COMMITTEE MOVED FOR. (Hansard, 22 June 1858)

§ MR. TITE
, in moving for a Select Committee on this subject, said the matter was so foreign to his usual pursuits, that he would not have moved in it, but that a case of very great hardship having recently been laid before him, he felt compelled by a sense of duty to bring the matter before the House. He regretted to hear that his Motion was to be opposed—he should have thought that the feelings of every hon. Member would lead him to support it. It appeared from recent returns that there were now 29,000 lunatics in England, the increase last year having been 1,000. There were 15,054 in the county asylums, and 7,000 pauper lunatics in the workhouses. The number of county asylums was thirty-eight, and it was gratifying to learn that last year the cures in them were fourteen per cent. There were 551 lunatics under the control of the Court of Chancery, possessing property to the amount of £240,000 a year. The amount allowed for their support was £160,000, or an average of about £300 a year each. It might be supposed that having such large funds for their support, those lunatics would be in a much better state than any other, but in point of fact it was amongst this class that the greater number of complaints of hardship were found to exist. The proportion of cures did not exceed two per cent. The Act of 1853, though drawn with much legal acumen, did not work. In the first place, only two medical visitors were appointed to look after these 530 persons, and they were only paid £500 a year each, an amount of remuneration for which it was impossible to expect gentlemen of their eminence to devote the whole of their time. These medical visitors were only bound to visit each patient once in the year, so that the patient might, in reality, be two years without medical attendance; for, if a medical visit was paid in the January of one year it need not be repeated till December of the year following. The result was that the visitation was not efficient, and without constant supervision the lunatic was sure to be neglected. He found, too, that one of the medical in- 215 specters took his degree as M.D., in Edinburgh in 1806, and he should like to know what physical energy that gentleman was able, for £500 per annum, to bestow upon the inspection of 551 Chancery lunatics each year? Lunacy was tiresome and harassing; and without constant vigilance humanity itself would cease to be humane with regard to this unfortunate class. The sums paid for the maintenance of some of the lunatics was monstrously extravagant. In a recent return to the House of Lords he saw a case mentioned in which no less than £1,100 a year was allowed for the maintenance of the lunatic—a sum that must make the fortune of the asylum in which he happened to be placed; and that, evidently rendered it the interest of the keeper of that institution to prevent the inspectors obtaining a correct idea of that gentleman's mental condition, should it become improved. In another case, a clergyman, subject to partial hallucinations, and fit to move in society, was placed, with an allowance of £400 a year, in the care of an ex-sergeant of police, whose other income only amounted to 30s. He did not mean to say that the lunatics in these cases were unkindly treated, but he maintained that they were not treated quite fairly. With regard to other patients, the Reports of the Commissioners were regularly laid on the table; so that if there was any complaint it could easily be investigated; but the Reports relating to the class to which he was calling the attention of the House were kept secret. He was willing to admit that every possible attention was paid by the Lord Chancellor and the Lords Justices to those cases of lunacy that were brought before them; but cases which ought to be brought under their notice did not come before them. It was the system that was at fault, and it was the system that he wanted to have changed. It was almost impossible to get an account of how the money paid for the maintenance of lunatics was expended. It was suggested that this was very late in the Session to move for a Committee of this kind, but that was not his fault. He would not detain the House while he quoted to them the cases of hardship which had come within his knowledge, but he hoped the Government would take into consideration the great importance of the subject, and grant him the Committee for which he moved.

§ SIR ARTHUR ELTON
seconded the Motion.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
said, the hon. Gentleman need make no apology for drawing the attention of the House to the subject, for it was one of such painful interest that it could not fail to excite all their sympathies; but, before they agreed to enter upon such an investigation as the hon. Member proposed, they must first of all consider whether there was time and opportunity for carrying it to a satisfactory termination. If there was to be an investigation, it should not be confined to three or four cases under the jurisdiction of the Lord Chancellor, but should extend to the whole lunatics of the country. The Act which now regulated the care and treatment of lunatics was passed in 1853. It was desirable that every means should be taken to watch the operation of a new law, and he admitted that upon such a subject as the care and treatment of lunatics whenever anybody could say with plausibility that there were cases which required investigation no time should be lost in instituting the necessary inquiries, because lunatics were a class of persons who could not protect themselves. Were there time and opportunity, the Government would not interpose any impediment in the way of such an investigation; but the hon. Gentleman himself must see that at this late period of the Session it would be impossible to procure the services of hon. Members who had directed their attention to the subject, and vain to hope that any Committee could arrive at a satisfactory result. He therefore hoped that the hon. Gentleman would not press his Motion to a division. If the matter were renewed in proper time next Session, neither the Government nor the Lord Chancellor would throw any obstacles in the way of a full and complete investigation into the working of the Act of 1853, both as regarded the lunatics under the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery and the general subject of the care and treatment of lunatics throughout the country. Meanwhile, however, it was satisfactory to know that any person who had a complaint to make with respect to the treatment of a lunatic was entitled to apply to the Lord Chancellor, the Lords Justices, or the Commissioners in Lunacy, whether he was connected with the lunatic or not; and without any expense to the 217 party complaining an inquiry was instantly ordered and immediate redress obtained. The hon. Gentleman had referred to what he called the striking fact that, whereas the percentage of recoveries in the case of lunatics generally was very large, few, if any, of the lunatics under the care of the Lord Chancellor ever recovered at all. It should be recollected, however, that it was only when persons became confirmed lunatics that applications were made to the Court of Chancery—a fact which sufficiently accounted for the disparity mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, Thus, on referring to the list for a single year (1852), he found that the shortest period during which the lunatic was found to have been suffering from mental infirmity previous to the proceedings being taken was two years. In one case it was forty years; and some of the lunatics were returned as having been idiots from their infancy, so that in point of fact these persons might be considered as having been all but incurable before any steps were taken. Nor was it correct to say that the Act of 1853 had proved radically defective. Like all Acts of Parliament, it might be capable of amendment, but it had reduced the expense of proceedings in lunacy from £200 to between £50 and £60, and had led to the adoption of a system by which everything connected with the care of the persons or property of lunatics was directed by the Masters in chambers, without the smallest trouble or cost to the parties concerned. The hon. Gentleman had also objected to the present mode of visitation as insufficient. Now, private asylums were subjected not merely to the visitation of the two visitors appointed by the Lord Chancellor, but to the constant and careful inspection of the Commission presided over by the Earl of Shaftesbury, and the lunatics under the care of the Court of Chancery had the advantage of the same double system of visitation. It would be desirable, however, if it could be done, that the visitors appointed by the Lord Chancellor should visit the patients more frequently during the year, but in that case it would be necessary to increase their salaries. At present, in consequence of orders recently laid down by the Lord Chancellor and the Lords Justices, the annual visitation was one of the most effective character, and resulted in a categorical Report as to the manner in which the lunatics were treated. The hon. Member had complained that the Reports de- 218 tailing the circumstances found on official visits to those asylums were kept secret. But did the hon. Member not know the reason for that secrecy? Did he suppose that would be agreeable to the friends of those unfortunate persons to have laid before that House circumstances which must necessarily be so painful to them? If, therefore, those Reports were made public at all it would have to be without names, and in that case they would lie useless. The hon. Member had said that one of the visitors—meaning, no doubt, Dr. Southey—was far advanced in life. That was so; but any one who was acquainted with the energy, skill, experience, and activity of Dr. Southey would be of opinion that there could be no man whose services would be more valuable than his in the department in which he laboured. The hon. Member admitted that the great care bestowed by the Lord Chancellor and the Lords Justices in cases of lunacy was worthy of all praise. He (the Solicitor General) thought he might say the country owed a considerable debt of gratitude to the Lords Justices in particular for the manner in which the lunacy business was transacted by them. In the transaction of that business they devoted much of their valuable time in private when the public did not see them; and the real interest they took in the cases of the unhappy persons afflicted with lunacy, which were brought under their cognizance from time to time, was deserving of all praise. The hon. Member had also adverted to the custody to which these unfortunate persons were confided by the Lord Chancellor, and complained that extravagant sums for maintenance were allowed to committees of the persons of lunatics, and that they were allowed to spend the money without rendering any account. Now, upon this point he would remark that for many years past it had, in every case where it was practicable, been considered most desirable to induce the nearest relative to take charge of them. Where a relative did not take charge of them some other person was appointed, and an allowance made for their maintenance, and in such a case a detailed account of the money so expended was called for. This, of course, could not be insisted upon where they were in the care of a relative, inasmuch as no relative would consent to their custody if it involved the necessity of making separate returns of the sums expended for their allowance apart from the general expenses of 219 the household. But even in these cases the production of accounts was demanded, if there existed any suspicion that the lunatic did not receive those comforts and that attention to which his allowance would entitle him. With regard to the particular case to which the hon. Member had referred, but the name of which he had not mentioned, he might inform him that he knew the instance to which his remarks were directed, and inquiries by a special visitor had been instituted. The Report which resulted from those inquiries went to show that nothing whatever had been neglected which might be conducive to the welfare of the lunatic, and the petitioner was dismissed with costs. He would conclude his remarks as he had begun, by saying that he was most anxious for the welfare of the unfortunate class of persons in question, and that in every case where a complaint was made the fullest investigation should take place; in his opinion, it was most desirable that the House of Commons should know how legislation in regard to lunatics was carried out; he thought, however, that to attempt an inquiry such as the hon. Member contemplated would be impossible during the present year, and he trusted, therefore, that, resting satisfied for the present with the assurances he had given him, and with his readiness in every case of complaint to grant the fullest investigation, he would withdraw his Motion.

§ MR. DRUMMOND
said, that the hon. Member's Motion, instead of being one to inquire into the laws respecting lunatics, ought to have been directed to an inquiry into the treatment of those unfortunate persons under the Court of Chancery. He did not hesitate, notwithstanding the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down, to say that the treatment of lunatics under the orders of the Court of Chancery was much worse than in other cases, and that those unhappy persons received much less supervision. Last year the management of lunatics in Scotland underwent considerable discussion in that House, and on that occasion the law which regulated that management was said, as had now been said of the law in this part of the kingdom, to be admirable; but, notwithstanding that, the treatment of the lunatics in Scotland was most infamous. Cases could be brought forward of the treatment of lunatics under the orders of the Court of Chancery nearly as bad as any that were adduced during the discus- 220 sion of last year; and he contended that any law relating to lunatics was useless which did not provide for regular, systematic, and stringent inspection of lunatic asylums. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would not let the question rest. The law might be excellent, but it was highly necessary to look after its administration. Now, the hon. and learned Gentleman had remarked that it was very easy for persons in those establishments who had a complaint to make, to make it. Was it really so? He thought otherwise, and he could only say that whenever he had visited an asylum, and went up to a lunatic who had stated that he had a ground of complaint, some keeper immediately evinced an unusual interest in his personal welfare, and cautioned him saying, "Take care of him, sir, he is a very dangerous man." English Members might depend upon it that there was no difference whatever on this subject as regarded England and Scotland, save that the supervision was more active in this country.

§ MR. TITE
said, after the expression of opinion which they had heard that night on this subject, he should withdraw his Motion; but he should, in accordance with the suggestion of the hon. and learned Solicitor General, renew it at the earliest possible period next Session.