petitioner paid a large fee, and expected good advice, I must at once admit, with all respect for the legal profession, that I fear cases of appeal will be very nume

rous.

Mr. Hawes recommended his hon. and learned Friend to withdraw the motion. For his own part, he was prepared to abide by the words of the act; for he thought it a dangerous precedent to give this House the power of deciding whether a petition against the return of a Member was bond fide or not.

any stringent enactment of interfering with the liberty of the subject, so far as that the remedy might not be worse than the evil which it was to remove. At the same time I have no hesitation to say that I will give my cordial assent to any measure that shall appear to me calculated to put an end to all undue treating. I think it very probable that the noble Lord the Member for London, may call the attention of the House to this subject next Session. It is a subject of great difficulty; and I hope that the hon. Member will not Mr. C. Buller felt obliged to follow the at present require from me any pledge that unpalateable advice of his hon. Friend, the I will bring in a bill on the subject. At Member for Lambeth, and was willing to the same time I will give the subject every withdraw the motion. He hoped, how-consideration, and I cordially concur with ever, that what had occurred would cause petitioners to attend more carefully to the words of the act.

the hon. Member in the desire that these practices should be extinguished, so far as laws can extinguish them.

Sir R. Peel-I will tell the hon. Member at once that my confidence in the particular remedy he has suggested has been much abated by recent experience. The hon. Member for Finsbury has said, that at the last election bribery and corruption prevailed to a greater extent than was ever before known. I think there cannot

One

Mr. T. Duncombe wished to say a few Mr. Ewart wished to ask the right hon. words before the motion was withdrawn. Baronet, whether he would go to meet the He believed, that in the most corrupt times, real source of the evil by adopting a differin the most corrupt state of the representa-ent distribution of the constituencies? He tion, there never was more bribery, corrup-could assure the House, that, as he believed, tion, or intimidation than at the last election. as long as they had small constituencies He believed, that most of the Members of they never could eradicate the evil. the present House owed their seats to such means. He did not mean to blame one side of the House more than another; for he believed the hands upon that side were not a whit cleaner than those on the other side. He wished to ask the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) whether it were his intention to propose a remedy in the course of the next Session, to put an end to bri-be a question that the Reform Bill made a bery and intimidation? great increase in the constituencies. Sir R. Peel-I have no personal experi- of the benefits expected from the Reform ence of the extent of the evils of which the Bill was that it would diminish bribery; hon. Member complains, as I happen to but yet we hear it avowed that since the represent a remarkably pure constituency, extension of the constituencies, bribery and and I do not believe that there is any per-corruption have prevailed to a greater exson in the town which I represent accessible to the influence of bribery. At the same time I am afraid that the general impression is well founded, that of late years the practice of bribery at elections has rather increased than diminished. I am sure that nobody more sincerely la-encies. ments the prevalence of such practices than I do. I also regret the prevalence of treating, and I volunteered last year to give my cordial co-operation to the noble Lord when he introduced a bill for the purpose of putting an end to bribery, and putting an end, as far as was practicable, to the practice of treating. I am sure the hon. Member opposite is himself aware of the difficulty of dealing with a matter of this kind, and of the extreme danger in

tent than before. When I hear this I am compelled to doubt whether a further increase of the constituencies would be an effectual remedy for bribery and corruption. Mr. Ewart-My observations were only intended to apply to the small constitu

Sir R. Peel-Some of the worst cases which I heard of took place in the large towns. In some places the extent of bribery and corruption was enormous. It would be invidious to name particular places, but I believe that the metropolitan towns of certain counties might be named. If certain election petitions which have been presented should be persevered in, and which I hope will be the case, it will show that some of the worst cases of bribery

they were sent to those establishments. He would not detain the House many minutes in stating a case, which, he could assure them, was well worthy of their attention. In April, 1840, a gentleman

have occurred in large towns. Nothing would give me more satisfaction than to see the cases of some of those large towns taken up by the House, and that signal examples should be made of those places by disfranchising their constituencies, whe-seated in his breakfast-room was visited ther they were small or large towns, in which those corrupt practices occurred. Dr. Bowring begged to ask the right hon. Baronet if he did not think that the introduction of the vote by ballot would do away with the system of bribery?

Sir R. Peel-I will not at present enter into that question; but my great objection to the vote by ballot is that it tends to increase, rather than diminish, bribery and corruption.

Mr. H. R. Yorke said, that the right hon. Baronet had been pleased to say, that bribery was as extensive, and more so, since the Reform Bill than before; but he would not suggest to the right hon. Baronet the inference, that a reform of the Reform Bill was necessary, and that a new system would be better calculated to win the respect of the country than the present, which was allowed to be productive of so much corruption.

Sir R. Peel: I should deprecate the logical interference to be drawn from the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman, which would be a repeal of the Reform

Bill.

Motion withdrawn.

by the keeper of an asylum near Glasgow, who entered his apartment with a warrant from the sheriff, for the purpose of taking him to his asylum. The gentleman asked at whose instance the warrant had been issued, but he received no reply. He then asked the name of the medical gentleman who had testified to his insanity. But he received no reply, and it appeared that the sheriff, without seeing the party, had issued a warrant for sending him to the lunatic asylum. The keeper of the asylum accompanied the patient. Within one week after he had been in the asylum, he addressed the sheriff on the subject, entreating him to state at whose instance he was confined, and beseeching him to pay him a visit. To that letter, which was transmitted on the 1st of May, 1840, he received no answer. On the 27th of June, one of the visiting physicians who attended the asylum admitted, in the presence of the governor, that he saw no symptom of insanity in the mind of the patient. On the 4th, and on the 21st of July, the same physician made a similar admission, but said he thought the patient should undergo a longer probation. On the 30th of September, one of the sheriff's substitutes, and two additional physicians

LUNATIC ASYLUMS (SCOTLAND).] Mr. Wakley said, he did not rise for the pur-attended the asylum, and the patient, in pose of submitting any motion to the their presence, entreated that his case House; but if he was out of order in might be examined, declaring that he was addressing it, without making a motion, ready to submit to any test, and that he he would do so. The question connected believed that he was confined in consewith the custody of insane persons, was quence of some misunderstanding with his one of great importance, and the general family. All these entreaties were made impression respecting the law on the sub- without avail. On the 8th of October, ject was, that it required improvement, the brother of the patient attended. The not only with regard to the manner of patient asked him why he was confined? sending persons to the asylum, but also and the reply of his brother was, that he with regard to the manner in which they believed it was owing to the interference were treated when there. The first law of a parcel of doctors. On the 16th of on this subject relating to Scotland was October, the patient again requested that passed in the year 1815, and he believed there might be an investigation of his that it was designed in a beneficent spirit. case, and the application was again refused. However, cases had occurred, which proved On the 4th of September he intreated the that it was ineffectual in securing the governor of the institution to place him object for which it was passed. It ap-in a private room, and thus to remove him peared that by that statute, the custody of insane persons was intrusted to the sheriffs, who had the power, not only to send persons to a lunatic asylum, but to issue orders for their proper care after

from constant intercourse with the insane people, stating that it was his sincere belief, that an attempt was being made to drive him mad. This application was also refused, although the patient declared that

he was prepared to pay all the expenses. | lock of the door, and made his escape, In this case he purposely abstained from after having been in confinement for fourmentioning names, because it was too late teen months. He did not consider himself in the Session for the parties to answer safe in Scotland; he therefore at once fled the statement, but there were some names across the border, and reached Carlisle. which he would mention. On the 26th He had been only a few days in that city, of September, the visiting physician again when the keeper of the asylum, accomattended, and, in the presence of a panied by a person of gigantic strength, keeper, John Walker, he declared that entered the apartment he occupied in the he believed that the gentleman of whose hotel, and attempted to seize him as a case he was speaking was perfectly sane. madman, and carry him back to Scotland. The testimonial of John Walker was as He escaped from the room, and meeting follows:the chambermaid on the stairs, desired her to go and fetch a sharp attorney for him. No application was made to any legal adviser, but he told the people of the hotel his case, and entreated them to rescue him. They did interfere, and he was taken before the Mayor of Carlisle; and after an examination in open court, before the mayor and two magistrates, he was by them released from the custody of the keeper. Indeed, it did not appear upon what authority the keeper had arrested him in Carlisle. The magistrates gave him a certificate, stating that they had examined him, and that he had shown no symptoms of insanity, and therefore they had released him from the custody of the keeper. That certificate was as follows:-

Dr.

Dr.

-.

"June 24, 1841.-I certify that I have seen Mr. William daily for more than ten months, during which time he has always been of sound mind, and very quiet. I also heard -. declare, that he was quite well on the 26th of December last, and I told that to "John Walker, Keeper." » On the 2nd of January, the keeper of the asylum admitted to the patient, that he believed he had been placed in confinement in consequence of some quarrels with his family. He requested the keeper of the asylum to interfere with his relatives, and to permit him to be admitted to a public examination; but all his applications were unavailing. On the 13th of February, the visiting physician again admitted that he was well. On the 4th of June it appeared that Mr. Douglas, a surgeon, was called in, and he gave the following certificate, that the gentleman

was not insane:

House, June 21, 1841. "I have this day visited Mr. William and see nothing insane about him at present. JAMES DOUGLAS, Surgeon."

On the 21st of June, the same surgeon again attended, but the doctor, in whose custody he was lodged, refused to receive the certificate of the surgeon, and said he would receive no testimonial or certificate, except from the sheriff, or the physician of the institution. On the 29th of June, after he had been in prison fourteen months, the sheriff visited the asylum, when he examined the case, and the gentleman believed he had given the sheriff every satisfaction. He entreated him to grant a public investigation of the case, and he referred him to the affidavits of John Walker, and of the visiting physician. The sheriff said that he would take the case into his consideration, but a week having elapsed, during which he had heard nothing from the sheriff on the subject, he, being in the garden, forced back the

"On Wednesday, the 21st day of July, 1841, Mr. William was brought before us, having been pursued from Scotland by Dr. from a private asylum near Glasgow, who wished us to detain him, he having escaped from that asylum; but on examining the said William -> he showed no symptoms of insanity, and consequently we refused to interfere. (Signed)

"JOHN DIXON, Mayor of Carlisle. JOHN FAWCETT, J. P.

GEORGE FLINT, J. P."

The Gentleman who had suffered in this way was at present in London, and had been introduced to him by a Member of that House. He did not dare to return to Scotland, lest he should be again seized and sent to the asylum. He wished to ask the Lord-advocate if he could hold out any hope, that, if that gentleman should return to his family and his property, he would not be again subjected to the treatment which he had already suffered. He knew that by law the sheriff had ample power; but whether it was that he had not time to attend to his duties, or for some other reason, this gentleman did not dare to return to his native country, for fear of being again subjected

to similar persecutions. The very character maintain that they were in their perfect of the House was concerned in the matter. senses, and their insanity only displayed The sheriff, according to the 55th of George itself when they were addressed on some the 3rd, was bound to liberate the party if particular point. He knew that there was improperly confined. Until the party in a description of insane persons who obstithe present instance was confined eleven nately protested their sanity, and who gemonths it did not appear that the sheriff nerally succeeded in proving it until touched paid him a visit. The person in this case upon the particular cause of mania, when did not know the name of the individual their disordered state of mind soon became at whose instance, nor of the medical apparent. He feared that the case which gentleman on whose certificate, he was had been brought under the notice of the confined. The hon. Member concluded House by the hon. Member for Finsbury, by moving for a return of the persons con- was one of that description. However, every fined in the lunatic asylums in Scotland pains should be taken to ascertain the in the years 1840 and 1841. truth.

Mr. Wakley trusted the unfortunate gentleman, whose case he had laid before the house would obtain the protection he solicited, and he hoped the whole subject of the treatment of the insane would undergo investigation next Session, as the state of many private madhouses in this country was a disgrace to the age. He would suggest, that before a party could be confined in any madhouse, whether public or private, he should be taken before a public tribunal and examined. Motion withdrawn.

Sir W. Rae said, that nothing could be more distressing than that a person of sound mind should be imprisoned in a lunatic asylum. He gave the hon. Gentleman due credit for the caution he had observed in not mentioning the names of the individuals. He would have wished that he had observed the same caution with respect to the place from which the complaint came, for he had mentioned that the individual was confined in a private asylum near Glasgow. He thought the wiser course would have been for the hon. Member to have mentioned the case to him some days before, and he TAMWORTH MEMORIAL.] Mr. Ward would have inquired into the matter, and wished to put a question to the right hon. be enabled to afford some explanation, Baronet the Secretary for the Home Debut until the hon. Member rose to state partment, relating to a circumstance which the case, he knew nothing of it whatever. had excited great surprise in Tamworth. All he could promise the hon. Member A memorial had been sent up from that was, that he would make the most minute borough to be presented to her Majesty and anxious inquiry into the facts of the by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton. case. The subject was one to which he A report was current that a copy of the had paid much attention, and in which he memorial, with signatures appended, had felt the deepest possible interest. Under been sent from the Home Office to the the present state of the law, if any person mayor of Tamworth, and subjected to a received into a lunatic asylum an indivi- scrutiny of the signatures. The person dual without a warrant from the sheriff of who had stated this to him was a man of the county, he was liable to a pecuniary the greatest respectability, who was incapenalty. The course of proceeding in pable of circulating any assertion destitute such cases was to make an application to of foundation. A hand-bill had also been the sheriff to lodge the party in the asylum. published in the place, stating that the The sheriff could only grant the requisite names to the petition were all genuine, authority on a medical certificate of a and that every person had given his adparticular description. The members of dress, which showed that the impression the University of Edinburgh, and of the of the truth of the report was genuine. faculty of Glasgow, had four members of He had never heard that the course of their number appointed inspectors of mad-making an inquiry into the signatures of houses in Scotland, and the medical cer- a petition had been hitherto adopted, and tificate should be written by one of those in- he hoped to receive from the right hon. spectors, and by one of them alone. From Baronet a denial of the fact, or an exhis own experience as frequent official vi-planation of the circumstances. sitor to lunatic asylums, he knew that

Sir J. Graham was not aware, until many persons who were insane would about five minutes ago, that the hon.

"In the first place we found a very great number of the names to be those of persons totally unknown to us, which could not have been the case had they been really inhabitants of this borough. Whether, therefore, as to this portion, the names be of persons who exist or not elsewhere, neither I nor any friends can undertake to assert.

Gentleman intended to put this question., readily be able to recognise the signatures to The hon. Gentleman was quite right in the address, if bona fide. what he had stated in the beginning of his remarks, and he (Sir J. Graham) had had the honour that day to present the Tamworth petition to her Majesty, exactly as he had received it. Her Majesty was informed of the number of signatures appended to it, and of the prayer of the petition. The hon. Gentleman had also "There is also throughout the list of names been rightly informed that, before he laid for instance, the name of George Starkey oca very frequent repetition of signatures; as, the petition before her Majesty, he had curs three times, when in fact, they are only thought it his duty to verify the signatures two of that name. The name of Thomas annexed to that petition. The hon. Gen- Starkey occurs three times, although there is tleman said that before making his state- ouly one of that name. The name of John ment to the House he had received infor- Starkey occurs three times, there being only mation which he believed to come from a one of the name; there are the names of two William Starkeys, neither of whom consented credible quarter. He acted with the same to have his name put down; also two Sarah precaution, and before transmitting the Starkeys and two Elizabeth Starkeys, although petition to Tamworth, to ascertain the in fact there is only one of each, and Chas. authenticity of the signatures, he was in-Starkey's name appears, though there is no formed on authority entitled to credit that such person. The name of William Deville the petition had been most improperly got occurs three times, though there is but one of that name. The name of John up, that false signatures had been put to Clarson Occurs three times, though, in it, and that many of the petitioners were fact, there are only two of that name, exnot free agents when they signed it. He cepting an infant two years old; and none had felt that no petition ought to be pre-who consented to sign. The names of Charles sented to her Majesty respecting which these statements could be made with truth, and he had therefore resolved, as the most direct and open conduct he could pursue, to send the petition, without the slightest concealment to the mayor of Tamworth, stating the report made to him, and asking him to verify the facts. He now held in his hand the report of the mayor of Tamworth, which, to a very considerable extent, bore out the original statement, but, on considering it, he did not think it so impugned the character of the petition as to justify him in withholding it from her Majesty. But since the hon. Gentleman had asked the question, and stated it to be his impression that all the signatures were genuine, he would just read the document, in order that it might be seen in what manner the signatures were obtained. The following was the mayor's report:

"Tamworth, Sep. 30, 1841. "Sir-Having had the honour to receive your letter of the 25th inst., together with the address which I now return, I proceeded with the assistance of some of my friends to collect the following information :

"The assistance to which I have alluded has been rendered by such persons as I considered, from their extensive and familiar knowledge of the inhabitants, would the most

Clarson occurs twice, there being only one who consented to sign the petition. The name of Ann Clarson also occurs, though there is no such person; and the name of Catherine Clarson occurs twice, though none of that name can be found. The name of Buxton occurs twenty times; though there are only seven of that name. We have not thought it requisite further to multiply instances of this kind, and, therefore, our inquiry has been limited to only a few names; but we have no doubt, were we to extend our inquiry, that the same sort of repetition would be found to occur through

out.

"It also appears that very many inhabitants, whose names are attached to the petition, neither signed it themselves, nor consented to have their names put down by others. The following are a few of the instances:are attached entirely without their knowledge "The names of John and Ann Westbury or consent, and these names also occur twice over. The names of William Farebrother and his wife, of Joseph, Thomas, and Henry Woodcock, of Mary and William Coleman, and of John Coleman, are each attached without consent, and the latter twice over, unless it be of an infant of that name, only two years of age. The names of Samuel, of Sarah, and of Ellen Bailey, are of the same class; as are also those of William Wilcox, of his wife, and an apprentice, and many other instances of the same kind could be added, if requisite.

"The names of vagrants in lodging-houses have been numerously attached, and the names of Joseph Fenton, of William Taylor, and of