Immediately after that Act (5 and 6 Vict., c. 87) the Commissioners had entered upon their enlarged duties. The consequence was that in each year the establishments visited by them were:

Visited once a year.

Seventeen county asylums, or asylums brought within the scope of 9 Geo. IV. (1828), (twelve county asylums, five county and subscription asylums).

Eleven of mixed character (mostly by subscription and partly by income from charitable foundations).

Two military and naval hospitals.

Visited twice a year.

Ninety-nine houses licensed by justices in session (fifty-nine receiving only private patients, forty private and pauper).

Visited four times a year.

In metropolitan district: Thirty-seven houses licensed by Metropolitan Commissioners (thirty-three for private patients only; four for private and pauper).

Total public and private asylums, January 1, 1844, 166.

The result of these investigations was, Lord Ashley observed, the Report presented to the House last session, when he moved for an Address to the Queen, but withdrew it upon the Government promising to bring in a Bill.

Ultimately, however, the Government had requested him to undertake it.

The two Bills, having pa.s.sed the Houses of Parliament, received the Royal a.s.sent on the 4th and 8th of August, 1845.[171] They have been well called the Magna Charta of the liberties of the insane.

After these Acts had been in operation for eight years, it was found that various amendments were needed, and in February, 1853, Lord St.

Leonards introduced, along with another Bill lessening the expense arising out of lunacy inquisitions, one consolidating the laws respecting asylums, and one amending Lord Shaftesbury's Act (c. 100).

They const.i.tute the 16 and 17 Vict., c. 96 and c. 97.

The former, ent.i.tled "An Act to amend an Act pa.s.sed in the ninth year of Her Majesty 'for the Regulation of the Care and Treatment of Lunatics,'" has reference mainly to private asylums and hospitals. The same order and certificates which were required for admission into an asylum were now necessary for single patients. It was enacted that medical men should specify the facts upon which their opinion of a patient's insanity was based, distinguishing those observed by themselves from those communicated by others. Bethlem Hospital was by the thirty-fifth section of this Act made subject to the provisions of the Lunacy Acts.

The latter statute, ent.i.tled "An Act to Consolidate and Amend the Laws for the Provision and Regulation of Lunatic Asylums for Counties and Boroughs, and for the Maintenance and Care of Pauper Lunatics in England and Wales," repealed the 8 and 9 Vict., c. 126; 9 and 10 Vict., c. 84; and 10 and 11 Vict., c. 43. Many sections refer to the particular mode of determining the manner in which an asylum shall be provided for the paupers of a county and borough, whether for the county alone, or with some other county or borough, or with the subscribers to any hospital, or with the visiting committee of a county asylum for the joint use of an existing asylum. The parish medical officer was directed to visit all the paupers in it _every quarter_, whether in the workhouse or not, and report to the guardians or overseer those who, in his judgment, might be properly confined in an asylum. Thus the tendency of the Act was, in this and other ways, calculated to add to the numbers under care, and, therefore, to make the apparent increase of insanity greater. Three cla.s.ses of lunatics were contemplated by this Act, viz. pauper lunatics; wandering lunatics, whether paupers or not; lunatics not paupers and not wandering, who are cruelly treated or neglected. The Commissioners might order the removal of a lunatic from an asylum, unless the medical officer certified such patient to be dangerous; and the latter might be overruled by the consent of two visiting justices to his discharge. A large number of the sections of this Act provide in detail for the settlement, etc., of pauper lunatics. Penalties were enacted in the event of any superintendent or other officer of an asylum ill-treating or neglecting a patient.[172]

One of those waves of suspicion and excitement which occasionally pa.s.s over the public mind in regard to the custody of the insane, occurred in 1858. Sensational articles appeared in the papers, and novels were written to hold up those connected with the care and treatment of the insane to public obloquy. The author himself did not escape animadversion, and was represented in a newspaper as a brutal mad-doctor using a whip upon an unfortunate patient "in an inst.i.tution of which better things might have been expected." That the charge was the offspring of a bewildered editor, who confused person and place in an incredible manner, and was obliged to acknowledge that he had been the victim of his own imagination, only shows how the paroxysms of sudden pa.s.sion and indignation to which John Bull is liable, may lead to the most ridiculous mistakes. However, there must be some fire where there is smoke, and one or two unfortunate events gave colour to the a.s.sertion, persistently made, that asylums were the abodes of injustice and cruelty. A Select Committee of the House of Commons was appointed in February, 1859, to inquire into the operation of the Acts of Parliament and Regulations for the Care and Treatment of Lunatics and their Property, including Sir George Grey, Mr. Walpole, Mr. Whitbread, Mr.

Drummond, Mr. Kekewich, and others; and evidence was given by the Earl of Shaftesbury, Mr. Barlow, Mr. Gaskell, Dr. Southey, Dr. Conolly, Dr.

Hood, Dr. Bright, Dr. Bucknill, Mr. Lutwidge, etc.

The Committee commence their Report with presenting the following comparison of the number of lunatics in 1844, 1858, and 1859:--

-----------------------------------------+--------+--------+------- Location. | 1844. | 1858. | 1859.

-----------------------------------------+--------+--------+------- Private patients in asylums, hospitals, | | | and licensed houses | 3,790 | 4,612 | 4,762 | | | Pauper lunatics and idiots in asylums, | | | hospitals, and licensed houses | 7,482 | 17,572 | 18,022 | | | Pauper lunatics and idiots in workhouses | | | (655) and with friends, etc. | 9,339 | 13,163 | 13,208 +--------+--------+-------- | 20,611 | 35,347 | 35,992 -----------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------

the last figure showing an increase of 15,000 over the number in 1844, and being one in six hundred in the population. The Committee point out that from 1808 to 1845 the justices had the power to provide, in every county, proper houses for pauper lunatics, but were not obliged to do so. There were in 1859 forty county asylums. Of seventy-one boroughs bound to provide asylums, about forty had done so.

As to public asylums, the evidence brought forward convinced the Committee that little alteration was required in the law, they being "well looked after and carefully attended to." It was suggested that they might be in some instances too large, and the staff of attendants too small and not sufficiently paid. Also that it might be desirable to erect, in connection with them, detached buildings of a simple and inexpensive character for the reception of imbecile and chronic patients.

It was considered that the chief evil for which a remedy was required lay in the detention of a large number of pauper lunatics in workhouses, amounting to 68,000 January 1st, 1857, and 7632 on January 1st, 1859.

"It cannot be denied that, with regard to those who are really lunatics, there is a great absence of proper supervision, attendance, and medical treatment. In some workhouses there are not even separate wards; mechanical restraint is frequently applied, because the imperfect state of the accommodation will not admit of a better mode of treatment; in many cases, the medical officers of a union cannot have the special knowledge requisite for the management of the insane; and it may generally be concluded that the special appliances of a union workhouse are not by any means equivalent, as to this cla.s.s of inmates, to those of a lunatic asylum." The Committee did not recommend the removal of all cases, but that no person should be detained in a workhouse respecting whose sanity a doubt existed, without a medical certificate, renewable quarterly; that there should be distinct wards for such patients, with distinct attendance; that the guardians should visit such patients once a quarter, and make a special entry of their condition; that the Commissioners should visit them at least once a year; and that the same power of removing any patient to an asylum should be given to the Commissioners as that possessed by the justices.

Lord Shaftesbury on this occasion recommended that magistrates should be empowered to provide asylums by money raised on the security of the rates, for all the non-pauper cla.s.ses. "When I look into the whole matter," he said, "I see that the principle of profit vitiates the whole thing; it is at the bottom of all these movements that we are obliged to counteract by complicated legislation, and if we could but remove that principle of making a profit, we should confer an inestimable blessing upon the middle cla.s.ses, getting rid of half the legislation, and securing an admirable, sound, and efficient system of treatment of lunacy." The Committee, however, while encouraging such asylums founded on private contributions, could not recommend that a burden should be imposed on the ratepayers, or that their establishment should be compulsory.

The Committee suggested as safeguards against the improper detention of lunatics in private asylums (after dismissing the proposal to require the sanction of a magistrate) various important precautions.

1. Worthy of consideration whether the certificate should be verified before a magistrate, so as to enable him to determine whether the Act has been complied with. 2. The certificate authorizing detention to be limited to three months. 3. The order to state the time when the patient was last seen, and not to be effective unless the applicant had seen the patient within three months. 4. Copy of order and certificate to be sent to the Commissioners within twenty-four hours, instead of within seven days. 5. The patient to be visited as soon as possible by the Commissioners or by some person acting directly under their authority.

6. The person who signs the order for admission to a private asylum to visit the patient at least every six months--a clause in Mr. Gordon's Act, but omitted in that of 1845. 7. Patients to have a _prima facie_ right to receive visits from and correspond with friends. 8. To make it penal for any medical man to receive a patient in a single house without apprising the Commissioners of it.

Other suggestions of the Committee had reference to Chancery lunatics, criminal lunatics, and the composition and powers of the Lunacy Board.

When this Committee met, the Acts in force were essentially similar to what they now are (the only important subsequent statute being that of 1862), viz. for _public asylums_, the 16 and 17 Vict., c. 97, and 18 and 19 Vict., 105, and for _private asylums_, 8 and 9 Vict., c. 100, 16 and 17 Vict., c. 96, and 18 and 19 Vict., c. 105. According to these Acts, the great principle which governs asylums where private patients are kept may be said to be that no person can receive into his house more than one patient, if he derives any profit therefrom, unless he has a licence granted to him for that purpose, and submits to the regulations which that licence implies.

Legislation followed in 1862, in the statute 25 and 26 Vict., c. 111, ent.i.tled "An Act to amend the Law relating to Lunatics."[173]

It made pauper lunatics chargeable upon the common fund of the union, instead of the particular parish. In addition to many matters of detail in reference to the establishment of asylums, and an important section in regard to the use of workhouses for chronic lunatics, additional safeguards were given to prevent the improper admission of patients into inst.i.tutions for the insane, much care being shown in reference to the abuse of private asylums. Persons signing orders for admission must have seen the patient within one month. Certain persons were prohibited from signing any certificate or order for the reception of any private patient into a licensed or other house, viz. those receiving a percentage on, or otherwise interested in, the payments to be made by any patient received into such houses; as well as any medical attendant as defined by the Lunacy Act of 1845. If defective medical certificates were not amended within fourteen days, the Commissioners were empowered to order the patient's discharge. On admission of patient, the doc.u.ments, with the exception of the "statement," were to be transmitted to the Lunacy Board within one clear day, instead of after two and before the expiration of seven, as formerly. Increased visitation of asylums by Commissioners was provided, one of whom might visit any asylum, hospital, or jail, in addition to the visits required by two of them. Regulations were made in regard to patients being absent on trial, the transmission of their letters, and the further protection of single patients. These and some other sections were the outcome of the suggestions of 1859-60.[174]

In 1874 a Poor Law Act granted four shillings per head out of the Consolidated Fund to paupers in asylums, to the effects of which we shall have to refer in the next chapter.

It is necessary now to chronicle the appointment of the Select Committee of 1877, known as Mr. Dillwyn's Committee, the result, to a large extent, of a feeling of uneasiness in the public mind, or rather, a portion of it, relative to the too easy admission of patients into asylums, and their too difficult exit, when once there. The grossest charges were made against the proprietors of licensed asylums, and the Commissioners themselves were charged with culpable laxity. As might be expected, some changes in the law were suggested likely to prove beneficial, and the Report of the Committee contained sundry recommendations of importance. The charges, however, from which the inquiry originated, fell to the ground; and had the appointment of the Committee had no other result, the advantage would have been great, in presenting a most gratifying contrast to the revelations which took place fifty years before, in 1827.[175]

The conclusions at which the Committee arrived were that, "although the present system was not free from risks which might be lessened, though not wholly removed, by amendments in the existing law and practice, yet, a.s.suming that the strongest cases against the present system were brought before them, allegations of _mala fides_ or of serious abuses were not substantiated.... The Committee cannot avoid observing here, that the jealousy with which the treatment of lunatics is watched at the present day, and the comparatively trifling nature of the abuses alleged, present a remarkable contrast to the horrible cruelty with which asylums were too frequently conducted less than half a century ago, to the apathy with which the exposure of such atrocities by successive Committees of this House was received, both by Parliament and the country, and to the difficulty with which remedial enactments were carried through the legislature.... Nevertheless, the anomalous state of the law, which undoubtedly permits forcible arrest and deportation by private individuals and the fearful consequences of fraud or error, have induced the Committee carefully to inquire whether any additional safeguards may be devised."

Among the changes proposed (most of which are of the nature of safeguards), or in some instances hinted at rather than proposed, were:--an emergency certificate as in Scotland, signed by one medical man, but if the patient remains in the asylum more than three days, two fresh certificates to be obtained; in addition to report now required after the admission of the patient, a careful statement to be prepared from the case book and sent to the Lunacy Board at the end of the first month; the order on which every patient is admitted to continue in force for not more than three years, when a special report should be sent to the Board by the superintendent, and repeated annually; the original order to be given by a near relative as in Ireland, or some responsible person who could be called to account; the patient being visited every six months by the person signing the order, the "surest mode of guarding against unduly prolonged detention consisting in frequent and careful visitation of all places in which any lunatic is confined, with full power placed in the hands of the Commissioners to order his discharge, and in the more general adoption of the system of probationary release."

Reports to be sent to the Commissioners of patients kept under restraint in private families or religious houses in the British Isles, not for profit, provided that the reports are confidential, and the patients confirmed lunatics, and not merely suffering under temporary derangement. On showing good cause for such a course, any person, as in Scotland, with the sanction of the Commissioners, to send two medical men to test the condition of any patient under control. Personal examination of patients, such as that made by the Chancery Visitors, to be extended to them irrespective of the possession of property. "Either the Chancery lunatics, who number less than a thousand, have too much cure bestowed upon them, or the others, who exceed sixty-five thousand, have far too little.... It seems physically impossible that, with the present strength of the Lunacy Commissioners, minute supervision of those who require it can be efficiently exercised." Amalgamation of the two departments might obviate waste of power in visiting, stricter supervision being also exercised over single patients, who are only visited once a year, there being nothing in the Acts to necessitate even this visitation. Transference of administration of property of persons unable to manage it, without deprivation of liberty, suggested.

Particular workhouses to be devoted to harmless lunatics, who now crowd the asylums, by a common action of the workhouse authorities within certain areas. Voluntary boarders to be allowed to go to asylums, whether they have already been in confinement or not, notice being sent to the Lunacy Board of their admission. The existence of private asylums to be left to the spontaneous action of the public, sufficient accommodation in public asylums as in Scotland, Cornwall, and at Cheadle, being encouraged and facilitated by enlargement of the powers of magistrates, and other means calculated to extend this system.

Greater freedom of patients in asylums, and of their visitation by friends, and in correspondence, are regarded as valuable securities against the infringement of personal liberty. Whatever changes are made, a consolidation of the Lunacy Acts would be most desirable. Such were the main proposals.

These suggestions of the Committee have not yet borne fruit, but will, no doubt, be of service in future lunacy legislation.

Mr. Dillwyn, in introducing his last Bill (May 25, 1881),[176] proposed that no one should be confined as a lunatic except upon an order of the justice of the peace; that no one should be incarcerated except at the instance of a near relative, or of some solicitor of repute. There was also provision that due notice should be given before a justice made the order, and that the order must be authorized by two medical men, one of whom should be the medical officer of the district. For violent lunatics he proposed the Scotch law, which permitted an emergency certificate, enabling persons who had paroxysms of lunacy to be detained for twenty-four hours, but not longer, except on the order of some competent authority. In the matter of discharges, he proposed that patients should be discharged on the order of a Judge in Chambers, a stipendiary magistrate, or a County Court judge, who should order two medical men to visit the lunatic, and report on the case; and such judge, after communicating with the Lunacy Commissioners, might order the lunatic to be liberated within ten days. As to private asylums, Mr. Dillwyn knew that the proposals he made bearing upon them would be met by the argument of vested interests on the part of the proprietors, but he did not think such interests ought to be exceptionally respected. He did not wish to introduce compulsion, but proposed that justices should be enabled to raise money by way of terminable annuities for the reception in public asylums of those who could pay. Mr. Dillwyn on this occasion was in a generous mood, for he observed that "he had nothing to say against private asylums, which, on the whole, were very well conducted."

What he objected to was the interest which the proprietors had in keeping their patients as long as possible. Mr. Dillwyn objected to the present system of inspection, and made certain proposals with a view to increase its efficiency--including a paid chairman of the Lunacy Board.

Mr. Dillwyn's Bill never reached the stage of the third reading, nor was it discussed in committee; and the Government, which expressed a hope that they might be able to take the matter in hand, has not yet found time to bring in a Bill.

It will be seen from the foregoing sketch that the example of a better system of treatment slowly but surely exercised a beneficial effect, combined as it was by the exposure of the neglect and cruelty which for the most part marked the treatment in asylums, workhouses, and also the home care of the insane; that the demand for legislative inquiry and interference followed; and that the system of inspection has, step by step, been rendered stricter and more effective. First there was introduced the visitation by the College of Physicians, through five of its Fellows--a miserable failure. Then there was, in 1828, the appointment of Metropolitan Commissioners, whose authority was in 1842 extended to the whole of England and Wales; and, last of all, was the establishment of the Board of Lunacy Commissioners on the basis upon which it is now const.i.tuted. So woefully slow, if eventually successful, is the march of events in the progress of reform.

There have been several members of the legislature who have honourably distinguished themselves by advocating in Parliament the claims of a cla.s.s whose unhappy characteristic it is that they are unable to advocate their own cause, among whom may be mentioned Mr. T. Townshend, Mr. Wynn, Mr. Rose, Mr. Gordon, Lord Somerset; but to no single legislator is so great a debt of grat.i.tude due as to Lord Shaftesbury, whose untiring efforts, and conciliatory yet firm bearing, in bringing forward his measures for the relief of the insane, combined with a thorough mastery of the question and an intimate acquaintance with the condition of houses for their care and treatment, have effected the greatest good, and served to carry into extensive operation, principles already enunciated, it is true, and even partially practised, but requiring the strong arm of the law to enforce their recognition throughout the Kingdom. The extent of obligation the insane and their friends owe to Lord Shaftesbury, who for more than fifty years has devoted himself to their interest, can only be fully estimated by those who have carefully traced his unwearied a.s.siduity in conducting measures through Parliament, providing for the erection of lunatic asylums and the proper visitation of their inmates, and who are acquainted with the manner in which he has filled the office of Chairman of the existing Lunacy Board since it was formed. At that period Mr. Sheil could say in the House, without fear of contradiction, that "it may be truly stated that the n.o.ble lord had added n.o.bility even to the name of Ashley, and that he had made humanity one of 'Shaftesbury's Characteristics.'"[177]

FOOTNOTES:

[140] _Edinburgh Review_, vol. xxviii. p. 433.

[141] The "Private Mad-house Bill" of 1814 was introduced, April 5th, "to repeal and render more effectual the provisions of the Act of the 14th of the King." Mr. Rose said there were actually cases in which it was found that the medical certificate was signed by the keeper of the house. His Bill provided for the periodical visitation of private mad-houses by magistrates. The Bill pa.s.sed the Commons July 11, 1814.

Its author stated that it had been introduced the year before and amply considered by a Committee of the House, who were unanimous for its adoption, but I find no reference whatever in Hansard in 1813 to any Bill or Committee (see Hansard, vol. xxvii.).

[142] The chief members of the Committee were Lord R. Seymour, Lord Binning, the Right Hon. G. Rose, the Hon. H. G. Bennet, Mr. Western, Mr.

W. Smith, and the Hon. W. H. Lyttleton.