These Acts direct proceedings for a commission to be taken as follows:--The petition for a commission, duly supported by medical and other affidavits, is to be lodged with the Secretary of Lunatics, for the Lord Chancellor's inspection. If satisfactory and unopposed, the petition is endorsed and the commission issues. If a _caveat_ is entered, liberty is given to attend and to oppose it, and the inquiry is held in the most convenient place. A jury of twenty-four persons is summoned to determine the case, by the sheriff, instructed by the Master in Lunacy. The jury and the Master being assembled, and the former sworn, the Master in Lunacy is to explain to the jury what they have to try; and if the person is found to be a lunatic, the time at which he became so, and whether he has lucid intervals. After counsel have been heard, and the alleged lunatic examined, the Master is to sum up, and the verdict, which must be concurred in by twelve, is then given.
The inquisition is now filled up and signed by the twelve jurymen, the Master annexing a duplicate copy to the commission; and they are endorsed with the words, "The execution of this commission appears by the inquisition hereunto annexed."[222]
Then, next in order of legislation comes the Act of 1853 (16 and 17 Vict., c. 70). Certain clauses in the Act of 1842, by which the Lord Chancellor exercised jurisdiction on account of the expense involved in a commission, were repealed, having been found to work inconveniently. Under the new Act an inquisition was held, in unopposed cases, before a Master alone in by far the larger proportion of cases. A petition was to be presented by any relative, and in special cases by a stranger, supported by medical and other evidence, along with an affidavit of notice having been given to the lunatic, calling his attention to the provision of the Act under which he could demand a jury. If no such demand was made, the documents were to be submitted to the Lord Chancellor or the lords justices, who directed an inquiry, if they saw no reason for further evidence. If the demand, on the contrary, was made, the petition was to be set down for hearing in open court, when an inquiry was either ordered or dismissed; in the former case, before a jury or without one, at the court's discretion. In the event of the petition being unopposed, the order made by the Lord Chancellor for inquiry was to be directed to a Master in Lunacy, and conducted as nearly as possible as if there were a jury, the lunatic being seen in every case. Master Barlow has related one exception in which he could not see the lunatic (a lady) without breaking through the door; a solicitor appeared on her behalf, and Mr. Barlow tried to make him produce his client, but being told that serious risk of her jumping out of the window would be incurred, the attempt was wisely abandoned. When such an inquiry was completed and the commission signed, the Master in Lunacy was to ascertain certain particulars, as the committees of the person and estate which the family proposed to appoint, the amount of the property, etc. A report was then to be made to the Lord Chancellor certifying these particulars. The Chancery Visitors were to undertake the supervision of the lunatic, these consisting of two medical men (as previously), a lawyer, and nominally the two Masters _ex officio_. The visitation was only annual. The salary of the medical and legal Visitors was not more than £500 per annum, as they were not, as now, obliged to relinquish practice.