§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £10,259, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge 1188 which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Commissioners in Lunacy in England."
§ SIR JOHN TUKE (Edinburgh and St. Andrews Universities)
said he had moved this reduction in order to draw attention to the inadequate constitution of the English Lunacy Commission, and to certain defects in action consequent upon this inadequacy. In order to guard himself, he wished to say in the first place that he did not desire to attack individuals. He believed that the various members of the Commission were eminent and hard-working men, and that any imperfection in work followed entirely on the paucity of their numbers. What was the constitution of the Commission? It was presided over by an unpaid chairman, and there were four unpaid Commissioners. There were three medical and three legal Commissioners paid at the rate of £1,500 per annum. The duties of the unpaid Commissioners were confined entirely to the office. The main duty of the paid Commissioners was to visit and report on 114,000 registered lunatics in England and Wales. In order to develop his argument, he trusted he might be allowed to compare the condition of things in Scotland. In Scotland there was one unpaid chairman, two medical Commissioners with £1,200 per annum, two deputy Commissioners at £600, and two unpaid legal Commissioners. The duty of this Board was to supervise the interests of 14,500 registered insane persons. Thus, in England, three medical Commissioners supervised 114,000 patients; whereas, in Scotland, four medical Commissioners supervised 14,500. Putting it otherwise, in England there was one Commissioner to 38,000 lunatics; in Scotland one Commissioner to 3,622; thus, the supervising power in Scotland was ten times more than in England. He might be told that there was another supervising body in England—the Chancery Visitors in Lunacy. But they did not come into the equation in any way whatever. Their duties were confined to looking after the interests of wards in Chancery, and had nothing to do with the discipline or 1189 management of lunatic asylums as a whole. They might be put out of count. With these figures they were forced to one of two conclusions; either that Scotland was ridiculously overmanned or that England was seriously undermanned. He was going to say scandalously undermanned, and on the whole he felt justified in using that expression. He hoped he would be permitted to adduce the result of forty years experience to show that Scotland was in lunacy matters not overmanned, and he would adduce four reasons gained from personal experience to support his opinion.
First as to the character of the supervision. In Scotland each lunatic resident in an asylum was visited twice in each year by a medical Commissioner who performed his duty thoroughly. In England there was only one visitation except in private asylums. He was going to say leisurely, were it not that that expression might lead to misconception; but the fact was, that twice in each year each patient had an opportunity of laying his case before the Commission who attended to it carefully, and gave it real consideration. In the second place, he wished to adduce the fact that no action at law had for forty years come before the Scottish Courts, either under the Lunacy Acts or under the common law. Thirdly, they never experienced lunacy scares in Scotland. They had no scandals and outbursts of popular feeling or adverse Press comments. Fourthly, he was warranted in the assertion that there was as much public confidence in asylums and their administration in Scotland as there was in general infirmaries and hospitals, and that was saying a good deal. All the conditions engendered a feeling of confidence between the Board of Lunacy and the asylum authorities. Commissioners would act at once should occasion arise. They would take steps to abate any scandal, but in his long experience he had never known of any serious case demanding intervention. And further, there was a confidence established between the Commissioners and the asylum authorities on the one hand, and the public on the other. Under all these circumstances they were able to work elastically under much milder law than existed 1190 in England; and this in its turn worked beneficially for the insane, for, after all, he thought, it would not be gainsaid that their benefit was, or should be, the first object of legislation. The lunatic was not made for the law, but the law for the lunatic.
Now, on the face of it, he thought it would be generally admitted that it was physically impossible for the same kind and quality of supervision to be carried out in England as in Scotland. Was it possible for a Commissioner, however competent, distinguished, and hardworking, to overcome ten times the amount of work done by his brother across the Tweed and get equally good results? It was curious and interesting to note the fact that this numerical inadequacy of the English Commission was getting worse and worse. He did not propose going back into the history of the dark ages or the eighteenth century when humanitarian feeling had not been aroused, as shown by the state of our prisons, by the condition of our madhouses, and by the cruel administration of the criminal law. Public feeling was aroused at the end of the century by the great Frenchman Pinel, and by a sturdy Quaker of York whose name he had the honour to bear, although he could not prove any close relationship. Partly as a result of their action, in 1832 rive physicians and two barristers were appointed as a sort of Commission, and these numbers were increased in 1842 to seven physicians and four barristers. Still things did not work satisfactorily, and on the suggestion of Lord Ashley, subsequently Earl of Shaftesbury, a Royal Commission was appointed, on the recommendation of which the present Board of Commissioners in Lunacy was established in 1845. He was quite content to support his argument from that date. Under that Act the Commission was established exactly on the lines on which it existed at the present day. In 1842 there was reason to believe, although accurate statistics were not available, the number of lunatics in England and Wales was 25,000. Accurate statistics were only arrived at in 1859, when 37,000 lunatics were on the register. In 1870 there were 54,000, and in 1903, 114,000. Thus, medical Commissioners had to do four times the amount of work at the present day that 1191 they had to perform at the date of the establishment of the Commission. This stagnation must, he thought, appear extraordinary to the House, which he could not help thinking would be anxious to increase the number.
Now he would be reminded, of course, that besides three medical Commissioners, there were three legal Commissioners. He admitted to the full that legal Commissioners were absolutely necessary on the Commission. They could not be dispensed with as representing the law and the public. In the board room their presence was of the utmost importance. But what was their chief duty? It was to visit asylums along with the medical Commissioner. The legal Commissioner and medical Commissioner hunted in couples, the legal Commissioner knowing nothing more of medicine or of lunacy, or of asylum administration than policeman X. What was the theory of this visitation? It was a remnant of old tradition, the idea being that during visits at an asylum some points of law might arise which could only be settled by the legal Commissioner. He challenged the Commission to adduce a single case within, let him say, the last forty years, in which such an emergency had arisen. Any irregularity could be detected by the Commissioner and be reported and considered in the board room. As a matter of fact, the legal Commissioner only stood by. Patients were not presented individually, but en masse. He wrote a report, and, in fact, performed the work of a clerk. He had heard it suggested that he superintended the actions of the medical Commissioner, but this, he need hardly say, was a ridiculous assertion. He was useless for inspection purposes, he was an anachronism, and reminded him of the old story of the new commandant at Potsdam, who, on going his rounds, found a sentry in a curiously out-of-the-way position. He asked what was the object of this sentry. No one could answer him till the files of the orderly room were looked out and it was found that some fifty years before a Royal Princess had planted a tree which she desired to be taken care of and a sentry was posted. The Princess and the tree were both dead, but the sentry remained. He was convinced of the uselessness of these officers by his Scottish experience. 1192 There the legal Commissioners confined themselves to the board room and the inspection was carried out by one visiting medical Commissioner. He might be told that the inspection of a legal Commissioner gave confidence to the public. He had no hesitation in saying that there was not one in 10,000, perhaps not in 100,000, of the public that knew of his existence. As he had said, the legal Commissioner was an absolutely necessary component part of the Commission in the board room, but he was utterly useless in respect of inspection.
He would ask the House to consider whether the performance of such duties as he had stated demanded the existence of three officers costing £4,500 per annum. Surely one or two standing counsels at £500 a year each, or, as in Scotland, without salary, would be sufficient, and he was assured that in Scotland there was no shirking of work, no perfunctory performance of duties of those unpaid officials. But he doubted very much whether they would ever see these officers extinguished, for they were likely to exist so long as the Lord Chancellor had in his gift three fat posts to distribute amongst barristers who from advancing years or for any cause desired to relinquish the active exercise of their profession. Now he believed, in fact he knew, an office undermanned to the extent that this was must work in wooden fashion. It must work bureaucratically, using the term in its worst sense. There was no sympathy, no elasticity; and, moreover, if worked under a hard law, and notwithstanding the rigidity of law and administration it did not command the same public confidence as bodies in Scotland.
The first step to obtain public confidence was to establish thorough supervision. That could be done by breaking England and Wales up into some four or five different districts, with a registered Commissioner or Commissioners in each. He would not say that they had better Commissioners in Scotland, although they had many of great distinction. The success of their Commission was not dependent merely on this relative numerical superiority, but on the fact that Scotland was a small country, where practically everybody knew everybody. If England were broken 1193 up into four or five districts with resident Commissioners in each, these Commissioners would, by the mere force of propinquity, know the character of each institution under its jurisdiction, and obtain information as to the extent of unregistered and illegal establishments. As an illustration of what might be and was going on under existing circumstances, he would adduce the case of a man with no medical qualifications who was prosecuted early this year for maintaining an illegal establishment. He had continued doing this for thirteen years, and when detected he had seven patients, all of whom were in a most miserable condition. This was not a single case. This could not have occurred in Scotland or in any district with a limited area. He deplored for humanitarian and economic reasons the rapid increase of lunacy in Great Britain. The rate ran up by thousands a year and had more than doubled in thirty years. In England, in the decade 1893–1903, the annual average increase had been 2,414. Whilst admitting that causes other than that which he was about to adduce had been in action, the reason to which he was about to draw attention for the increase of lunacy was the main one. They were manufacturing chronic lunacy day by day in their asylums, and the fault did not lie at the door of the medical authorities of those institutions, than whom no more earnest and hard-working men existed. This was inevitable under the present condition of the law, and his argument was that they could not hope for any relaxation in this respect until public confidence was established, and the first step in this direction was the one he had indicated.
It was not his intention to deliver a lecture on the nature and treatment of the diseases comprised under the generic term of insanity. He wished to point out that doctors were precluded from treating the diseases adequately during the two critical stages of the complaint—the beginning and the end of each case. They were able to do so properly and efficiently amongst the moneyed classes, and it would not be difficult to prove that, as a consequence, in these classes there was no increase of lunacy. They could treat them at their own homes or elsewhere, supply them with nurses 1194 and all the necessary accessories, but this meant money; but with the poorer classes they were obliged to leave matters to drift, and that in face of symptoms they knew must inevitably result in acute insanity. They had to wait till the case was so pronounced as to warrant certification, thus losing the most valuable time during which the disease was most readily amenable to treatment. If of every 100 cases presenting themselves they excluded twenty as incurable, as opprobria medicinœ, of the eighty left 60 per cent. were amenable to treatment and that without asylum treatment. He could only adduce a concrete case in support of this assertion. An institution for the treatment of incipient cases of insanity had been established by the Glasgow Town Council, and he found by their Report that between 1890 and 1903, 70 per cent. of cases treated were discharged cured. Acute alcoholism—in itself a ripe cause of insanity—but over and above a large number of incipient cases were treated to satisfactory conclusion without being sent to asylum. The London County Council was of the same mind. So convinced was that body of the necessity of such treatment that it promoted a Bill, introduced in another place last year for the establishment of houses for this class of patient. The County Council sought for powers exercised in Scotland and not in England. In Scotland they were prepared for the increase of such establishments inconsequence of general confidence in the Lunacy Board, but he doubted whether they were in England.
He would allude very shortly to the other stage of the disease. A patient sent to an asylum was placed under the best conditions for recovery, but on his being discharged as recovered he was in many cases utterly neglected. No term of convalescence was allowed, no after care was possible except such as was afforded by one association in London, and accordingly large numbers relapsed and the asylum's recovery rate of, say 40 percent., became in practice reduced to something like 25. Until they ceased manufacturing dementia in the way he had explained, the number of lunatics must increase, and no material change could be brought about until confidence was established. The first means to that end was an efficient Lunacy Commission. They would goon building 1195 asylum after asylum for the reception of chronic cases. He gave way to no man in sympathy for the insane and in sympathy with their friends and relatives. But it was his duty to say that his opinion was that gross extravagance existed in asylum construction. He had conducted with good results an asylum in Scotland which cost about £200 per bed. Now they heard of £350 to £500, and even more, being expended, and this extravagance could only be arrested and controlled by efficient supervision. He did not wish to weaken his argument, but he had to confess that in Scotland they were not altogether free of charge. The whole lunacy question of Great Britain required examination—England mainly, Scotland to a rather less extent; and to this end he appealed to the Home Secretary with all diffidence to appoint a Select Committee to consider the question as a whole. It was no good undertaking it piecemeal. He confidently predicted that if such a Commission was established, very material and important changes would be recommended and, he trusted, acted on.
He had adduced certain reasons which sufficiently warranted his making this appeal, but he had one more. During the last twenty-five or thirty years a vast change had come over the general conception of insanity, certainly as regards the medical profession, and he believed to a certain extent the public. The medical profession had advanced along with the advance in general medicine. As regards insanity it was difficult to express what this change was tersely, but in semi-technical terms he might say the insane person was no longer regarded as a psychological curiosity but as a pathological entity. He or she was a a very sick man or woman demanding hospital treatment, treatment which was denied by every general hospital or infirmary in the Kingdom.
He feared he had trespassed too long on the indulgence of the Committee, but he felt justified in doing so in that the matter was one of national importance. He was no enthusiast. He spoke with deliberation from very long experience, and he knew that he should be supported by the great mass of his profession. He had no eloquence to depend 1196 on in advancing his claims except the eloquence of facts and figures. Again he begged to ask the Home Secretary to carefully consider the position. If the right hon. Gentleman would accede to his request, the right hon. Gentleman would do much to alleviate the most wretched and dire disease which man was heir to—a disease which more than any other affected the happiness of friends and relatives. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to remember that the nation was doing its best to stamp out tuberculosis and to eradicate cancer, but they were not doing their duty in respect of a disease which affected three per thousand of the country, and which if not arrested consigned its victim to a living tomb. He had spoken under a deep sense of responsibility. He was but a humble private Member of this House, but he thought he might say that no one in it was so intimately acquainted with the subject, and had he not done as he had done, he felt that he should have failed in his duty to the public.
§ * SIR MICHAEL FOSTER (London University)
associated himself warmly with the efforts of the previous speaker to obtain an improvement in the lunacy laws. The urgent necessity for a large increase of the Commissioners in Lunacy was beyond doubt. Whether there should be an increase in the number of head Commissioners or in the number of assistant Commissioners was a matter of detail, but there ought to be an increase in the number of medical Commissioners. It should be remembered that when the lunacy laws were introduced they were more or less based on the view that the case of a person of unsound mind was a hopeless one, and their main purpose was to protect the lunatic from ill-treatment, to protect the public against the lunatic, and to prevent a sane man from being taken for a lunatic. That motif still obtained, and the legal rather than the medical aspect was put in the fore part of our legislation. In no branch of science had there been greater progress during the last generation than in the knowledge of the brain and the central nervous system. That wonderful web of delicate fibre and cells was being gradually unravelled, and day by day they were getting a command over the brain which was unknown when 1197 the Lunacy Acts were introduced. Though medical science had reduced other diseases, notably tuberculosis, lunacy, if anything, was on the increase. Where was the fault? The fault was not in science. Science was ready to do all it could. One fault was the present state of the lunacy laws. If these did not hinder they certainly did not facilitate the application of science to lunacy, especially in the early stages. Great changes were needed. Besides an increase in the number of Commissioners, there was one very great change needed, and that was in the making known of cases of insanity in the early stages. At present an insane person could not be brought adequately under treatment without the certificate of two medical men, and that meant a petition and a declaration and a magistrate's order. That was virtually an advertisement of insanity, and as such it stood in the way of the desire of medical men to apply medical science to the cure of insanity in its early stages. The friends of the patient refused to avail themselves of the opportunity because the advertisement brought a stigma to the patient. These things were done much better in Scotland, where on the certificate of a responsible medical man placed in the hands of a householder, an insane person could be kept in a private house under proper treatment. Why should that not apply in England? We now had notification of infectious diseases, and there would be no difficulty in the notification of a change in the central nervous system; and mere notification would be a very different thing from the advertisement of the present system. The certificate declared a person to be of unsound mind, and that was interpreted as meaning that the person was incapable of taking care of himself. That was not a true view of the case. Insanity covered a whole group of changes in the central nervous system, some slight and others dangerous, but under the present system all cases had to be treated in exactly the same way. That ought not to be so, and he joined his hon. friend in urging most strongly on the Attorney-General the desirability of some inquiry into the whole matter.
§ DR. FARQUHARSON (Aberdeenshire, W.)
said that in past days he had acted as godfather to this question in the 1198 House, but now that the real father had appeared he would gracefully take a backseat and follow him in advocating a complete and expeditious inquiry into the great questions connected with lunacy. He would prefer a Royal Commission to a Select Committee as being a more dignified and proper method of conducting so important an investigation, and from what he had heard from different authorities he had come to the conclusion that the case for inquiry was complete. Twelve years had elapsed since a consolidating Act was passed, and in 1900, by some extraordinary Parliamentary accident, a Lunacy Bill slipped through both Houses without a word of discussion. The Bill brought forward by the Lord Chancellor four years ago contained admirable provisions suggested by the Lunacy Commissioners, including one which proposed to extend to England the beneficent arrangement at present enjoyed in Scotland, by which cases on the border line of insanity were allowed to be treated in private homes for a period of six months, thus tiding over the time during which successful treatment was possible. By that system many persons were restored who would probably have become permanently insane if they had been sent to a lunatic asylum. There were many questions for consideration, such as the waste of public money under the present system, and whether lunacy was really on the increase, or whether it was merely that cases were diagnosed earlier and thus brought under the notice of the authorities at an earlier stage. Another question for inquiry was the necessity of having a variety of public institutions in which cases on the border-line of insanity might be carefully treated and studied, so as to give them the best chances of recovery. Insanity ought to be considered, not as a mysterious dispensation of Providence, a sort of judgment brought upon people by some malign influence from above or from below, but as a disease, and it should be studied in the same way as any other disease. Above all, they should wipe away once and for ever the wretched superstitution that there was something discreditable attaching to a man or his family if he should unfortunately come under the designation of 1199 "mad." There ought to be established special hospitals, or, at any rate, special wards, for the study of lunacy, and special pathological institutions. The London County Council, with great liberality and energy, and in a scientific spirit, had started a pathological institute, under the care and the superintendence of first-class scientific men, and a splendid scientific work was being done. The only drawback to that institution was its distance from London. It ought to be brought to the Metropolis, so that scientific men could attend day by day, and students hour by hour, to study the cases and the pathological results.
Reference had been made to the Scotch domestic system, under which one-fifth of the insane people were boarded out in private houses, instead of being herded in lunatic asylums where they must be crystallised in their insanity by rubbing shoulders with people more mad than themselves. In that way cases on the border-line were given the best possible chance of recovering their mental balance. The same principle was adopted in some of the ordinary lunatic asylums. It occurred to him that it was much better for the inmates to have this calm and peaceful domestic life than to be herded together in asylums. They had heard something about notification. In his opinion the local authority should empower the medical officer of health to visit the lunatic, and if he considered further investigation necessary he should certify the case in the usual way. Under the present system they had to get two medical men to visit the patient, and by cross-examination they tried to find out whether he was mad or not and this was a very offensive method. When the doctor was examining he had to pretend that he had been called in to superintend the patient's general health. Consequently he had to try to deceive the patient, and very often the patient noticed this and deceived the doctor. After he had gone through this process of mental torture the justice of the peace came in and he might if he liked have the patent before him. After all this what condition did they expect the poor lunatic to be in by the time he arrived at the asylum? By that time the lunatic would become crystallised and hardened, and if he ever 1200 left the asylum at all he would be in a worse condition than when he went in.
The Commission consisted of three doctors and three barristers, and the doctors had three times as many people to look after now than they had when they were first appointed. Their work had been increased by more cases and more complex conditions. One doctor had now to inspect from 800 to 1,000 persons per day, and he wished to state emphatically that this condition of things was nothing more than a mere farce. The object of the Commissioner going round to the asylums was to see whether the inmates were mad or not, and whether they were being improperly detained. They had also to see that the necessary sanitary arrangements were provided. When a Commissioner had to examine between 800 and 1,000 persons in one day, he did not think the word "farce" was too strong a term to apply to such a condition of things. In Scotland they had double the number of Commissioners. He joined with his hon. friends in asking for a full inquiry, and he believed the Lord Chancellor sympathised with them in this matter and would have no objection to a Royal Commission.
§ MR. BRIGG (Yorkshire, W.R., Keighley)
said he intervened in the debate because the county council with which he was connected had forwarded a petition to the Government asking for the very same thing which had been demanded in the speeches of the two hon. Members who had preceded him. This county council had spent £1,276,908 in buildings and land, and therefore the Lunacy Commissioners ought to have some regard for the amount of money which the ratepayers were called upon to contribute for lunacy provision. This county council had now an asylum in course of erection which would cost £250,000 or £646 per head of the people to be accommodated. They had also been obliged to provide farm buildings and land in connection with the asylums, costing in one case over £6,000. They had erected two greenhouses costing £2,800, and he had noticed a considerable item for canaries and cages, and actually £3 3s. for a bassoon. He did not wish it to be understood that he had no feeling for the unfortunate people, for he had the deepest sympathy 1201 with those with whom they had to deal, but he wished to point out that this heavy expenditure was still going on, and they had to provide for about 140 additional patients every year. A very great increase in the cost of the buildings was due to the varying instructions and directions which were given by the Lunacy Commissioners. Many years ago the asylums only cost them £175 per head. The ratepayers had no control over this expenditure, except through their members on the county council, and everybody else connected with the asylums seemed to be interested in spending as much money as possible. The Commissioners were extravagant in their directions, and of course the medical officer wanted to have the finest establishment in the country. The staff were all provided with the very best of everything, and everybody but the ratepayers was considered.
He was anxious that there should be some inquiry in this matter. There were one or two points to which public attention ought to be directed. One of these was the different reasons assigned for the cause of lunacy. It was said that 18 per cent. of the cases were due to heredity and 23 per cent. to drink. The habitual drunkard's children in many instances found their way in the end into lunatic asylums. Another point to which he wished to direct attention was that a very large percentage of the patients sent to lunatic asylums were incurable. He thought a considerable difference might be made between the accommodation for curables and incurables. In one of the asylums 92 per cent. of the patients were said to be entirely incurable, and he thought it was unnecessary to supply splendid buildings, fittings, furniture, and appliances for the benefit of that class. They might be treated in another way, but not being a medical man, he could not advise what should be done. There ought to be a special division where weak-minded children might be treated. There was a large and increasing number of children being sent to lunatic asylums, some of them so young as five years of age. His suggestion was that the children should be dealt with by themselves, and that such work as they were able to perform should be got from them. It was a hazard- 1202 ous thing to say anything about the Commissioners. Hon. Members who were interested in the management of asylums would support him when he stated that it was a very difficult thing to please the Commissioners. In regard to the system of inspection, one objection which county councils had was that the same Commissioners did not always come round, the result being that changes were constantly ordered, one man reversing the instructions given by another. One man said that certain doors must always be left open, and another said that they must be made so that they would close. In connection with the asylum in his own district, when it was proposed to provide a fire escape for the patients one Commissioner said that the proper thing to have was a fire shoot through which the patients could be sent to the ground, and another Commissioner said they must have stairs. The Commissioners sometimes ordered a church to be provided, and he believed that they had no power to do so. They could order a chapel, and it was said that the appointment of a chaplain of the Church of England could be enforced. Free Church people had to find their own preachers on Sunday just as they best could. He desired that the Royal Commission which was to be appointed should inquire into the whole question, for nobody could doubt that the increase in lunacy was a very serious matter indeed. It might be owing to the conditions of our social life, but the public ought to know the reason. He hoped the inquiry which was to take place would satisfy the nation that the best was being done for the sufferers, and that the ratepayers' money was not being wasted.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)
said that a more important subject could scarcely engage the attention of the Committee. He could conceive scarcely any misfortune greater than lunacy. Death was scarcely more terrible. There was one misfortune greater than lunacy, and that was to be treated as a lunatic without being one. Men had been deprived of their liberty and kept as lunatics when, in fact, they were not, or, at any rate, were amenable to treatment without being confined.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES
said the hon. Member might remember that there was a novel which the writer stated was founded on facts. He could not cite a case within his own knowledge. At any rate the thing was possible. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London had suggested that the purview of the man of science should be, as it were, extended beyond the actual certified lunatic to those who were in an incipient stage. With the very best object the hon. Member suggested that if science were allowed to deal with them at an earlier stage of lunacy they might with greater facility achieve a cure. That was no doubt true, but he thought it necessarily must involve the deprivation of the liberty of those subjected to that treatment. If a man in an incipient, or supposed incipient, stage of lunacy were handed over to men of science he must lose that personal liberty which they all prized beyond anything else. The incipient stage of lunacy was difficult to recognise. It was said that every man was more or less mad—Great wits are sure to madness near allied,And thin partitions do their bounds divide.It was conceivable that a committee of medical men under some such system as that suggested might certify that an individual was an incipient lunatic, and the consequences might be so serious that he boldly said it would be better to stand by the present system and run a certain amount of risk rather than to deprive a man of his liberty under such awful conditions. The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire described how a supposed lunatic was interviewed by two doctors who endeavoured to trick him into an admission of lunacy while he, on the other hand, endeavoured to deceive them.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES
said he understood the hon. Member to say that there was a contest of wits between the supposed lunatic and the doctors. That was a very unfortunate thing to occur, 1204 and he believed it was a fact that some such contest did often happen. He had heard of an eminent man who kept an establishment in the West End of London where he did a vast amount of good in the treatment of lunatics. He asked a friend to dine with him and some of his lunatics, assuring him that if he did not touch on their particular delusions he would find them very interesting people. The guest at dinner sat next to a man who was most interesting. The patient asked him if he had come to place himself under the care of the doctor. "No," he replied, "I have only come to dine, and I am going away after dinner." "Ah," the patient said, "they always tell you that on the first day." The Commission should not be composed exclusively of men of science, and above all of doctors. He thought there should be a lawyer on it, and even a man of common sense, who was neither a doctor nor a lawyer.
§ DR. HUTCHINSON (Sussex, Rye)
said he did not agree with the hon. Member for King's Lynn that men or women were, in these days, shut up as lunatics who were not insane. It was at curious coincidence that for the past three days the House of Commons should have been discussing the drink question, and that now they were engaged on the question of lunacy. He thought the debate was very apropos. He only wished to say that on the proposed Lunacy Commission there should be an increase of the medical members and a decrease of the legal members. Another thing that ought to be recognised was that medical experts were demanding that there should be some way of securing early treatment of lunatics. They wanted to be able to separate different classes of lunatics, in the same way as they separated persons suffering from infectious diseases.
§ LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICE (Wiltshire, Crickdale)
said he had been for a great number of years a member of the committee of one of the largest county lunatic asylums in the country; and he was sorry to say that that county (Wiltshire) held an unfortunately prominent position in the percentage of lunatics to total population. It was a 1205 well ascertained fact that in nearly every county where there was a high rate of lunacy there had been a very large emigration of the population. The strong and well-to-do left the county and left behind the poor and the weak. In the South and West of England they had suffered a great deal in that respect from the fact that manufactures and, consequently, employment had been transferred to other parts of the country. As bearing on the financial aspect of this question the poorer counties, like Wiltshire, had a very considerable claim on the attention of the Government in any inquiry which might be held as to the financial burdens which different counties had to bear for the maintenance of lunatics. Some counties were at present bearing a disproportionate part of the charge for what the law recognised was not a local but a national charge. What were the main reasons for putting aside local considerations as between county and county, and the main causes of the great increase in the charges to which his hon. friend had referred in his interesting speech? He was anxious to take a more comforting view of the situation than the alarmist view which had just been put before the Committee. He thought that, reading the Report of the Lunacy Commissioners, it would be rash to assume that the total increase in the number of lunatics in asylums necessarily pointed to a real increase in the number of lunatics in the country. And for this reason: When county asylums were first set up and the care of lunatics was taken out of private hands, there was a terrible fear among the poorer classes of seeing their relations put in these asylums. Recently there had been a great change in that feeling. Instead of the labourers fancying that their weak-minded relations who were taken off to the asylum would be badly treated, or even done to death, the feeling was now exactly the opposite. These asylums were now so admirably and expensively managed, that the standard of comfort in them was far above what these people were accustomed to in their own homes, and that entered into the calculations of these poor men and offered a temptation to them to send doubtful cases to the asylum rather than keep them at home. He did not suggest 1206 that the standard of living in the asylums should be lowered; on the contrary; but, nevertheless, it ought to be borne in mind that it did not follow that because there was an increase in the proportion of lunatics in asylums to population, say in the Highlands, that represented the same thing in the country at large. There had, been certain special reasons during the last few years why the proportion of lunatics to population had been sent up. It was universally recognised that six months after the close of the South African War there was a remarkable increase in lunacy. That was due to excitement as the war went on, which went to some people's heads, and to the fact that a great many persons had lost their relations by the chances of battle and disease, and were reduced to great poverty. There was no doubt that inrluenza—a disease to which they were all liable, especially in that House—had within the last few years sent a certain number of cases year by year to the asylums; but all of them were curable.
These being the facts, what were the steps which they were justified in asking the Government to adopt? He understood that the Government, were practically pledged to grant some kind of inquiry or Commission, but he asked himself whether, in reality they had not had enough of inquiries and Royal Commissions? The main facts about the increase of lunacy were already known, and had been put in the most admirable language in the Reports of the Lunacy Commissioners. He remembered that some years ago the then Government promised that they would bring in a Bill in the next session on this subject, and that a précis of that Bill, extending to a column and a half, had appeared in the newspapers. He would like to ask what had become of that measure? Surely in these days the Government might spare a little time to look into the pigeon-holes of the Local Government Board and find that very useful and interesting suggested, legislation. He remembered that there was a correspondence between the Government and the County Councils Association which had put forward certain points dealing with this question. He did not altogether approve of the plan to take certain cases from private asylums and 1207 put them into the workhouses under Government supervision, so that the boards of guardians should be entitled to receive the 4s. grant, which had had such a fatal effect in many cases. Ever since Sir Stafford Northcote in 1875 brought in this extra grant of 4s. there had been a tendency, working in concert with other causes, to take doubtful cases into the workhouse asylums in order to get the 4s. grant. He could not see any necessity for further inquiry on this question, because all the facts had been known for years. He though the country owed a deep debt of gratitude to the Lunacy Commissioners. The hon. Member for Lynn Regis had unearthed ancient stories from old novels relating to a past state of things as to the capture and detention of sane men and women as lunatics; but the machinery of the Act of 1891 had provided very adequate protection for sane men and women, and he believed that such cases had been reduced to a minimum. There was now so much inspection by magistrates and other laymen, who were always ready to suspect the infallibility of the medical men, that if a person was locked up who ought not to be the chances were that he would be liberated inmediately. He could not understand the necessity for building expensive places of worship and providing all the requisites for the æsthetic accompaniments of an ornamental service which might appeal to all classes of the community who were in their sane mind. The Commissioners might be checked a little in this direction, while in all reasonable requirements they should be supported. He was sure that the Committee realised that the question of the increase of lunacy was one of the most painful and important that could be considered. He was rather inclined to doubt whether a further inquiry was necessary, though he would not resist it if it were proposed.
§ * SIR JOHN DORINGTON (Gloucestershire, Tewkesbury)
said that as one of the honorary Commissioners of Lunacy he wished to say a few words on the subject before the Committee. Reference had been made to the inadequacy of the Lunacy Commission in England as compared with Scotland. The Lunacy Commission in England was quite aware 1208 of that fact; and last year memorialised the Lord Chancellor on the subject and drew attention to the enormous growth of the work which was thrown upon them and which was really increasing beyond all reasonable dimensions. When the Commission was instituted there were 25,000 lunatics; now there were 140,000, and the number of asylums had increased from sixty-two in 1882 eighty-seven now, and eleven more were under construction, some of which were just about to be opened. Every one of those asylums required to be visited and they increased the work of the Commissioners. He did not concur with what had been said with regard to the uselessness of the legal Commissioners. He thought that it was a very happy arrangement under which the medical members had the assistance of their legal confrères. As an honorary Commissioner he was able to state that legal questions often arose in which the assistance of the legal Commissioners was of the greatest value. He thought there should be an increase in the personnel of the Commission, and also that it should not be necessary that two Commissioners should visit every asylum. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh University instanced a case in which a house had been kept for years for the reception of lunatics without supervision, but that was simply due to the fact that the police, or the inhabitants of the district, had not given information which would be at once attended to by the Commissioners. Whenever information was given the Commissioners applied to the Lord Chancellor for a visitation order, which was at once acted upon. With regard to the office work, the number of reception orders in 1882 was 15,960, and in 1902, 23,000. All these were, more or less, examined by the Commissioners, and from his own knowledge he would sate that there was not a single lunatic n England the particulars of whose case was not known. The Commission worked extremely well, but it was overworked. It wanted an alleviation of its work, or in increase in the number of Commissioners. He thought that the legislation 1892 in regard of the placing of Liunatics under control went as far as public opinion would allow. He knew he sad conditions which prevailed 1209 in a family when it was thought that a member of it was supposed to be verging on lunacy, and there was natural hesitation before taking any steps to have the patient certified. He very much doubted whether any change in the law would affect an improvement in such a case. He was strongly of opinion that they could not go very much further. He admitted what had been said regarding the importance of early treatment in lunacy cases, but the question was, how early should the public authorities intervene. He cordially supported his hon. friend in his demands for an inquiry regarding the adequacy, not the competency, of the Lunacy Commissioners for England. It was short-handed, and an enormous amount of work had to be accomplished, and he hoped the Home Secretary would increase its personnel.
§ THE ATTORNEY - GEXERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,) Inverness Burghs
said he was glad to know that the administration of lunacy was so satisfactory in Scotland, but, while allowing that anything said by the hon. Member for Edinburgh University on this subject carried great authority and deserved careful consideration, he could not agree with everything in his hon. friend's speech. He was not satisfied that there was proof of the actual increase in the amount of lunacy. Cases were now looked after as they were not under the barbarous state of the law in old days, and there was less reluctance to allow patients to enter well-managed modern asylums. If there was a real increase in the proportion of lunatics in the country apart from an apparent increase, it was not due to any defect in the law or its administration; it was due to the conditions of modern life. Under the much greater care taken of the young, many physically and mentally feeble persons survived who in old times would have disappeared in the early struggles for existence, and in such cases strain and stress such as had been alluded to might send the mind over the precipice. It was pleasing to observe that there was absolute confidence in the administration of the lunacy laws in Scotland, and that there were no scares and no scandals in that country. 1210 That might be due to the fact that Scotland was a smaller country than England and was easier to manage. But he thought his hon. friend drew too dark a picture when he suggested that in England there was an atmosphere of distrust in regard to the administration of the lunacy laws. He did not think his hon. friend had produced any evidence in support of tint statement. He thought there was a very general and well-founded confidence in the way in winch the lunacy laws were administered. The hon. Member for the Keighley Division had suggested that the cost of buildings for the care of lunatics was far too great. That might be so, but it was a matter largely under the control of the local authorities. Undoubtedly the local authorities had a potent voice in these matters, and if there was a resolute movement in the direction of economy, he was sure that, so far as it was consistent with efficiency, that movement would not be disregarded by the Commissioners.
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAY
said the local authorities must acquire more moral courage in these matters. As to the number of the Commissioners, of course the Committee listened with interest to what was said by his hon. friend behind him with regard to the feeling of the Commissioners that some increase in their number was desirable But he would suggest that before they embarked on an increase of the staff they should see whether the work of the existing staff could not be rearranged with advantage. He believed that a great deal could be done by relaxing the provision of the law as to the association of two Commissioners—a legal Commissioner and a medical Commissioner—on four of the six visits that were paid to each house in every year. Subject to proper provisions, such a relaxation might be made, and a Bill which had more than once passed through the House of Lords, but, owing to the opposition in the House of Commons, could not be passed into law, contained provisions for that purpose. Strong 1211 objection had been taken to legal Commissioners visiting the houses and lunatics in company with the medical Commissioners. But the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tewkesbury, speaking from practical experience as a Commissioner, had expressed his opinion that a great deal of good had been done by the association of a legal Commissioner with a medical Commissioner, and they had reason to know that a similar view had been expressed by the medical Commissioner.
As to the question of incipient or threatened lunacy, he was not disposed to deny that in England we had very great jealousy for personal liberty. But he was not at all sure that that jealousy, in its origin noble and honourable, had not been pushed to an extent which might have interfered with the care which, if bestowed in time, might have prevented the patient from being stamped as a lunatic. It was said that that matter was better managed in Scotland. He would remind the House that the Bill which had passed more than once through the House of Lords and had been prevented from passing through the House of Commons contained clauses dealing with this very matter, relaxing the provisions of the law in a way which he believed would be found to give facilities for preventing the development of this terrible malady, and vet providing adequate securities against the machinery being abused for any purpose of oppression. That proposal bad been made by the Government, and certainly it was very much to be desired that something of the kind should be carried out. It was not the view of the Government that a case had been made out for the appointment of a Royal Commission or a Committee to Inquire into this subject. The question was pretty thoroughly understood. Attention had been called by high authorities to the points on which they considered there might be either legislation or improved administration. He was perfectly certain that everything that had been said in that debate would be properly considered, and no good could be done by setting up another inquiry into the whole subject of lunacy.
SIR EDWARD STRAGHEY (Somersetshire, S.)
said after the very unsatisfactory reply of the hon. and learned Attorney-General it was necessary on his part to move the reduction of this Vote by a sum of £100, in order that the dissatisfaction of the Committee might be expressed and emphasised. Those who practically had the administration of lunacy did not find it was anything like so satisfactory as the hon. and learned Gentleman appeared to think. He reminded the Attorney-General that in cases of building the plans had to go before the Lunacy Commissioners, who, if not satisfied, could make any alterations they chose. An unsatisfactory feature connected with the proceedings was that the architects to the Lunacy Commissioners were allowed to take private work. He knew a case in which the committee of the county lunatic asylum were advised to choose a particular architect on the ground that he was employed by the Lunacy Commissioners, and that they would consequently have no difficulty in getting their plans through. That was a state of things which ought not to be. As architects were paid a percentage on the cost of the building, it was only natural that they should desire to see expensive buildings erected, and it was wholly against the public interest that the check upon them through the Lunacy Commissioners should be rendered ineffective in the manner he had described. He begged to move the reduction of the Vote by £100.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £10,159, be granted for the said Service."—(Sir Edward Strachey.)
§ DR. FARQUHARSON
hoped, in view of the unsatisfactory and perfunctory reply of the Attorney-General, that his hon. friend would press his Motion to a division. It would, however, have some effect on his own vote if the hon. and learned Gentleman gave an assurance that the Bill which passed the House of Lords four years ago should be re-introduced early next session and Government-facilities granted to secure its passage through the House.
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAY
assured the hon. Member that he was alive to the importance of the Bill referred to, but it 1213 was impossible for him to give any pledge of the nature asked for. The matter would not be lost sight of. He could say no more than that.
|Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)||Horniman, Frederick John||Partington, Oswald|
|Allen, Charles P.||Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.||Pirie, Duncan V.|
|Ambrose, Robert||Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)||Price, Robert John|
|Austin, Sir John||Jacoby, James Alfred||Robson, William Snowdon|
|Barran, Rowland Hirst||Johnson, John (Gateshead)||Roche, John|
|Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)||Joicey, Sir James||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.||Jones, David Brynmor (Sw'ns'||Rose, Charles Day|
|Boland, John||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire||Runciman, Walter|
|Brigg, John||Jordan, Jeremiah||Russell, T. W.|
|Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)||Joyce, Michael||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland|
|Burke, E. Haviland||Kilbride, Denis||Shackleton, David James|
|Burt, Thomas||Labouchere, Henry||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)|
|Caldwell, James||Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.||Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)|
|Cameron, Robert||Layland- Barratt, Francis||Sheehy, David|
|Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)||Leamy, Edmund||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Canston, Richard Knight||Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)||Slack, John Bamford|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Leng, Sir John||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Crombie, John William||Levy, Maurice||Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants|
|Cullinan, J.||Lewis, John Herbert||Sullivan, Donal|
|Dalziel, James Henry||Lloyd-George, David||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Davies, M. Vanghan (Cardigan||Lundon, W.||Tennant, Harold John|
|Delany, William||M'Crae, George||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, F.|
|Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway||M'Hugh, Patrick A.||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.|
|Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)||M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)||Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr|
|Donelan, Captain A.||Malcolm, Jan||Tomkinson, James|
|Doogan, P. C.||Markham, Arthur Basil||Waldron, Laurence Ambrose|
|Edwards, Frank||Mooney, John J.||Walton Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Elibank, Master of||Morgan. J. Lloyd (Carmarthen||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)||Moulton, John Fletcher||Weir, James Galloway|
|Farquharson, Dr. Robert||Murphy, John||White, Luke (York. E. R.)|
|Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Whiteley, George (York. W. R.|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Flynn, James Christopher||Norman, Henry||Wilson, Henry J. (York. W. R.)|
|Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John||Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Goddard, Daniel Ford||Nussey, Thomas Willans||Wood, James|
|Gordon, Hn. J. E (Elgin & Nairn||O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)||Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf' d|
|Hammond, John||O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.)||Young, Samuel|
|Hayden, John Patrick||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Hayter, Rt. Hn. (Sir Arthur D.||O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Edward Strachey and Sir John Tuke.|
|Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.||O'Donnell, I. (Kerry, W.)|
|Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Hobhouse, C. E. R. (Bristol, E.||Palmer, Sir Chas. M (Durham|
|Hope, John Denas (Fife, West)||Parrott, William|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor||Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)|
|Allhusen, Augustus H. Eden||Bartley, Sir George C. T.||Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A (Worc.|
|Allsopp, Hon. George||Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin||Chapman, Edward|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Beach, Rt. Hon. Sir M. Hicks||Charrington, Spencer|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Bignold, Arthur||Coates, Edward Feetham|
|Arnold-Forster, Rt Hn. Hugh O.||Bill, Charles||Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.|
|Arrol, Sir William||Bond, Edward||Coddington, Sir William|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon, John||Boulnois, Edmund||Cohen, Benjamin Louis|
|Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H||Bowles, Lt.-Col H. F (Middlesex||Colomb, Rt. Hon. Sir John C. R.|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn||Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Brassey, Albert||Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)|
|Balcarrer, Lord||Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Corbett, T. L (Down, North)|
|Baldwin, Alfred||Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J (Manch'r||Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)||Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim S.,|
|Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)||Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire||Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds||Cayzer, Sir Charles William||Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile|
|Banbury, Sn Frederick George||Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Dalkeith, Earl of|
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Aves, 126; Noes, 216. (Division List No. 122.)1215
|Dalrymple, Sir Charles||Lambton, Hn. Frederick Wm.||Renwick, George|
|Davenport, William Bromley||Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)||Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green|
|Denny, Colonel||Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th||Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson|
|Dickson, Charles Scott||Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)|
|Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks. N. R||Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye|
|Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-||Lee. A. H. (Hants., Fareham)||Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert|
|Dimsdale, Rt Hn. Sir Joseph C.||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Round. Rt. Hon. James|
|Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon||Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.||Rutherford, John (Lancashire)|
|Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.||Llewellyn, Evan Henry||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)|
|Doughty, George||Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine||Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers||Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)||Samuel, Sir Harry S (Limehouse)|
|Doxford, Sir William Theodore||Long, Rt Hn Walter (Bristol, S.||Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J.|
|Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwm||Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Dyke, Rt. Hn Sir William Hart||Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)||Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight|
|Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Seton-Karr, Sir Henry|
|Fardell, Sir T. George||Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r||Lucas, Reginald. J (Portsmouth||Sinclair, Louis (Romford)|
|Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred||Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)|
|Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.||Macdona, John Cumming||Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)|
|Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||MacIver, David (Liverpool)||Spear, John Ward|
|Fisher, William Hayes||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)||Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset|
|Fitzgerald, Sir Robert Penrose||M'Calmont, Colonel James||Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lanes.|
|Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon||M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh W.||Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart|
|Flannery, Sir Fortescue||Majendie, James A. H.||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Flower, Sir Ernest||Martin, Richard Biddulph||Stroyan, John|
|Forster, Henry William||Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H E (Wigt'n.||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Foster, Philip S (Warwick, S. W.||Melville, Beresford Valentine||Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)|
|Fyler, John Arthur||Mildmay, Francis Bingham||Thorburn, Sir Walter|
|Gardner, Ernest||Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Garfit, William||Milvain, Thomas||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.|
|Gordon, Maj Evans (T'rH'mlets||Mitchell, Edw (Fermanagh, N.||Tuff, Charles|
|Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.||Mitchell, William (Burnley)||Valentia, viscount|
|Goschen, Hon. George Joachim.||Molesworth, Sir Lewis||Walker, Col. Wilham Hall|
|Groves, James Grimble||Moore, William||Wahond, Rt Hn. Sir William. H|
|Gunter, Sir Robert||Morrell, George Herbert||Warde, Colonel C. E.|
|Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry||Morrison, James Archibald||Webb, Colonel William George|
|Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)||Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer||Welby, Lt.-Col A. C. E. (Taunton|
|Haslam, Sir Alfred S.||Mount, William Arthur||Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.|
|Hay, Hon. Claude George||Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.||Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd|
|Heaton, John Henniker||Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute||Whitmore, Charles Algernon|
|Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.||Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)||Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)|
|Hickman, Sir Alfred||Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.|
|Hoare, Sir Samuel||Myers, William Henry||Wilson, John (Glasgow)|
|Hogg, Lindsay||Newdegate, Francis A. N.||Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)|
|Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside||Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)||Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H. (Yorks.|
|Houston, Robert Paterson||Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley||Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath|
|Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)||Pemberton, John S. G.||Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm|
|Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham||Percy, Earl||Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson|
|Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart|
|Hudson, George Bickersteth||Pretyman, Ernest George||Wrightson, Sir Thomas|
|Hunt, Rowland||Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward||Wyndham-Qum, Col. W. H.|
|Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse||Pym, C. Guy|
|Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton||Randles, John S.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.|
|Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.||Rankin, Sir James|
|Kerr, John||Rasch, Sir Frederick Carne|
|Kimber, Henry||Reid, James (Greenock)|
|Knowles, Sir Lees||Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine|