§ District boards shall have power, with approval of the Board, and for the purpose of obtaining instruction and assistance in pathological investigation for the medical officers of asylums under their charge, to contribute annually towards any pathological laboratory, having for its object or one of its objects investigation into the pathology of mental diseases, and such contributions shall be paid out of the assessment authorised to be levied by the district board under the Lunacy Acts and this Act.
§ Amendment made: Leave out, the words "to be levied by the district board."—[Mr. McKinnon Wood].
§ Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
§ Mr. WEDGWOODI begin to understand now why the Scotch Members wish Home Rule after the farce which has just taken place. I defy anyone who wanted to amend this Bill on the Report stage to get an Amendment accepted. The official Amendments were put from the Chair at such a pace that no one could follow them, and if anyone had put an Amendment on the Paper he would not have been listened to at half-past two in the morning. In the English Bill we had safeguard after safeguard put in which do not find a place in the Scotch Bill. We had a valuable proviso in the English Bill that a parent should have the right to prevent his child being sent to these institutions. This was put in in Committee and improved on the Report stage at the instance of the hon. Member for Oxford University, so that the onus of proof lay on the Board and not on the 1706 parent. In the Scotch Bill the onus of proof lies entirely on the parent, and I wish the parent luck of his chance of keeping his child out of an institution if he does not want it to go there. The English Bill has not it in writing and here nothing is said about it. You have only part of the Clause in this Bill. The Clause similarly set out to the English Bill would give better treatment to England than it does to Scotland. That is owing to the rushing through of the Bill at this time of the morning. I do not propose to make a speech in opposition at this stage on the subject of perpetual imprisonment of the people who are least able to take care of themselves. Perhaps I had read one of the numerous letters which I have received from parents who have feeble-minded children, thanking me for my opposition to this and to the English Bill. It happens to be a letter from Scotland, and I think that to read it is the best way of showing the necessity there is for this Bill. It begins: —
Dear and hon. Sir—Pray forgive my presumption in addressing you—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I observe those ironical cheers, but Gentlemen will have something to cheer about before I reach the end of the letter—But I feel I must write to thank you for your gallant and determined stand against the Scottish Mental Deficiency Bill. I may tell you my reason for being so deeply interested in this measure is that I have a little daughter nine years of age who is what some medical gentlemen term a sporadic cretin; her speech is rather defective and she is very far behind for a child of her years. Her birth was rather more than two months premature. She goes to our village school, but is taught nothing by the teacher, but she imitates her companions in playing games, and from the lessons of the different classes, she comes home and recites to her mother parts of their lessons. Now, Sir, let me say that she is a most lovable and obedient child, in a respectable and clean home (though I am only a rural postman), and if she is taken away to a special school or institution I fear it will break the heart of her mother and herself, and we are in great trepidation. I have no doubt but that the gentleman who introduced the Bill had the best intentions of benefiting the country, but for the life of me I cannot see how such children can be helped by being herded together, beside others as mentally defective, or more so, than themselves, whereas being among normally minded ones would surely be to their best advantage. Another thing, their governors and teachers will be at best only paid Government officials, so how in the name of reason can they exercise the love and care and deep interest towards their unfortunate little ones.That is not the end of the letter, but I do not think I need read any more. I think the House will understand from that the feeling that there is in the country on the part of parents, that children whom they love may be taken away and placed with children of the same or worse class in an institution. I think that when the Bill becomes properly known the country will 1707 view the Bill and the people who passed it in a different way.
Mr. PRICEI have received a large number of letters from women associated with this work, some of them engaged in the medical and nursing profession, asking me to introduce a provision into the Bill regarding women among the officials. I hope the Secretary for Scotland will be able to give us some undertaking upon this. These women have rendered a great service to the people of Scotland. I have a large number of letters on the subject.
§ Dr. CHAPPLEI just want to say that the case to which the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme has referred would not be taken from that home under this Bill. I hope he will reassure his correspondent and tell him that there is no danger whatever of that child being taken away against the parents' will under the Bill. There is no power to take that child away, and I hope my words will reach the correspondent, as his alarm is probably due to the fact that he has read some of the mistaken speeches about the Bill. The second observation I have to make is that if the child is a sporadic cretin, it is curable. It is not a case of being feebleminded or of brain disease, or of arrested development, and it is absolutely curable. I should like the hon. Member to understand that the condition of that child can be cured and that it would not come under the Bill at all.
Question, "That the Bill be now read the third time," put, and agreed to.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODI think I said "The Nees have it"quite loudly.
§ The CHAIRMANI understood that the last time I put it, he allowed it to go unchallenged.
Bill read the third time, and passed.