HL Deb 23 July 1897 vol 51 cc875-8

Order for Third Beading Read.

*EARL RUSSELL

said he would not trespass for long on the time of the House, but there was a circumstance he had mentioned during the discussion in Committee as to which he felt it his duty to say a word before the Bill passed. At the time referred to lie had endeavoured to obtain an Amendment of the Bill in the direction required by the Asylums Committee of the County of London. He explained that he was acting at that time without definite authorisation, but now he might tell their Lordships that a unanimous resolution had been passed by two Committees of the London County Council on the subject of the Bill, and he had been asked to press the matter. The clause to which exception was particularly taken was Clause 14, giving the Commissioners what he ventured to think were entirely new powers in the management of asylums as apart from inspection. The Commissioners were to be given the power to make rules which might conflict with other rules, and might be thought unworkable by the Visiting Committee. They thought the principle so objectionable and the proposed extension of the jurisdiction of the Commissioners so undesirable, that they were prepared to sacrifice the Bill, containing though it did many useful clauses and interpretations, rather than to allow it go forward in its present condition. He was sorry to have to say that the Bill would be opposed in all its future stages so long as it remained in its present form, and under the circumstances he feared that the clauses they thought useful would not be enacted this Session. But even at this stage he renewed his appeal to the noble and learned Lord to meet the views of the asylum authority. It was no small interest he represented. The asylums authority of London had 14,000 lunatics under their charge, and their expenditure upon maintenance was £400,000 a year. The authorities had not been consulted in any way, the Visiting Committees throughout the country had not been asked to express their views on the Bill. It had emanated chiefly from the Commissioners in Lunacy, and no opportunity had been given for reconciling conflicting views. He did not propose to ask their Lordships to Divide on this matter, it would be wasting the time of the House, and he did not suppose that at this time he would receive much support; but he had thought it right to intimate that in its present form the Bill would be strenuously opposed at every stage.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)

said he did not think the noble Earl had dealt quite fairly with the House in this matter. He said he had tried to get the clause amended in Committee, but there his memory must be at fault. The noble Earl objected to the clause, but if he had wanted to amend the clause he should have put his wish into the form of an Amendment and moved it. A more general observation that the clause required amendment was not trying to get the clause amended at all. The noble Earl expressed an opinion, but he did not even now move the omission of the clause or the rejection of the Bill. He did not undervalue the opinion of the noble Lord or of those by whom he was instructed, because at this period of the Session any opposition was formidable, but if there was to be a discussion of the question it would not be on the terms he had expressed. There were valuable provisions in the Bill in respect to various matters, and all these things were to be sacrificed because the persons whom the noble Lord chose to regard as those instructing him were not satisfied with Clause 14. One noble Lord was good enough to point out a defect in the Bill, and he was happy to say the suggested Amendment was entirely satisfactory to him. The Commissioners of Lunacy were to call on the Asylums Authority to make rules subject to appeal to the Secretary of State, and what the noble Lord suggested was an Amendment now inserted that the authorities should have the right to be heard. Rut that did not satisfy the noble Earl, he objected to the clause, and would not say what he wished to substitute. That was not the mode in which a Bill containing, such important provisions which were urgently needed should be treated. The noble Lord should have moved an Amendment or the omission of the clause. He could not soy he was extremely grateful to the noble Earl for rot pressing his objection to division; he did not think it would have made any difference in the result if he had done so.

*EARL BUSSELL

hoped he might be allowed to explain his personal action. He disclaimed any discourtesy to the House or to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill. The noble and learned Lord said he did not now propose an Amendment, and that indeed was so, but he had proposed an Amendment and suggested the sort of Amendment to the clause which would be acceptable.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

said the noble Lord did not propose the Amendment. He was dissatisfied with the clause, and he said the clause ought to be amended, but that was not, of course, proposing an Amendment.

EARL RUSSELL

said he was sorry to differ with the recollection of the noble and learned Lord, but he distinctly understood him to say in the Standing Committee that he could not accept an Amendment on the lines he indicated. Under these circumstances he thought it would be more courteous to their Lordships to save time by not pressing it. He might also say that this was not the only clause that was objected to.

Bill read the Third time.

Clause 24,—