§ LORD BARRINGTON: I beg to ask the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack whether the Justices appointed under the Lunacy Act, 1889, have jurisdiction to make orders under the Lunacy Act, 1890, or whether it is necessary that they should be appointed under the later Act?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Justices appointed under the Lunacy Act, 1889, have jurisdiction to make orders under the Lunacy Act, 1890. The jurisdiction established under the Act of 1889 was expressly preserved by Section 342 of the Consolidation Act. The Justices are, therefore, precisely in the same position with regard to their jurisdiction. I am glad the noble Lord has asked the question, because I understand that some doubts have been raised, and I think it very important that it should be clearly understood that they have the same jurisdiction under the existing Act as they had under the statute by which they were appointed.