THIRD READING. (Hansard, 11 July 1862)

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL
, in moving the third reading of this Bill, said, that a notice of Amendment given by a noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Montrose) rendered it necessary to give a description of this Bill. By the present law the Lunacy Board of Scotland, appointed five years ago, would expire in the course of a few weeks. The Board consisted of two medical paid Commissioners, two legal members (who unfortunately were not paid), and of a chairman; and considerable powers—though as he should proceed to show hardly sufficient powers—were conferred upon that Board, analogous to those conferred on the Board of Lunacy in England. At the time the Act was passed it was thought doubtful whether it would be necessary to continue the Board, and it was therefore provided that at the expiration of five years the Board should cease to exist, but the two medical gentlemen were to be continued permanently, no longer as members of the Board, but as Inspectors General of Scotland, communicating with the Home Se- 219 cretary. The powers of the Board with regard to the inspection of asylums were continued to the Inspectors; but the larger powers of the Board, as to the inspection of asylums, was no longer to remain in their hands but in the hands of the Secretary of State. The House might ask, why come to Parliament at the end of five years to continue those powers which Parliament had intended should expire? Various difficulties had been found in the wording of the Act, and principally one which it was intended that this Bill should remedy. It was intended by Parliament that the Board should have very large compulsory powers with respect to the erection of asylums, and nothing could be more distinct or emphatic from the clause of the existing law, which provided for the case of counties or boroughs being recalcitrant or obstinate in providing these asylums, than that it was the intention of the Legislature that the Board should have power to enforce the erection. Parliament, however, did not provide the necessary machinery for enforcing their requisition, and this was one reason why it was thought that increased powers should be given to the Board, and that its existence should be prolonged for a short period. There was, however, one other point. It was obvious that no Lunacy Board could be established without running counter to many local interests, and hence it had called forth great opposition. It had been one duty of the Board to report as to pauper lunatics; and though he believed that the Board had fairly performed their duty upon this subject, a considerable feeling of objection had been raised against them, for it was said that the medical Commissioners acted as Inspectors, and they reported to themselves as the Board. It was further objected that in consequence of there being no payment provided for the legal members the Board substantially consisted of the two medical men, so that the Inspectors reported simply to them. It was, however, but just to the legal members to state, that when any legal point arose, those gentlemen had not shown any remissness. He might observe that this state of things also existed in England, where some of the Board were Inspectors likewise. A Bill had been brought in early this Session by the Lord Advocate; and he must say that the composition of the new Board which the learned Lord proposed was not entirely satisfactory. It had been much objected to, and the 220 Lord Advocate had therefore announced that he would abandon his first measure, and bring in simply a continuance Bill, with the sole addition of clauses with regard to the erection of asylums. That was the state of the case at the present time; and it was not till this Bill had reached its last stage that the noble Duke opposite had proposed a clause which would sweep away the medical inspection altogether. He saw no objection to the second Amendment, which he now understood was to be proposed by the noble Duke (the Duke of Montrose) as to the continuance of the Board, though he must observe that the Amendment, if carried, would be in violation of the privileges of the House of Commons, and therefore there was no chance of it being agreed to.

THE DUKE OF MONTROSE
intimated, that he should propose his original and not his second Amendment.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL
That was to the effect that not only the Board, but the office of Inspectors General should cease at the end of two years; and in fact, that the whole system of lunacy in Scotland should at that period come to an end. He was of opinion, that if their Lordships agreed to such an Amendment, it would be injurious to the public interests, and also a breach of public faith; for one of the Inspectors General (Dr. Brown) had given up a more lucrative situation which he held at the head of one of the largest asylums in Scotland, and he had done so on the distinct understanding that his appointment should be a permanent one. If the noble Duke simply wished to have the subject brought forward again at the end of two years, his object would be secured without his Amendment being agreed to, for there was no doubt that they must before long appoint deputy inspectors.

THE DUKE OF MONTROSE
said, his Amendment was in form that the 22nd and 23rd clauses of the first recited Act should be repealed. It was felt to be a monstrous thing that the whole of the lunacy affairs of Scotland should be left to two medical men, without any appeal except to the Secretary of State, and it was therefore wished that there should be some arrangement which would render it necessary that this matter should be reconsidered within a short time. His second Amendment, that 221 the Board should continue until Parliament otherwise determined, would have virtually secured this; but as that Amendment would be in breach of the privileges of the other House, he would propose his other Amendment in lieu of it.

§ LORD KINNAIRD
said, that if these two clauses continued in force, the two Inspectors would, at the end of two years, have all the power possessed by the Board.

§ THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY
said, what he feared was lest anything should occur which would throw them back on the parochial boards. Nothing could be more horrible, and he should oppose anything which would have a tendency directly or indirectly to bring about that result. They must have a body altogether independent. The subject must again come under the revision of Parliament, which was the object of the noble Duke who moved the Amendment; but inasmuch as the Bill as it stood would also have that effect, he hoped the noble Duke would withdraw his Amendment.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL
said, the Lord Advocate had given him the most positive assurance that he had never given it to be understood that he would introduce a clause which would render the appointments of the Inspectors merely temporary.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL
said, he was inclined to think that with that Amendment it would be better that the Bill should not be passed into law. But as it would come again under the consideration of the House of Commons, he would not then oppose its passing.

§ THE EARL OF DERBY
said, the noble Duke's argument might be very conclusive, but it was quite incomprehensible. The noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury), who had paid great attention to these matters, had expressed his belief that a revision of the present system would become necessary before two years were passed, in consequence of the abuses of the system. The noble Duke himself (the Duke of Argyll) had also acknowledged, that as the measure contained no provision for the continuance of the deputy inspectors, its revision would be inevitable in a couple of years.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL
believed that the Amendment would bring to a termination not only the Bill, but the system of inspection, which would be a most unsatisfactory result.

THE DUKE OF MONTROSE
hoped th noble Duke would reconsider his opinion, and proceed with the Bill.

CONTENTS.
Ailsa, M.	Romney, E.
Bath, M.	Rosslyn, E.
Normanby, M.
	Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.)
Airlie, E.
Amherst, E.	Dungannon, V.
Bantry, E.	Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)
Beauchamp, E.
Carnarvon, E.	Strathallan, V.
Cathcart, E.
Derby, E.	Oxford, Bp.
Desart, E.
Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)	Bagot, L.
	Chelmsford, L.
Mayo, E.	Churston, L.
Nelson, E.

Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)	Lilford, L.
	Polwarth, L.
Colchester, L.	Raglan, L.
Colville of Culross, L. [Teller.]	Redesdale, L.
	Rossie, L. (L. Kinnaird.) [Teller.]
Congleton, L.
Denman, L.	Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)
Grinstead, L. (E. Enniskillen.)
	Sondes, L.
Kingsdown, L.	Wynford, L.
Leconfield, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.
Westbury, L. (L. Chancellor.)	Crewe, L.
	Dunfermline, L.
Newcastle, D.	Fortescue, L. (E. Fortescue.)
Somerset, D.	Harris, L.
Ailsbury, M.	Lyttelton, L.
Clarendon, E.	Lyveden, L.
De Grey, E.	Mostyn, L.
Granville, E.	Overstone, L.
Grey, E.	Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.) [Teller.]
Minto, E.	Saye and Sele, L.
Saint Germans, E.	Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)
Shaftesbury, E.
Everaley, V.	Stanley of Alderley, L.
Leinster, V. (D. Leinster.)	Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)
Sydney, V. [Teller.]	Talbot de Malahide, L.
	Taunton, L.
London, Bp.	Wodehouse, L.