ing on account of the insufficiency of | before the House of Lords, they would the number of Judges, and he trusted have the power of doing so; but in that the Government would see their important cases he thought it most deway to the increase of the number. He sirable that the House of Lords should was strongly in favour of the present have the benefit of the opinion of the "wretched system of holidays" being primary Court of Appeal. The effect done away with. of the Amendment would be to set up a competition between the two Courts of Appeal.

Clause 2 (Commencement of Act), difficulty might arise in respect to cases agreed to.

the offices in this Act described as high judicial | attend, and to sit and vote in the House of offices, shall not exceed five." Lords."

SIR HENRY JAMES opposed the Amendment.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL said, he could not accept it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. SIR EARDLEY WILMOT said, he was of opinion that only persons of judicial experience should sit in the Supreme Court of Appeal, and would therefore move in page 2, line 20, to leave out all after "offices," to the end

of line 22.

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN hoped the Amendment would not be accepted, as it would limit the area of selection.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL said, he could not see his way to accept the Amendment, which would limit the choice of the Lord Chancellor to the Puisne Judges.

SIR HENRY JAMES supported the Amendment. He thought the Minister of the day should have no inducement to appoint a Judge from political motives. They were asked to confer a political vote as well as a judicial appointment.

66

Amendment negatived.

His proposal was to omit the words, 'during the time that he continues in in his office as a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, and no longer." But the question could not be properly raised at such a time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."(Mr. Serjeant Simon.)

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL opposed the Motion, observing that the Committee could very well deal with the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment.

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN supported the Motion to report Progress. The Amendment, he observed, was of a very important nature, one touching the very essence of the Bill, and involving the honour and dignity of Parliament. would, moreover, be followed by other Amendments of almost equal importance.

MR. MORGAN LLOYD suggested that it would be a better course to proceed with the Bill, and to postpone the

Amendment, in page 2, line 27, after hon. and learned Gentleman's Amend

"insert

every,"

"Peer of Parliament for the time being holding, or who shall have held, any of the offices in this Act described as high judicial offices, who shall be present at and take part in the hearing and determination of appeals to the House of Lords, the sum of one thousand pounds a year, such sum to be additional to any sum to which he may be entitled under any Act or Acts by way of pension. There shall be paid to every," (Mr. Charley), by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment, in page 2, line 28, leave out "six," and insert " eight,"-(Sir Eardley Wilmot)-negatived,

MR. SERJEANT SIMON said, he should move that the Chairman report Progress. The next Amendment, which stood in his name, involved a question of great Constitutional importance, and in the short interval of 40 minutes which remained before the House must adjourn, it would be impossible properly to discuss so interesting a question. The clause proposed that every Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, not a Peer, should rank as a Baron, and it was provided that he

"shall during the time that he continues in

his office as a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, and no longer, be entitled to a writ of summons to

ment.

SIR HENRY JAMES advised the Committee to report Progress, as they had only another half-hour to devote to the Bill at that sitting, and he thought it would be advantageous to the further discussion of the measure, if they did not proceed with it further at that time. Question put.

The Committee divided:-Ayes 29; Noes 156: Majority 127.

MR. SERJEANT SIMON moved, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 33, after the word "shall," to leave out the words to "longer" in the following line. The effect of the Amendment would be to omit the words which declare a Peer entitled to a Writ of Summons "during the time that he continues in his office as a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary and no longer." The object of certain Members of that and the other House had, he said, been to retain that ancient jurisdiction which the House of Lords, to their credit and in the interests of the public, had themselves relinquished. He would admit that when Parliament came to establish a Final Court of Appeal for

Great Britain and Ireland it stumbled | a weak and ambitious man might cling upon a difficulty as to Ireland and Scot- to office when he was no longer fit for land. It was not satisfactory to those his duties, and a subservient man might countries to bring their appeals to Lon- truckle to the Government in order to don to be settled by a purely English have an hereditary Peerage, while a man Court of Law. He did not, therefore, of independent spirit who had excited complain that the Final Court should party animosities might be passed over be so constituted as to meet all the or prematurely relegated to obscurity. requirements of the case; but if the Government had framed a scheme for retainAnd it being now ten minutes to Seven of the clock, Debate adjourned.

working of those laws. The result of cutions were not satisfied with the veto his inquiries satisfied him of two thus practically possessed by the Comthings; first, that the law affecting missioners, as they believed, rightly or the custody and treatment of lunatics wrongly, that their disposition was was in general very loosely administered; rather to condone than to prosecute inand secondly, that the laws themselves fringements of the Lunacy Laws in were inherently bad. With regard to asylums, being supposed to be often on the lax administration of the law, hon. terms of friendly footing with the proMembers who were magistrates must prietors, being supposed to be hospitably have noticed in their several counties received on the occasion of their visits the great increase of lunatic patients to the asylums, and being themselves which had led to great difficulty in to some extent responsible for irregumaking provision of county asylums larities which occurred in establishments and other accommodation for their re- licensed and supervised by them. The ception. He believed a great deal of question whether there should be a prothat increase was due to the extremely secution ought to rest, not with those lax administration of the Lunacy Laws. who were mixed up more or less with From a Return, signed by the clerk of the management of lunatic asylums, but the St. George's Union, Middlesex, it either with the Law Officers or some comappeared that through the exertions of petent independent authority who would one of the Guardians who had investi- not be under any suspicion of favouritism. gated the matter, the number of luna- Again, with regard to detention, he contics in that Union had been considerably sidered it most objectionable that the reduced, it being found that a great proprietors of private asylums, who had number of them had been improperly an interest in keeping the lunatics as sent there. He would also call the at- long as possible, should have the power tention of hon. Members to the Reports to decide whether a man should continue of the Lunacy Commissioners in 1872 to be incarcerated. The medical man and 1873 to show the lax administration who was in constant attendance was the of the law. He found that in one asylum only person who could really decide wheit had been the practice to call in the aid ther a man was insane or not. The visitof men-servants to assist in restraining ing magistrates were not competent to the violence of female patients, and that decide such a question. As to the in another case a lunatic's death had necessity for an alteration of the law, he been caused by violence, but he was not might call in aid Lord Shaftesbury, who aware that there had been a prosecution was the head of the Lunacy Law Comin that case. What he desired was that mission, and who said, in his evidence the private lunatic should be placed in before the Select Committee, that the the same position as the pauper lunatic. proprietors of asylums were under a The latter were placed under the care of severe temptation to detain patients, public medical officers, and placed in a their object being to get as many papublic institution subject to public in- tients as long as they can, and stint spection. The fact was, the Lunacy Law, them in medicines, food, and comfort. instead of being strongly enforced, as it Let the House contrast the position of a ought to be, was administered very laxly. pauper lunatic sent to a public asylum That state of things, he believed, was presided over by the county magistrates, mainly owing to the fact that, practically whose interest it was that the lunatic speaking, the prosecution of violations should not be detained a day longer than of the Lunacy Law rested with the was necessary, with that of a lunatic conLunacy Commissioners alone, and to fined in a private asylum, the proprietor them was thus to be attributed in some of which, who had the most potential measure the existing loose state of the voice in determining whether the conadministration of the law. He did not finement should be prolonged, had a think that the power of prosecution direct interest in keeping the lunatic in ought to rest with those who might rea- the asylum as long as possible. He was sonably be expected to feel that such only astonished that the noble Lord prosecutions would be virtually indict- should have consented to remain so long ments against themselves, and he knew at the head of the Lunacy Law Commisfrequent instances in which those per- sion, without endeavouring to procure an sons desirous of instituting these prose- alteration of the law, so as to rectify the

SIR EARDLEY WILMOT said, he was deeply sensible of the importance of the subject, but he was glad that the hon. Gentleman had determined to leave the question to be dealt with by the Government on their Ministerial responsibility. There was no doubt a defect in the management of these private asy-public feeling in this country, I this mornlums, and he hoped the Government would turn their attention to the subject.