Lords Sitting of 5 May 1884

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments and Office of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, appointed and nominated.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Marriages Legalisation * (76).
Committee—Report —Marriages Legalisation (Wood Green Congregational Church) * (66).

OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE PARLIAMENTS AND OFFICE OF THE GENTLEMAN USHER OF THE BLACK ROD.

  APPOINTMENT AND NOMINATION OF SELECT COMMITTEE.
  Select Committee appointed: The Lords following were named of the Committee:

  Ld. Chancellor.

  E. Granville.

  Ld. President.

  E. Kimberley.

  D. Richmond.

  E. Redesdale.

  D. Saint Albans.

  E. Lathom.

  D. Bedford.

  V. Hawarden.

  M. Lansdowne.

  V. Hardinge.

  M. Salisbury.

  V. Eversley.

  M. Bath.

  Ld. Chamberlain.

  Ld. Steward.

  L. Colville of Culross.

  E. Devon.

  L. Monson.

  E. Tankerville.

  L. Colchester.

  E. Carnarvon.

  L. Ker.

  E. Belmore.

  L. Aveland.

  E. Bradford.

  THE EARL OF LONGFORDsuggested that a portion of the "Royal Gallery" should be furnished as a writing room. The existing writing room adjoining the House was a mere passage. Interviews with Members of the House of Commons, or other persons on Public Business, must now be held in the corners of the Lobbies or Corridors. He hoped this Committee would take care that a convenient room should be found and properly furnished.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he thought there was reason to complain of the insufficiency of accommodation, especially on crowded nights. It was clear that little or no use was now made of the adjoining Gallery; and he thought it was a subject worthy of the attention of the Committee of the Black Rod.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)said, that there
  1268
  was room in the Library, which was large enough for anyone, which could be used for the purposes mentioned.
  THE EARL OF LONGFORD, in renewing his complaint, said, that the Library was too distant; a more convenient room was required.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, that, as the subject of their wants was under discussion, he wished to call attention to the fact that there was a conspicuous absence of a Smoking Room in connection with the House. When the House was in a state of political excitement after the dinner hour, there was a sensible wandering of unattached Peers about the passages, asking where they could find a place to smoke. He did not know the question was coming up, or he would have prepared himself with statistics of those Members of the House who were, and were not, addicted to the fragrant vice. But whether Members of their Lordships' House were, or were not, addicted to that vice, they must feel it was most undesirable and undignified to be relegated to the hard benches of some stray Committee Room. He thought it would add much to the comfort and convenience of noble Lords if a Smoking Room could be provided, especially on nights when there were important debates.

  EGYPT (EVENTS IN THE SOUDAN)— GENERAL GORDON.—QUESTION.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I want to ask the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a Question which is always of great interest to many persons, and of which I have given the noble Earl private Notice; I wish to know, whether any intelligence has reached the Government from General Gordon within the last few hours?
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I regret to say I must give an answer to the noble Marquess's Question in the negative.

  LUNACY LAWS.—RESOLUTION.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWN, in rising to call attention to the observations made by Mr. Baron Huddleston in the case of "Weldon v. Winslow," and to move—

  1269
  "That in the opinion of this House the existing state of the Lunacy Laws is eminently unsatisfactory, and constitutes a serious danger to the liberty of the subject,"
  said, he would call their Lordships' attention to a summary of the facts of this ease published in The Times. He would abstain from commenting on the merits of a case which was still suit judice; but he might be permitted to quote the opinions of Judges on the present condition of our Lunacy Laws. The learned Judge he had referred to expressed his astonishment that a person could be confined in an asylum by anybody on the statement of anybody, provided certain formalities were gone through, and he also observed that it was positively shocking that such a state of things should exist. With regard to the matter itself, the Lunacy Laws of the country consisted chiefly of the Statutes 8 & 9 Vict.; c. 100, and 16 & 17 Vict., c. 96; and it was those Statutes which prescribed the manner in which a person might be committed to an asylum. Lunatics were in the eye of the law divided into two classes—paupers and non-paupers. The former class did not merely include paupers in the strict sense of the term; but a constable, or relieving officer, or overseer of the poor might arrest anyone found wandering abroad, and bring him before the Justice of the Peace, and on the certificate of one medical man, who might be entirely ignorant in such matters, and the warrant of Justices, for whose competence also there was no guarantee, such a person might be incarcerated for life. Thus any one of their Lordships might be confined for life in that manner as a pauper lunatic. This was a great hardship. But, if the lunatic was found to possess means, he was transferred to a licensed house. In the case of a non-pauper the certificate of two medical men was required. There were in this country 68,000 pauper lunatics, and 7,000 non-pauper lunatics. The state of the law on this subject was, indeed, positively startling. Any person who could obtain certificates from any two out of the 20,000 medical practitioners on the register could consign any other person to incarceration in an asylum, an hospital, or a licensed house, or to an unlicensed house, where not more than one person was taken; while no private person could obtain the release of such incarcerated individual
  1270
  without the consent either of the person who brought the incarceration about, or of the Lunacy Commissioners. Moreover, it was impossible, unless after considerable difficulty had been overcome, to see the incarcerated persons, and no criminal prosecution could be instituted for breach of the Lunacy Laws except by the Commissioners in Lunacy. All that was necessary to procure the detention of any person as a pauper lunatic was the certificate of one medical man, who might have no knowledge whatever of the patient regarding whom he gave the certificate, beyond seeing him for a few minutes be for signing the certificate, and from his decision there was practically no appeal. Therefore, with regard to the 7,000 non-pauper lunatics, it was absolutely essential that there should be two medical certificates. Cases of the grossest cruelties being perpetrated upon unhappy patients might, and often did, occur, without the slightest possibility of their being heard of by the outside world; and even when they were known the police could not interfere, because the order of the Commissioners was a sufficient warrant for everything that was done in the matter. With respect to those immured in private asylums, kept simply for profit, the whole system had been described by the noble Earl below him (the Earl of Shaftesbury) as utterly abominable and indefensible. The safeguards against wrong-doing were insufficient, and the time had come when that "abominable and indefensible" state of things should no longer be permitted, and it certainly was one which ought not to exist in this age and country. There were 7,000 of these houses, of which 1,394 were for the reception of pauper lunatics. The owners were all under the strongest inducement both to obtain and retain patients. The only safeguards were those provided by the Commissioners in Lunacy, of whom there were 11; six being paid, and five unpaid. Practically, the former did most of the work of the Commissioners. He trusted their Lordships would say that the time had come when an end would be put to the present intolerable state of things, for no one could dispute the fact that it should no longer be permitted to continue; and that in procuring its abrogation a most damning blot would be removed from the Statute Book. He would conclude by moving

  1271
  the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
  Moved to resolve, "That in the opinion of this House the existing state of the lunacy laws is eminently unsatisfactory, and constitutes a serious danger to the liberty of the subject."—(The Earl of Milltown.)
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, their Lordships would at once perceive that his reply must be somewhat prolonged, so many were the details and charges made by the noble Earl who had just sat down (the Earl of Milltown). Had he (the Earl of Shaftesbury) not been on the Commission in Lunacy for more than 50 years, first as Acting Chairman, and since 1845 as Permanent Chairman, he would not have interposed; but he thought it necessary, and almost a point of duty, to explain the state of things and calm the public mind. The special case of Mrs. Weldon could not be then discussed, as the matter was still sub judice. The lady had moved for, and had obtained, a new trial; and nothing at present could be said on the question. He wished, however, to state that the affair had never come before the Commissioners—their jurisdiction did not begin until a patient had been lodged within the walls of some licensed house. Neither did he know anything of the case, except what he had gathered from the newspapers; but it certainly had struck him that, if the evidence had been no stronger on the certificate, had one been sent to their office, than that which appeared only in general rumour, he, at least, should have been disposed to set the lady at liberty. But the obiter dictum of Baron Huddleston might come under observation. It was as follows, and taken from The Standard, 19th March, 1884:—
  "Now, I say distinctly, I wish I could treat this case apart from all technicality; but I must express my astonishment that such a state of things can exist, that an order can be made by anybody on the statement of anybody, and that two gentlemen, if they have only obtained a diploma, provided they examine a patient separately, and are not related to keepers of a lunatic asylum, and that on this form being gone through, any person can be committed to a lunatic asylum. It is somewhat startling—it is positively shocking—that if a pauper, or, as Mrs. Weldon put it, a crossing-sweeper, should sign an order, and another crossing-sweeper should make a statement, and that then two medical men, who had never had a day's practice in their lives, should for a small sum of money grant their certificates, a person may be
  1272
  lodged in a private lunatic asylum, and that this order and the statement, and these certificates, are a perfect answer to any action."
  Now, he was certain that, if the learned Baron had known the law, or had read the Report of the Committee of the House of Commons printed in 1878, he would never have made such an observation. First, he spoke, after a very invidious fashion, of any two gentlemen who had obtained a diploma. His Lordship should have remembered that, by the amending Lunacy Act of 1862, the qualifications of those who were empowered to grant certificates were very stringent. It said that the term physician, surgeon, or apothecary, wherever used in the Lunacy Acts, should mean a person registered under the Medical Act of 1858; a person, therefore, of adequate professional fitness. He added, equally invidiously, that they might never have had a day's practice—possibly, though not probably—and, indeed, were practice in lunacy required as a qualification, we should not find one in 10,000 of the Medical Profession at present masters in the art. He closed by an assertion that these certificates were a perfect answer to any action. Where had the learned Baron found this law? Had lie never heard of the case tried in the Courts of "Hall v. Semple," in which Mr. Hall, a liberated patient, prosecuted Dr. Semple for negligence in framing the certificate, and obtained damages to the amount of £150? There was a similar power against the person who signed an order of admission. Three years ago, the case of "Noel v. Williams" had been tried in Court. Mr. Noel, a discharged patient, sued his brother-in-law, Mr. Williams, who had signed the order; and though Mr. Williams obtained a verdict on every point, he had to bear the expenses of his defence, a sum which amounted to not less than £3,000. As to the order he (the Earl of Shaftesbury) admitted that it was a weak point; theoretically, it was, no doubt, imperfect, though practically it had worked without any evil results. The history might be stated from his own evidence given in 1877—
  "With regard to the orders, I understood your Lordship to agree that it is in some respects undesirable that a person, a perfect stranger to a patient, should sign the order; do not you think that where there is a case, and no near relative is to be found to sign the order, it would be desirable that the order for admission

  1273
  should be signed by some public official? I believe I explained the reason of the state of the order to be this—In the year 1845, when we were framing the Bill, we were exceedingly puzzled as to what to do, so many cases had come before us of persons being suddenly seized in hotels, in lodging-houses, in mere apartments where there was nobody who knew whence they came or whither they were going; they were foreigners, Americans, medical students and law students, and all sorts and sizes of people, travellers only resting for a night, and we were obliged to leave it in that way that any person might sign the order for admission into any asylum. I have no doubt, but I do not recollect it, that we saw it was very imperfect, and that we intended to amend it, but we forgot it; and so little abuse arose upon it, and so very few bad cases came before us, that we totally forgot the matter."
  Here, again, the learned Baron had put the case most invidiously. A crossing-sweeper, he said, might be called to sign an order of admission into a lunatic asylum. Well, but there were things so utterly improbable as to amount almost to impossibilities. The Queen might make a crossing-sweeper a Duke, and give him a seat in their Lordships' House; but did any of their Lordships fear such an issue? It was a weak point, no doubt, and required amendment; but in nearly 40 years there had been no complaint, and probably not one in 500 orders had been signed by any but some relative or friend. All this was before the Committees of 1859 and 1877, and they had not taken the formidable view of the learned Baron. They had accepted many of the propositions of the Commissioners, and had added some of their own, which were then waiting for enactment. And here he might add, in reply to the assertion of the noble Earl opposite, that the order could inflict perpetual confinement; that the Commissioners could, if they saw fit, set aside the order. But let their Lordships then consider the ominous announcement of the noble Earl, that the state of the Lunacy Laws constituted a serious danger to the liberty of the subject. The two Committees of 1859 and 1877 had come to no such conclusion; on the contrary, they had rejoiced in the many and vast improvements. How could they have feared for the liberty of the subject in the face of such a statement as that he had made before them? From 1859 to 1877 there had passed through the Office of the Commissioners 185,000 certificates. Of these, some six or seven had demanded the attention of the Select Committee of the House of
  1274
  Commons; but all, upon investigation, were found to be just and good. During the same interval there had been 90,000 liberations, of which 22,000 were from licensed houses. The Returns up to the present day were equally satisfactory, a sufficient refutation of the common assertion that persons thrust into private asylums would never get out. There were, he believed, fewer cases of mistake in placing patients under care and treatment than of miscarriages of justice in Courts of Law. The noble Earl ought, in candour, to have quoted that part of the Report in which the Select Committee had spoken of the vast and beneficial progress made in the treatment of lunacy. It was as follows:—
  "The Committee cannot avoid observing here, that the jealousy with which the treatment of lunatics is watched at the present day, and the comparatively trifling nature of the abuses alleged, present a remarkable contrast to the horrible cruelty with which asylums were too frequently conducted less than half a century ago, to the apathy with which the exposure of such atrocities by successive Committees of this House was received, both by Parliament and the country, and to the difficulty with which remedial enactments were carried through the Legislature, while society viewed with indifference the probability of sane people being, in many cases, confined as lunatics, acquiesced in the treatment of lunatics as if they were outside the pale of humanity, and would have scarcely considered a proposal to substitute for chains and ill-usuage, the absence of restraint, the occupation and amusement, which may be said to be the universal characteristics of the system in this country at the present day."
  And, again, they said—
  "Assuming that the strongest cases against the present system were brought before them, allegations of mala fides were not substantiated."
  He could assure their Lordships, from long observation, dating back more than 50 years, that it would require much time, and much power of description, to set before them the state of degradation and suffering in which lunatics were found by the inquiry that commenced in 1828. Manacles and leg-locks were in universal use—many were chained to the wall, almost all in filth, disorder, and semi-starvation. He mentioned all this to show that great and good things had been done under the existing Lunacy Laws; and that some gratitude was due to God for having given the will and the power to raise them from such misery. Now, he did not mean to say that perfection had been reached—very far from it; but he urged their Lordships to pro-

  1275
  ceed with care and caution, following experience, and the discoveries of science, and not preceding them by hasty legislation, which might throw them back to the condition of half-a-century ago. But while they were considering, and jealously guarding the liberty of the subject, they must also consider the value and necessity of early treatment of insanity. On one point there was, it might be asserted, a consensus of opinion among all medical men, and, indeed, laymen, who had studied the question. Quotations of evidence to that effect might be multiplied, almost without limit. Dr. Sutherland maintained that if cases were taken at the very commencement of the disorder, full 85 per cent might be cured. Dr. Conolly stated certainly not less than 50 per cent; but the whole might be summed up in a most valuable extract from the Report of Mr. Ley, the Medical Superintendent of the great County Asylum at Prestwich, in Lancashire—
  "The total number," said Mr. Ley, speaking of a particular year, "of curable cases in the 446 admissions was 209; 113 of these have been sent out recovered, and, in all probability, 70 more will be discharged during the current year. Eighty-nine per cent of the total recoveries occurred in those who were admitted while the attack was yet recent; only 11 per cent are from those who were allowed to remain without proper treatment for a long time after the malady had declared itself. The duration of residence in these recoveries varied from four weeks to twelve years, the average duration being much augmented by the recovery of some few who had resided in the asylum above a year."
  This was his summing up, and this was the summing up of every medical man he knew.
  "These results," Mr. Ley continued, "prove what has so often been urged before, that insanity in its early stages is as curable a disease as any other in the catalogue of human disorders."
  The evidence from America was abundant and equally decided. Though he would not add anything to the law to give facilities for the shutting up of persons under the charge of insanity, so fearful was he of the possibility of error, he would do nothing to diminish them. He spoke in the interest of the patient, for whom a cure thus became comparatively easy, and in the interest of the world at large also, who had a deep concern in the abatement of that terrible disorder. The impediments were
  1276
  grave and numerous already—the reluctance of parents and relatives to see, and then believe, the first symptoms of a disturbed intellect; the serious step of consulting a medical man on the point, even though he were the physician of the family; the fear lest anything should transpire, and the public be admitted in any way to the sad secret; all these feelings postponed the final decision, until by long continuance the affection had become almost hopelessly confirmed. If, then, that repugnance existed under the present system, what would it amount to were the magistrate called in or a jury summoned, who never allowed anyone to be mad, unless he had committed some overt act whereby the disorder was proved to be nearly inveterate? Here the pauper had a great advantage over the class above him. He was taken to the asylum in the first stage of his affliction, and hence the public asylums claimed the superiority in the number of cures. Certainly, the tables showed that it was so, though, perhaps, by reason of the very early discharge, there were many cases of relapse. Too long detention after cure had been urged against the licensed houses. In former days it might have been so, but by no means always with a bad motive. He did not believe that many such cases could occur in the present day. He did not deny the difficulty—he might say the perilous difficulty—in attempting to undertake early treatment of discerning between a transient eccentricity of habit, manner, or temper and the slight symptoms of incipient mental disturbance. An error on either side was deeply injurious. The error which led to the confinement of the patient might inflict, though the patient was speedily removed, the taint of supposed insanity; but the error which denied the necessity of it might inflict a greater harm, and fix on the patient the malady for ever. It demanded almost superhuman sagacity, and showed how necessary it was to be cautious, to avoid hasty legislation, and await the further developments of that important branch of science. He feared that all the proposed enactments that tended to increase publicity, and render impossible that amount of privacy that was naturally and justifiably demanded in these delicate matters, would tend to a vastly extended system of clandestine confine-

  1277
  ment. Single patients, as they were called, were persons living alone under restraint, and committed to the charge of a doctor, a clergyman, or an attendant. Where two or more, being lunatics, resided under the same roof, the law required that a licence should be taken out; where only one, a certificate. There was great difficulty in the discovery of such cases; many of them were put out on the false plea that they were nervous, not lunatic, patients, and, therefore, not subject to the law. Evidence of their existence reached them in a variety of ways; and on such evidence, if sufficient, an application was made to the Lord Chancellor for a power to visit the house. The Commissioners, in 1862, had visited 161 single patients; but, in 1884, they had visited 449, an increase in 20 years of 288. How many more there might be he could not say, so secret were they, and so scattered over the whole country. It had been asked in the House of Commons whether it were not true that many were sent abroad? On that point the Commissioners could give no information. Now, the state of these single patients demanded the utmost thought and attention. Care and inspection, it was true, had greatly mitigated their lot; but the peculiarity of the circumstances exposed them, on the slightest relaxation of vigilance, to a return of all the evils and oppressions of former days. The condition of these sufferers had, in former days, been most deplorable; their treatment might have varied according to the position and character of those who had charge of them; but, in the great bulk of the cases, it was, beyond doubt, fearfully oppressive. He had it on the personal testimony of those who had endured the solitary incarceration. One lady asserted that she was frequently strapped down on her bed for 24 hours, while her nurse went out on a junket; a gentleman had assured him that he had endured the same, and showed the scars on his legs made by the cords wherewith he was confined. If visited, these poor people had then but small relief; they had none to bear witness to their testimony; and every statement they made was attributed by the attendant to mental wandering. Now, then, these patients were singularly unhappy; for, in houses where many patients were received, any one patient had the supporting evidence of
  1278
  his fellows; for, though the testimony of a patient in respect of himself was oftentimes very questionable, the testimony of patients in respect of others was very good, and had oftentimes been received in Courts of Justice. He had said more than once, and he repeated it, that were anyone of his own family visited by that sad affliction, he would infinitely prefer to consign him or her to a licensed establishment than to the care and treatment of a single custodian. Their Lordships would easily perceive that the temptations, the payments being oftentimes very high, and the facilities for long detention and delay of cure, must, under such a system, be very great. The last point on which the noble Earl opposite had commented was on the principle, character, and condition of private asylums, or, as they were properly denominated, licensed houses. The noble Earl had quoted some strong passages given in evidence by him (the Earl of Shaftesbury) before the Committee of the House of Commons in 1859. Now, he did not vary, in principle, one hair's breadth from what he stated at that period; and the noble Earl would have done well to have given his explanatory evidence in 1877. It was as follows:—
  "Your Lordship said, in answer to the honourable Member for Mid Surrey last Thursday, Question 11,449, that it was a notion prevailing in many minds that the principle of profit in regard to the treatment and maintenance of lunatics in private asylums should be eliminated.—Yes; it should be, if possible, no doubt. If I recollect the Question put to me by the Right Honourable Chairman, it was as to the establishment of hospitals, and I answered that I thought it would be a good principle to make the hospital system the basis of the system for the reception of patients of all kinds, but that I should be very sorry to do anything that should go to the total prohibition of licensed houses; because that, though I believed the operation of the hospital system might probably tend very much to reduce the number of licensed houses, I had strong conviction that those that survived would be of the very highest character. It is absolutely necessary we should have some licensed houses, because many have a particular taste that way, and because there is a form of treatment there that you never could have in any public asylum. You say you are ready to admit it is a notion that prevails in the minds of a great many people, but the sooner that is eliminated the better?—Yes, no doubt. That idea has grown up from evidence given to the public mind, and not from personal knowledge?—Yes; and I judge of it from conversation, and from what I read, and what I hear. I know that that feeling does prevail in the public mind, and naturally enough. I do not blame the public for it; and, indeed, I very

  1279
  much praise the public jealousy upon the subject. Perhaps your Lordship remembers the evidence you gave in 1859, in which you condemned the vicious principle of profit, as you called it, perhaps more strongly than anybody else?—Yes; I condemned it very strongly, and I condemn it nearly as strongly now; and, therefore, I want to put as great a limit upon it as I possibly can. Your Lordship has modified your views upon this subject?—Yes; to this extent—the licensed houses are in a far better condition than they were in every possible respect; but I have said, and I wish to repeat, that if we were to relax our vigilance the whole thing, in every form of establishment, would go back to its former level."
  The Committee of 1878 had reported that the permitted continuance or discontinuance of licensed houses must be left to public opinion; and it was certainly remarkable that, though there were perpetual expressions of dislike and fear of such receptacles, no steps were ever taken, or even proposed, to provide substitutes. Since 1859, hospitals had not increased in number; two had been added; but that was only apparently so, those two having come into separate existence by disconnection from the asylums of Gloucester and Nottingham. Nevertheless, the feeling of the country would continue, he doubted not, to prevail in favour of the public principle, which, when established, would require, he could assure their Lordships, no small amount of care and supervision. In illustration of what he had said, he might put before their Lordships the present state of private and hospital accommodation. The licensed houses amounted, in. all, to 97; 35 in the Metropolis, and 62 in the Provinces. The hospitals for lunatics proper were 13; for idiots, 2. The increase of licensed houses in the Metropolis since 1859 was 1; the decrease of provincial houses in same time, 15; but that might be accounted for by their greater size. The inmates in hospitals were 3,146; in licensed houses, 4,779; making a total of 7,925. Of that total, 1,398 were paupers, leaving thus, of paying patients, 6,527. He could not conclude without recalling their Lordships' attention to the vast, he might say the blessed, improvements, made in the custody and cure of the insane, an answer, in itself, to many reckless and ignorant charges. Let them only consider the present treatment of the pauper lunatic. They had often seen, no doubt, those palatial buildings, the public asylums,
  1280
  erected solely for the poor. Every mode of a physical or moral character was resorted to for the charge and cure of these unfortunate beings. Their diet, their apparel, their residential comforts, were of the best quality. Their amusements were not forgotten; and occupation, adapted to their line of life, was regarded as among the most remedial processes. The women were engaged in employments of all kinds suited to their sex, and agriculture was esteemed so beneficial to the men, that land to the extent of 200 or 300 acres was assigned to many of the provincial asylums. All was minutely and carefully visited by constituted authorities, as he would show by the statement which followed. It exhibited not the maximum, but the minimum, of the visitations—

  Public Asylums, County and Borough.

  Two or more of Committee of Visitors.

  Once at least every two months.

  Two Commissioners in Lunacy.

  Once a year at least.

  Hospital.

  Members of Committee of Management.

  Various — according to Regulations approved by Secretary of State—generally once a month.

  Two Commissioners.

  Once a year at least. Twice, of late years, by special Resolution of Board.

  Private rovincial Licensed House.

  Two Visitors at least, one to be Medical.

  Four times a year.

  One Visitor.

  Twice a year ("Single Visits").

  Two Commissioners.

  Twice a year.

  Metropolitan Licensed House.

  Two Professional Commissioners.

  Four times a year.

  Any one Commissioner.

  Twice a year.

  All this had been effected by degrees, by the results of observation, by the

  1281
  applications of experience. The contrast between 1828 and 1884 was well nigh incredible. All they required was care and caution, and that legislation should follow, and not precede, the guidance of practical science. But the appeal for such caution was met by hasty and nervous agitation. They had reason on their side, but it was encountered by nothing but expressions of fear. While of all the maladies that afflicted mankind, none were so intricate and appalling as those which disturbed his reasoning faculties, there were none upon which the public at large were more prompt to give an opinion, and enforce a remedy. He could only again and again implore the deepest and most serious consideration on such a subject. They were now in a far better state of hope for progress in scientific knowledge. A large Association of intelligent and right-hearted men had come into existence, formed of the superintendents of the great asylums and others who gave their time and their minds to that important study. They had their conferences, their meetings, their periodicals, and interchange of thought and inquiry. The services of these gentlemen were priceless—every day added something to the stock of facts, and on facts alone could treatment advance. He trusted that by investigation and patience they would be able, by God's blessing, to arrive at some alleviation, if not a full remedy, for the most mysterious affliction that had been permitted to fall on the human race.
  LORD COLERIDGEsaid, he had considerable reluctance in speaking on that occasion; but he would point out to their Lordships that the Resolution of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Milltown) was of a somewhat abstract character, as to which it generally happened that, in that House, as well as "elsewhere," any debates arising were likely to be in some sense debates in the air. Nevertheless, because he had had a good deal of experience of cases connected with the subject, both at the Bar and on the Bench, and very much also in consequence of the speech of the noble Earl who had just spoken (the Earl of Shaftesbury), he would say a very few words. The Resolution had reference not to the profoundly interesting question of lunacy itself, but simply to the practical admininstration of the
  1282
  laws affecting the detention of persons supposed to be lunatics. It was quite true that the system administered in this country owed its origin to the noble Earl who had last sat down, and it was difficult for anyone who had not arrived at the time of life arrived at by the noble Earl to adequately comprehend the enormous improvement made by the measures of 1845 and 1853 in the system, if system it could be called, which was in existence before that time. For that great improvement, he (Lord Coleridge) believed they were mainly indebted to the noble Earl opposite, and it formed one of the many claims to gratitude which the noble Earl possessed, as regarded his contemporaries, for his various philanthropic labours. But 1853 was more than 30 years ago; and it was, therefore, no discredit to the noble Earl to say that the experience of 30 years might have taught us that in that system there was a good deal to be amended. In many cases the system, though excellent on paper, broke down in practice. In the great majority of cases it was absolutely clear to the intelligence of any ordinary person who was moderately acquainted with the matter that the individuals confined were insane; and, in another large class of cases, it was equally clear that the persons whom it was proposed to confine were not insane. Of course, where lunatics in confinement were properly treated, they would expect to find that a system on paper should be on the whole as successful as the present system was; but there was a class of cases—those cases in which there was a divided mind as to whether a person should or should not be incarcerated—it was in these cases that the real difficulty arose; and then the system, though excellent on paper, broke down. If we could, as in France, deal with a man's property by means of a family council, there would be very little to be said; but in this country no such system existed. For the reason that here it was a question of personal liberty, it was extremely important that care should be taken that the system by which persons were incarcerated should be watched with the severest jealousy. While quite agreeing with the noble Earl that Judges were fallible men, he could not help thinking that, at least, they were not averse to teaching each other that such was the

  1283
  case. Anyway, his noble Friend must have misunderstood the judgment of the learned Baron, for what he (Lord Coleridge) understood the learned Judge to mean was, that the certificates of medical practitioners were only a protection against the keepers of the asylums, and not a protection against others against whom proceedings might be taken for having set the doctors in action. The learned Baron was too well versed in the practice of his Profession to lay down, the certainly bad law that the certificates of doctors were a protection against others than the keepers of the asylums. He (Lord Coleridge) had himself known of ten or a dozen cases, at least, where the system had broken down in the sense of persons not having been confined who ought to have been incarcerated; of others who had been sent to lunatic asylums, with such a total disregard to the common forms even of decency, that it was with the greatest possible difficulty that juries had been prevented from giving verdicts which would have been wrong against those who set the law in motion. He recollected that, in a case that came before himself, it was shown that a person had been committed to a private lunatic asylum on certificates of medical men who were interested in the asylum, and that, although the man had been afterwards formally discharged under their certificates, he had been rearrested within 10 minutes afterwards on others. He had no doubt that in that case, however, the person confined was a fit subject for confinement. The jury who had tried the case were naturally indignant with a state of the law which allowed such proceedings. Then there was the question of private lunatic asylums; and he must say that his experience of these asylums was not a very happy one. He did not mean to say there were a good many amongst the keepers of private asylums, but he thought there were some in the Medical Profession, who, in all respects, were not the highest type of medical men; because it was, unfortunately, the case that medical men possessing the highest minds did not devote themselves to this particular class of disease, and, moreover, it was repugnant to such men to mix themselves up with a system which, after all was said and done, combined commerce and trade with their Profes-
  1284
  sion. In his opinion, it should never be the interest of the keepers of private lunatic asylums to retard the cure of patients. It was, unfortunately, the fact, as had been shown by the statistics referred to by the noble Earl, that the percentage of cures effected in the county lunatic asylums was far larger than that which was effected in private lunatic asylums. In the former, it was clear that it was not the interest or object of anyone to retain a patient longer than was absolutely necessary, because the maintenance of such a patient was a matter of cost, and not of profit; but that was not the case with regard to private asylums. That was not, however, a matter to be decided hastily, but as a matter of principle. Still, his painful experience had convinced him that it was not safe or wise to hold out inducements to the keepers of private lunatic asylums to retain their patients as long as they could. It had been said in reference to this class of disease, that a medical man would have just as much reason to effect a cure speedily as in the case of any other class of disease; but it must be remembered that the inducement was not the same, because such cases were not likely to be talked about among the friends of the patient. The fact, also, that few cases of abuse had been made public said little, for relatives were averse to bringing such cases forward.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that the subject was an interesting one, though in some respects of a painful character; and if he asked their Lordships not to agree with the Motion of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Milltown), it was not because he (the Lord Chancellor) thought that the Lunacy Laws were not capable of improvement or amendment, for such was not the opinion of the noble Earl at the head of the Lunacy Commission (the Earl of Shaftesbury), nor of those who had investigated the subject, but because he thought it would be very unwise, on a subject of so much importance and difficulty, to pass a Resolution which contained a wholesale condemnation of the existing state of the law, as being eminently unsatisfactory, together with some exaggeration with regard to the way in which the present law affected the liberty of the subject. He fully admitted that there were some things in their Lunacy Laws which were

  1285
  not as satisfactory as they might be; but he was sure that their Lordships would be most anxious to preserve an equally balanced mind in dealing with a subject of such difficulty and importance, and not run the risk of defeating a salutary object, for the sake of obviating conceivable and possible, but, in his opinion, chiefly theoretical, dangers. It must be remembered, in the first place, that the Lunacy Laws were meant for lunatics, and not for sane people; and that they must be such as might be calculated to deal wisely and properly with the lamentable fact that there were, at all times, a large number of persons requiring treatment for mental diseases. When the Commissioners made their Report in 1878 there were over 66,000 lunatics, and he feared it was probable that, at the present time, that number had considerably increased. These unhappy persons must be dealt with, not only for their own sakes, but for the sake of the community at large; they must be taken care of for their own sakes, in order that they might be cured., and might not become the prey of designing persons; and for the sake of the community, that they might not, being at large, become dangerous to other persons as well as to themselves. In these circumstances, wise and proper laws, humanely administered, were necessary as safeguards by which the safety of lunatics and of the community at large could alone be secured. Dealing with the objections which had been urged, he considered, first, the too great facilities which were said to exist for placing persons not lunatics in confinement; and he thought that it was a very exaggerated view of the case, to say that anyone in the street might demand that another person, a perfect stranger to him, should be dealt with as a lunatic, and that, upon the certificate of any two medical men, with certain exceptions, this person might be confined in an asylum. He maintained that no more risks were run in this direction than were incurred in other directions every day. Looking to the result of every public investigation under the existing law which this matter had received, and especially to the last careful examination in 1878, he thought it was not too much to say that the proportion of cases in which there was any reason to suppose that grave abuses took place was infinitesi-
  1286
  mally small, in comparison with the cases in which the law had been properly administered. It had also been said, and no doubt there was some degree of truth in the assertion, that, under the existing system, there was a temptation to persons who had an interest in doing so to retain persons in private establishments for the care of lunatics. There might be some persons who wished to shut up their relatives without sufficient grounds for doing so, and such persons might be able to find two medical practitioners to assist them, by giving certificates of lunacy. These were, undoubtedly, points in the law requiring careful attention, and as to which every safeguard, which did not go too far in the opposite direction, ought to be adopted. It should be remembered that some of the cases which had been referred to by the Lord Chief Justice were absolute breaches of the law, and no system of law, however good, would prevent all persons from committing a breach of it. It was well worth while, however, to consider whether it was not possible to amend the present law, and so diminish the possibility of dangers and risks in the abuse or evasion of it at present existing, without throwing impediments in the way of a proper administration on the subject generally. The Commissioners, in their Report of 1878, showed the system in operation in Scotland of what were called emergency certificates, and suggested an amendment in the law in that direction; and, without binding himself to those suggestions in every detail, he might say that he agreed entirely with what was there said as to the extreme importance, while providing reasonable and proper safeguards against abuse, of placing no impediments in the way of as speedy a means as possible of dealing with the first symptoms of disease. The evidence on all sides proved the absolute necessity there was in promptly dealing with the first symptoms of derangement; and then came the question, whether it was not necessary to run some risks in order not to diminish the chances of cure to a large number of persons? But, in the meantime, it must not be forgotten by their Lordships that there were important, and generally very efficient, checks and safeguards under the present system—medical certificates and visitations, both by the Lunacy Commissioners

  1287
  and by Visitors appointed by the Court of Chancery, none of whom had any personal or pecuniary interest in the cases which they had to visit and inquire into. Careful Reports were made; and in any case to which special attention was called, these Reports were followed up by further inquiries, and the consequences to medical practitioners of any malpractices with regard to dealing with lunatics were very serious indeed. He thought everything that could possibly be done was done by the visits of the Commissioners and the Visitors. He frequently received letters from unfortunate patients, in which they stated their own views of their own cases; and he always desired, where the matter justified it, special Reports to be made by the Visitors in such cases; but he was bound to say that the letters themselves generally contained internal evidence of some unsoundness of mind; and. in some cases, where they contained no such evidence, further inquiry showed that, although the unfortunate persons were capable of acting and writing like sane persons, yet, at other times, they were not only of unsound mind, but positively dangerous. As to private asylums, he had not sufficient knowledge to enable him to controvert the terms in which his noble Friend the Lord Chief Justice (Lord Coleridge) had spoken of the owners of these houses; but, at the same time, he was unable to corroborate him, for it was within his knowledge that there were some, and not a few, of these establishments which were conducted by men of the highest character and of great professional attainments. He was sure the noble Lord must feel that the subject was one of the most difficult branches of the Lunacy Laws, and it was one which was carefully considered by the Committee of 1878. The Report showed that it was a subject upon which there existed the greatest diversity of opinion, and the decision at which the Committee arrived was that the matter had better be left to the spontaneous action of the public. Some thought that these private asylums should be immediately abolished; but others thought that they met an acknowledged want. The matter was very much debated, and a Bill by Mr. Dillwyn, of a very moderate character, was passed in the other House; but it failed to pass through their Lordships'
  1288
  House. Another Member of the House of Commons afterwards moved a Resolution that all lunatics should be brought under the care of the State, and that was rejected by a large majority. Everyone must desire that lunatics should be treated as well as possible, and made as comfortable as circumstances would permit. Those lunatics who had considerable property were entitled to have their comfort provided for as far as possible. They must be put into the care of some persons, whether they kept licensed houses or not, to whom the expenditure must be entrusted. The inquiry which had been held by the Committee showed that no serious abuses existed, and that great improvements had taken place of late years in the administration of these laws. These improvements were partly begun before, and they had certainly made great progress under the administion of his noble Friend (the Earl of Shaftesbury) and his Colleagues on the Commission. He must say their Lordships owed to his noble Friend, as the Chairman of the Lunacy Commission, to his Colleagues, and to the Visitors also, their hearty thanks for their great and unceasing labours. In their humane and unquestionably disinterested administration they had the most effectual safeguards which could by any means be devised against the evils to which reference had been made. He would not dwell further on those safeguards; but the Committee of 1878 had recommended certain changes, amongst them, greater checks against possible abuses of the Lunacy Laws; and he would undertake, if the Government were still in Office next year, either that himself, or one of his Colleagues, would present to Parliament a Bill, the object of which would be the consolidation of the existing law, with such improvements as were recommended by the Commission of 1878, together with any other changes and amendments in the law which might commend themselves, after due consideration, to the Government. In the meantime, he hoped, under the circumstances, the noble Earl would not divide the House on his Motion.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he hoped that, after the announcement just made by the noble and learned Earl upon the Woolsack, his noble Friend (the Earl of Milltown) would consider that the useful objects of his Motion

  1289
  had been attained, and would not press it to a Division. At the same time, he (the Marquess of Salisbury) felt that the debate to which the Motion had given rise was of a very valuable character, and he thought the existing Lunacy Laws would hardly survive the blow they had received from the speech of the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Coleridge). Everyone must admit that the subject was one of extreme difficulty, and that they could not make suggestions in any one direction without seeing evils arise in other directions; but, at the same time, all who had listened would agree that the securities for the liberty of the subject under the Lunacy Laws were very much less than were granted in any other part of the Law of England. The noble and learned Earl upon, the Woolsack said that they only made Lunacy Laws for lunatics; but the very gist of the complaint was that these laws were applied to sane people; and it was to avoid their being so applied, that their attention had been directed to the matter. There were, in these cases of illegal restraint, two classes of very obvious motives for abuses of the law. There were many people who, for the sake of property, which they wished to secure, had motives to get rid of relatives whom they might find inconvenient, and whose freedom they might desire to restrict. There were also domestic relations in which one of the parties might have very good reasons for desiring that the other party should no longer possess his or her freedom. Motives of that kind were familiar enough in fiction, and he was afraid they were not altogether strange to real life. On the other hand, there was a strong motive in the keeper of a private asylum to keep wealthy patients, who were showing a tendency to recover, on account of the rich harvest of profit which their maintenance in an asylum gave him. These were very strong and great influences. What facilities did the law give for their counteraction? As far as the initial stages of confining a lunatic were concerned, it seemed that the Law of England afforded absolutely no security for the liberty of the subject. Any person, no matter how deep an interest he might have in shutting you up, had a right to take any two doctors he could find, no matter how obscure, and get an order to shut you up. Who
  1290
  could say there was any security in the initial stages? The whole defence of the present system lay in the measures adopted at a later stage—in the inspection conducted by the Lunacy Commissioners, who had certainly acted with very great assiduity and success. He entirely agreed with the noble and learned Earl as to the great debt of gratitude they all owed to the noble Earl the Chairman of the Commission (the Earl of Shaftesbury) and those who worked with him—it was impossible to exaggerate the debt the country owed to them for having worked a very difficult and thorny part of the law in such a way that no real abuses had arisen; but he thought that the older guardians of English liberty would have been startled, if they had been told that the liberty of any free man was entirely dependent on the vigilance of a Department without any other security whatever. From the point of view of those who were concerned in maintaining freedom, the defect in the administration of these laws was in the utter absence of publicity. If the doctors and the men who signed the certificates had to go before magistrates, and, in open Court, to prove their case; or, if the inspection of the Commissioners was such a public inspection, that all who were concerned and might sympathize with the patient could be witnesses to what was done, there would undoubtedly be adequate security for that liberty which now entirely rested upon the high administrative and moral qualities shown by his noble Friend and his Colleagues. He hoped they might long continue to be at the service of the State; but, under these circumstances, no one would say that the state of the law was satisfactory when that was the sole defence for its present state, and the motive for abusing the law was sometimes so strong. It might, however, be said that if this publicity were insisted upon, the necessary result would be that the feelings of families would in many cases lead to clandestine imprisonments taking place. He considered that the noble Earl (the Earl of Milltown) had made out his case, and shown that the state of the law was not satisfactory. On the other hand, he thought the noble and learned Earl (the Lord Chancellor) had indicated the difficulties of dealing with this particular branch of the law. After his statement,

  1291
  and the promise that the law should be amended, he thought it would be a great mistake to go to Division on the Motion.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that he hoped the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack would see his way to increasing the number of Chancery Visitors, and of extending their inspection beyond the Chancery lunatics. The emulation between them and the Commissioners' Visitors would be a good thing for the lunatics. It had been said that evening, that insanity could be more easily cured in its initial stage; that was true, but it was also true that the despair caused to the inmates of asylums, on finding themselves hopelessly locked up, often aggravated their disorder, and would increase a slight derangement into raving madness.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWNsaid, that, in view of the proposal of the Government to introduce legislation at a future date, he would withdraw his Motion. His object had been more than gained by the very interesting discussion that had taken place, and by the promise he had obtained from the Government. He was still of opinion, however, that the arguments advanced in favour of his Motion had not been answered, and that, in fact, they were unanswerable.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

THE WESTERN PACIFIC—DEPORTATION OF FRENCH RECIDIVISTS.

  POSTPONEMENT OF MOTION.
  EARL GRANVILLE, in reference to a Motion on the Paper of the noble Earl (the Earl of Rosebery), who proposed to call attention to the proposed deportation of recidivists from France to the Western Pacific; and to move for Papers, said, he had already spoken to his noble Friend on the subject of the Motion of which he had given Notice. It was a subject of great importance; but he had urged on his noble Friend that, on the whole, it would be desirable that its discussion should be postponed.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, he tad little difficulty whatever in acceding to the request of his noble Friend to postpone his Motion for a time. At the same time, he wished to observe that there was nothing in the Motion, or in what he intended to say, that could, in
  1292
  any way, interfere with the negotiations which he understood were in progress, or wound the just susceptibilities of any neighbouring Power. He only agreed to postpone his Motion, because he thought the course suggested by the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was the one best calculated to gain the object they all had at heart; and he did so more heartily, because he believed an early opportunity would occur when the subject could be fully and fairly discussed, and without prejudice, and when the feeling of the House might be elicited as to a proposition which could not fail to have the greatest effects.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had not given the House the reasons which induced him to request his noble Friend to postpone the Motion. He hoped there was a substantial consideration for taking that course, and that it meant the very serious consideration of the subject by the Government, with a view of arriving at some definite and satisfactory understanding. He was aware that negotiations of an important character with the French Government were going on with the view of overcoming difficulties; and so long as those negotiations held out a reasonable promise of a successful issue, he should be sorry to offer any opposition. It was impossible to overrate the importance of the question—a question which, from a variety of reasons, ran the chance of not being fully appreciated in England. He trusted Her Majesty's Government were not blind to the extreme depth of feeling which existed upon the subject in Australia. If the postponement led to a regular understanding, he should not, in any degree, regret it; but, on the other hand, he hoped it was clearly understood that the matter was being entertained with a view to its settlement. He would be glad to know to what day the Motion was to be postponed?
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Carnarvon) seemed to think he had a monopoly of the knowledge of the importance of the subject. That was not so. The Government very well knew, and were agreed, that it was one of the most important subjects with regard to the Colonies; and it was for that reason that Her Majesty's Government thought,

  1293
  in dealing with it, they ought to be as prudent as possible. On this account he desired that it should be postponed in order that Papers might be completed. The noble Earl had asked some time ago about the diplomatic Correspondence. As a matter of fact, the Papers were not complete. He had been promised an answer from the French Government, which had not yet been received. He had been looking the matter up; and he might mention that he found that, up to the 31st of March, he had, through Lord Lyons, made no fewer than eight representations to the French Government.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONagain asked to what date the Motion was postponed?
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: To Monday fortnight.

EGYPT (WAR IN THE SOUDAN)—VOTE OF THANKS TO OFFICERS AND MEN OF H. M. SEA AND LAND FORCES.

  OBSERVATIONS. QUESTION.
  VISCOUNT ENFIELD: There have been some unfavourable rumours about the intention of the Government in regard to the Vote of Thanks to the Army in the Soudan; but it is generally advisable to assume that those with whom we have the honour to act are likely to act in a just and generous spirit whenever the Army and Navy are concerned. Considering the deep admiration, and respect we all entertain for the gallant services of the Army and Navy, it would be presumptuous on my part to allude to the campaign which has just passed—a campaign which has brought out the conspicuous gallantry of our troops. I will, therefore, content my self with asking Her Majesty's Government, If they can state when they propose moving a Vote of Thanks to the officers and men of Her Majesty's Sea and Land Forces who had taken so distinguished a part in the recent campaign near Suakin?
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that it had always been understood that the noble Viscount (Viscount Enfield) was a firm supporter of Her Majesty's Ministers; and he (Lord Stanley of Alderley) was at a loss to understand why he put this Question, which might be embarrassing to them. The noble Viscount seemed to make no distinction between hostilities carried on in defence
  1294
  of the safety or honour of the country, and these at Suakin, for which there was no justification or reason. Did the noble Viscount ask for a Vote of Thanks for Admiral Hewett for his Proclamation, which had brought so much discredit on the country? He (Lord Stanley of Alderley) felt bound to say that Admiral Hewett had shown all the frankness of the Naval Profession in withdrawing this Proclamation, and in undoing the mischief he had done, as far as that was possible. No reason had been given for these hostilities. He would not do the Government the injustice to suppose that they were for show-off, and to prove that our troops, with all the resources of civilization, could beat men armed with rudimentary weapons, such as swords and spears. It was not to open the road to Berber, since, after these victories, the Government had refused to send on any Cavalry to Berber. It must have been to seize upon Osman Digna. Osman Digna had written a remarkable letter, which showed that he had much knowledge of the internal state of England, and of the fact that a leading portion of the Government had adopted and supported an Atheist openly professing Atheism on all occasions. He would quote the judgment of Milton on similar hostilities. Milton speaks of the Syrian King—
  "Who, to surprise one man, assassin-like, had levied war, War unproclaimed."
  He would always object to Votes of Thanks for hostilities that were piratical.
  THE EARL OF MORLEY: In reply to the noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley of Alderley), I confess I do not see what bearing his remarks have upon the conduct of the troops. In respect to the Question put by my noble Friend behind me (Viscount Enfield), I have to say that Her Majesty's Government have most carefully inquired into and considered the precedents bearing on the point. The decision, whether the Thanks of Parliament should be given, or not, to troops engaged in military operations, does not appear to have depended entirely either on the success of the campaign, or on the severity of the fighting which has occurred. I can assure your Lordships that Her Majesty's Government, and, I am sure, Parliament also, most entirely appreciate the ability displayed by both General Graham and

  1295
  Admiral Hewett in the conduct of the recent operations, and also the great courage and conspicuous gallantry displayed by the troops themselves, and also the sailors who co-operated with them under circumstances which were quite sufficient to try the steadiness and gallantry of any troops. Parliament will also thoroughly appreciate the success which has attended both the ability of the Commanders and the gallantry of the troops. It will be a subject of great regret if the answer I am about to give were to imply any doubt or hesitation on that point; but the Government feel that to move a Vote of Thanks to those engaged in an undertaking which cannot be considered an independent operation, but rather as an incident in the Occupation of Egypt, would give an extension to the practice of voting Thanks which the Government do not think desirable. I may add that the question of the rewards to be conferred on the officers and men engaged is still under the consideration of the military authorities, and the result will shortly be announced.

  MARRIAGES LEGALIZATION BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to remove doubts as to the effect of certain irregularities on the validity of marriages—Was presented by The LORD CHANCELLOR; read 1a. (No. 76.)
  House adjourned at half past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock