(NO. 7.) SECOND READING. (Hansard, 7 February 1887)

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)
, in rising to move that the Bill be now read a second time, said, it had been introduced for the purpose of carrying out a Resolution which their Lordships had come to on two occasions for amending the Lunacy Acts throughout the country. The clauses in the Bill were apart from all controversial matter, with the exception of one point, which he would mention thereafter. There had been a general consent, on both sides of the House, that some alteration was required in the Lunacy 738 Laws; and in preparing a great part of the Bill which he had presented to their Lordships, he had inherited the fruits of the labours of two noble and learned Lords—one his Predecessor in Office (Lord Herschell), and the other a noble and learned Lord, whom he did not see present (Lord Selborne), and he had followed as closely as he was able in the lines they had laid down. In one particular, however, the controversial matter differed from the Bills which had preceded this one. The greater part of the Bill was entirely based on matters beyond controversy, and it was agreed that it was of serious importance that legislation on this subject should not be further delayed. That the matter was an important and urgent one could be seen from the fact that the total number of lunatics shown in the last Return of the Lunacy Commissioners was now 80,126, being an increase of 452 on the previous year; making the smallest increase for the last 27 years in proportion to the population. There were 4,440 licensed houses, and the patients therein had increased by 8.5 per thousand, but the admissions had been lower than since 1880. It was suggested that the small increase in the number of lunatics was due to the reluctance of medical men to sign the certificates of lunacy; but the Commissioners of Lunacy did not think that this had any appreciable effect on the general statistics. For himself, he did not know, however, that the increase was out of proportion to the increase of population. With regard to the gradual decrease of licensed houses, he thought it right to adopt the views generally entertained with respect to their gradual decrease, and he hoped that subject of controversy would cease. With regard to the matter of controversy, the Commissioners refused to accept the conclusions of their Lordships' House, and emphasized the view the late Lord Shaftesbury entertained as to the introduction of some judicial authority to examine persons who were to be confined in a lunatic asylum. That subject, he believed, had passed beyond the region of controversy; and, having regard to the state of public opinion, he thought no alteration of the law would be satisfactory that did not make further provision for the liberty of the subject. There had been a very strong 739 opinion abroad—whether exaggerated or not he would not say—that it was possible, without any proper investigation at all, for designing persons to take away the liberty of their fellow-subjects by the instrumentality of the Lunacy Law as it at present stood. It would, therefore, he believed, be impossible to amend the law adequately without taking notice of and, at the same time, giving effect to, the state of public feeling. He proposed, therefore, to insert in the Bill a provision for the protection of personal liberty; and this question of importance was as to what degree the judicial interference should take place. It was a subject of controversy whether the magistrate should be directed to see the alleged lunatic. The Lunacy Commissioners, on the other hand, disapproved of any alteration in the direction of introducing a judicial authority to examine whether or not a person should be confined in a lunatic asylum. He, therefore, proposed to make it a condition of the power to restrain that there should be served on the alleged lunatic a notice giving him information that if he pleased, and at his option, he would be brought before a magistrate. If the person was, in truth, improperly detained, he would be intelligent enough to understand the notice given him and act upon it. On the other hand, if he was a person who ought to be restrained, he probably would not insist on the production of himself before a magistrate. The Bill, however, was in their Lordships' hands, and the wish of the Government was that they should be assisted in making an amendment of the law which would have the desired effect. The noble and learned Lord concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.

§ LORD HERSCHELL
said he gladly supported the Motion for the second reading of the Bill, for, in his opinion, it was worthy of passing such a stage. He did not propose, at this stage, to say anything on the only point of controversy. He entirely sympathized with his noble and learned Friend's desire to safeguard the liberty of the subject, so far as it could be done with safety to the lunatic, and with a due regard to his interests and the interests of others. The 740 requirement of the Bill, that the magistrate should have an interview with the alleged lunatic, if he desired it, however, was not absolute. If it were, it might be regarded with some apprehension. But the notice to be served upon him, that he might have an interview with a magistrate, might be dispensed with in any case where the magistrate satisfied himself that the service of such notice would be prejudicial to the lunatic, or dangerous to the public. For his own part, previous to committing himself, he (Lord Herschell) would like further to consider the matter before coming to an absolute conclusion upon it, and there would be an opportunity of doing so before the Bill went into Committee.

THE EARL OF MILLTOWN
said, he must take that opportunity to express the great satisfaction he felt that his noble and learned Friend (Lord Halsbury) had, so early in the Session, brought forward that most important measure. On a former occasion, he had himself expressed a hope that the Legislature might see fit to vest all lunatic asylums in public bodies, and to do away with all private asylums; and although he was aware of the difficulty of enacting such a change, in consequence of the large vested interests affected, still he trusted that that object might be attained at some not distant date. In furtherance of that view he would ask their Lordships' attention to an extract on the subject from a letter which he had received from the late Lord Shaftesbury, dated April 16, 1885. In it, the noble Lord said that he had not changed by one hair's-breadth his opinion of the danger which beset all private asylums, and of the necessity of placing the whole care of lunacy on a public basis; but that that could not be done by permissive legislation, and the enactment must be compulsory; that when he wrote to the Lord Chancellor in December, he did not venture to suggest more to begin with than enabling provisions in the Bill that he introduced; but that then he would go much further, and make counties and boroughs responsible for the initiation and the maintenance of such institutions, which he was sure would be self-supporting; and that the terrors and suspicions in the mind of the country in regard to the nature and tendency of private asylums could not be eradicated or abated until such a change 741 was effected. He would only add that, as his noble and learned Friend had not found it possible or desirable to adopt those views in the present measure, it was to be hoped that, at any rate, he would do everything in his power to strengthen the Bill so as to prevent abuses arising, as there were no less than 80,000 lunatics confined; and it was absolutely impossible for the Lunacy Commissioners, who were only six in number, and had to go in couples to visit them, as they should do, four or live times a year. He considered that it should be compulsory upon the proprietors of private houses to transmit to the Commissioners a report of his condition on the admission of every lunatic into their houses. He further thought two medical certificates, and not one only, should be necessary for an Urgency Order.