HC Deb 24 February 1879 vol 243 cc1704-21

Order for Committee read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Dr. Cameron.)

MR. DILLWYN

said, he very much disliked the principle of the Bill, and he opposed the second reading; but as the feeling of the House was evidently very much in favour of the measure, and there was a great disposition to pass it, he would not put the House to the trouble of dividing. Since then he had communicated with his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), and that Gentleman had accepted some suggestions he had made, which seemed to him to get rid of the dangers to the liberty of the subject. He would not, therefore, now be under the necessity of further opposing the Bill, and he should offer no objection to the Speaker leaving the Chair.

Motion agreed to.

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Preliminary.

Clause 1 (Short title) agreed to.

Clause 2 (Commencement of Act).

MR. DILLWYN

said, the object of the Amendment of which he had given Notice was to prevent the Bill being made absolute, so far as regarded persons who had a pecuniary interest in retaining persons under their charge. In this respect the Bill ought to be limited, and to be treated merely as an experiment. He, therefore, proposed that the Act should only extend to the year 1886, by adding at the end of the clause— And in the case of retreats kept by private persons shall cease and determine on the first day of January one thousand eight hundred and eighty six. Amendment moved at end of Clause to add— And in the case of retreats kept by private persons shall cease and determine on the first day of January one thousand eight hundred and eighty six." —(Mr. Dillwyn.)

DR. CAMERON

said, he had no objection to the Amendment which only affected retreats kept by private persons for their own profit. If it were passed, however, it would be necessary further on to introduce a definition into the Bill exempting from the operation of this Amendment institutions maintained by private charity, which were not open to the objection raised by the hon. Member for Swansea.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3 (Interpretation) agreed to.

Clause 4 (Incorporation of Schedules with Forms and Rules therein) agreed to.

Clause 5 (Local authority and clerk to local authority) agreed to.

Retreats.

Clause 6 (Establishment of retreats) agreed to.

Clause 7 (Power of local authority to transfer licence) agreed to.

Clause 8 (Removal of habitual drunkard from unfit habitation. Notice of such removal).

DR. CAMERON moved, in page 3, line 30, after "Act," to insert "or otherwise unsuitable for its purpose."

Amendment agreed to.

MR. DILLWYN moved, in page 3, line 31, after "Act," to insert "shall order the discharge from such retreat and." By the clause as it stood it was optional whether or not the inmates should be discharged. He proposed to make the clause compulsory; for he did not think people ought to be maintained in retreats of this character which had been declared to be unfit for their habitation.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 9 (Persons may be admitted to retreats on their own application).

MR. DILLWYN moved, in page 4, to leave out "the" at the beginning of line 9, and insert by a personal interview with the applicant unaccompanied by any other person he has satisfied himself that the said. He desired in every case that the applicant should be personally free to act as he thought best; and that, therefore, he should see the magistrate unaccompanied by any other person.

Amendment proposed, In page 4, line 9, to leave out the word "the," and insert the words "by a personal interview with the applicant unaccompanied by any other person he has satisfied himself that the said."—(Mr. Dillwyn.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'the' stand part of the Clause."

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

said, the wording of the Amendment was rather awkward, because it might be very desirable that the person going before a magistrate should be accompanied by someone.

MR. DILLWYN

said, that was just the object he had in view. He did not want a man to go to the Justice in a state of drunkenness; but he wished him to go when he was sober, and knew what he was about. When a man really did not know what he was about, he ought not to be able to sign away his liberty in this manner.

DR. CAMERON

thought the Amendment was not so objectionable as his hon. Friend (Mr. Mitchell Henry) thought. Under the clause as it stood the habitual drunkard would go before the Justice with his friends, and produce such evidence as was necessary to prove that the man was an habitual drunkard. Then, if the Amendment were added, the Justice would retire with the habitual drunkard, and con- vince himself, if necessary, that it was the habitual drunkard's own desire to have himself committed. In that way, the object of his hon. Friend, that the man's promise should not be unjustly obtained, would be attained.

An hon. MEMBER thought it might be left to the judgment of the Justice without instructing him to retire with this lady or gentleman, as the case might be, and examine them privately.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

said, the Amendment would be a most disagreeable one to enforce. The Justice might be an aged gentleman, and it would be very unpleasant for him to be required to go into a private room with an individual who came before him placarded, as it were, with the name of habitual drunkard, and who might be on the very verge of delirium tremens, and who, when he got him into the private room, might take it into his head to ill-treat him. He submitted that this was not an Amendment which would improve the Bill in any substantial degree, or would in any particular way protect the liberty of the subject; while it might place gentlemen who were intrusted with the administration of the law in a very painful and invidious position.

EARL PERCY

said, the speech of the hon. Member who had just sat down seemed to him a strong argument for the Amendment. The Bill was not intended to affect people who were on the verge of delirium tremens, or to give a Justice of the Peace power to send such persons into retirement. The Bill really was intended for persons who were in the habit of getting intoxicated, and who, being perfectly conscious of their failing, were yet unable by the present law to sign away their liberty.

MR. DALRYMPLE

said, the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), having been strongly opposed to the Bill in the first instance, was now desirous to make it as inoperative as possible. The object of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) had been to make terms with him; and he had therefore accepted, to a considerable extent, the Amendments of the hon. Member. Of course, one object of the Bill was to induce persons voluntarily to enter these retreats; but, at the same time, he ventured to think there might be cases in which a certain amount of pressure, not of an unfriendly kind, and not in the nature of compulsion, should be brought to bear to induce these drunkards to enter a retreat, and where this was so it would be unnecessary that they should go before the Justice, accompanied by their friends. The Amendment would defeat the benevolent design of the Bill; and he could not but think that the hon. Member for Glasgow, in his desire to propitiate the hon. Member for Swansea, had accepted this Amendment too readily, and had fallen into a trap. He did not suppose for a moment the Amendment would be withdrawn in consequence of what he said; but he did think that it would do harm in the very cases with which the Bill was especially designed to deal.

MR. DILLWYN

said, a man in a state of half-maudlin repentance might be induced and wheedled into going before a magistrate, not liking to say no to his friends, although all the time he did not really wish it; and therefore he thought the Amendment more important than other hon. Members apparently considered it to be. He was sure that the hon. Members did not wish a man to go into a retreat against his own inclinations; and he only wished to make sure that nobody went in except of their own free will.

LORD FRANCIS HERVEY

said, it was by no means certain that the Amendment would have the effect intended by the hon. Member for Swansea, and the presence of a third person might act as a check on the Justice signing too hastily. On the other hand, it might very well be that a person applying for an order to enter one of these retreats might be brusque, offensive, or even a little alarming, in his demeanour, and the magistrate might consider that quite sufficient proof, and sign the warrant off straight at once.

COLONEL MAKINS

said, the whole object of the Bill was to give habitual drunkards an opportunity of retrieving their character; and it did not much matter whether, when they applied to enter a retreat, they were in a half-maudlin state or not. If the man was in that state the magistrate could decline, under the provisions of the Act, to exercise his functions; while, on the other hand, if the man was sufficiently himself to sign away his own freedom, that would only be quite carrying out the object of the Act.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 43; Noes 35: Majority 8. —(Div. List, No. 26.)

Clause agreed to.

Clause 10 (Licensee of retreats to send notice of admission) agreed to.

Clause 11 (Power of discharge).

DR. CAMERON moved, in page 4, line 24, after "proprietor," to insert "licensee" The Amendment was purely a verbal one.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. DILLWYN moved, in the same line, after "retreat," to insert— Or of that of such person, a clear week's notice having been given by him or her to the licensee of the retreat. He thought an habitual drunkard, when he was shut up in one of these places, ought to have the power of getting out again; and he therefore proposed to place in his hands the same power of applying to a Justice of the Peace that the Bill gave to the licensee. Of course, the applicant would have to satisfy himself that the case was made out, and then he would have power to make an order of release.

MR. WHLTWELL

thought there ought to be an addition to the clause, so as to deal with the case of a licensee who had received money for a patient. There ought to be a provision that he should not go out at once, but should remain for a certain time.

EARL PERCY

said, the Iron. Member really ought not to press his Amendment. If he entertained such views, he ought to have moved the rejection of the Bill. The object of the' Bill was to place persons in a position where they could not change their minds, and get out of one of these retreats as soon as they had a wish to do so. The clause directly enabled them to do that. It was true the patient must give a week's notice. He spoke under the correction of persons who knew more of these diseases than he did, when he said that this would make very little difference. On the other hand, there was no limit to the trouble which a patient might give. He might apply to one Justice after another, going in turn to all the Justices on the Bench, until he found one who took a crotchety view of this question, and lot him out. He appreciated most fully the desire of the hon. Gentleman to protect the liberty of the subject, and he voted with him in his last Amendment; but this proposal would really defeat the whole object of the Bill.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

said, he sat on the Committee which inquired into this question throe years ago, and he quite agreed with the noble Lord that the Amendment which had been proposed would overthrow the Bill. Habitual drunkards were persons who were habitually getting drunk and being sorry for it afterwards—persons whose infirmity of mind made it necessary to legislate for them. They were, in fact, in a manner, insane persons, having sober and lucid moments. In those sober and lucid moments they formed good resolutions, which they were not able to carry out, and so relapsed again into drunkenness. The object of the Bill was that when they had those favourable impulses, after a debauch of drunkenness, they should be enabled to place themselves under control in one of these retreats for a certain length of time. The habitual drunkard could not expect to be cured by one incarceration. He might go in for two or three months, and be discharged, and relapse again. That would almost certainly happen, because all experience showed that an habitual drunkard was only cured by a long period of incarceration in a retreat. Next time, then, the patient would agree to go there for eight or nine months, or perhaps a year, and then he would be radically cured. But under this Amendment, by the time his system had got rid of all the alcohol it contained, and the patient was beginning to get into sound health, he would wish to be out again, and the consequence would be that he would be able of his own desire to remove himself from that remedial legislation which it was the very object of this Bill to provide. Anybody under the Bill would be able to place himself in one of these retreats for a period in no case longer than 12 months, and certainly 12 months was a very short time taken out of the life of a man in which to cure him thoroughly of so terrible a disease as that of habitual drunkenness, a disease, too, which brought so many evils upon society. For his part, he greatly pitied his hon. Friend in charge of the Bill. He could hardly approve of this Amendment, and yet he knew perfectly well that the Forms of the House of Commons would enable the hon. Gentleman the Member for Swansea to defeat the Bill if his opposition were continued. Therefore, he had been obliged to make terms with him, and to give way on Amendments of this kind. He hoped, however, that the House would come to his assistance, and would so deal with the Bill that, when passed, it should be a real good measure.

MR. DALRYMPLE

hoped the Committee would not only stand between the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) and the Bill, but that it would also stand between the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) and his Bill. On the last division, that hon. Member, by telling with the hon. Member for Swansea, had voted distinctly against what were the interests of his own Bill. The fact was the hon. Member for Glasgow had had a bad time of it with the hon. Member for Swansea, and, no doubt, he felt bound to vote in that way in fulfilment of his compact. But that only the more made it the duty of the Committee to befriend the Bill, and to protect it from the danger in which it was placed by its author. The one object of the Bill, when once an habitual drunkard had gone into a retreat, was to detain him there as long as the Bill permitted; and there would be little or no chance of reforming him if the Amendment were carried. He would only have to apply to a Justice to let him out, and then the whole object of the Bill would be defeated. It had happened to him, in consequence of the name he bore—the same as that of a former advocate of this measure—to receive a great many communications on this subject, and that must be his excuse for taking part in the debate. Many of the cases he had heard of would not be remedied at all by remaining a week or two in the retreat. The hon. Member for Swansea was endeavouring, by every means in his power, to weaken the Bill, and he would entreat the Committee to resist his Amendment.

MR. MORGAN LLOYD

said, if the Bill was a good one, they certainly ought to reject the Amendment; be- cause, if carried, it would render the measure perfectly useless. A drunkard would get sober in a week, or less, and then he would apply to a magistrate; and no magistrate, he felt certain, would consider himself justified in detaining a sober man in a retreat if he wished to get out. Therefore, he hoped this Amendment would be rejected.

SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY

said, it was very desirable that proper safeguards should be placed on the powers given by the Bill, and certainly every reasonable facility should be given to a man to get out if he wanted. But the object of the hon. Member for Swansea would be attained with equal effect by the insertion of the words now proposed in Clause 17. That clause enabled a Justice of the Peace, at the request of the licensee, to grant a licence to the person in the retreat to go out. The addition of a few words so as to include all applications from this person also would fairly meet the case. Suppose, for instance, after a man had been in for a fortnight or three weeks he felt himself a changed being, a sober man, and his friends were willing to take charge of him, they could then obtain a licence and take him out, or he could apply for it himself and go out.

MR. DILLWYN

said, if the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary (Sir Matthew Ridley) would propose that alteration in Clause 17, he would accept the suggestion.

EARL PERCY

said, he should oppose any such proposal. The whole principle of the Bill was that the habitual drunkard should be placed in a position in which he could not, of his own action, escape from these retreats. Of course, if the Amendment were inserted in Clause 17, the same result would follow as if the words were put in. The patient would go the round of the magistrates, until he found one who would give him a licence—perhaps against the advice of the licensee who had charge of him—and the whole value of the Bill would be destroyed.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

said, this Amendment should be opposed in the interests of the drunkard himself. If he knew that he had an opportunity of getting out of these retreats whenever he thought desirable, his mind would be kept in a state of constant turmoil, and he would always be thinking that he ought to be let out. The principal object of these retreats was to produce perfect tranquillity in the mind of the patient. If he knew he was in for a certain time he would remain there quietly, and go out at the end a bettor man. But if these words were inserted in either this clause or the 17th clause, the patient would be in a constant state of agitation; and therefore, for his sake, it would be a cruel thing to pass the Amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN

Do I understand that the Amendment is withdrawn?

MR. DILLWYN

said, he would withdraw it, on the understanding that the Under Secretary (Sir Matthew Ridley) would propose the Amendment he had sketched out when Clause 17 came on. He admitted that he objected to the principle of the Bill, and he was doing his best to minimize its evils. He preferred his own Amendment; but he would, nevertheless, accept the suggestion of the Under Secretary.

An hon. MEMBER hoped that the Under Secretary would give no such pledge. The proposed Amendment would frustrate the whole Bill and render it useless. A person once in would always be coming out if this Amendment were accepted.

Dr. CAMERON

said, the provision in the Bill for granting licences was intended for a numerous class of persons who could not afford to submit to any prolonged detention, and who, if they were obliged to do so, would prefer not to submit to any restraint whatever. Many cases had come under his notice of gentlemen belonging to certain Professions who for a long time would be perfectly sober and rational, and very anxious to keep free from the weakness of which they were perfectly well aware; but every now and then they would break out and go desperate lengths. It occurred to the promoters of the Bill that many gentlemen who, from the nature of their occupation, could not submit to a long incarceration, might be induced to put themselves under restraint for a short time, on the understanding that they should be let out under licence under the care of friends. These persons would hold licences, and the fact of their escaping from the care of their friend, or giving way to intemperate habits contrary to his advice and command, would be deemed a revocation of the licence. Then the patient could be at once taken back to the retreat, instead of being allowed to go on a prolonged drinking bout.

MR. WADDY

hoped the hon. Baronet the Under Secretary would not give way to the suggestion. If the Amendment were carried, a man might make 52 applications to go out during the year he was under restraint, and even more, if there were several Justices resident in his district. The Amendment would make the Bill unpractical and absurd. He hoped the lion. Baronet would give no such pledge. It was one thing to make a suggestion; if, on the other hand, an Amendment was moved from the Government Bench, it largely increased the difficulties of the promoters of the Bill.

SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY

said, he certainly never intended to convey that he would move the words which he had suggested would be more fitly inserted, if at all, in Clause 17. It would, of course, be his duty later on to consider how the Bill affected his Department; but before putting down Amendments, he was anxious to see how the Bill would be shaped in Committee.

MR. DILLWYN

said, he would himself propose the words as suggested.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

THE CHAIRMAN

I must point out to the hon. Member for Glasgow that Clause 12 cannot be passed in the present form, as the Committee has not yet reported the Resolutions on the Bill.

DR. CAMERON

said, he would postpone that clause, and Clause 13, till the Report.

Inspection and Visitation of Retreats.

Clause 12 (Inspectors and assistant inspectors of retreats may be appointed by the Secretary of State) postponed.

Clause 13 (License to bear stamp. Fees to be accounted for to local authority) postponed.

Clause 14 (Inspection of retreats).

DR. CAMERON moved, in page 5, line 23, after "retreat," to insert— And shall at the same time furnish to the clerk of the local authority of the district in which each retreat is situated, a copy of any report affecting such retreat. His object simply was that copies of the Reports sent to the Home Secretary should also be sent to the clerk of the local authority, in order that they might know what was going on in the district under their jurisdiction.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 15 (Rules as to visitation of retreats) agreed to.

Clause 16 (Judge of High Court of Justice, &c, may make orders to inspect) agreed to.

Leave of Absence from Retreat.

Clause 17 (Permission that person detained may reside out of retreat).

MR. DILLWTN

said, he would move, as suggested by his hon. Friend the Under Secretary, in page 6, line 3, after "drunkard" to insert— Or at the request of such person, a clear week's notice having "been given by him or her to the licensee of the retreat, may. He would only say, in answer to what had fallen from his hon. Friends, that of course the magistrate would use his discretion, and would not grant a licence without due inquiry. Something had been said of the American system; but he happened to have some American papers sent him the other day, in which it was said that these retreats had broken down in that country, and been an entire failure.

Amendment proposed, In page 6, line 3, after the word "drunkard," to insert the words "or at the request of such person, a clear week's notice having been given by him or her to the licensee of the retreat may."—(Mr. Dillwyn.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

said, if his hon. Friend had read all that the American newspapers had said about these retreats, he would have learned that one great reason why they had failed was because the period of detention was not long enough. Another point brought out very strongly by a very painstaking and patient Committee, which sat on this subject upstairs three years ago, was that to be effectual the confinement of the patient must be for a considerable period of time, or it was perfectly useless. The Committee must remember that this Bill was not intended for persons who occasionally got drunk, but for persons who were almost insane, who were quite unable to control themselves, who dissipated their property, and brought untold misery on their families by their craving for drink, and yet who were not mad enough to be called insane. So far from this power of leaving the retreat being any good to such people, it would be a great evil inflicted upon them.

EARL PERCY

said, the Amendment did not read, for it spoke of "such person" although there was no "person" previously mentioned in the clause. As to the principle of it, he could only point out, as he had done before, that if this power of appealing to magistrates were given, a man would be certain to find some Justice who would give the required licence. That would result in removing the control which it was the object of the Bill to confer. As to what was said about America, the principle of the Bill had already been discussed, and these points were then satisfactorily answered. In any case, that objection struck at the Bill itself, and should have been raised on the second reading.

MR. DALRYMPLE

said, the hon. Member for Swansea appeared to claim the support of his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department for his Amendment, but he (Mr. Dalrymple) understood that the Under Secretary did not do more than suggest that this was a suitable place to propose the Amendment; and he certainly did not understand him to say he would support it. The great point was to get the patient into one of these retreats, and not to let him be able to leave it prematurely, which would do him the greatest possible harm. He certainly should oppose the Amendment, and would divide upon it, even if no one else would do so.

MR. WADDY

said, the Amendment would place the Justice of the Peace in a very great difficulty. A man might be sufficiently sober to be quite fit apparently to go out; and yet his craving for liquor at that very time might make that exactly the position in which he ought not to be.

MR. ANDERSON

said, the keeper of the retreat was the man most interested in keeping people in, and yet it was solely on his petition that they were to be allowed to get out; and as regarded the argument of the noble Lord opposite (Earl Percy), who seemed afraid of facile Justices, he asked if Justices might not be as easily influenced to put men into these retreats as the noble Lord seemed to think they would be to let them out? It might even happen that a Justice might be a relative of the patient, and pecuniarily interested in shutting him up. Care should be taken that there were not too many facilities in the Bill for putting persons in these retreats.

MR. MACARTNEY

said, the hon. Member had overlooked the very strong safeguards in Clause 16.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 11; Noes 58: Majority 47.—(Div. List, No. 27.)

MAJOR NOLAN

said, he would advise the hon. Member for Swansea not to go into the Lobby with so small a number of Members again. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newde-gate) had formed a Schedule of all Members who voted in Divisions under 20; and if the hon. Member divided again he would find himself scheduled.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 18 (Absence to be reckoned in time of detention) agreed to.

Clause 19 (Habitual drunkard may forfeit leave of absence) agreed to.

Clause 20 (Revocation of leave of absence) agreed to.

Offences.

Clause 21 (Penalty for false statements) agreed to.

Clause 22 (Offences by licensees of retreats) agreed to.

Clause 23 (Offences by officers, servants, and other persons).

DR. CAMERON moved, in page 6, line 38, after "act" to insert— Or neglects, or permits to be neglected, any habitual drunkard placed in the retreat in respect of which he is licensed. These words were inserted to remedy a defect in the Bill—that it did not secure the attention of the licensee to his patient.

THE CHAIRMAN

pointed out that the Amendment did not read.

DR. CAMERON

explained that the Amendment applied to Clause 22.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, that the hon. Member was now too late to move it.

DR. CAMERON

said, he would bring it up on the Report. He would then move to insert in place of the words "lawful authority" the words "the authority of the licensee or the medical officer of the retreat." The only question was as to with whom the right to order these things rested, and the Amendment cleared that up.

LORD FRANCIS HERVEY

asked whether the authority of the licensee, when he was not a properly qualified medical officer, was sufficient for the administration of narcotics and the other drugs mentioned? If they left the administration of these drugs to a person who was not a skilled practitioner, they might have serious consequences.

DR. CAMERON

said, it would be the business of the licensee to conduct the institution in such a way that his administration should be attended with the greatest amount of success. If he were to allow the indiscriminate use of stimulants in the retreat he would defeat his own object, and very soon come to the ground. It was very desirable to guard against any improper use of stimulants, but occasions might occur on which it would be necessary to administer something of this kind on the spot; and if the medical officer were not there, the insertion of the suggested words would enable the licensee to use them. Otherwise, no person could administer stimulants without being liable to some penalty.

LORD FRANCIS HERVEY

said, he remembered a ease in which some patients were treated with hydrate of chloral, or something of that sort, to keep them quiet and make them amenable to discipline, and death was the result. However that might be, the licensee might be tempted to treat unruly and undisciplined patients in this way; and if the licensee were not a medical man and acquainted with drugs the most serious consequences might happen.

DR. CAMERON

said, in the ease referred to a medical man administered the drugs, and therefore there was no want of the proper qualification. In the case of sleeplessness arising from the want of drink there was a very considerable difference of opinion among medical men as to the use of narcotics and stimulants, and it was certainly not the intention that unqualified and uneducated licensees should treat such case.

MR. HERSCHELL

said, as to bringing stimulants on to the premises, authority might be intrusted either to the licensee or the medical officer. He would suggest that the words should run thus— Without the authority of the licensee or the medical officer "brings into any retreat or without the authority of the medical officer of the retreat, except in case of urgent necessity gives or supplies," &c. In case of urgent necessity there would be power to do it; while, in the case of general treatment, it would only be fair to require the authority of the medical officer. That would meet the objection.

Amendment agreed to.

De. CAMERON moved, in page 7, line 9, after "sedative" to insert "narcotic."

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 24 (Offences by habitual drunkards while detained in retreats) agreed to.

Clause 25 (Escape from retreat).

MR. DILLWYN

said, he should move an Amendment here, undeterred by the warning of his hon. and gallant Friend (Major Nolan), and he did hope the Home Office would support him a little more strongly. The clause dealt with the re-capture of escaped habitual drunkards, and he thought it would give rise to great abuse of the law. Where a man escaped he ought not to be liable to re-capture, at any rate by the servants of the retreat; but a proper officer should be employed. He entirely objected to Jack, Tom, or Harry being intrusted with this power, and he would move, in line 26, to leave out "by any officer, attendant, servant, or other person employed in or about such retreat."

THE LORD ADVOCATE

said, nothing could be more dangerous than to intrust the liberty of any man at large to the mere servant of any licensee in the general words of the clause. It was not done in the case of a lunatic asylum, so far as he was aware, though there were stronger reasons there for the detention and recovery of a man who had escaped. There was no limitation to the power of the clause, and a man who had been at liberty a fortnight or more might be taken back to the asylum. The framer of the Bill ought to consider the whole structure of the clause. He did not know exactly what a peace officer meant. It meant one thing in England, and another in Scotland. He had also the greatest reluctance to intrust to any man—peace officer, constable, or anyone else—the right of interfering with the liberty of the subject, without a warrant at his back. If he had a warrant, it should either come from the licensee, or some person responsible for his agent. He heartily supported the Amendment.

DR. CAMERON

thought the suggestion a good one; but pointed out that the licence was intended to give greater freedom to the patients, and prevent the necessity for always keeping them within four walls.

MR. WHEELHOUSE

said, the clause was far too wide. If a peace officer had a warrant they would know whence he got his right to act; but to give him the power to act without a warrant seemed to him very dangerous, and contrary to all precedent. He would move to substitute the word "by" for the word "without" in page 7, line 28.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

thought it would be better to postpone the whole clause, or allow the Law Officers of the Crown to confer with the Home Office and the hon. Member for Glasgow.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, his hon. and learned Friend and Colleague had undertaken to see the clause was properly settled; but they certainly ought not to pass it as it stood, and it should be amended as suggested.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

MR. DALRYMPLE

said, it was useless to oppose an Amendment of the clause supported as it was; but it had entirely changed the character of the clause. It might not be right to give to the attendant of an institution the power of arrest without warrant; but to call in an officer of the peace and to arm him with a warrant was to introduce machinery foreign to the character of the Bill. He suggested that the clause should be withdrawn for the present.

MR. BULWER

said, the clause had better be postponed to the Report, and in the interval the necessary forms and machinery could be provided and the clause settled. If the Bill passed as it stood, not a magistrates' clerk in the Kingdom would be able to draw up the warrant.

DR. CAMERON

said, he would withdraw the clause for the present.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

THE CHAIRMAN

I must point out to the hon. Member that it is usual to consider postponed clauses before the Schedule.

DR. CAMERON

I will move to report Progress.

Motion agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Wednesday.