[BILL 47.] SECOND READING. (Hansard, 17 February 1879)

§ MR. P. A. TAYLOR
, in seconding the Motion, said, he did not for one moment wish by so doing to suggest that the intention of the promoters was not of the most charitable design. Though the persons intended to be benefited formed a very sad spectacle, it was at the same time quite impossible for him to give his support to the Bill, as he looked upon it as one of the waves of the last great wave of paternal govern- 1385 ment, or rather grand-maternal government. He was of opinion that they could not enforce morality upon any class of the community, nor could they interfere with what they eat or what they drink, or wherewithal they should be clothed. The habit of gambling was one which frequently led to ruinous results, and it was impossible, perhaps, to break a person of it. He was sorry to say that the habit had been increasing of late of endeavouring to get the State to interfere with the liberty of the subject. His hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) was strongly endeavouring, amongst others, to make the people sober by shutting up the public-houses. He thought that was an impossibility, and that the people ought to be dealt with by more philosophical means, by the spread of education, the influence of friends, and such genuine influences. A right rev. Bishop had said that he would rather see a people free than sober. That might be rather extreme; but, at any rate, with regard to such legislation as was now proposed there was an element of truth; with freedom there was everything to be hoped for; but when they stopped an individual from some disastrous vice by shutting him up, they did not cure him; they left him to exercise his brutal tastes in some other direction—perhaps in a more evil way. Beyond this, there was the much greater evil that they were dealing with the liberty of the subject; they were taking away the freedom of which every man was possessed. He believed that it was not a principle of law for a man to sell his freedom. A man had no right to sell his freedom, even for 12 months. There was no doubt at this time the Lunacy Laws had immensely improved; yet, nevertheless, at this time he believed that there were grave abuses of it, and that there were at that moment people confined in lunatic asylums who ought not to be there. The present proposition was a very serious one, and one could imagine many instances where a Justice of the Peace would sign a certificate to the best of his belief when a maudlin drunkard was signing his liberty away for 12 months. He did not believe that this was a safe condition of things, and he believed that there would be cases in which persons having an interest in putting people 1386 away for 12 months would succeed in doing so. Even more, the state of the law might tempt people to give way to drink; and as they were aware there were unprincipled men in every profession, there would not be much difficulty in surmounting the medical certificates.

DR. CAMERON
said, he was glad now to learn the exact grounds upon which this Bill was opposed. As to the objection that there existed an analogy between the institutions suggested by the Bill and private lunatic asylums, there was not the remotest resemblance. A private lunatic asylum was a place where a person was committed for an indefinite period against his own will— perhaps by some unprincipled member of the Medical Profession. If he were ill-treated, his complaint was treated as that of a lunatic — the only witnesses he could bring forward would be lunatics. Therefore, to compare such a man with an habitual drunkard under this Bill was unfair. The hon. Gentleman characterised this Bill as "grandmotherly legislation;" but, he asked, would they allow a man to permit himself to be held down and mutilated by a surgical operation in order to obtain a cure, and yet refuse to allow another man the permission to get cured, by a brief surrender of his liberty, which the Bill would give him? When he introduced the Bill last year, he adduced evidence to show that there were a number of habitual drunkards incarcerated in lunatic asylums, and that there were a number of lunatics incarcerated in private institutions, called "Inebriates' Homes." As to the practical support he had received, it came from men who had no interest in the matter. He had a Petition in favour of the Bill from 80 medical superintendents of as many public asylums for the insane in all parts of the United Kingdom—men who thoroughly understood the whole subject, and who were fully alive to the evils complained of, in the case of private lunatic asylums.

§ EARL PERCY
said, that the principal objection to the Bill appeared to be on the ground that it was proposed to punish vice by legislation. That was entirely a misapprehension of the intention of the Bill. It was not a Bill to prevent drunkenness, but to provide a means for those who wished to do so to reform. Those who supported the Bill believed that drunkenness after a time had such an influence—for practical purposes—as to cause the loss of that healthy control which sane people were supposed to possess. It was supposed that at the time of his signing away his liberty for 12 months, the habitual drunkard was in sufficient possession of his faculties to know what he was doing. The question was, which was the greater of the two evils—that he should perhaps be incarcerated in one of those houses for a limited space of time, or that he should be reduced to the state in which he was now?—and those who had studied the question knew which was the greater evil very well. There were hundreds in this country who would be glad to reform if they had the opportunity to do so. He had some experience on this subject, and the great difficulty met with was the absence of any power of restraint over those who were willing in the first instance to enter these retreats.