(NO. 60.) SECOND READING. (Hansard, 27 April 1885)

THE EARL OF MILLTOWN
, in supporting the Bill, expressed his great regret at the absence of the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury), who had devoted so much of a long and 796 honoured life to the consideration of this question, and to the alleviation of the hard lot of those unhappy beings who were, beyond all controversy, the most afflicted of God's creatures; and he hoped that at a later stage of the Bill the noble Earl would be able to give the House the benefit of his presence and advice. He also wished, at the outset, to return his thanks to the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack for the very ample manner in which he had fulfilled the promise he made last Session, on the strength of which he (the Earl of Milltown) had withdrawn his Motion of Censure on the existing state of the Lunacy Laws, The Bill before the House was a most able and important one, though it was perhaps capable of some amendment, and he trusted it would effect a lasting settlement of the question. He thought it was to be regretted that the Government had not seen their way to vesting compulsorily private-licensed houses in some public body, and so to get rid of that most objectionable element—profit. As long as the profitable system was allowed to continue he feared the public would never be altogether satisfied. At any rate, he hoped this Bill would eventually and speedily lead to the total suppression of the system. Again, there was an absence of any provision that the proprietors of these houses should be properly-qualified and fit persons. That was a point which was well looked after in other countries, and he thought it ought to be provided for in the Bill. Then, again, the Bill contained no provision that the medical officers should be independent persons; and that was a deficiency which, he thought, ought to be supplied. Great complaints were now made that neither the friends nor oven the solicitor of a patient were allowed to see him during his confinement. He could not see why that should not be allowed under proper restrictions, and he thought that some provision should be inserted to meet the case. Again, as the law now stood, neither a patient nor his friends were allowed to see the order of incarceration, nor even to know the grounds upon which it was made, and he thought that was a point which ought to be dealt with in the Bill. At present, too, the mode of capture was unfettered by any restrictions whatever. The order of incarceration was a sufficient answer 797 to anything; any kind of brutality might take place and the police could not interfere. Such a state of affairs should not be allowed to continue. He could not find any proposal in the Bill to increase the number of the Commissioners, who certainly had too much work on their hands. At present all houses in the Metropolitan district were directly under the Commissioners, and they had to visit each house four times in the year together, and twice singly. In the Metropolitan district there were about 8,000 patients; but the Commissioners had also to visit twice a-year all borough and county asylums containing some 70,000 patients, which would show that the work supposed to be done by the Commissioners was absolutely overwhelming. He could not understand why the Bill did not extend to Ireland. The Lunacy Laws of Scotland differed materially from those of England, and therefore he could understand why the Bill should not extend to Scotland; but there was very little difference between the law in England and Ireland, and therefore he thought it would be very desirable to extend the Bill to Ireland. As to the clauses of the Bill, Clause 2 provided that the order for admission, which at the present time could be signed by anyone, must be signed either by a County Court Judge, a stipendiary magistrate, or a justice of the peace. He thought that was a most admirable provision, and he doubted whether anything short of it would have satisfied the public. At the same time he thought it would have been safer to require the signature of two justices. The provisions of the Bill with regard to urgency orders were such that it would be quite possible for a sane person to be incarcerated as insane for seven days. The certificate in these cases was extremely vague, and need only be signed by one medical practitioner, and the order might be given by anyone. Dipsomaniacs were often treated as if they were insane, and yet nothing could be worse for them. If an inebriate were incarcerated as insane for seven days, as he might be under this Bill, the chances were a thousand to one that he would not emerge from his confinement a sane man. Jealous husbands and wives had been known to abuse the powers conferred by the present law in order to obtain, the incarceration of the 798 object of their jealousy, and the law as altered by the present Bill would be also liable to great abuse in the same direction. The measure would confer by another clause an extraordinary power on magistrates, who would be able to lock a man up as a lunatic for seven days, and upon a rumour reaching their ears to the effect that he was insane. There was no proper provision in the Bill for the recovery of penalties. He held that a patient on his discharge ought to be able to sue for penalties himself. Another point requiring attention was as to the examination of patients. Where a person should satisfy two justices that a case was a proper one for examination the patient ought forthwith to be examined. The right which in certain circumstances the Bill would give to relatives to take lunatics out of public asylums and to burden the public rates with the cost of their maintenance at home would be liable to great abuse. He objected also to the proposal to give the Secretary of State power to override, in certain cases, the decisions of county or borough justices. In conclusion he begged to thank the House for the kindness with which they had heard him, and to express a hope that the Bill would tend to the improvement of the law, and would add to the already great reputation of the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
said, in the first place, he had to acknowledge the courteous manner in which the noble Earl (the Earl of Milltown) had spoken of him. He heartily sympathized with the noble Earl's expression of regret that his noble Friend (the Earl of Shaftesbury) should not be present at that time. There was one circumstance connected with the Bill which would prevent him from feeling that satisfaction he would otherwise experience, however successful the Bill might be. A difference of opinion on a very important part of the Bill had made his noble Friend think that after SO years of invaluable service rendered to the country as Chairman of the Lunacy Commissioners he had better relinquish that office. If it had not been thought necessary to introduce the authority of a magistrate his Lordship might have been still willing, notwithstanding other reasons which might well justify him in declining the labour, to render the same 799 invaluable services he had hitherto done. He had such admiration for the noble Earl that he could not but regard his resignation of his office as a very serious public loss. During the noble Earl's administration the Law of Lunacy had been completely transformed. The shocking abuses of former times had disappeared, and a system had been substituted which, if not perfect, and if requiring, as he thought undoubtedly it did, amendment in various points, would bear favourable comparison with the Lunacy Law and administration of any other country in the world. At the same time, he and those whom he had consulted thought it was not possible to resist the general opinion of the public, supported by high judicial authority, that the time had come when some intervention of a magistrate was necessary for the satisfactory working of the Law of Lunacy, so as to prevent, as far as practicable, the risk of abuse in treating persons as proper subjects for confinement who might not be so. He did not believe—he had stated it before, and he repeated it now —that such abuses were common; but he did believe that no satisfactory answer had been given to the public sentiment, which required that Parliament should make them as impossible as human regulation could without sacrificing the proper and effective treatment of those who were insane, and especially of those who by early treatment could be cured of their disease. He would now advert to some of the points which the noble Earl had mentioned. With regard to licensed houses, his noble Friend had referred to the opinion which Lord Shaftesbury had frequently expressed as to the vice of the principle on which houses of that kind were conducted for private profit. But he thought he could quote Lord Shaftesbury in favour of the mode proposed in the Bill for dealing with this subject. In 1860 Lord Shaftesbury spoke very strongly against that class of houses. But 17 years later, in 1877, he qualified that opinion to a great extent—he said he adhered to the general opinion which he had formerly expressed; but he was far from thinking that any sudden or violent attempt to suppress those houses would be proper or expedient or for the advantage of the unfortunate class of persons who were to be considered in the 800 matter. Lord Shaftesbury spoke very highly of the best licensed houses, and thought it desirable that they should remain. He thought that measures should be adopted, the tendency of which should be by degrees to get rid of the necessity for that class of houses, and of which the effect would, at all events, be to eliminate the inferior and worse-conducted houses. The Bill before the House had been framed upon that principle; and when the provisions under that head came to be considered he thought they would recommend themselves generally to their Lordships. The reasons for not including Ireland were tolerably obvious. The whole lunacy administration of that country was separate from the lunacy administration of England, and was conducted under its own Acts of Parliament. But when Parliament had approved of amendments in the law of England it would be easy to amend the law for Ireland. At present it would not be convenient to include Ireland in the Bill. With regard to making an order as to the security of the person of a lunatic, the noble Earl had suggested that, as in other cases where authority was given to a stipendiary magistrate, the alternative should be two justices. There seemed to be serious objections to that proposal, one of which was that it might prolong the proceedings in a manner exceedingly undesirable; and another, that if the two justices differed, the whole matter would have to be begun, before other justices, over again. He thought, however, that the Bill might perhaps be improved, by providing that at Quarter Sessions and borough sessions special justices should be appointed to exercise jurisdiction in these matters. He proposed to put an Amendment upon the Paper to that effect unless those of their Lordships who had considered the subject were prepared to point out objections to it which did not at present occur to his mind. He would, when the Bill reached Committee, deal with the other points raised by the noble Earl. Their Lordships would see by the preliminary statement affixed to the Bill that it was proposed to introduce for purposes of reference a Bill consolidating the existing enactments dealing with this matter. That Bill would save their Lordships the trouble of constant reference backwards and forwards to all the Acts of Parliament. 801 The next stage of the measure now under consideration would be fixed for this day fortnight, and in the meantime he would have the Consolidation Bill printed, so that their Lordships could see exactly what the present law was.

§ LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY
wished to support the recommendations of the noble Earl who spoke first (the Earl of Milltown) as to the probationary detention of supposed lunatics in hospitals before sending them to asylums. If that were done, friends would have less hesitation in sending cases in time; and much stress had been laid on the necessity of early medical attention in such cases, and the patients themselves would not feel the same reluctance when going to a hospital as when going to an asylum. Moreover, the bias and tendency of the medical men in hospitals was to effect a cure and discharge the patients, whilst the bias of the medical men of an asylum was to retain the patient.

VISCOUNT CHANBROOK
said, that while he was entirely in accord with the principle of the Bill, he hoped that it would be placed on the Statute Book in such a form as to remedy, so far as possible, what he believed to be the great defect of the present system—namely, the perfunctory manner in which those who were primarily responsible in. cases of lunacy performed their duties.