HC Deb 13 February 1879 vol 243 cc1159-60

Order for Second Reading read.

DR. CAMERON,

in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that as first introduced it would be remembered that it was of a much wider scope; but it had afterwards been decided to cut it down, and limit its operation to the persons who were prepared voluntarily to submit themselves to its provisions. It had been proved to the Committee on the subject that on this basis a vast number of cases could be treated, and a great deal of good might result. In that modified form he had last year secured for the Bill the support of the House on the second reading, and in the course of the debate some 20 Members took part, every single speech being in support of the Bill in its present shape, and the second reading of the Bill being passed nem. con. On the present occasion, his hon. Friend the Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) had given Notice of his intention to oppose the Bill. He understood that he would not object to the Bill if it applied to public institutions only. If his hon. Friend thought the matter was so important as to demand the expenditure of public funds on public institutions, he went further than the Bill now proposed. He understood that his hon. Friend entertained a strong dislike to private lunatic asylums, and thought that this Bill would establish a number of institutions of a somewhat analogous character. In his opinion, there was not the slightest analogy between the two. A lunatic was committed to an asylum on the certificate of two medical men. He was sent there for an indefinite period, and while there any complaint made by him was treated as the raving of a lunatic, and any witnesses he might bring would, be considered in the same way. The principle of the Bill was entirely different to this. A person could be liberated by order of the Inspector appointed under the Bill, or by order of any County Court, and at the very worst he was bound to be liberated at the end of 12 months. Then, if he felt himself aggrieved, the patient would be entitled to an action for damages. He thought his hon. Friend was, therefore, altogether mistaking in imagining that there was any real analogy between the institutions suggested in his Bill and private lunatic asylums. The hon. Member concluded by moving the second reading.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Dr. Cameron.)

MR. DILLWYN

The only reason I have for objecting to the Bill is that it appears to contemplate a violation of the liberty of the subject.

Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,

House adjourned at half after Twelve o'clock.