visits. The Act likewise directed a physician and barrister (members of the Commission) to visit county asylums once a year, and make inquiries and reports similar to those which he had already specified. Then, for the purpose of discharging any increase in their duties, the number of physicians had been augmented to seven, and of barristers to four. And it was also provided by the Act that the Commissioners should receive at the rate of five guineas a day during the performance of their duties in the provinces. Such were the provisions of the Act passed in the fifth and sixth of Her present Majesty's reign; and immediately after its enactment the Commissioners entered upon their enlarged duties. Now, let the House observe what were the duties which devolved upon the Commissioners. The result of the passing of that Act was, that in each year the establishments to be visited by them were seventeen county asylums, or asylums brought within the scope of the 9th Geo. IV. (the Act of 1828), being twelve county asylums, and five county and subscription asylums; eleven asylums of a mixed character, maintained partly by subscription, and partly by income from charitable foundations; and two military and naval hospitals. These would be visited once a year. Ninety-nine houses licensed by justices in session, fifty-nine of them receiving private patients only, and the remaining forty paupers and private patients, would be visited twice a year. Then, in the metropolitan district, there were thirty-seven houses licensed by the metropolitan Commissioners, thirty-three of which received private patients only, and the remainder (four large establishments)both pauper and private patients. These would be visited four times in the course of a year. So that in the whole, 166 houses, spread over a large surface, were to be visited by the Commissioners, some of them once, others twice, and some four times a year. The result of these investigations was a voluminous Report from the Commissioners, which was presented to the House towards the close of the last Session of Parliament; and he very much feared that the size of that Report, although it was published in the most inviting form, had deterred many hon. Members from perusing it; because if the House of Commons had read the Report, there would have been very little hesitation manifested with regard to the two Bills which he had had the honour of introducing. Nor did he think that he should now have been called on to weary the House by these preliminary remarks. Well, upon the presentation of that Report, he proposed a motion for an Address to the Crown, praying Her Majesty to take it into Her serious consideration. A discussion arose in the House, and Her Majesty's Government stated that they were so impressed with the necessity of legislation upon the subject, that they promised that a Bill should be introduced in the succeeding Session of Parliament, in consequence of which he (Lord Ashley) withdrew his notice. His right hon. Friend (Sir James Graham) had already explained to the House why it was that he was entrusted with the introduction of the two very important Bills before the House. His right hon. Friend was pleased to think that, as he had served so long on the Commission, and performed the responsible and arduous duties of its chairman, he was the proper person to present these measures to the notice of the House. He undertook the task, because he thought it to be his duty so to do when asked by the Minister of the Crown, knowing at the same time how much that Minister was overwhelmed by the pressure of public business, and knowing also the great zeal and diligence which his right hon. Friend brought to bear in discharging the important duties that devolved upon him. The House might be assured that it was not from an overweening opinion of his own competency or ability that he (Lord Ashley) had complied with the right hon. Baronet's request. Quite the reverse. He shrunk from the task—not that he shrunk from the labour, or entertained a fear as to the reception which the Bills would meet with at the hands of the House; but because he did not feel that he had either sufficient influence with the House, or a sufficient command of ability, to undertake a measure which he knew must extend over the length and breadth of the realm, and would introduce a new system on principles which he was quite convinced, if carried out judiciously, would place this country at the very pinnacle among the countries which undertook to legislate for this unfortunate class of their fellow subjects. The result was, the two Bills which he had introduced; the one to provide for pauper lunatics, and the other to render permanent the Commission, and provide rules for private asylums, and for general visitation. He would now explain why it was that these particular provisions existed in the Bills, and particularly the one which he should bring under the consideration of the House this morning. The duties of the Commissioners being so extended in point of surface, and so multiplied in number and variety, it became absolutely necessary to consider the present constitution of the Commission. It was quite clear that with the Commission, as at present constituted, they could not go on much longer in the discharge of duties which were multiplying every day. In the first place, then, it was absolutely necessary to have very many more Board meetings, in consequence of the rapid increase in the business they had to go through. When the Boards were held, they found a greater accumulation of business than they could discharge with that attention which was its due. In the next place, it was equally necessary that there should be more visitations. They found that nothing was so effective for the prevention of abuses as successive and unexpected visitings. But with the Commission constituted as it was, it would be impossible that they could to any great extent increase the number of their meetings. It was requisite, therefore, in order to obtain a due attendance, that they should secure the full, entire, and undivided services of professional men, abstracted altogether from any professional pursuits or practice. The accumulation of their duties had very much altered the capacity of the medical men and barristers to discharge them. So long as the duties were confined to the metropolitan districts, that was, London and seven miles round it, it would have been much easier for the Commission, as now constituted, to meet and discharge their duties, although they too were in a great degree increased; but the moment the county duties were superadded, and it became necessary that the barristers and medical men should be absent from their private practice in London for whole days together in the provinces, it was perfectly clear, that then the proper discharge of the duties could only be secured by having persons altogether devoted to this work, and no other. It was necessary, also, to consider the progressively increasing expenses of the Commission. Observe how those expenses were growing, as shown by the Parliamentary Papers; from which it appeared, that in the year ending in August, 1844, they were within a fraction of 10,000l. In that same year, the payments to the Commissioners alone, who were paid according to the time employed, had increased, as compared with the year 1842–3, by 918l. Then, see how-many meetings of the Board took place. In 1842 they held fifteen, in 1840 they held twenty-four, and in 1844 they held thirty-one meetings. Now, the sittings of those Boards averaged at the very least four hours each, and were attended by eleven paid members, consisting of seven physicians and four barristers. At this rate, they cost in 1842, 660l., in 1843, 956l., and in 1844, 1,364l., thus showing an increase in two years of 704l. for expenses of the Boards alone. On this scale it might be estimated, that in two years' time, viz., in 1847, even if no additional duties were imposed, the expenses would have arisen to 12,640l. a year; but, supposing additional duties were required, as proposed by the Bill now before the House, in the same period of two years, or in 1847, the expenses would have risen to 14,850l. per annum. Let the House now observe the duties which the Bill, if carried, would impose upon the Commissioners. See the enormous extent of country to be travelled over, and the additional number of days that must be employed in the performance of that duty. In the first place, all workhouses in England and Wales would require visitation, for there were lunatics in the workhouses of every county, with two exceptions only. With a view, therefore, to efficiency and economy, the arrangement of a permanent Commission was devised, with six paid Commissioners at salaries of 1,500l. a year each. The total amount of salaries to the Commissioners would be 9,000l. Now, he would beg the House to observe, that for this they were to have the exclusive and undivided services of those parties. It had been observed that such a provision was not made in the Bill; he could only say, that such was the intention, and he had since introduced the very strongest words which could be used, in order to show that their exclusive and undivided attention was to be given to the duties of their office, and that they were not to receive emolument from any other source, with the exception of private property. Under these circumstances it was necessary to hold out an inducement sufficient to invite into the service men of the highest talent and integrity. The Poor Law Commissioners received 2,000l. a year, and it was proposed that 1,500l. per annum should be given to the Commissioners under this Bill. Their duties would be of a very harassing nature. They must frequently be absent from home, devoting a considerable part of their time to travelling over the length and breadth of the country. They must necessarily be persons of high character, and would be taken altogether from their practice and profession, devoting themselves exclusively to the services of this Commission, which would be of an extremely difficult and delicate nature. As to the cost of the Commission, there would be a secretary at a salary of 800l. per annum, and two clerks at a salary of 100l. each; then he estimated the travelling expenses at about 2,150l., and sundries at 430l. making together a total expenditure of 12,583l. That was the estimated expense of the Commission. As to the provision for superannuation, taking it at the utmost, and supposing the superannuation list to be full, the expense would only be increased 14,583l. But, however, putting that out of the question, the expense of the Commission for many years would be 12,583l. He would call upon the House to mark how very low an estimate they had taken of the expense, when they considered the additional duties which the permanent Commission proposed by the Bill would create. They had calculated upon only six additional board days—they ought to have at least two a week. [Mr. T. Duncombe: It ought to be every day.] Very well, then that would occupy their time altogether, and they should be rewarded according to their services. The hon. Gentleman could not have said anything that so completely proved the necessity of a constant permanent Commission. But there was a new duty imposed on the Commission by this Bill. The Commissioners were to have the serious, delicate, but indispensable duty of visiting those wretched creatures who were shut up in single houses. It was a duty, the extent of which they could not as yet form a notion of. In half an hour's walk from the door of that House, he would undertake to say that he would find a hundred persons shut up in single houses. The Bill, provided, however, that notice should be given to the Commissioners in such cases, and a certificate signed. [Mr. T. Duncombe: That clause I approve of more than any other in the Bill.] He was very happy to hear it. To execute such a duty as the Commissioners would have to perform in visiting these houses, they must surely devote their serious and undivided services, and they must be proper and efficient men. The duty of visitation was one of the most burdensome that could be conceived. He had on a late occasion visited a house containing a number of private and pauper lunatics, and having reached it soon after eleven o'clock, the Commissioners had not finished the performance of their duty at seven—when he was obliged to come away and leave his Colleagues behind. It was not a common service to be performed, but one of great excitement, difficulty, and responsibility. It was necessary that visitations should be made repeatedly and unexpectedly. As the Chairman of such Commission, he should say, go and visit such and such a place ten or twelve times in the course of a year; and this with a permanent Commission would not increase the expense, but by the present system the Commissioners were paid upon each visitation a guinea an hour during the whole time they were engaged; the Bill before the House, however, would give a stationary income. At present the Commissioners made four hundred and four distinct visits in one year, they travelled 15,000 miles in the same period, they also attended 34 boards, they made 404 separate reports, and they also made 600 entries in the different books, some of which which were of great length. Upon the very lowest estimate, under the present Bill, they must make 560 visits, travel 16,500 miles, hold 40 boards, make 500 reports, and about 900 entries. But this would not be enough, and unless the Commission was able to devote itself to these duties, and multiply both the boards and visitations, no effectual good could be done. If the House thought those duties were to be performed—the visitation of all the workhouses, containing 8,000 pauper lunatics—all the patients in single houses—and, as the hon. Member for Finsbury said, a board should be held everyday—if the House thought all this duty was to be performed, his (Lord Ashley's) belief was that, in a very short time, the expense of the present Commission would reach 25,000l. a year. A clause was inserted in the Bill which would give a most stringent hold over the proper discharge of the duties of the Commissioners. At the end of every six months they would have to make a return to the Lord Chancellor of the number of visits which they had made, the patients whom they had seen, and the miles which they had travelled. Now, he would just point out to the House some of the provisions of the new Bill, to show how vast an improvement it would be on the existing law. It began by establishing a permanent Commission, and thereby secured the entire services of competent persons, and fixed the limits of expense now regularly increasing. It placed hospitals (or subscription asylums) under proper regulations, by requiring them to have the same orders and certificates as were necessary in licensed houses, and by subjecting them to the same visitation as county aslyums. It prevented persons of weak mind from being received in asylums in the character of boarders, in which case they had not the benefit of any visitation, and were sometimes induced to deeds affecting their property. It provided an additional security against the improper detention of pauper patients, by requiring that the person signing the order for their confinement should see and personally examine them beforehand; and that the medical officer who certified as to their insanity should see them within seven days previous to their confinement. Neither of these safeguards existed at present. It compelled every person receiving a patient to state his condition (mental as well as bodily) when first admitted, and the cause of his death when he died. It directed every injury and act of violence happening to a patient to be recorded, and required a "case book" to be kept; thereby affording additional security against mismanagement, and showing how far the patients had the benefit of medical treatment. It provided against the liberation of dangerous patients. It authorized the visitors to enforce a proper supply of food (in licensed houses) to pauper patients, who were at present fed at the discretion of the proprietor. It enabled the visitors to order the admission of a patient's friends to visit him. At present they were admitted or excluded at the caprice of the person who signed the order for the patient's confinement. It enabled the visitors to sanction the temporary removal of a patient (in ill health) to the seaside or elsewhere. It enforced an immediate private return of all single patients (received for profit) and authorized the members of a small private committee to visit them if necessary. These returns were almost universally evaded at present, the law rendering it unnecessary to make any return unless the patient had been confined for twelve months. It enabled the Chancellor to protect the property of lunatics against, whom a Commission had not issued, by a summary and inexpensive process; and finally, it subjected all workhouses, in which any lunatic was kept, to regular visitation. Now, he would just show the House of what this last duty consisted. By the last returns to August, 1844, just presented by the Poor Law Commissioners, there were 17,355 pauper lunatics and idiots chargeable in the country. Of these, there were in county asylums 4,224, leaving 13,131 unprovided for in any public asylum. Of these last, there were in licensed houses 2,942, leaving in no asylum and under no supervision or care whatever, nearly 10,000. That was the existing state of things; and surely it proved the necessity of immediate interference. The treatment which the pauper lunatics often received was shocking to contemplate. He knew the case of a wretched woman who had been rather violent, and with regard to whom the matron, taking upon herself to incarcerate the poor creature when and in what manner she pleased, bound her with ropes, and leaving her in that state, in a short time the rope had eaten to the very bone; in consequence of which her arm was soon after amputated. In all such places there would be a tendency to restrain and incarcerate frequently. It was easy to put such poor creatures in a strait waistcoat and get rid of them. That case occurred five years ago; but three days ago he received a letter from a visiting magistrate, who said, he was happy to find that the Bill had been introduced, as many of these wretched creatures were farmed out by the workhouses, and kept by their relations. He said, that he had been a visiting magistrate forty years, and a

"circumstance came under my observation of a female, who, during her pregnancy, became insane; and the person under whose care the parish officers had placed her had fastened the ligatures so tight round her ancles (the blood being in a sluggish state) that they mortified; and, upon my second visit, I found that her feet had dropped off."

She died afterwards, her reason having been restored; she made no complaint, but "these things would never have happened had she been sent to a proper asylum." He added—

"On my visit to another asylum, I found twenty-five lunatics crowded together in a small yard, with only a boy, under twenty years of age, to take care of them. They were all bound in waistcoats or handcuffs."

He (Lord Ashley) had seen no less than eighty lunatics in one yard, under the charge of a single person, in one of the private asylums in London for the reception of pauper lunatics. He hoped, however, that the Bill which was now about to pass for the erection of county lunatic asylums, would gradually be the means of diminishing these enormities. It was pleasing to contrast with such places the Han-well and Surrey asylums. In the former he had seen forty-eight patients together, engaged in horticulture, and using sharp and dangerous instruments; and in the Surrey asylum he had seen lunatics brought to use sharp weapons, such as axes, hatchets, &c. He wanted to approximate to that state of things as much as he could before these asylums were built, and therefore he wished all lunatics to be brought under immediate visitation. But if they imposed all these necessary duties, they must have a permanent Commission, and employ men who were well qualified, and willing to give their undivided attention to this difficult work. It was very well to talk of postponement; but many counties at this moment were waiting for the passing of this measure, and had suspended their operations. He would instance Derby, Warwick, Worcester, Nottingham, and Stafford. In Sussex, the magistrates were preparing to fit up an old gaol as a lunatic asylum, and would no doubt do so if this Bill were delayed until next Session. St. Peter's, at Bristol, Haverfordwest, and several other wretched asylums, still received patients. Besides, in many places there was very little visitation, and in some actually none. If these places were visited and subjected to efficient regulations, a great many parties would, no doubt, be cured when placed under proper care, who might otherwise become incurable lunatics. By delay, and want of curative process, out of 700 curable lunatics in a year, barely one-tenth would be recovered; and he would ask the House to estimate the misery and expense of 630 lunatics being added yearly to the list of incurables. It was well known that when persons had laboured under the disorder for twelve months, it rarely happened that more than one-sixth could be cured. The postponing of the measure until another Session would involve at least a delay of six months, during which time, he would ask the hon. Member for Finsbury to recollect the number of lunatics who would be left altogether without superintending care. He would also ask the House to consider the difficulties by which the Commissioners were surrounded. They were compelled, in the Bill before the House, to take a middle course; they were bound to consider the patient, but they were also bound to regard the public. The hon. Member for Finsbury, with great propriety, took up the cause of the patient, and called upon them to take care that he was not confined a moment longer than was absolutely necessary. Other persons, however, held opinions contrary to those of the hon. Gentleman, and called on him to make the law far less stringent; and, as he had before said, it was necessary to take a middle course. He begged to thank the House for the great kindness with which they had listened to him. He could only say, that he took the deepest interest in the fate of this unhappy class of persons. He had been engaged for sixteen years in this matter, and thought the House would do him the justice to say that he was not actuated by any personal motive; all he asked was, that some little consideration might be given to the opinions of those who, without fee or reward, and whose only motive was to ameliorate the condition of the unfortunate lunatic—he only asked that some little consideration might be given to the opinion of such persons. It was very well for those Gentlemen to talk of delay who knew nothing, by experience, of the horrors that were hourly perpetrated; it was very well for persons to talk of delay who had never seen the miseries which were constantly brought under his notice, and who did not know how painful it was to administer an imperfect law. The Commissioners knew the law to be imperfect—they saw the remedy—and they knew that a large proportion of the evils could be removed if only some little consideration were given to their opinions. They now applied to the House, from their own experience, for a remedy which was within the reach of the Legislature. If he was defeated in his effort to obtain the sanction of law for the Bill before the House, without any further delay, it would be to him a source of inexpressible regret; and he implored the House, by all the statements which had been laid before them, by all that they must know of their own knowledge, to lose no time in carrying into execution those means within their reach, of removing the great evils of the present system, which were not only the source of intolerable suffering to the unhappy beings in whose defence he was pleading, but which were a standing disgrace to this enlightened kingdom and this Christian land.

said, the Bill would not give that guarantee and security to the public which the noble Lord imagined. He did not underrate the great importance of the measure; but at this advanced period of the Session, and when there was no absolute necessity for it that he could understand, he thought that the Bill should be postponed until the next Session of Parliament, in order that an investigation might take place, not only as to the conduct of the Commissioners, but also with reference to the operation of the existing laws, under which great abuses did exist, and would continue to exist, in spite of the provisions of the Bill. The noble Lord could not tell him how any persons who had been unjustly confined could obtain relief by the Bill before the House; the same medical certificates were to be given, and interested parties would still have the power of imprisoning their victims under the plea of lunacy. He would call the attention of the House to the petition of Mr. Lewis Phillips, who asked for time, and prayed the House not to legislate blindfolded. He (Mr. Duncombe) thought it was better that nineteen insane persons should go free, than that one rational being should be shut up under the plea of insanity. He had made inquiries, and believed every word in the petition of Mr. Phillips to be correct. The petitioner wished to be called to the bar—

"For the purpose of explaining the malpractices and workings of divers individuals desirous of placing Her Majesty's subjects in I such places of confinement, without the proper; and necessary steps which a British subject ought to be entitled to, and receive protection from a law to guard against any innovation, or tend in any measure to deprive the subject of the freedom he should properly enjoy."

He proceeded to say—

"That he was a partner in a large firm as a glass and lamp manufacturer, in Regent-street, St. James's, in the month of March, 1838, with his brothers, who were carrying on a prosperous business. That on the 16th day of March, 1838, your petitioner was on his usual rounds to the nobility, customers of the firm. That one of the said customers required your petitioner to call at Her Majesty's Palace that morning at eleven o'clock. That your petitioner did call, and the pretext thus arose for incarcerating your petitioner in a lunatic asylum. That without further entering into details, your petitioner was, in consequence of representations by his partners of his insanity to the magistrate, Mr. White, of Queen-square Police Court, given over to their care and custody. That your petitioner conferred with several friends and the police, who advised your petitioner to bring actions against all parties; on his again going to the Palace on the Saturday, the 17th of March, 1838, for the purpose of finding out the names of the parties who aided and abetted in his capture, he was seized at Pimlico by Leadbeater, without any cause, and neither did he intrude, or had any intention of intruding upon any part of the Palace; then conveyed to Bow-street station-house, locked up all night, and at six o'clock Sunday evening your petitioner was informed that he was liberated, and taken to receive some refreshment, by Leadbeater and an attorney; that without any further investigation, on the said Sunday evening your petitioner was removed in a hackney coach, closely guarded, to Dr. Warburton's lunatic asylum, Bethnal-green. That your petitioner was kept in close confinement until Sunday, the 9th of September, 1838, a period of six months, for, as his partners ridiculously stated, attempting to see the Queen. That during your petitioner's incarceration all sorts of practices were used in order to entrap your petitioner to make some confession to justify their conduct in accusing your petitioner of insanity. That some strange female was introduced to your petitioner, in the lunatic asylum, dressed (on the Coronation-day, June 28, 1838, of Her Majesty) in paltry imitation of our Sovereign, to induce your petitioner to believe that it was Her most Gracious Majesty."

Any one might say all this was a delusion, but he was prepared to prove it. The petitioner proceeded to say—

"That the officers, both medical and otherwise, assisted in this nefarious scheme. That your petitioner has suffered the torture of mind and body through other acts and filthy observations and questions too disgusting to be mentioned, from the officers, medical and otherwise. That your petitioner has prayed to, and humbly requested those officers to desist from their torments. That your petitioner has been chained down and been brutally assaulted by the keepers of the lunatic asylum for having ventured to expostulate upon such ridiculous and wicked conduct. That on Tuesday, the 4th of September, 1838, one of the partners waited upon your petitioner, and with the resident doctor of the establishment, concocted an agreement for your petitioner to sign, requiring him to leave this country for Antwerp, and to be allowed 3l. per week, to be paid to him as necessity might require, through a man who was to follow your petitioner in the double capacity of keeper and servant, until your petitioner's partner should think proper to withdraw him. That your petitioner, on Sunday, the 9th of September, 1838, was again visited by his two partners, accompanied by the resident medical officer, and again urged to sign a dissolution of partnership, which your petitioner, after six months' horrid incarceration and torture, was induced to sign the following agreements for the dissolution of the co-partnership:—

was willing to rest his opinion that the Bill should not be postponed upon the arguments of the hon. Member for Finsbury, which all went to prove the necessity of most active and careful supervision, and the sooner that was effected the better. The Bill did not propose to continue the Commission under which the evils complained of had existed, but to elect a new Commission altogether, with new powers, new duties, and new salaries; and he thought, of all the proposals in the Bill, that of a permanent Commission ought most readily to receive the approbation of the House. An admixture of medical men and barristers on the Commission was the best course that could have been adopted. The hon. Gentleman then passed a high eulogium on the exertions and talents displayed by Lord Ashley as Chairman of the Lunacy Commissioners, and expressed a hope that he would continue to exercise the duties of that office when the new Commission was formed.

was disposed to support the Amendment; but as it was then four o'clock, he moved the adjournment of the debate.

hoped the hon. Member for Finsbury, and the noble Lord the Member for Bath, would be satisfied with the discussion which had already taken place, and would consent to take the sense of the House upon it, with the understanding that the House should go into Committee on Monday.

expressed a hope that before the House went into Committee, the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department would state the intentions of the Government with respect to the clauses affecting the rights of Irish paupers, as the right hon. Gentleman had been requested to do by a deputation of the Irish Members.

said, the best course to adopt would be to proceed with the Bill in Committee until the clauses referred to were arrived at.

said, if the Members for Ireland objected to particular clauses of the Bill, he should object to the measure altogether. The Government had already postponed a great number of measures, and he was anxious that they should adopt the same course with regard to the present Bill. It was so large, and contained so many provisions, many of them most uncertain and undefined, that it would, if carried, prove to be only an Act to create dissension and litigation. The time would be very brief until next Session, and in the mean time the measure might be fully and fairly considered in Scotland, and many important and necessary amendments suggested. The opinion prevalent among the best informed parties in Scotland was, that if the Bill passed into law in its present form, another measure to amend it, would, as a matter of course, have to be introduced next Session.

agreed altogether in what had fallen from his hon. Friend who had just sat down. The measure was one which all parties united in saying could not be satisfactory or successful, and the probability was, that if it now became law, it would have to be amended next Session. The delay would also produce the advantage of enabling those hon. Gentlemen who, though Members for Scotland, had unfortunately the misfortune not to be born in Scotland, to become better acquainted with the subject.

said, he would go a step further than the two hon. Gentlemen who had last addressed the House, and would ask the Government to apply their own principle to the Bill which they had relied on when another Scotch question had been before the House a few nights ago, and to allow their decision upon it to be regulated by the petitions that had been presented from Scotland on the subject. Though the measure was one which was of vast importance to Scotland, he believed there had not been a single petition presented in its favour, whereas numerous petitions from all persons interested in the state of the Scotch poor had been presented against the Bill. All these petitions concurred in representing the great necessity of legislation on the subject of the poor of Scotland, whereas they, at the same time, described the Bill introduced by the Government as an ill-digested and an ill-adapted measure. They stated, that it would not allay the discontent existing against the present measure, and that the poor had no interest whatever in it. That it would have the effect of overloading the Statute Book with eighty clauses, most of which would, as a matter of necessity, be repealed next Session. In fact, the measure was one which would do no good to the poor man, while it would have the effect of throwing him beyond the pale of the Constitution.

, in answer to the appeal of hon. Members opposite, would begin by stating, that if ever a measure had been brought before the House which was completely divested of party character, it was the Scottish Poor Law. It was also admitted that the law for the relief of the poor in Scotland, was in such a state as to require immediate alteration. There had been full inquiry, and ample materials for immediate legislation had been obtained. The Report of the Commissioners had been before the public for twelve months, and had been under the consideration of Government during the whole of that time. If, therefore, the measure then before the House could be called crude and imperfect, the fault must lie with the Government who had prepared it, as ample time and full materials had gone to its preparation. Besides, the principle of the measure had been approved of by a very large majority of that House. Neither could it be said that the House had been taken by surprise. The Bill was introduced at an early period of the Session, and the second reading was postponed in order that the counties of Scotland might, in their county halls, have full opportunity of taking the matter into consideration. Neither was the absence of petitions in its favour any evidence of its unpopularity, as people seldom petitioned in favour of Government measures which were generally approved, except their success seemed doubtful. The principal petition against this Bill was from one parish which was peculiarly situated, and which, it was feared, would be affected by the 16th Clause; but that cause of petition was removed, as the clause was to be postponed. He thought that, as the principle of the Bill had been fully discussed and decisively affirmed by the House, and as they had made considerable progress in Committee, there was not any valid reason existing for its further postponement. If any hon. Member wished again to have the opinion of the House, the best plan would be to let the Bill pass through Committee, and take a division on the third reading.

expressed his satisfaction that the right hon. Baronet had not postponed the progress of the Bill.

, as they had so far advanced in Committee, could not conceive the expediency of postponing the measure. His own opinion was, that, generally speaking, the Bill had been favourably received in Scotland, although certainly some alterations were called for in it.

objected to the further progress of this Bill. The poor in Scotland were never so well looked after as in the present time. Therefore, in postponing the measure, no possible harm could result.

trusted that the House would at once go into Committee, when there would be an opportunity of adopting any improvements. He had always found that the Lord Advocate had been willing to listen to suggestions for the improvement of the measure. The 16th Clause had been so much amended, as to remove nearly all the objections to it.

confirmed what had been stated by the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Hastie). The condition of the poor of Scotland within the last eighteen months, compared with what it had previously been, had been made much better by the discovery of the actual state of the law with regard to them. This was not a party question here or in Scotland; he had conversed with men of all politics upon it, and had met with but one opinion—that, if the Bill passed in its present shape, it would be likely to produce very mischievous effects. The allegations of the petitions against it were, that, it would deprive the poor of their present remedy against the heritors, and subject them to an irresponsible power in order to put the law into effect. He gave the Government credit for honest intentions; but they only knew the state of the people of Scotland, through a prejudiced channel; with respect to Scotland, they appeared to be subjected to some influence that blighted all they took in hand. Had their measures with respect to the Scotch Church, or any other of their measures with regard to Scotland, been satisfactory to the people? Had they not all met with general condemnation? On a subject of such vast importance, ample time ought to be given for consideration; as the knowledge of the provisions of the Bill extended, the objections to it would increase. He hoped the Government would postpone it till next Session; if not, he hoped other parties in another place would prevent it from passing this year.

was constantly receiving communications from Scotland stating objections to the measure. He felt that it was only common justice that it should be postponed to another Session. He had not received a single letter in favour of the Bill. He was anxious for an amendment of the present law; but, instead of this imperfect measure, they had better wait until next year, when they could get a well-digested Bill.

felt called upon to oppose strenuously the progress of this Bill, in consequence of the injustice inflicted upon the Irish residents in Scotland by it. By one of the clauses an Irishman was prevented getting a settlement in Scotland; although he might have spent his youth and his manhood in that country, such an industrious man, engaged in manufactures for twenty or thirty years, was liable to be sent to Ireland at a moment's notice. Unless the right hon. Baronet abandoned the clause, he trusted that his hon. and gallant Friend would move that it be committed that day three months. If his hon. Friend did not do so, he certainly would.

said, that, it was rather singular that only on Wednesday evening last, one of the reasons urged by the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department, for the rejection of the Scotch Universities Bill was, that no petitions had been presented in favour of it; but to-night, in answer to the remark that there was no petition in favour of this Bill, he replied, that it was not customary to present petitions in favour of Bills, and, above all, of a measure like the present. He happened to know that there existed a very strong feeling against the Bill in many parts of Scotland, and more particularly in several of the large towns. He had no connexion with Scotland; but petitions had been intrusted to him against the measure from many places, some of which had thousands of signatures attached to them. The Scottish labouring classes generally considered that the Bill would place them in a worse position than before, it being altogether destructive of that right of appeal in their favour, which had only of late been discovered to exist.

said, that almost every Scotch Member who had spoken on this subject had opposed the Bill, and on the part of the Irish Members there was a united action against it. He begged to move that the House go into Committee of the Bill that day three months.

would put it to the gallant Member whether, as the objections he and other Gentlemen near him advanced, were objections to details, it would not be better and fairer to discuss them in Committee? He had stated to a deputation of Members, who called upon him at the Home Office, and of which the hon. and gallant Member was, he believed, one, that he intended to make considerable modification in many of the clauses objected to, adding, indeed, that he was not prepared to say, the principle of the Bill as to industrial residence ought not to be entirely abandoned.

thought it well to go into Committee; but certainly, when the clauses in question came before them, they would meet with his opposition unless considerably modified.

hoped the Members for Ireland would suffer them to go into Committee, on the full understanding that the clause more especially objected to by them, should, in Committee, undergo thorough investigation.

should feel bound to oppose the progress of the Bill, unless some much more distinct statement was made by the Government as to the obnoxious clauses.

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

said, with reference to what had been stated by his right hon. Friend the Member for Newark, he would admit that there were difficulties in the way of assessment; but he had not selected the mode of assessment referred to in this Bill; it had existed for two centuries and more, and he had not ventured to abolish it. He had had representations from many parishes, assuring him that the system had acted satisfactorily. He had by the provisions of this Bill given to every parish the power of escaping from the difficulties of the present system, and had endeavoured to remove the existing inequalities.

thought, that if any alteration were made in the law of assessment, it should be permanent in its character. Otherwise they should not interfere with it.

said, if there was ground for postponing a Bill, the want of power to explain how the many cases of difficulty that would arise were to be met, was ground sufficient. The only effect of this measure would be to unsettle that which was now settled. Under this Bill a Scotch proprietor, having 30,000l. in the English funds, would be liable to be assessed to the Scotch poor-rate on the full amount of his income; the effect of this would be to drive people from Scotland.

said that, under the law as it at present stood, all personal property was liable to be assessed to the relief of the poor in the parish in which the possessor of such property resided; and the Bill now before the House did not, therefore, effect any alteration in this respect in the existing law.

complained that funded property was liable to assessment. The practice operated most unjustly, and he hoped that it would not be allowed to continue under this Bill.

replied, that by the law of Scotland, as it now stood, parties were liable to be assessed to the whole amount of their property; and he did not propose to make any alteration in that respect.

said, suppose a man worth 10,000l. a year were to live in lodgings, for which he paid 30L. a year, how could he be assessed in the full amount of his property?

apprehended that in such a case the party would escape altogether from the rate.

wished to know upon what principle the assessment was to be made; that was, how the income of the party was to be ascertained? was it to be by a return, as in the case of the Income Tax, and if not, in what way?

said, under the existing law, parties were appointed to estimate the incomes; and in this respect, also, he left the law as he found it.

contended that these were matters which should be decided by the Legislature, and not left to local parties afterwards.

said, that the hon. Members who contended for a uniform mode of rating were generally opposed to this Bill. The construction of the Act known as Mr. Poulett Scrope's Act, was to introduce into England one uniform and inflexible system of rating. The Act was very well intended, and was supported by the Government; but it had been found, to a great extent, inoperative, owing to the practical difficulties in the way of carrying it into general execution. It was found that, however desirable that there should be one general system of rating throughout England, yet that, from local circumstances and local peculiarities, it was impossible to carry that object into effect. Circumstances varied in different localities. In Liverpool, for instance, no occupier under 10L. a year was assessed to the relief of the poor; in other places no occupier under 5l. But by the operation of the Act to which he had referred, every occupier to the extent of 40s. a year would be rateable for the poor. The Bill now before the House proposed no alterations, unless to remove doubts in peculiar circumstances. He admitted the difficulties with respect to rating property in Scotland; but unless they adopted the inquisitorial system adopted with respect to the Income Tax, he thought it was much better to leave this to be governed by local circumstances, and the local knowledge of the parties. He had been informed by the hon. Member for Greenock, that in that great commercial and maritime town the mode of rating by "means and substance," had been for a long time in operation, and had given the greatest satisfaction.

could not concur in the objections to this clause. He was sure that the adoption of a uniform rate of rating would cause great dissatisfaction in Scotland. It appeared to him that the parochial boards would be desirous to give every satisfaction to the ratepayers, and to adopt that mode of assessment most to the benefit of their constituents and the objects they had in view. With regard to the means and substance system, it had been followed in Greenock for a number of years; the one-half being levied on lands and houses, and the other half on the means and substance of the inhabitants other than lands and houses, being very nearly the second plan described in the Bill. The assessment in Greenock was considered in Scotland to be a heavy one, being 6,000l. in a town with 38,000 inhabitants. If that mode of assessment were given up, the effect would be to relieve the wealthy inhabitants at the expense of the middle and poorer classes. It was said that it was hard to assess funded property; but, for his part, he could not see the hardship. The mode of assessing on the means and substance was this. A pretty numerous committee was appointed, and among them there were always some who knew something of the circumstances of each individual in the town. They accordingly fixed a sum at which they estimated each man's income, and sent him an intimation of the sum on which they proposed to assess him. If he felt aggrieved, he complained to the board, and they appointed a day on which they would hear the reasons of appeal; and in almost every case an amicable settlement of the matter was come to. They did not assess on incomes below 40l.; and on incomes between 40l. and 100l. they assessed on a reduced scale. On all incomes above 100l. the rate of assessment was equal. The best proof that this system worked well was, not that it had existed in Greenock for twenty-eight years, but that all his communications from Greenock were in favour of preserving this mode of assessment.

observed, that if a parish adopted that first method, funded property would not be included in "means and substance," and would not contribute.

would support this clause, chiefly on the ground of the statement made by the hon. Member for Greenock; as he thought they ought not to alter a mode of rating which was found to have already worked well.

was clearly of opinion that every man ought to contribute to the poor according to what he had—that was, according to his means and substance in the general sense of the term; and he congratulated Greenock that there the people seemed to meet without squabbling to provide decently for the poor. But did it follow that the same sensible course would be followed in every parish in Scotland? There did appear to be a strange obstinacy on the part of the Government—he did not use the word in an offensive sense—in adhering to the term "means and substance" without explaining what was to be understood by the phrase, and how they were to be got at. A meeting had been held in the county of Fife, where resolutions were passed generally favourable to the Bill, but concluding with a strong protest against inserting the phrase "means and substance" without defining its meaning. He objected also to the operation of the measure in cases where resident proprietors were to be taxed upon their whole means and substance, wherever situated, for half the support of the poor in the parish. Take his own case. He was the only resident proprietor in the parish where he resided. The effect of the Bill would be that he would be taxed for one-half the support of the whole poor of the parish, though his property did not amount to one-tenth of the parish. Such a mode of assessment was a premium on absenteeism. He did not say he should leave the parish; but if he did so, he might say, without any egotistical feeling, that his absence would be an injury to the parish.

said this discussion showed that it was easier to find fault with a measure than to bring forward a good one; but he thought the House ought to leave the clause as proposed by Her Majesty's Government. The local boards would decide which of the three modes of assessment they would adopt; and then there was a safeguard against the operation of local prejudices by the controlling power lodged in the board of supervision.

complained that under this clause an Irishman coming to Scotland would have his whole property rated, while, by the 72nd Clause, they refused relief to Irish paupers. The learned Lord Advocate stated that he did not wish to alter the law of Scotland with regard to the rating; he wished that he would be equally unwilling to alter the law of Scotland in regard to the mode of acquiring a settlement.

said, that his Act was declaratory rather than legislative, and that it had improved the system of rating throughout the country.

said, that it was the uniform mode of rating proposed in the Act in question, which had proved a failure.

said, that as the words "means and substance" were not sufficiently defined, he should divide against the clause.

proposed as an Amendment, to add the words on "parochial boards" to this clause. He did not propose this in any feeling of hostility to the Bill, but with the view of allaying public feeling in Scotland against the board of supervision. He felt this so strongly that he should take the sense of the Committee on the subject.

thought that it would not promote any public object to adopt the Amendment of the noble Lord. He thought it would destroy the independent action and the efficiency of the inspector to have him dependent on the parochial board; but on any reasonable ground of complaint they could always apply to the board of supervision, who would dismiss him. He, therefore, must resist the Amendment.