§ Postponed proceeding resumed on Amendment to Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
§ Which Amendment was to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."
§ Mr. WEDGWOODWhen the Debate was interrupted we were dealing with the Mental Deficiency Bill, a Bill introduced by the Government, and a replica of the Bill we had last year which was defeated, or more or less defeated, by the energetic action of some Liberals upstairs in the Committee Room. This Bill has been reintroduced by the same Minister, and is a Bill with practically all the same evil features of the last Bill and some extra ones to make it even worse. We still have the liberty of the citizen in danger, and we still give to the overseers of the poor and to the police the power of black-listing people, and there is also the danger of people having petitions presented to magistrates against them and of their being sent to prison for life. When the Debate was interrupted, I was venturing to criticise this method of trying these unfortunate people in camera. The surest safeguard for the liberty of the subject is the presence of the Press. It is all very well to give these unfortunate people the opportunity of having friends with them present at the inquiry, but that privilege is practically valueless. How are people on the borderline of insanity, 274 when they have this charge suddenly sprung upon them which may involve imprisonment for life, to look round among their relations and friends and select those who will be capable of defending them from being sent to imprisonment? It is an illusory safeguard; the great safeguard is the presence of the Press. This is one of the features which appeals most strongly to the people who run the risk of being sent to one of these institutions. I have here a pathetic letter from a man who has been an inmate of one of them, and, dealing with the question of publicity of trial, he says:—
Last but not least important is that a deep feeling of gross injustice would be removed by the right of open trial—a right such as is not denied to the worst criminal.He adds that the trial can be held in any manner that may be thought necessary so long as it is open in the true sense of the word, and he suggests that neither the doctors nor the Commissioners can do their duty properly under the present procedure. Publicity is the only adequate safeguard against abuse and maladministration. This is a letter from a man who has suffered from imprisonment in one of these institutions, and who has now obviously recovered the full use of his mental powers, and he insists on the importance of open trial as the best possible chance of those similarly situated making their voices heard by the community. It is in Section 6 that this secret power is provided. The Section says:—"Proceedings before the judicial authority may, in any case, if the judicial authority thinks fit, and shall, if so desired by the person to whom the petition relates, be conducted in private, and, in that case, no one, except the petitioner, the person to whom the petition relates, any two persons appointed for the purpose by the person to whom 275 the petition relates, and the persons signing the medical certificates and the statutory declaration accompanying the petition, shall without the leave of the judicial authority be allowed to be present."
I hope when this Bill goes upstairs the Government will accept an Amendment which will not only throw these trials open so that the public shall be present, but will also give these unfortunate people the same rights as are given to poor prisoners at the present time to have counsel freely given them in order to defend them against the charge. All the reasons which make it necessary to have a Poor Prisoners Defence Act apply with equal or greater force to these poor people who run the risk of sentences infinitely worse than ordinary imprisonment. I do hope, before the Second Reading of this Bill is passed, we shall have some pledge from the Home Secretary that more adequate provision will be made in the Bill for the defence of these people, so as to give them the best possible chance when a petition is presented against them. Obviously, a child of sixteen would not be in the condition to defend herself in strange surroundings when brought before a magistrate. Section 7 deals with variations of orders. Section 8 provides the second method of segregating these people. The first method, it will be remembered, is by petition by an officer of the local authority to the magistrate. Section 8 provides that where a feebleminded person has come in contact with the law and been found guilty of some offence, or is under a charge which renders him liable to be sent to a reformatory or industrial home, it is not necessary there should be a petition to the Court before which they are being tried, but the Court may make any order which—
"If a petition had been duly presented under this Act the judicial authority might have made, which order shall have the like effect as if it had been made by a judicial authority on a petition under the Act."
There is no medical certificate required in that case. Personally I do not attach much importance to medical certificates in this connection. But I must point out that whereas in the case of a petition two medical certificates are required, in the case of a person convicted and sentenced, it may be, to only three days' imprisonment, or merely charged with an offence 276 rendering him liable to be sent to a reformatory or industrial school, no medical certificate is required, and in Sub-section (2) of Section 8, it is provided that the Court may act on the evidence given during the trial, or may call further medical or other evidence. It can actually act without medical evidence at all, and without a medical certificate. I do not think that the Home Office here has shown that care for the liberty of the subject and for the protection of the individual against this Act that we have a right to expect from a Liberal administration. Then if you turn to Sub-section (5) of Section 8 you will find that the police authorities are the people who are to use this second method. This Sub-section provides:—
"Where it appears to the police authority that any person charged with an offence is a defective, they shall communicate with the local authority, and it shall be the duty of the police authority to bring before the Court such evidence as to his mental condition as may be available."
This is bringing in the police in a way I consider thoroughly undesirable. I have been told by the Home Secretary that the policeman is regarded as a universal friend of these poor creatures. It seems to me that the idea of using the police as their protectors—
§ Mr. McKENNAIs the hon. Member quoting my words?
§ Mr. CROOKSIt is quite true. The policeman is the protector of these people. The right hon. Gentleman need not be ashamed of the statement.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODThe statement was made in this House in answer to a question which I put during the passage of the White Slave Act. If the right hon. Gentleman disputes it I will withdraw it. But I do not think that under any circumstances, whether the police are the friends of the people or not, it is desirable they should have the power of going to the local authority and saying, "So-and-So is a defective and ought to be petitioned against." It is extremely undesirable that they should have that duty cast upon them, and it would be much better to leave it to the authorities rather than to an ordinary constable. Now I come to Section 9, which gives the third process by which the defective is to be caught. This Section gives the Secretary of State power to transfer defectives from prison to these asylums. 277 I think it is extremely undesirable that the Home Secretary should have the power of saying that people who starve themselves in prison ought to run the risk, not only of starvation, but of being sent to a home for the feeble-minded. I do not think the present Home Secretary is likely to take the view that self-starvation constitutes feeble-mindedness, but we do want to provide against a Home Secretary of some future day taking up the position that this is a condition of mind which requires a person to be sent to a lunatic asylum. In this third method of procedure there is the safeguard of two medical certificates being required, whereas in the case of a person convicted of an offence against the law no medical certificate is required. I think, in the case of prisoners proposed to be transferred by the Home Office, it would be desirable that the doctor giving the certificate should not be a servant of the State—that he should not be the prison doctor. It is extremely desirable that we should have independent medical evidence, instead of merely the evidence of the prison doctors. I pass over Clause 10, which merely deals with the period of detention. We come to Clause 11. This is a very important Clause. Hitherto we have merely got these people into their asylums; now comes the question of what privileges they are to have, and what chance they are to have of getting out of the asylums once they are in. The order made by the Court, whether on petition or after the person has been found guilty, or has been transferred from prison to one of these asylums, runs for one year. At the end of that year a report is to be made upon the condition of that defective person, but the report is made, not individually upon a particular case, but, just as you fill up any other form, upon all the mentally defective persons. It is made not after examination by the patient's own doctor, but by the doctor of the institution. That is a most undesirable thing. Obviously if these people are to have the best chance of getting out, the report should be made by people who are not connected in any way with the institution, which are, it is to be remembered, not State but private institutions. I hope that before this Bill is very long upstairs, we shall cut out of it the provision that one report, a purely formal report, should be made by the prison doctor.
§ Mr. McKENNAThat is not so.
§ Mr. CROOKSIt does not matter.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODI am very sorry to have the Home Secretary differing from me, but if he turns to Sub-section (4), he will see that it is so. I know the Bill pretty well.
§ Mr. McKENNARead it to the House.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODIt says:—
The special report above mentioned shall be a special report as to the mental and bodily conditions of the defective made, in the case of a person detained in an institution, by the medical officer of that institution, and in any other case by a duly qualified practitioner.That is the case of people who are not in an institution.
§ Mr. McKENNAMy hon. Friend said "a general report." This is a special report. An institution means a public institution.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODI do not quite see what I have said wrong.
§ Mr. BOOTHOn a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. While my hon. Friend has been speaking he has been interrupted by four or five remarks. If that is continued he will never be able to pursue the even tenor of his way.
§ Mr. CROOKSIs it in order for an hon. Member to repeat himself twenty times, and expect us to remain quite silent, when we shall not get an opportunity of replying?
§ Mr. WEDGWOODThey are absolutely untrue. I have not repeated myself.
§ Mr. CROOKSI have a record of what you said.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODWhen my hon. Friend reads my speech in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow, he will see I have not repeated myself. I shall proceed to deal with each Clause of the Bill to which I object.
§ Mr. HAROLD SMITHOn a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to say to another hon. Member that his statements are untrue?
Mr. SPEAKERI do not think that "untrue" is really a, very suitable expression to use. It is rather difficult to correct it every time. It has been used occasionally. I think if the hon. Member intended to suggest that the statements were deliberately untrue, that would not be a correct expression. He could only have meant that they were inadvertently untrue.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODI am very sorry to be led away from the Bill. You must understand, Sir, that we had stormy times in Committee. I certainly withdraw the word "untrue." I know that the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Crooks) has the interests of these people as much at heart as I have. We are only pursuing this subject from different points of view, and I am sure that before we have done with the Bill he will be more in accordance with my views than he is at present. The hon. Member for Woolwich wants to have these people segregated. I believe he will, with me, do his best to get an Amendment made in the Bill to make it impossible to take children away from their parents against the wishes of the parents. If we do that, we shall have done something to improve the Bill. Upon the question of repetition I feel absolutely guiltless, for I do not remember having repeated myself upon any matter. This is a very long Bill, and it is almost impossible to deal with it without some repetition. Clause 13 is an important Clause. It gives a power which is new in this Bill, and which was not in the last Bill, there-fore I want to refer to it. Under this Clause the local authority or the Government have the power to recover the expenses from the parents, so that even when the State has taken a child from the parents they can still make the parents pay for its keep It says:—
"Where an order that a defective be sent to an institution or be placed under guardianship has been made under this Act, the judicial authority which made the order.…may, on the application of the petitioner or of the managers of the institution or the guardian.…or of an officer of the local authority, make an order requiring the defective, or any person liable to maintain him, to contribute such sum towards the expenses of his maintenance."
That is a new feature in this Bill, one which is particularly undesirable, because you may be taking away these children 280 against the parents' wishes, and in such cases it is obviously most unjust, having taken the child away, that you should make the parents pay for the upkeep of that child. Clause 14 gives further powers to constables which I think are undesirable. Where a constable finds neglected, abandoned, or cruelly treated any child he considers to be defective, he may take the child to the workhouse without anybody's permission or inquiry. In ninety-nine cases out of 100 that may be thoroughly desirable, but I do not think it ought, to be a constable who should have the power to do it. A constable may have a spite against somebody. If you take a child to the workhouse without inquiry you are contravening the Habeas Corpus Act, and it may lead to a certain amount of bullying of the poor. That is undesirable. The less we have of the constable, and the more we have of the officials of the authority, the better it will be. Clause 15 deals with the transfers from institutions to asylums. Clause 16 is also a new Clause, and to my mind a most undesirable one. It is a Clause about religion. I do not think religion has much place in this Bill. Clause 18 gives the Secretary of State very extended powers to make rules and regulations respecting the trial of the petitions presented against feebleminded persons. They can make regulations with respect to applications for orders to vary and applications for orders of contribution towards maintenance, and they have very wide powers towards taxing the persons whose children are taken to these homes and with regard to procedure regarding visitors—I am glad to find that, because in the last Bill there was nothing respecting visitors at all—and the form of petition, statutory declarations, and certificates. These are all very well, and, of course, it is obvious that the Secretary of State must have power in these directions, but the House ought to insist that the Regulations made by the Secretary of State on these matters should be laid upon the Table of the House and should be open to criticism. This is a leap in the dark at the best, and when we are dealing with the liberties of 100,000 people it is desirable that the very extremities of criticism should be applied to the Regulations which may be made by the experts of the Home Office. People can be sent there in three ways. Once there they will be kept for a year, when a report will be made. If the report says they may stop another year, they will stop 281 another year and another report will be made, again by the officer of the institution. After that time reports are made every five years, and I think those who have much acquaintance with feebleminded people would agree that feeblemindedness cannot be cured like insanity, and the people in these institutions are likely to stop there for the rest of their lives. I would make a plea at any rate that when past the age of child-bearing women should be allowed to come out of the institution.
Children who reach the age of twenty-one, having been in these institutions since seven or sixteen, are examined not by doctors but by a body of visitors—and that is an improvement—who are to decide whether these adult children require keeping in. The principle of lay visitors might very well be extended, and we might have to have less of the doctor and more of the visitor. With Clause 19 we come to the second part of the Bill, which deals with the central authority. The Lunacy Commissioners are to take over the feebleminded; they are to be increased in number, their salaries are substantial, and there are three unpaid ones and twelve paid ones. It is undesirable that we should put feeble-minded persons under the Lunacy Commissioners. People at large outside do not like having a relation in the lunatic asylum, and when you class all feebleminded people as lunatics you will inflict an undeserved slur upon a good many people which will make the Act more unpopular than it would be otherwise, and if it is only done in order to square this little difference between the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor, it is undesirable that so big a sacrifice should be made. The central authority has, of course, inspectors, and will have a large and expensive staff, and this is only another case of the Opposition bringing forward a Bill creating an enormous number of new posts, and then going round the country saying we wicked Liberals are creating these posts.
§ Captain JESSELWhat is the first case?
§ 10.0 P.M.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODThe previous Debate to this was on the making of two new Lords of Appeal at £6,000 apiece—supported by the other side. The preceding Debate was to make a new judge at £5,000 a year—supported by the other side. The Housing Bill was proposed from the other side, and there are the land valuers for valuation. All these things are proposed from the other side. [Hon. MEMBERS: 282 "Not land valuers."] Certainly, the valuation originally proposed was to be made by the landlord, and as a concession you got the valuation made by the State at enormous expense. Now we are in this Bill super-imposing upon the unfortunate taxpayers of the country another body of uniformed officials. We shall soon all be wearing a uniform and receiving a salary, and there will be no one to pay the salary. The central authority is not the only charge upon the taxpayers in the country, because there are to be also local authorities. Every county council and county borough is to have its local authorities to deal with the feeble-minded, and it is to employ a staff of persons obviously of considerable size because they have got to make a list of all the people who are mentally defective. In some cases two counties can join together, but knowing the jealousy of different counties, I do not think there will be many cases of joint action. Their duties are to ascertain what persons within their area are defective, and are subject to be dealt with under the Bill otherwise than at the instance of their parent or guardian. So that there you have the duty put upon the county council to find out all the defectives within their area. Just think what that will mean in the expense of the staff and in interference with all these unfortunate people. It will not be your house and my house which will be invaded by the inspectors because we are rich. It is only the poor who are inspected. Their houses will be entered at any hour of the day by these inspectors. Children will be examined; impertinent questions will be asked, and all sorts of indignities will be put upon people in order to make a black list of the mentally defective in the county area. Then they have to provide suitable supervision over such persons, or if such supervision has been insufficient, they have to take steps to secure that they shall be dealt with by the institutions, that is to present petitions against them, which means, of course, the attendance of the officer at the Court, in order to get the magistrate to send the patient to one of these homes. It means also a certain amount of expense for medical certificates and for carrying to and fro. They have also to provide suitable accommodation.
As I understand it, the Government are going to provide half the cost of the accommodation and half the cost of the maintenance. I should like to know 283 whether the Government also contemplate finding half the cost of all the inspectors and all the proceedings before the Court, because that undoubtedly will be a very large element in the cost. I dare say I am wrong, but I imagine it would be possible for the county council to assist financially private institutions, such as Sandlebridge, and that they are to be privately managed. I was contradicted by the Home Secretary, and I suppose I am wrong, and that these institutions will be State managed. They have to employ sufficient officers and other persons to assist them in the performance of their duty, and to make to the Board annual reports. I think that is a pretty heavy duty to saddle upon the local authorities, who are already complaining bitterly that we keep on passing Acts of Parliament, and leaving them to pay the piper. It is true that they are to pay half, but if it is only half, I do not think it will go very far to meet the extra expense in which the county council will be involved. The education authority works in with the new authority dealing with the mentally defective in the sense that it takes care of the children up to sixteen years of age, and weeds them out in order to send them to these homes.
The rest of the Bill deals with minor points. The only other provisions to which I object are those under which the Secretary of State has power to take over prisons in order to convert them into homes. I dislike the idea of converting a prison into a home, because I think it will lead to those homes being more prison-like in character and less educational than otherwise they might be made. There are elaborate precautions for dealing with people who escape, and those who give protection to those who escape—all undesirable provisions. Once you put bolts and bars on these homes, you must have these powers dealing with persons who escape. All those provisions come simply from one cardinal defect, namely, that you are putting bolts and bars on the homes and converting them from homes into asylums. During the French Revolution they passed laws against the emigrés. When the Bill was proposed Robespierre said "The Bill is unjust. You may pass the Bill, but I will never obey it." I think the same spirit should actuate us. This Bill, however desirable in the interest of the State, is, I think, unjust, and therefore we ought 284 not to pass it. There may be an innumerable number of cases where it is desirable that these mentally defective people should be prevented from coming out of the homes, but I think the House will agree that to run the risk of locking up people who have committed no crime should not be imposed on other people. We as Englishmen have no right to subject our fellow citizens to such a risk. It is worse than committing to a lunatic asylum to put a sane person into the company of those who are confined because they are mentally defective. It is a monstrous cruelty, and at the same time a monstrous injustice. We want to help these mental defective people by all means, and by seeing that they have the best possible chance that can be given to them. We should see that they have the opportunity of being put into the best surroundings, but do not let us do two things which I think are criminal—do not take away children from their parents against the parents' wish, and do not put bolts and bars on these homes and convert them from real homes into prisons.
§ Mr. GOLDSMITHThe discussion of the question of mental deficiency seems to be the cause of very lengthy speeches on the other side of the House. [An HON. MEMBER: "Both sides."] I know from the attitude the House took up on a previous occasion it is not likely to support the hon. Gentleman who has just addressed us. All the more because the Bill of this year is a very great improvement on the Bill which was introduced by the Home Secretary last year. While I do not wish to endorse all the complimentary remarks made to the Home Secretary by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, I wish to take this opportunity of congratulating the right hon. Gentleman on the changes which he has made in the Bill. One of the great objections to the Bill of last year was with respect to the proposal to set up a new central authority, new Commissioners for the mentally defective. The Home Secretary told us to-day that this Bill is founded, to a large extent, on the recommendations of the Royal Commission. The Royal Commission in their Report strongly recommended that one central body, a Board of Control, a sort of enlarged Lunacy Commission, should be set up, and that this Central Board should deal with mentally defective cases of all classes, whether lunatics, idiots, or simply people who are feeble-minded. A local authority was to be established, which was to have care of the mentally defective 285 in its district. It was to act through a statutory committee, but the duties and responsibilities of the Poor Law authorities and the education authorities were to cease. Under this Bill it is proposed to set up a Central Board of Control, and we are also to have a local committee to act under the county council, but I can see nothing in this Bill which affects the powers of the Poor Law authorities with respect to any defectives dealt with under the Poor Law, unless it is proposed that the subject should be dealt with by Regulations made by the Home Secretary. In London all the defectives now under the care of the Metropolitan Asylums Board will still remain under that Board, and will not be transferred to the local authority acting under the London County Council. What is still worse is the proposal that the special schools which have been established under the Act of 1899 should remain under the Board of Education. The Government are bringing in another Bill, making it compulsory on education authorities all over the country to adopt the Defective and Epileptic Children Bill—that is to say, to make it compulsory to set up special schools for mentally defective children. The Royal Commission was perfectly clear on this matter. They recommended, in the first place, not only that the Act setting up special schools should not be made compulsory, but, in the second place, they recommended that existing special schools should be transferred to the Board of Control. If the proposals of the Government are adopted, we shall have two sets of institutions dealing with the mentally defective under the age of sixteen—one set under the Board of Education and one set under the Board of Control.
§ Mr. GOLDSMITHThere will be the special schools under the Board of Education and the others under the Board of Control, which will be under the Home Secretary. These special schools were established and were intended for children who are feeble-minded. They are not intended for children who are merely backward or dull, or for children who are idiots or imbeciles. They are intended for one class of mental defect, which under this Bill is defined as feeble-mindedness, and the children in the special schools now come under paragraph (c) of Clause 1 of this Bill. They are the feeble-minded.
286 A child which is an idiot, which according to the definition here is unable to guard against common physical dangers, will be under the Board of Control. A child which cannot be taught to manage its own affairs will also be under the Board of Control, but a child which requires supervision and control for its own protection will be under the Board of Education and under the local education authority, and at the age of sixteen such child, too, is to pass away from the control of the Board of Education and is to be handed over to the Board of Control. I may also point out that under this Bill, as it stands, the parent of the child at any time can transfer his child from the education authority to a residential institution under the Board of Control. All he has to do is to get a certificate from a doctor saying that the child is defective under the Act. It seems to me utterly absurd to have two or three authorities dealing with the same subject. Mentally defectives ought to be under one central authority and under one local authority. Where special schools can be used they ought to be used merely as a sifting ground, as a place of observation for distinguishing between children who are merely backward and children who are really mentally defective. Children who are really mentally defective ought certainly to be handed over to the Board of Control, and ought to be placed in an institution. At present special schools have been established only by a certain limited number of education authorities in the country. I believe that they have only been established in our large towns. I do not believe that a single special school has been erected in country districts. Nearly all those special schools are day schools. There are something like 13,000 children in those schools, and 7,000 of them are in London special schools. I think that the House will agree that the proper place for a child who is mentally defective is a custodial home, a residential home, and not a day school, in which it would only spend perhaps thirty hours a week, while the rest of the time it would be without any control whatever. I believe that it is not only in the interest of the child that it should be placed in a residential home, but that it is also in the interest of the child's family that the family should be relieved from the continual presence of the feebleminded person in their midst. It is absolutely impossible to draw a distinction between an idiot, an imbecile, and a feeble-minded child on the lines of the definitions contained in this Bill.
287 There is one other matter. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman is not adopting the recommendation of the Royal Commission with regard to the special schools simply and solely owing to the fact that he does not wish to poach on the preserves of his right hon. colleague, the President of the Board of Education. For the same reason it is sought in this Bill to preserve the jurisdiction of the Lord Chancellor. We have the absurd proposal that some of these Commissioners are to be appointed by the Home Secretary after consulting with the Lord Chancellor, and in other cases the Commissioners are to be appointed by the Lord Chancellor after consulting with the Home Secretary. Certain reports are to be made by the Commissioners to the Home Secretary, and other reports are to be made to the Lord Chancellor. It is impossible for this Board of Control to serve two masters, and we are anxious to have a Minister in this House who will be directly responsible to it in respect of the actions of the Board of Control. It is of no use that the Lord Chancellor, who is not responsible to this House, should have power to ask the Commissioners and the Board of Control to draw up reports. The Home Secretary might come here and tell us that he was not responsible for certain reports because they had been ordered by the Lord Chancellor. Let us have one central authority responsible to one Minister in this House. One word with regard to the composition of the Board. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Newcastle that the questions which the Board will have to decide will not be of a medical nature. The Board will have to decide whether persons are mentally defective, and to which class of the mentally defective they belong. That is entirely a medical question, and it is essential that the proportion of medical men on the Board should not be decreased. Half the members of the present Lunacy Commission are medical men. Under the proposals made in this Bill the proportion of medical men will be reduced from one-half to less than one-third. I believe that is a Committee point which can be put right upstairs. The first two Clauses deal with the definition of "defectives," and the circumstances in which the defective subject is to be dealt with were discussed by the Committee upstairs. There is one part of Clause 2 which was not approved of by the Standing Committee.
288 Sub-section (1) of Clause 2 was not before the Committee upstairs. In that Sub-section it is provided that a person who is an idiot or imbecile, or who is feeble-minded, and who is under the age of twenty-one, may be sent to an institution without any order, without any judicial inquiry, and simply and solely by his parent or guardian, and with one medical certificate—that is to say, the parent or guardian may send his son to an institution if he has a doctor to testify that the son is not capable of managing his own affairs. I believe there are a large number of persons in this country who are incapable of managing their own affairs. Although we want drastic powers, those drastic powers ought to be accompanied by adequate safeguards. There are no safeguards contained in this particular Clause, and I do hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree to some Amendment when this Clause is discussed in Committee. There is the question of finance. I think the House will agree that provision for the mental defectives is a national and not a local charge. Under the Bill, as it stands, you are going to put more than half the cost on the local authorities. The right hon. Gentleman told us, I think, in answer to a question to-day, that half the cost borne by the State included the administration expenses. I should like to know whether that cost of administration will include the salaries of medical officers and inspectors who will have to be appointed under the Bill, and also whether the cost of making the necessary preliminary inquiry, finding out how many defectives there are in each particular area, will be included in that cost of administration—that would make a very large difference. The right hon. Gentleman, under this Bill, is only providing £150,000. That is not a very large, and I believe it is not by any means an adequate, sum. We have got the right to know from him how that sum of £150,000 is going to be distributed and divided amongst the various local authorities. Is each local authority going to be told in advance what its share is going to be, because the local authority is not to do any work under this Bill at all unless the Government pays half the cost. Is this sum to be divided amongst those authorities before they undertake any work under the Bill, or are they going to do the work first and then see what they can get out out of the National Exchequer. If it is going to be distributed at the start a very small sum indeed will 289 go to each local authority, and practically nothing, I am afraid, will be done. Anyhow, we ought to be assured by the right hon. Gentleman that this sum will be increased during the next few years. According to the right hon. Gentleman only 20,000 feeble-minded persons can be dealt with under this Bill, but there are 70,000 feeble-minded persons who ought to be dealt with. According to the calculations of the Association of Municipal Corporations that sum of £150,000, in addition to the money spent out of the rates, will not be anything like sufficient to deal with the 20,000 persons, the figure given by the right hon. Gentleman. I do not think it is the intention of many Members, or of any Member on this side, to vote against the Second Reading of this Bill, but we hope that upstairs we shall have full opportunity to discuss the various details of the Bill, with many of which we are unable to agree. This Bill is no doubt a great improvement on the Bill of last year, but a great many on this side certainly do not consider it by any means a perfect Bill.
§ Mr. ATHERLEY-JONESI regret the last sentence that fell from the lips of the hon. Gentleman when he said that it was not the intention of hon. Members opposite to oppose this Bill. I, for what it is worth, intend to give my most unequivocal opposition to this Bill. This is extraordinarily exceptional legislation. There is no such legislation in any other civilised country. It has been sedulously refused by every State in the United States of America. It stands as an absolutely isolated exception in legislation. I hope before I sit down to give hon. Members on both sides cogent and sufficient reasons why they should not vote in favour of the Bill. I believe that it will be carried in this House, but I hope that the Press, which is now to a large extent in this House the guardian of the public liberties, will, at any rate, take such action in regard to this Bill as will prevent its being passed when it goes to another place. My objections are objections, not of detail, but of principle. I was a Member of this House when the Lunacy Act of 1890 was passed. The object of that measure was to prevent and terminate undoubted abuses, which, in my judgment this Bill will renew. Prior to the Act of 1890 there were numerous cases in which persons were oppressively imprisoned, and it was one of the most 290 beneficent objects of that measure to prevent the continuance of that evil. Three categories of persons are dealt with under the present law—lunatics, idiots, and imbeciles. There is ample provision under the existing law for dealing with those categories. The present Bill does not affect to touch them: it introduces a new category called the feeble-minded. I want, first, to call the attention of the House to the definition of a feeble-minded person. An imbecile, according to the statutory definition and the definition of the judiciary, is a person incapable of managing his affairs. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Goldsmith) did not quite appreciate what the definition of a feeble-minded person is under this Bill. It is a person who is capable of managing his affairs, not a person who is incapable, but who is not supposed to be capable of effectively managing his affairs; that is to say, according to the evidence given and according to the Report of the Commission, a person who under favourable circumstances is capable of managing his affairs. That is the person who may be sent into captivity for the rest of his life. The second person—I really do not understand the definition; the Bill has been drafted in the loosest possible manner—is a person who is a moral imbecile—whatever that may be; who labours under a permanent defect—what the permanent defect is the draftsman does not condescend to indicate; and who is of vicious propensities. We know that that is directed against the person, usually a young person, of vicious propensities, who the medical officer of the prison, or some other person in authority, says will never get out of habits of crime. I have known many cases where persons so reported have got out habits of crime, and become competent and decent citizens. Those are the two classes—let hon. Members remember—who under this Bill may be sent into captivity for life. There is a third class: an educational authority may send a dull child or one who cannot learn his lessons into captivity for life upon their petition to the central authorities to make the required order. Is the House prepared, are hon. Members below the Gangway prepared, to deal so with the liberties of individual citizens? I should be very much surprised if they are. How are they to be placed into captivity? I think the hon. Member opposite pointed out that the parent or guardian—and apparently the guardian may be anybody who is interested in the welfare of the 291 child, or pretends to be—may send any lad of eighteen to twenty-one on the certificate of two medical practitioners—[An HON. MEMBER: "One."]—and without any judicial inquiry—Is it one medical practitioner? So much the worse; I thought it was two—on merely making that report to the central authority. Under the Act of 1890—I am speaking from memory—which we discussed at great length and not in this superficial manner—which on Second Reading and in Committee we discussed long and seriously—we provided that before a person could be committed to an asylum as a lunatic there had to be a judicial inquiry, that there had to be notice of it given to the person implicated, that he had to be represented by counsel or by friends, that the exact particulars had to be known as to why the man was to be regarded as a lunatic, and that the full facilities for a properly constituted tribunal should be afforded the person to controvert the charge.
§ Mr. ATHERLEY-JONESI beg respectfully to state that it is not so. If the hon. Member will look at the first three Sections of the Lunacy Act of 1890—[An HON. MEMBER: "The Idiots Act?"]—he will find there that there has to be a judicial inquiry before the person can be sent to a lunatic asylum. Under this Statute there is no provision of that sort. All that takes place is that a parent or guardian gets a certificate from two medical men and on that a boy of twenty-one or under is committed to an institution, and the central authority merely gets a report. Anything more monstrous than this interference with public liberty I cannot conceive. Let us look at the next category, the case of persons not liable to be dealt with by parents or guardians, but who may be dealt with by other persons. There are three provisions with regard to this. One is that there should be an order of the judicial authority. Who? I speak with great respect—as I ought to do, and rightly—of the police magistrates of the Metropolis or the justices of the peace throughout the country.
§ Mr. LESLIE SCOTTWill the hon. Gentleman allow me to correct what is an obvious misapprehension, which ought not to go out as a public statement? Under the Idiots Act of 1886 any parent or guar- 292 dian under a certificate of one medical practitioner may send a child into a home under the Act.
§ Mr. ATHERLEY-JONESThat is so in regard to that Act, but I was dealing with another Department. It is not the parent or guardian here; it may be an adult or a child. The judicial authority may be the police magistrate. I speak with the greatest respect for police magistrates, but that is not the kind of tribunal which should take away permanently the liberty of the subject. It is, or might be, a jury, whose business it is to inquire into the sanity of a person. Here a police magistrate or a County Court judge may send a person to captivity for life. On what? On petition! That petition may be presented by anybody—by a friend, that is to say a friend of a sort. Anybody who wishes to put somebody away for life may draw up a petition and present it. There is the safeguard and the certificate of two medical men. I speak with the greatest respect of the medical profession to which we owe so much. But there again, do not we know this perfectly well that the very essence of the Act of 1890 was because there had been abuse by medical men. I remember how, in the discussions in this House, it was pointed out that people had been spirited away simply through getting some practitioners, of evil reputation probably, to give certificates. You are re-enacting that by this Bill; you are enabling two medical men, at the instance of a friend, to sign a medical certificate to say that a person is feeble-minded, capable of managing affairs, but feeble-minded. And then upon the judicial authority of a police magistrate, who is over-burdened with work, this person is rushed before him, and without an opportunity being afforded to this unfortunate person to answer the complaint made against him, he is spirited away to an institution where he has to remain, or may remain, for the rest of his life. What is the judicial inquiry? I ask hon. Members to take note of this. I have shown the machinery by which this is brought about, and I ask them will they vote for this measure? I am perfectly certain if they do they will hear more about it. The judicial authority may hold this inquiry in secret if it so pleases. No one is to be present except who? The feeble-minded person and two persons selected by him. It is a somewhat difficult task for a person against whom this charge is made—not perhaps being a person of the strongest mind—in 293 the difficult circumstances in which he is placed to make such a selection. It is to be heard in private or it may be heard in private before a police magistrate, who may make an order to send this person away for the rest of his life. I do not think that is congenial to the spirit of the legislation we have been pursuing in this matter.
§ Mr. McKENNAYes.
§ Mr. ATHERLEY-JONESDoes the right hon. Gentleman suggest that my statement is not accurate?
§ Mr. McKENNACertainly.
§ Mr. ATHERLEY-JONESIt is wholly accurate, and I should like to hear the right hon. Gentleman's reply. It is within the power of two magistrates, or one magistrate in London, when a person is charged with larceny, upon a medical man certifying that he is feeble-minded, to send that person away for the rest of his life. Let us see whether I am accurate in stating that this man is liable to be confined for the rest of his life. At the termination of the first year of confinement it cannot continue unless a report is made. Supposing a report is made that the person is still feeble-minded, he has to remain for another five years. At the end of another five years another report has to be made, and if he is still feebleminded he has to remain for another five years. Who is the person to make that report? Is it to be made after judicial inquiry, such as exists under the Lunacy Acts? Is it the Commissioner sent to inquire? No. It is a report sent to the central authority by the person who is the proprietor of the establishment in which the person is detained. Anything more terrible I cannot conceive.
§ Mr. McKENNAdissented.
§ Mr. ATHERLEY-JONESThe right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but if he makes himself acquainted with the contents of his own measure, he will see that I am quite accurate.
§ Mr. McKENNAThe hon. and learned Member insinuated that the proprietor might have a personal interest in keeping a person under detention. Under this Bill there are no proprietors in the institutions in question, because they are all public.
§ Mr. ATHERLEY-JONESThat is a very narrow distinction. If I understand this measure correctly, a feeble-minded person 294 may be put in charge of an individual. I do not see any special provision differing in respect of the individual, but I do not think it makes much difference. I think a person who has the custody of a feeble-minded person is not a person upon whose report alone they should act. I do not propose to go into details. This Bill is full of gross absurdities and contradictions. It is enough for me to say that I oppose this measure on principle. I do not mean to say that there are not feebleminded persons whom it is to the interest of the State to detain. I agree that there are a great many persons with vicious propensities whom it is desirable to isolate in this way, but they should be dealt with by a judicial authority acting upon evidence of the highest authority, and not in a way which will lead to the abuses to which I have referred. In reading the evidence there is nothing which has touched me more than those passages which point to the solicitude which poor people feel for the feeble-minded members of their family and how they refuse to allow them to be torn away from the protection of their family. In that respect this Bill is ruthless. I have spoken strongly because I feel strongly, and I feel a sense of relief that there is another tribunal before which this Bill will go. Although it may be carried here, elsewhere it may be rejected, or, at any rate, amended in such a way that it will not infringe in so violent a manner the liberty of the subject as it does now. Perhaps the disappearance of the picturesque figure which Dickens immortalised in "Barnaby Rudge," the village idiot, may draw from someone some lingering regret, but I am content that these people should be properly cared for in some humane institution. I object, however, to the right hon. Gentleman in a spirit of bureaucracy coming to this House and saying, "We will appoint officials who will, at the instigation perhaps of some interested individual put away for a period which may be coincident with their natural life every person who may be regarded by a justice on the evidence of two medical practitioners, who may be corrupted, as mentally defective. I would refer the hon. Member for St. Pancras to the evidence given by medical men of distinction that these people who are feebleminded should be put away, not for a mere temporary period, but for all time. With that spirit I have no sympathy, and therefore I intend to give this Bill my most determined opposition.
Mr. MONTAGUE BARLOWLike many on this side of the House, I am a supporter of this Bill in principle, though a critic of its details. I could not help being interested and rather amused at the speech to which we have just listened. I was amused for two reasons. The hon. Member who, I suppose would call himself for most purposes a Radical, relies apparently upon an institution in another place for effecting his purpose with regard to this Bill. Secondly, he appealed to the sacred principle of liberty, and in that name he proposes to perpetuate the most horrible system of slavery that I think exists in any country. By your present system you are definitely encouraging the horrible possibility of mental infirmity and imbecility being carried from one generation to the next. I am willing to concede to hon. Members opposite the most righteous anxiety for the liberty of the existing subject, but they entirely forget the liberty of the next generation. It is a difficult subject to deal with, but the topic is a perfectly familiar one. You are by your present educational method, allowing feeble-minded girls to acquire a certain amount of education and capacity to go into the world thereby enabling, and indeed encouraging, them to become themselves mothers of mentally defective children. How you can claim for that process the protection of the sacred name of liberty passes my comprehension altogether. We have had several horrible instances given; one came across my personal experience. Parents in a poor class of life had one daughter who was mentally defective, but who suffered from the fatal gift of beauty. So anxious were the parents for her welfare that they were determined she should not leave the house because they feared fatal consequences. They were not in a position to secure nurses in order to prevent her from going away, and the result was that they deliberately chained their daughter up in order to prevent the worst happening. It is all very well for hon. Members to talk about the liberty of the present generation. What I plead for is the liberty of the next generation. I have a word or two to say in criticism of the Bill from the point of view of inspection by local authorities. The Bill itself is a good measure, but it is no good for Parliament to propose it if it is left to the local authority to dispose of it, and if you do not supply them with sufficient funds to administer it. We do 296 not want in regard to this Bill to repeat the mistakes which were made with regard to education. If you pass this Bill, and expect it to work effectively, you can only secure that by supplying the local authorities with adequate funds. As vice-president of the Association of Municipal Corporations, perhaps I may be allowed to quote a few figures which in my view will prove this Bill if it passes in its present form is hopelessly unworkable from the point of view of finance. The question of finance rises in two forms—first, there is the current expenditure for running the administration of the Bill, and, secondly, there is the question of capital expenditure. With regard to current expenditure there are three items—supervision, which is a general matter, accommodation and guardianship under guardianship orders, and finally the employment of officers to make returns. The duty of employing officers for this purpose is one which under this Bill falls entirely on the local authority. It is true that with regard to accommodation and guardianship what is proposed in the Bill is that the local authority—it is put into curiously guarded language—shall be under no obligation to incur expenditure unless an equivalent amount is provided by Parliament. What is to happen supposing the inhabitants of any locality are very much wrought up, as I know many are wrought up, and determined that their local authority shall—
§ It being Eleven o'clock, the Debate stood adjourned. Debate to be resumed Tomorrow (Thursday).
§ The remaining Orders of the Day were read and postponed.