SECOND READING. (Hansard, 2 April 1867)

THE EARL OF BELMORE
, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that the Bill had been sent up to their Lordships by the House of Commons. As the law at present stood it was not in the power of the Secretary of State to order the discharge of any criminal lunatic, who being detained in custody during Her Majesty's pleasure, or who after conviction has been transferred to a lunatic asylum by order of the Secretary of State, or has after conviction been shown to be unfit for penal discipline, otherwise than absolutely. This Bill proposed to give to the Secretary of State power to discharge any such criminal lunatic on conditions binding on the person discharged, or on such other persons as the Secretary may think expedient. The Bill also enabled the Secretary of State to order the removal of any criminal lunatic to a county asylum on the expiration of his sentence.

§ THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY
said, that he approved generally of the measure; but the Bill contained one clause so important that it partook of the nature of a principle, and might therefore fairly be discussed upon the second reading. The 5th clause provided that it should be lawful for the Secretary of State to discharge absolutely or conditionally any criminal lunatic. No doubt the Secretary of State had at present the absolute power of discharging a criminal lunatic. But he had not the power of discharging him conditionally. The conditions would probably be that the friends and relatives of such lunatic should undertake the charge of him. Now he (the Earl of Shaftesbury) was anxious to draw the attention of their Lordships to this clause, with a view of impressing upon the Secretary of State the necessity of great caution in the exercise of such powers; because the fact that the lunatic would be liberated, and would appear to be restored to society, would be known, while the conditions under which he was released would not be known. Now, if it should so happen that a dangerous lunatic were restored to society, it might 976 have a pernicious effect on the public mind. We were living in stirring and peculiar times, and it was impossible to shut our eyes to the fact that the educated and commercial classes were much more subject to nervous excitement and habits of mind and body that were likely to bring on desultory and dangerous actions than at any former period of our history. It should also be remembered that there was a manifest tendency in Courts of Justice to admit readily the plea of insanity, however grave the offence that was charged might be. Counsel were fond of pleading insanity; medical men were easily found to maintain that plea; and juries, who felt themselves perplexed by the law and the facts of the case, were only too glad to get rid of the matter by giving a verdict that the crime was committed under the aberrations of insanity. The result was that in many instances the merest trifles of eccentricity committed at any former period of life were brought to bear at the trial, and were deemed sufficient to exonerate the criminal from the penalties of the law. He was then confined as a criminal lunatic during Her Majesty's pleasure; and in a short time, when he was either actually or apparently recovered, and under the advice of medical men, was restored to society. The consequences were very serious. The Commissioners of Lunacy were generally consulted in these cases, and they invariably confined themselves to the testimony of the medical man, to the effect that, so far as he could judge, the patient was not likely to do harm to himself or injury to others. The Commissioners carefully abstained, and he thought on the best ground, from ever advising absolutely that a patient who had committed a grave crime should be restored to society. They had, however, made an exception in the case of crimes committed under puerperal mania, but only in cases where the woman was past child bearing. It was a very serious question whether criminal lunatics who had committed dreadful crimes should ever be restored to society; and it was very doubtful whether a patient who had manifested a suicidal or homicidal tendency could be safely restored to society. Recollecting the disturbing influences of society upon a patient who was restored to it, they could never be sure that he might not have a sudden access of passion or violence which might lead to a repetition of the act for which he was originally tried. There 977 were a great number of those who were called lunatics who had full powers of calculating the probable consequences of any act they might contemplate, and who were open to deterrent influences of various kinds. If these deterrent influences were removed from them, they might easily be induced by a sense of impunity to commit acts which they might otherwise not have thought of doing. In proof of this, he might mention that on the last occasion upon which he visited Bethlehem Hospital he put this very question to the eminent medical man who presided over that establishment. Dr. Helps told him that perhaps twenty men then present in the room had, in effect, said to him, "If we get out we will take your life, and no harm can happen to us, because we have been examined and declared to be lunatics, and the utmost possible punishment we can incur is re-confinement here." Time was when these deterrent influences to which he was referring were stronger than they were now. He was far from complaining of the altered state of things at Bethlehem; but there was no doubt that formerly the mere mention of Bethlehem Hospital and its horrors were sufficient to set the imagination of lunatics to work; they magnified the horrors of the place, and numbers of them were thereby deterred from the commission of acts which would result in their confinement there. But now the question of simulation had to be considered. He believed that in many cases simulated madness had preceded the commission of a crime in order that the consequences might be escaped; beyond doubt many more cases of simulated madness occurred after the commission of a crime with a similar object; and as hospitals for lunatics were improved and made more comfortable, criminals would simulate madness in the hope that they would exchange the hardships of gaol life for a home in one of the most happy, healthy, and beautiful spots on the face of the earth. He could conceive of nothing more enjoyable to a man of few purposes than life at Broadmoor, where the inmates had at their command spacious assembly-rooms for lectures and entertainments, billiard-rooms, pleasure-gardens, and admirable diet, and kind superintendence. All that was, of course, perfectly right when intended for persons who were suffering by the visitation of Providence; but it did entail upon the Secretary of State the utmost possible caution. He would not say that lunatics never should be 978 liberated; but cases of that kind ought to be of exceedingly rare occurrence. Although all desired to see those afflicted with lunacy restored to perfect health, the security of society at large was even more important, and he had said what he had upon the subject in order to impress upon their Lordships the imperative necessity which existed for the greatest caution in carrying out the provisions of the Bill.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
asked, what reasons had weighed with the framers of the Bill when they inserted Clause 3, making the Act inapplicable to Ireland, and why some such Act was not thought necessary for Ireland?—because the asylum at Dundrum was very similar to that of Broadmoor? He noticed, also, that Clause 5 directed that any person who had been acquitted on the ground of insanity, and had thereon been ordered to be detained during Her Majesty's pleasure, might be dealt with as a person whom the Secretary of State was empowered to discharge either absolutely or conditionally: was not this encroaching upon the prerogative of the Crown? Lunatics acquitted of a crime on the ground of insanity, and lunatics who had escaped trial on the same ground, were now confined during Her Majesty's pleasure, and could be liberated by Her Majesty on the advice of Her Ministers.

THE EARL OF BELMORE
said, that he was unable at the moment to give a positive answer to the first question put by the noble Earl; but his impression was that the Bill dealt with many Acts which did not extend to Ireland, and that it was thought prudent to limit the scope of this also. With regard to the second question, he did not think the 5th clause would be found to encroach on the prerogative of the Crown.

§ LORD WESTBURY
was understood to say that the prerogative of the Crown could not be taken away without express words to that effect; no such express words were in the clause, but it appeared to invite the Queen to confer upon a Secretary of State powers now exclusively possessed by the Crown.