§ Mr. R. RICHARDSONasked the Minister of Health (1) in how many cases has a petition prepared by the manager of St. Andrew's Hospital, Northampton, and presented by him to a judicial authority, for an order to detain a voluntary boarder as a lunatic been found, on examination by the board of control, to differ from the copy supplied to the board by the manager under the provisions of Section 316 of the Lunacy Act, 1890; in how many such cases does the statement of a reason for not calling in the boarder's usual medical attendant appear unsigned by the petitioner in the original but signed in his name in the official copy; and in how many is the date of presentation of the petition as given by the petitioner altered in the official copy in such manner as to bring it into conformity with the date of the above-mentioned statement forming part of the petition; will he state what steps 631W have been taken under the direction of exclusive of those in the education and the board of control to ascertain whether any such false entries were knowingly made or whether they were due to mere accident or oversight; and what disciplinary measures have been taken in either case under the terms of Sections 318 or 320 of the Lunacy Act, 1890:
(2) in how many cases in which a petition for a judicial order changing the status of a voluntary boarder at St. Andrew's Hospital, Northampton, to that of a certified lunatic, has been posted by the petitioner to the manager of this private asylum prior to its presentation to a judicial authority, and has been presented by the manager or his agent without having again been in the hands of the petitioner has such petition been found, on examination by the board of control, to contain an entry in the handwriting of the manager or his agent bearing a date subsequent to the date appearing in the handwriting of the petitioner against his signature; and in how many such cases has it been made to appear in the copy sent to the board of control that the petitioner signed on the later date, by the substitution in the copy of the later date for the earlier date given by the petitioner against his signature?
§ Mr. WHEATLEYThere has been one such case. As the hon. Member is aware, the details of this case have already received full consideration, not only by the board of control, but by the Courts; and no disciplinary measures have been deemed necessary.