QUESTION. MOTION FOR PAPERS. (Hansard, 24 March 1865)

§ THE EARL OF MALMESBURY
said, that in consequence of information he had received, he thought it his duty, as a Member of Parliament, to ask Her Majesty's Goverment for further information with respect to a case of great hardship and injustice arising from the illegal detention of a person named Dockrall in the Lunatic Asylum at Sedgefield, in Durham. The statement he was about to make to their Lordships was based on information which he believed to be derived from trustworthy sources, and had been corroborated by his own inquiries. It appeared that a most respectable man, named Dockrall, a bookseller, residing at Chester-le-street, Durham, aged thirty-six, was, by the order of Colonel Johnson, a local magistrate, taken from his house and confined in a lunatic asylum, where he remained five days. Colonel Johnson, it was clear, had acted illegally—in the first place, by consulting only one medical man as to the state of mind of the alleged lunatic, while the Act of Parliament requires two; and secondly, in his written order he stated that he had personally examined Mr. Dockrall, whereas he had not seen him at all. After Mr. Dockrall had been confined five days, it became evident to the medical man in charge of that asylum, that he was perfectly sane. This 189 was represented to two magistrates, who went to Sedgefield Asylum, and after an examination which lasted two hours, being convinced that he was perfectly sane, restored him to liberty. Mr. Dockrall was a poor man, but this act of the magistrates created a great deal of stir in the neighbourhood. Mr. Reade, an author of whom their Lordships had, no doubt, heard, sent him to consult his (Mr. Reade's) solicitors, Messrs. Bellfrage and Middleton, a highly respectable firm. These gentlemen advised Mr. Dockrall to take means to obtain redress by bringing an action at law; also by an application to the Court of Queen's Bench, the order for Mr. Dockrall's confinement in the asylum was quashed. He then brought an action against Colonel Johnson for wrongful imprisonment, laying the damages at £5,000. The case was set down for trial at the Summer Assizes in 1864 (the imprisonment having taken place in October, 1863), but the pressure of business was such that the Lord Chief Justice, although most anxious to try the case, was obliged to leave for another assize town before it could be heard. Under these circumstances, the unfortunate man, naturally of an excitable temper, and having undergone great afflictions in the loss of his children, and through domestic differences with his wife, was so overcome by this disappointment, following on his incarceration in the lunatic asylum, and on his unsuccessful applications for redress to the Home Office, that he committed suicide in October last. In order that their Lordships might understand the cruelty of the case, and the grounds on which he believed there was a primâ facie case against the Home Office of neglect of duty, he must trouble the House with some documentary testimony. His Lordship then read a letter from the father of the deceased, who said— That his unfortunate son had been seventeen years a clerk in the Customs and was in the receipt of a small pension. He had three sons of the respective ages of four, seven, and nine, hut that just previous to this transaction they were attacked by typhus fever and two of them died. This grieved him very much and made him very sad, which was natural, as he was fondly attached to them. He accused his wife, who was a very bad woman, of being in a conspiracy with the magistrate to get him placed in a lunatic asylum, and he was dragged in a most brutal manner from his house to the asylum, where he was confined among the really mad people for five days. His son had applied to the Home Office for redress, and prayed that at least the magistrate should be suspended until a full inquiry was made, but that 190 Sir George Grey and Mr. Waddington took no notice of this very reasonable and moderate request. Seeing that no justice could be obtained by means of the Government he took prussic acid and died. The father's letter also made the imputation— That his bad wife was in a conspiracy with the magistrate to get him detained in a lunatic asylum. Into that question, however, he would not enter. When he (the Earl of Malmesbury) received that letter he wrote to a noble Lord now present (the Earl of Shaftesbury), who had passed his life in resisting oppression and in assisting those who were suffering. He was one of the Commissioners in Lunacy, and he sent to him (the Earl of Malmesbury) a report of the case as it appeared at the time, which corresponded with the facts he had already stated. He was also in possession of a letter from Mr. Spring Rice, the Secretary of the Commissioners in Lunacy, to Mr. Dockrall, in which that gentleman stated that the matter was one which came more properly within the province of the Home Office, but that the only legal remedy Mr. Dockrall had was by an action at law. The Lunacy Commissioners had very restricted powers, and he (the Earl of Malmesbury) did not think them to blame in the matter. He would not trouble their Lordships with reading all the affidavits before the Court of Queen's Bench, but he begged to call attention to this point—that Colonel Johnson, being in the commission of the peace, and in the exorcise of his functions as a magistrate, had, in dealing with a case brought before him, signed his name to a statement which was not true—namely, he had signed his name to a statement that he had personally seen and examined the alleged lunatic—which was contrary to the fact. It was impossible that the Home Office should have been ignorant of what had occurred in this case. There was no doubt that the unfortunate man was sane when he was sent to the asylum. He quite admitted that a magistrate might, by mistake, act illegally, and if there had been nothing more in this case than that Colonel Johnson acted upon the certificate of one medical man instead of two lie should have said nothing on the subject; but he could not understand how a magistrate, when discharging one of the most important functions committed to him, could by mistake sign a certificate stating that he had personally examined an alleged 191 lunatic when such was really not the case. The case itself was one of immense importance, and he thought he had stated sufficient to show that it required the fullest investigation. The noble Earl concluded by moving an Address for— Copies of all Correspondence and Information in Possession of the Secretary of State for the Home Department with respect to the Detention of the late Mr. Dockrall in the Lunatic Asylum at Sedgefield.

§ EARL GRANVILLE
admitted that the noble Earl was quite right in calling their Lordships' attention to the subject, for no one could deny that it was most undesirable that any person should be confined in a lunatic asylum on the ground of insanity who was not really insane. He could only say, on the part of the Government, that they had no objection that the case should be investigated; while as to the conduct of the Home Office he did not see how the authorities there could have taken any other steps than they had done with respect to it.

§ THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY
said, that the conduct of Colonel Johnson was altogether without excuse, and unwarrantable. No man had a right to sign his name to a document declaring that he had done in accordance with the statute law that which in reality he had not done. He was called upon by law to declare that he had himself personally seen and examined the person whom he was about to commit to a lunatic asylum. Now, in this case it was not true that the magistrate had personally seen and examined the alleged lunatic.

§ EARL GRANVILLE
asked how that appeared.

§ THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY
said, the order for committal had been brought before the Court of Queen's Bench, and quashed as invalid on that ground. If matters of this kind were to be overlooked, it was to no purpose that Commissioners were appointed, Inspectors sent out, and laws passed for the protection of these unhappy persons. If the law was to be boldly and impudently evaded, as it had been in this instance, things had come to a position in which Commissioners and Inspectors might as well resign their offices, and the Legislature repeal all the Acts of Parliament upon the subject. The Commissioners of Lunacy were in no way chargeable with blame in this matter. Their jurisdiction over county asylums was very slight indeed—amounting only 192 to power to make an annual visitation and report what they saw. Notice was sent to them of the admission of patients; but in this case it happened that the notices of admission and of discharge arrived at the same time, and therefore there was nothing to call for their intervention. After the patient had been liberated, he called upon them to complain of his treatment; but the only answer which they could make was, that the matter was totally beyond their jurisdiction, and that if he had any grievance, as he seemed to have, he had better apply to the Secretary of State for the Home Department. After that time they heard nothing more of the case. He must again press upon the House the absolute necessity that some opinion should be pronounced upon this great abuse of magisterial functions. Many of the magistrates in England were most admirable men, and rendered the Lunacy Commissioners very great assistance in the administration of the law; but there were a great many who rendered no assistance, and in some measure offered obstructions to its enforcement. In this especial county of Durham the Commissioners had more trouble in getting an effective visitation of the asylums than in any other in the kingdom. Some of the magistrates did their duty well, but others did none at all. When they discovered a case in which a magistrate sent a man to a lunatic asylum, declaring that he had personally seen and examined him, when, in fact, he had done no such thing, it was time that that House should express a feeling that the law ought to be placed upon a better footing for the defence and protection of lunatics throughout Her Majesty's dominions.

§ THE EARL OF DERBY
wished to know whether, when the reference was made to this magistrate, he was asked to reply to the two allegations—one that he had committed this man to a lunatic asylum upon the certificate of only one medical man, and the other that he had made a declaration that he had personally visited him and satisfied himself with regard to his insanity, the fact being that he had not seen him at all; and, if not, why the Home Office had abstained from making such a requisition.

§ EARL RUSSELL
said, that being imperfectly informed of the facts, he could not give the noble Earl the information which he desired. The regular course, certainly, appeared to be that 193 the Home Secretary should have asked the magistrate for an explanation of the circumstances; and if the magistrate was unable to deny that he had acted upon one medical certificate instead of two, and that he had not seen the alleged lunatic, the Home Secretary should have represented the matter to the Lord Chancellor.

§ THE EARL OF MALMESBURY,
in reply, said, that he would accept the papers which had been offered to him by the Lord President; but he should expect to be told exactly what took place between the Home Office and Colonel Johnson, and in what position Colonel Johnson now stood—whether he had been rebuked or not. The impossibility of learning anything from the Government at present was another illustration of the inconvenience which their Lordships suffered from the distribution of offices in the present Administration, in consequence of which all the information which they received from certain Departments, such as the Home Office, the Board of Trade, and the Poor Law Board, came to them second-hand. Had the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack any information on this subject?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
said, that he knew nothing about this case; but if the noble Earl would send him the papers the subject should receive his attention.