COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 28 June 1864)

§ MR. SMOLLETT
said, he objected to going on with this Bill at all. He did not think the Lord Advocate could have taken any course more calculated to prove the truth of what has been said, that the business of Scotland was conducted in this House in a most unsatisfactory manner. The Bill was first introduced in the middle of June, they were now in Committee upon it on the 28th; and neither upon the first nor the second reading, nor upon the present stage of the Bill, had there been any explanation given of the necessity of introducing it at all. The Bill itself was a very short and a very unpretending Bill, and might have been introduced at the commencement of the Session if the Lord Advocate had been attending to the Scotch business as sedulously as he had represented himself to have done. The Bill purported to amend an Act passed about two years ago. The Bill then passed was a sort of continuance Bill. The Lunacy Commission in Scotland was constituted about the year 1857; it was to expire in five years; so that in 1862 it became necessary to introduce a Bill to continue it. The Board consisted of an unpaid chairman and of the Commissioners—medical men—with salaries of £1,200 a year each, and the Secretary of State had power to appoint two Deputy Commissioners of Lunacy at salaries of £500 a year each; there was a secretary with a salary of 418 £300 a year, and a clerk with a salary of £150 a year. This was the Board; but it really consisted of the two medical gentlemen and the unpaid chairman. The Board, so constituted in 1857, soon made itself peculiarly obnoxious. They were armed with large powers, and they speedily came into collision with almost all the parochial hoards in Scotland. Their proceedings were very unpopular; but there was no escape from them. If any person objected to the proceedings of any particular Commissioner, he might appeal to the Board; but inasmuch as the Board consisted only of that Commissioner and another, and of the chairman, they confirmed each other's proceedings. Therefore, when in 1862 a Bill was brought in to continue this Lunacy Board, considerable opposition was made to it by the parochial authorities in Scotland, and who, with that view, sent up deputations to London. The main objections to the measure were directed against the powers of the Commission and its constitution; but ultimately the Bill passed. One clause was, however, inserted in the Bill, to the effect that the Deputy Commissioners appointed by the Secretary of State should continue in office only until 1864. Now, what was the object of that clause? The object was to enable the Lord Advocate, during the two years that the Bill was to continue in force, to see whether a Board might not be constituted in a different and less objectionable form to the people of Scotland than the existing Board, The present Bill proposes to continue in office, two gentlemen with a salary of £500 a year each, whose term of office would have expired in August of the present year. The Bill ought to have amended the constitution of the Lunacy Board. It should have been re-constituted in some manner less objectionable to the people of Scotland; audit ought to have been introduced at the beginning of the Session, so that it might have been considered by the county meetings on the 30th April. But, instead of this, the Bill was introduced in the middle of June. It was on the face of it a very unpretending and simple Bill. It consisted, indeed, of only two clauses and the preamble, and the first clause enacts that The provisions of the first recited Act in regard to the appointment of Deputy Commissioners shall be and are hereby continued until Parliament shall otherwise determine. That was to say, that the two Commts- 419 sioncrs whose power was limited to August 1864, in order that the matter should this Session be re-considered, are to be made permanent until Parliament shall otherwise determine. That is one way of redeeming the pledge under which these Commissioners were appointed until August 1864. The second clause is another very strange performance. It provides that these two Deputy Commissioners, who are now to be continued until Parliament shall otherwise determine—or, in other words, until the Lord Advocate shall determine, because Scotch business in Parliament is in the hands of the Lord Advocate for the time being. That was the way in which the pledge given two years ago—that the subject should be reconsidered with a view to reconstituting the Lunacy Board—had been redeemed. Such was always the way in which Scotch business is managed in this House. He had already stated his opinion that Scotch business was conducted in a very unsatisfactory manner, and he thought the way in which this Bill had been conducted was a proof of that assertion. He had made these observations with a view of giving the Lord Advocate an opportunity of making what statements he might think fit on the Bill; but he gave him notice that, if this was the way in which Scotch business was to be conducted in future, he must expect to meet with very considerable opposition.

§ SIR JAMES FERGUSSON
said, he agreed very much with what had fallen from his hon. Friend (Mr. Smollett), and particularly as to the prevalence of a feeling in Scotland against the continuance of the Lunacy Board as at present constituted. When, however, the objections to the Bill were made known to the Lord Advocate, his hon. and learned Friend had frankly promised that the Bill should really be a continuance Bill for two years, so as to allow time for the consideration of the question. With that understanding, he hoped his hon. Friend (Mr. Smollett) would allow the Bill to pass, in order that, before the two years should have expired, there might be an opportunity of considering the footing on which the Board should continue. He must say that though the existence of such superintending Boards was looked upon with great jealousy by many persons in Scotland, yet he was not one of those who thought that parishes should be left to deal with their own lunatics in the way 420 which they think best; for although there might have been many matters in the Report of the Royal Commissioners on this subject some years ago, yet the fact could not be denied that the manner in which the custody of lunatics was carried on in Scotland was a disgrace to the country. He should much fear that matters would relapse into their former state if there were not in Edinburgh authorities empowered to see that the custody and treatment of lunatics were consistent with the civilization of the age. He did not think it would be practicable to keep lunatics in private houses; and it must be evident that an authority must exist to see that these unfortunate persons are kept with due care, and in a proper manner. How this superintendence should be provided for was a matter for future consideration.

THE LORD ADVOCATE
said, that this was a mere continuance Bill. He would not on this occasion dilate on the general management of Scotch business in tills House, but he entirely denied that there was any ground for the general complaint which the hon. Member for Dumbarton had made in regard to it. He thought it would have been much better if, instead of making large criticisms upon the outside fringes of this question, he had applied himself to consider whether, during the time the Lunacy Board had been in operation, there had not been a very marked and beneficent change produced in the management of lunatics throughout the country. He was far from saying that the present machinery was perfect; but he was satisfied that no one who had taken an interest in the question would deny that they had set on foot an improved system for the treatment of lunatics which, although it might be susceptible of improvement, had put an end to a state of things which the hon. Member for Ayrshire (Sir James Fergusson) had justly said was a scandal to any civilized country. There was a good deal still to do; but much had been done. The fact was, that the Board had not powers enough under the first Act, and they were therefore extended under the second Act. It was quite true that parochial boards made their representations, and that they came up in a joint body to protest against the two medical members of the Board; but he (the Lord Advocate) was not at all prepared to say that he altogether agreed with those representations; neither did he think that the opinions of such Boards 421 —who are to be superintended, cheeked, and controlled in the management of lunatics by the authorities—are to rule in this matter; but at that time I was perfectly willing to consider the propositions they made to provide for a paid chairman and two paid lay members of the Board by parochial assessment made by the parochial boards themselves. In the end all parties were satisfied that the project was impracticable. The hon. Gentleman had spoken of pledges. Now, he (the Lord Advocate) begged to say, in the first place, that two years ago he came under no obligation whatever; and, in the second place, that, although this Bill, as far as the continuance of the Deputy Commissioners was concerned, was limited to two years, he came under no obligation to adopt at a future time any particular course in regard to the constitution of the Board. In regard to the hon. Gentleman's opposition, he hoped he would not persevere in it, for this reason—that, if the Deputy Commissioners should cease to exist, the whole machinery of the Lunacy Board would come to an end. He (the Lord Advocate) thought the continuance of the Commission absolutely necessary. In regard to the increase of salaries, there was a proposition to increase the salary of the chief clerk. That he believed to be a useful addition. In regard to the Deputy Commissioners, he did not think it could be fairly said that £600 a year was over pay, considering that the whole of their time was spent in visiting lunatic asylums throughout the country, and that they had thrown upon their shoulders very heavy and grave responsibilities. It was a position in which they ought to have— and, indeed, he was happy to say they had —medical science and ability of the first class. But the fact that they had been able to obtain first-class medical ability at £500 a year was no reason why the proposed addition should not be made. Under these circumstances, he hoped the Bill would be allowed to proceed.

§ MR. BAXTER
hoped the hon. Member for Dumbarton would not persevere in his opposition. He thought that the proposition was quite fair, and that the present system should be continued for two years, and probably in the course of that time either his hon. Friend, or some other person, would be prepared to submit to the Lord Advocate some plan for the re-construction of this Board, if any re-construction should be deemed necessary.

§ MR. SMOLLETT
said, he would not persevere with his Motion; but he thought the statement of the learned Lord ought to have been made on the introduction of the Bill or on its second reading.

§ MR. CAIRD
desired to ask the Lord Advocate whether the duties of the officials, to whom it is proposed to give an increased allowance, have been augmented; and whether it is on that ground that the increased allowance is to be made?

THE LORD ADVOCATE
, in answer to the question of his hon. Friend, begged to say that this Board was originally fixed on a low scale of remuneration. Of late years the annual expenses of the office had increased, and he thought the additional allowance now proposed was in every respect just and reasonable.

§ SIR JAMES FERGUSSON
said, that as some surprise might possibly be expressed in Scotland at the increased allowance which it was proposed to give, it might be well that it should be clearly understood that it was given on the grounds stated by the Lord Advocate. They had now on the Board gentlemen of the highest position in their profession, and it was desirable to retain them, for if they were to have such a Board, it should be composed of the best men, and of those in whom the public have confidence. The chairman of the Board is Sir John Don Wauchope, and, although he was unpaid, his office was by no means a sinecure. He had done an immense deal of service; and if the Board was to be continued with such a man at the head of it, he ought to be paid. If the Board was to be settled on a permanent footing, he could not understand why public services of the most valuable character should be performed 423 without any remuneration; and if no provision for that was made in this Bill, it ought to be understood that it was not because Sir John Don Wauchope's services were not appreciated.

THE LORD ADVOCATE
wished to add his testimony to the zeal and ability with which Sir John Don Wauchope had performed his duties.