§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Miss Lawrence)
I beg to move, in page 3, line 17, to leave out the words "one month," and to insert instead thereof the words "twenty-eight days."
The object of this small drafting Amendment is to use the expression "twenty-eight days" instead of "one month." It is considered by all concerned as a more satisfactory and accurate expression.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Miss LAWRENCE
I beg to move, in page 3, line 19, to leave out the words "one month," and to insert instead thereof the words "twenty-eight days."
§ Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE
May I move my Amendment, in page 3, line 17, to leave out the words "one month," and to insert instead thereof the words "six months"?
§ Amendment agreed to.
The next Amendment selected is that in the name of the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood).
§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
I beg to move, in page 3, line 21, to leave out from the word "himself" to the end of the Subsection.
I am very much obliged to you for selecting this Amendment. I understood that all the Amendments connected with the liberty of the subject had been left unselected, and I am glad to have the opportunity of moving this one. I will explain exactly what change this makes in the Bill. We are dealing here with voluntary patients. They are persons who, if they are over 16, ask for voluntary treatment in a mental hospital. They remain in the hospital just as long as they like to remain, but if they become at any time after they are in the asylum incapable of expressing themselves as willing or unwilling to continue to receive treatment, certain other things happen to them, and they are all put down in Sub-section (3) of Clause 2. In the first place, if they become unable to express themselves as willing or unwilling to stop, they may be discharged. In the second place, they may be discharged within a month of the date of becoming incapable or—and these are the words which I ask to be left out—or steps have been taken to deal with him either under the principal Act as a person of unsound mind or under Section five of this Act as a person who is likely to benefit by temporary treatment.Therefore, these words bring up the whole question of Clause 5. I am told—though I cannot believe that it is correct—that we shall not be allowed to move a single Amendment to Clause 5; therefore, it is on this Amendment only that we can bring up the question of how Clause 5 affects the citizen. Under that Clause we are dealing with people who are not voluntarily in the asylum, but who are there because an application has been made by either a parent or husband or wife or an authorised officer, or for one other reason which is given in the words which I ask to leave out; that is to say, you can have a person temporarily in an asylum if the husband or wife or relation applies for him to be put in an asylum, and that application is signed by two medical officers, or you can have him temporarily in the asylum if he has been voluntarily in the asylum, and, under these words in Clause 2, having become incapable of volition, he is transferred from a voluntary patient under Clause 1 into a temporary patient under Clause 5.
1729 I ask the House to observe that when this Bill is law, it will be almost inevitable that everybody who goes into an asylum will be sent there under the new system and not under the old. Few doctors will be hard hearted enough to send a patient to an asylum without holding out the hope of recovery. Under Clause 5, doctors will have an opportunity of getting their patients into an asylum—I hope a modified asylum, but at any rate an asylum—without certification, without feeling that they are condemning their patients to long segregation. Therefore, doctors, being merely human beings, will naturally select the more humane way of doing it. They will select the method under Clause 5, and gradually we shall get more and more people into mental hospitals, not because they are certified in a way which may involve doctors in risks, but because they have got in first of all as voluntary patients, and then because they have got in as temporary patients. I think that that is inevitable, and I do not think that there is any harm in it, except that it may be that far more people who may now be out will be inside.
I want to prevent people who go in for voluntary treatment being liable, because they are in as voluntary patients, to be suddenly converted into temporary patients. The voluntary patient may be a woman who is going to have a baby, and thinks that she may go off her head, and so applies for temporary treatment. We want her to do so, but we do not want her to feel that if she applies for temporary treatment she may, without knowing anything about it, be converted into a temporary patient. That is what would happen under these words. What happens to such persons when they become persons likely to benefit by temporary treatment? The application in this case, I take it, will be made by the Board of Control. I am not sure about that, but it will be observed in Clause 3 (2), dealing with voluntary patients, that—if the Board of Control are of opinion that the mental state of any such voluntary patient is such as to render him unfit to remain as a voluntary patient, they may order the person in charge either to discharge the patient, or to take steps to deal with him either under the principal 1730 Act as a person of unsound mind or under Section five of this Act as a person who is likely to benefit by temporary treatment.This is the transfer of a voluntary patient to the temporary class. The Board of Control have power to make that transfer by Sub-section (2) of Clause 3. The Board of Control make the application; it is no longer the husband or wife, or the officer of the local authority acting under instructions from the husband or wife.
The Board of Control recognise that the patient has lost his voluntary status, and therefore draw the attention of the person in charge to the altered condition. The person in charge must then take this step, and not the Board of Control.
§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
I think the hon. Member for Royton (Dr. Davies) is right. The Board of Control call the attention of the person in charge to the fact that this patient ought to be transferred from the voluntary to the temporary category and the person in charge makes the application. I want the House to understand that the application is no longer made by a relation, but made by the person who is temporarily in charge of the voluntary patient, so that one of the safeguards goes. It is out of the hands both of the patient, who is no longer capable of saying he is willing or unwilling, and of his relations, and is in the hands of the person in charge of the institution. The patient remains in the same institution under the same person in charge but ceases to be a voluntary patient and becomes a temporary patient. That is a very serious change in the status of the patient. Instead of being free to leave, instead of having unlocked doors, the patient becomes for six months—and it is possible to extend the six months—impotent to secure his release unless the Board of Control decides that he ought to be released. That is a serious change. There is no appeal to law. While the patient is unconscious, in a high fever or something of that sort, the change is made, and henceforth the patient, though not a certified lunatic, is a temporary patient and may be in the institution for one year.
§ Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE
Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that, under Sub-section (12) of Clause 5, if that person recovers his volition he can only be detained for 28 days?
§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
The difficulty there, again, is that, as it appears to me, it is left to the person in charge to decide whether he becomes capable of expressing himself. It must be done by the person in charge—not by a Magistrate but the person in charge of the asylum, who is the sole person who has the right of saying whether the patient shall be free or not. That is the danger which I wish to argue against. If we are not allowed to move any Amendments on Clause 5 we cannot do much, but if we carry this Amendment we prevent voluntary patients being compulsorily transferred to the temporary category.
I submit it is desirable to make the change proposed by my Amendment, and I give this one additional reason. We shall find a large addition to the number of voluntary patients. The attraction of the name alone will lead most people who are the relatives of mentally affected people to press those afflicted persons to apply for voluntary treatment. The arguments in favour of it to persons on the border-line are enormous. They will accept voluntary treatment to avoid being put in an asylum, either as certificated or as temporary patients. Therefore, the natural thing will be for everybody to select voluntary treatment first, if possible. I think those people ought to be protected from the danger of the change from one class to another taking place while they are unconscious in the institution. Is there any really great difficulty in the way? If those people ought to be detained compulsorily and temporarily, it is perfectly possible for that to be done and for Clause 5 to stand exactly as it is to-day.
Under Clause 5 a relation of a voluntary patient—the parents, or husband or wife, or the officer of the local authority authorised by the husband or wife—can make the application, which then has to be countersigned by two medical officers, one the medical officer of the patient and the other the medical officer selected by the Board of Control. Those two officers sign the application and the patient can then be transferred from the voluntary 1732 to the temporary class; but that is open and above board and the relatives have a say in it. If the words in my Amendment are deleted that process could still take place under Clause 5; the purpose of the Bill would not have been seriously affected. I submit that it is unfair that a person who has gone in for voluntary treatment should, without his relations having anything to do with it, be transferred to the compulsory category, and if the Govenment really have the interests of patients at heart they should accept this Amendment and let us have the satisfaction of knowing that the voluntary patient himself and his relations have a second chance of securing his liberty.
Mr. ERNEST WINTERTON
I beg to second the Amendment.
I agree with the Mover that this is probably the only occasion on which we shall be able to discuss the vital alterations which are suggested by Clause 5 of the Bill. If the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) needed anything to fortify his argument I think he would find it in the speech of the Noble Lord who introduced this Measure in another place. On the Second Reading of the Bill the Noble Lord described the process, which the hon. and gallant Member regards as a very dangerous process, for dealing with the voluntary boarder. I ask the House to bear with me while I read what was said in another place by Earl Russell:I should call your special attention to Sub-section (3) of Clause 1, by which you will notice that a person who is received as a voluntary boarder, although he has entered voluntarily, is not allowed to leave at a moment's notice. He must give 72 hours' notice. In a sense you may say that you are imposing on the voluntary person imprisonment; in a purely legal and technical sense. That is, of course, absolutely correct; but it is quite plain that it would not be safe, and it would not be in the interest of the patient, to allow him to leave at a moment's notice, since the very occasion when he would be insisting on leaving, and requiring to leave, would probably be just that occasion when he had become so mentally unbalanced as not to be able to look after himself or give himself proper care. This period of delay of 72 hours therefore, which is by no means necessarily imposed in every case, but only where the medical officer thinks it necessary gives the opportunity either for the patient, as very often happens, to come back to a better mind before the 72 hours are up and to say 'I 1733 will withdraw my notice and stop' or if it has unfortunately become necessary to proceed to the extreme measure of certification.One would imagine that there were three alternatives. The first alternative is "I want to go out." If he says that, 72 hours is to elapse so that pressure may be brought upon him to alter his mind. The doctor may say, "You are not fit to go out, and I must proceed to certify you." The Noble Lord in another place never suggested the other alternative that the man would be allowed to go out. Consequently, there is the risk that a man may go into a mental hospital voluntarily and may, under this Bill, unless we take proper precautions by moving Amendments, find himself, willy-nilly, transferred from one class to the other, and he may lose all his voluntary rights. On that ground I support this Amendment.
§ Mr. W. J. BROWN
I would like to give an instance in the nature of a personal experience of what this Bill would have meant if it had been in operation at that time. Some five years ago I had a sister who was dependent upon me, and she was about 22 years of age. She became seriously ill. She developed a fear that her food was poisoning her, and for days at a stretch she refused to eat. I was responsible for my sister at the time, and I took care to get the opinion of a good, reliable doctor. That doctor urged that I should take steps to put my sister in a hospital for nervous diseases, which would be certain to receive a certificate from the Board of Control under this Bill.
I acted upon the doctor's advice and took my sister to that institution, and she voluntarily agreed to go there. Within 24 hours of her entry into that institution, I received the most heart-breaking letter from her imploring me, at all costs, to get her out on two main grounds. One ground was that she said that she had been threatened that, unless she took her food voluntarily, she would be forcibly fed. Her second ground was that she had been placed in the society of people who were completely off their head, and she stated that, if she stayed there for another 24 hours, she also would go off her head. I went to that institution and secured the release of the girl, and I brought her back to my home. I then sent for a 1734 Harley Street specialist, who come to my House, examined my sister, and gave it as his considered verdict that she was suffering from dementia precox, and that her death was only a matter of time. The next think that happened was that an old aunt of mine, who used to keep a fried fish shop, took the girl off my hands. She was given no medical treatment except a little Epsom salts in her morning cup of tea. My aunt did not attempt to persuade the girl to eat against her will, and she allowed her to roam about exactly where she wanted to go. Within two months that girl had put on something like 14 pounds in weight. She had become completely normal, and quite settled down, and she is now, physically, in a perfect condition.
If this Bill had been in operation at that time, what would have happened? In the first place, when the girl desired to leave that institution, which she had entered as a voluntary patient, she would have been compelled to wait for 72 hours, that is to say, for three days and three nights, before being able to leave, and I think that in all human probability, if she had been compelled to wait for 72 hours, she would have been, at the end of that time, in a condition which would have necessitated certification. I hold that, if a person desires to leave an institution of that kind, while there must be some short period of notice during which the relatives can be informed and can make arrangements to take the patient away—I do not think that anyone would object to that—such a period of notice of a few hours is one thing, but it is another and a very different thing to compel the patient to wait for 72 hours before being able to get out. Association and confinement with people of a more unbalanced state than the patient is liable to aggravate the trouble from which the patient is suffering, and I can conceive of a great many cases in which insistence upon this period of 72 hours' notice would probably result in the patient not being able to leave at all.
Beyond that, I agree with the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment that it ought not to be possible in England to translate a person who is not necessarily insane, but who is temporarily off complete balance and who voluntarily seeks treatment—it ought not to be possible to translate that individual into a patient 1735 compulsorily detained for a minimum period of six months, with possible extensions to nine months or 12 months, without the consent of the individual or of his friends or relatives, or of the local authority acting on behalf of the friends or relatives. In these circumstances, in the light of that peculiarly painful experience in my own family, I beg our Front Bench to accept this Amendment, and prevent the consequences that may ensue if the Clause goes through in its present form.
§ Miss LAWRENCE
I think there is some misunderstanding. Both the Seconder of the Amendment and the last speaker were speaking on Clause 1, which deals, in Sub-section (5), with the period of 72 hours—
§ Mr. McSHANE
If the hon. Lady will allow me, I can explain the matter in a sentence. The Mover of the Amendment has been speaking on Clause 2, Subsection (1) of which says:Where a person is received as a voluntary patient under the foregoing section of this Act or under the provisions of any local Act, notice of his reception shall before the expiration of the second day after the day on which he was so received be sent to the Board of Control.There may be no difficulty in an officer of the Board of Control coming down, on receipt of that notice, and by his action taking steps under the principal Act to prevent the person from coming out.
§ Miss LAWRENCE
I did not raise a point of Order in the course of the last speech, because the hon. Member was speaking with so much feeling on a personal case, but, if he had not been relating an exceedingly painful personal experience I should have asked you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to rule him out of order.
§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
On a point of Order. The case referred to by the hon. Member for West Wolverhampton (Mr. W. J. Brown) was exactly on this Amendment, and I submit to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that in that case the patient could, under the words which I am seeking to leave out, have been transferred from the position of a voluntary boarder to a hospital.
I was not satisfied, when the hon. Member was speaking, that it was necessary to call him to order. No point of Order arises now. Objection should have been taken when the hon. Member was speaking.
§ Miss LAWRENCE
My point is that I desire to speak to the Amendment, and the Amendment has nothing whatever to do with the period of 72 hours' notice, which comes under Clause 1. The right hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment made a great point of the fact that, if a person entered as a voluntary boarder, and then, if I may so put it, went over the border-line between sanity and insanity, he would be either certified or given treatment under Clause 5 of the Bill on the application of the person in charge. That is a pure, complete, and entire misunderstanding. The person in charge will have no more to do with the application in this case than in any other case.
§ Miss LAWRENCE
We are contemplating the case in which a man thinks he is going off his head, and then, very unfortunately, his fears are realised. He becomes either incapable of expressing himself or he becomes insane. That is a case which not improbably may arise. Very often persons who are subject to lunacy know quite well that they are in danger, and a man who feels that he is in that condition, but that voluntary treatment may avert the attack, goes in as a voluntary patient, hoping that the care of the doctor may avert an attack of insanity. His hopes are not realised; he becomes either incapable of expressing himself or insane, but with volition, though of a misguided nature. Such a person cannot remain as a voluntary patient, for the whole essence of the Bill is that voluntary treatment shall only be given to those who express a wish for it. Something must be done for that man. In his own interests and in the interests of the community, he must have care appropriate to his condition. The person in charge is directed, in that case, to take steps so that he may be dealt with under Clause 5; that is to say, he must take steps to put all the machinery of Clause 5 into operation. The person in charge is not recognised under Clause 1737 5. Under Sub-section (2) of Clause 5, the application must be made by a relative of the person to whom it relates, or on the request of the husband or wife of a relative, or by a duly authorised officer of the local authority; or, if any other person makes such an application, it has to be for special reasons.
§ Miss LAWRENCE
They cover only the case of the absolutely friendless person, in whose case it is not possible to warn or inform the local officer. The steps that are taken are the steps of writing letters to the person concerned, who signs the application. [Interruption.] If there is no application, the person cannot go as a Clause 5 patient. The people who come under Clause 5 are people who have no volition, people so sunk, if I may say so, in depression that they cannot answer "Yes" or "No." The person in charge is the only person who knows the state of affairs, and he has got to take steps to start either the machinery of Clause 5 or the machinery of certification. If certified, the person will have the usual safeguards of the Lunacy Act, the two doctors and the magistrate, while, if he comes under Clause 5, the opinions of two doctors are necessary, the relatives have to be informed, and there will be all the safeguards provided in Clause 5 in the case where a person becomes incapable of volition while a voluntary patient. The two doctors will be necessary, the patient's doctor and an independent doctor certified by the Board of Control. Every safeguard which applies under Clause 5 will apply in the case of a person who becomes incapable of volition or a lunatic within the meaning of the Lunacy Act while he is a, voluntary patient. This Amendment is based upon a complete misunderstanding of the Act.
I am quite sure that my right hon. Friend who moved this Amendment has misunderstood the position. The Parliamentary Secretary has put the case, on the whole, very fairly. There are two specific points which my right hon. Friend should definitely understand. In the first place, the representatives of the Board of Control have no power to certify. 1738 Neither has the person in charge. What really happens is that the Board of Control, when they visit, can be shown such and such a patient as a voluntary patient. They say in their opinion the patient is not of voluntary status, and they draw the attention of the person in charge to that fact. They say, "You cannot legally keep this patient as a voluntary patient. You must take steps to have him dealt with under Clause 5 or under the principal Act." What happens is that a doctor notifies the relatives that the patient has lost the voluntary status and the relatives, being afraid to have him certified, often remove him to another place altogether. If, on the other hand, they are told that something must be done, they take steps, as outlined by the Parliamentary Secretary, to bring the patient under Clause 5, when the person in charge has nothing to do with certification or recommendation, and if, unfortunately, it means that the patient has to be certified, the ordinary procedure under the principal Act is brought into force by two independent doctors and a magistrate.
Therefore, the Board of Control in this case is acting as a safeguard to the patient by pointing out to the person in charge that he is being illegally detained under the voluntary status. In the majority of cases, they are taken away by the relatives, so that there is no possibility of the patient being illegally detained beyond a day or two. The right hon. Gentleman's conception of the Clause is, I think, totally wrong, and, under the circumstances, I do not think the Amendment is at all necessary. In fact it is exceedingly dangerous, and I am certain that the Minister will not accept it.
§ Mr. McSHANE
The matter is not quite so simple as the hon. Member would like to make out. He drew the hon. Lady's attention to the fact that, when a person is admitted as a voluntary boarder, a commissioner from the Board of Control may visit and make a report, and this is the best answer to the hon. Member who says the Board has no power. Clause 3 (2) states explicitly that, "if the Board of Control are of opinion that the mental state of any such voluntary patient is such as to render him unfit to remain as a voluntary patient, they may order the person in 1739 charge either to discharge the patient or to take steps to deal with him." The voluntary boarders will be voluntary boarders only on paper. I know that the encouragement that will be given to these people to enter will be such as to get them in. Once they are in, I do not think there will be much doubt that they will be kept there. The question arises who is to determine that the patient is incapable of volition.
§ Mr. McSHANE
Yes, and the representative of the Board of Control may be there to make a report, and it may be that the patient will be asked to remain for another six months, because in their opinion he or she may improve in that time. At the end of that time, steps will be taken, if he is not decidedly better, to certify him under the principal Act. I plead with hon. Members who have not given much thought to the Bill to look at it from our point of view. We are as anxious as anyone to ensure that people who are in such a state of health that they may have to be dealt with in this fashion shall have every opportunity of recovering. It would, indeed, be a tragedy if we did not make it quite clear that we are as sympathetic as anyone with the people for whom we plead, but we want adequate safeguards. There is not an adequate safeguard in this Bill for a person who, having voluntarily entered, whether entirely voluntarily or through pressure of other people, may not very easily be allowed out again. These are not fanciful cases that we put up. They are not put up with any idea of obstruction. They are put up in the best interests of those who are going to be deal with. We are beginning a new method of treatment. For the sake of the success of that new method I plead that it shall be made perfectly foolproof, giving adequate security to those who may have to accept treatment under the Bill.
§ Mr. ATKINSON
I entirely agree with the hon. Member's criticism. After all it does not matter very much what the framers of the Bill intended. One has to construe the words that appear here. The first thing that is quite clear is that, under Clause 5, there is no judicial intervention at all between being free and becoming a temporary patient with- 1740 out certification. You may become such a patient on the application of some relative accompanied by the certificate of a couple of doctors. This next thing is also clear, that Sub-section (3) can be put into operation without any interference from the Board of Control. The Board of Control may form an opinion and require it to be put into operation, but certainly that is not necessary. Supposing the person in charge thinks the patient is getting on the border-line, he has to make up his mind because, from the moment a patient becomes incapable, a period of a month begins to run, and you have to have some definite date. The person in charge quietly communicates with one of the relatives and expresses his fears and the relative thereupon applies to the person in charge, accompanied by a certificate of two doctors, and the patient may be turned into a compulsory patient without ever knowing it. That is my objection to this Sub-section.
If, under Clause 5, the patient had got the protection of the magistrate, he could not be turned into a compulsory patient without knowing it. It does not matter in cases where people have really gone mad, but it does matter in borderline cases, which are generally cases where there is a difference of opinion, and where the man in charge may form his own opinion. He may think that the position is getting rather dangerous for him, because if the patient is really incapable of expressing willingness or unwillingness, the period of one month has begun to run. He, therefore, communicates with the relative, and expresses his fears, and the relative gets doctors to see the patient and they give some certificate. There is no provision for the patient ever seeing the certificate. The moment the man in charge gets this request, accompanied by two certificates, that patient becomes a compulsory patient without knowing anything about it.
We know that the whole of the Amendments are not going to be called, but had there been an opportunity of raising the subject on Clause 5 in regard to the necessity of an order from a magistrate, my objection would never have existed. It is because of the final form which Clause 5 is, apparently, going to take, that I think there is very serious objection to this be- 1741 ing incorporated in this Sub-section of the Bill. I do not think it is right that a patient can be turned into a compulsory patient without his knowing it. We have all known within our experience of these border-line cases where some think a man is insane and others do not. At any rate, he is quite in a position to understand what is said against him and what is going on, and very often quite capable, perhaps, of defending himself, but here he gets no chance of calling another medical opinion or asking, perhaps, for some other relative to take up the case, because he does not know what is going on. He is visited by a couple of doctors, but does not know for what they are there. It would seem rather unwise for them to say to him, "It is said that you are quite mad and we have come to see if you are." They do not tell him that, but he does not know what they are saying and so without a single opportunity of getting independent advice or protection, he is turned into a compulsory patient. That is all wrong. Therefore, I support this Amendment, which will make that impossible.
§ Dr. MORRIS-JONES
The House will agree, I think, that the whole Clause is very technical. As far as I understand it, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Wedgwood) is under a misapprehension. He pointed out the situation of a person coming into a state of mind, not knowing exactly where he was. In other words, such a person was incapable of volition. He said that when that position arose, such a patient might be kept in an institution against his will. That is exactly what happens under Clause 5. The right hon. Gentleman suggests that a patient who has got to that state should be left to his own resources and may become a danger to himself. What is his objection? There is only one thing that can be done with the patient. You must do what, to the best of your knowledge and belief, is best for the individual himself, and the only thing is to keep him in the institution for his own good. We have exactly the safeguards which the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down mentioned in Clause 5. We are not allowed to discuss whether these safeguards are sufficient, as the Amendments have been ruled out.
§ Dr. MORRIS-JONES
I understand that Mr. Speaker is not calling them, and we are not allowed to discuss them. I think that several hon. Members on the other side are unduly afraid of this Clause with regard to voluntary patients. I would remind them that in Scotland, where mental diseases are treated without dissension, you never hear of a case of illegal detention in a mental hospital. We have not heard of such a case in a period of 70 years. Two-thirds of the patients are voluntary patients without any judicial intervention of any sort. That, in itself, is an argument which shows that there is no serious hardship or injustice to patients under this Clause.
§ Mr. ATKINSON
May I ask whether in Scotland you can get involuntary patients without a magistrate's order?
§ Dr. MORRIS-JONES
In Scotland, in the case of certification, no magistrate sees the patient at all. What happens is that there are two independent medical examinations, and the case is taken before the sheriff, who reads the certificates, and then signs the reception order without seeing the patient at all. I believe that happens in the Irish Free State to-day. The whole record is very clear. Both the Royal Commission which reported in 1926 and the Select Committee in 1887 gave it as their opinion that not one case of unjustifiable detention had taken place in mental institutions in Scotland. The Royal Commission went very thoroughly into the matter. Some of the right hon. Gentleman's own colleagues, including the Attorney-General, were members of that Commission. We have never had in this country a Commission which has gone more thoroughly into any question. I suggest that hon. Gentlemen opposite are unduly alarmed about this particular Clause. The investigations which have taken place have proved that there have been no illegal detentions. There are safeguards provided, and there is no other alternative but to adopt the position which will arise if this Clause is passed.
§ Mr. GOULD
The whole purpose of the Bill on its Second Reading was to afford a very definitely new hope for borderline cases and incipient cases. All of us who have had any experience know how difficult it is to get cases nearing a mental breakdown to receive or submit 1743 themselves for any treatment at all. Generally, by the very nature of their illness, they remain in their homes in loneliness until the break comes. The purpose of the Bill was to try to meet that case, and some of us hoped for great things. I want to say very definitely that I am disappointed, not with the spirit and intention of the Bill, but with the pitfalls and definite snags lying in the Bill. It appears to those of us who desire the abolition of this Subsection that the Amendment is the only opportunity we shall have of strengthening the Bill along the lines we desire. It may not meet the point that arises out of Clause 5, but it does at least give us this security. I could then go to one of these cases and say, "Why do you not submit yourself to treatment? We believe that if you went for rest and health and healing, there would be a chance for you to get right away from this depression or possible breakdown." The first thing that the man or woman would say to me would be, "Shall I be detained? Shall I eventually be locked up and certified?"
That has arisen in nearly every case I have visited, and, as a magistrate, it has been my unfortunate experience to visit many cases. There are many hon. Members here, no doubt, who have done likewise. If we could get this definite assurance, and all of us who are interested in such cases could go to these people and say to them, "At least for a month you are not to be certified, and you are not to be detained beyond that month, and we shall have, as parent or relative or friend, the same right to come to fetch you out as we have in asking you to go in," I believe that that would give tremendous consolation to a mind that is unhinged. I do not know of anything which could be more helpful than for a person to have rest of mind and the consciousness that he is holding his freedom even though he is in a certified hospital or mental asylum which comes under the Board of Control. I hope that the Minister will not turn a deaf ear to this Amendment, but that he will reconsider the matter, as this is our last hope of getting this new outlook and new opportunity for all these cases. There is a likelihood that more and more cases will be dealt with in this manner, and I believe that in this spirit a great break 1744 from the past will be afforded and a very definite new principle introduced for future treatment which will save many a border-line case from being certified and detained for many a year.
§ Sir BOYD MERRIMAN
It is clear from the speech of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) and also from that of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Altrincham (Mr. Atkinson), that the real substance of the Amendment is an objection to the principle of treatment without certification. I think that the hon. and learned Member for Altrincham will agree in substance that the objections which have been put are objections which would well apply to a person who was being subjected to the procedure under Clause 5 who was outside an institution as well as to one who was there already.
§ Mr. ATKINSON
I should put it more accurately in this way: I agree that the objections which I urged all apply to Clause 5. I say that they apply doubly in the case where a man is already, shall I say, in custody voluntarily and can be turned into a compulsory patient. In that case judicial sanction is doubly necessary. It is doubly objectionable if he is already a patient, and does not get protection.
§ Sir B. MERRIMAN
I think that we both mean the same thing. I was pointing out that all that applies to the man who is being subjected to the procedure of Clause 5. He may not know, and may not be in a position to know, what is being done with him, just as the man who is just capable of submitting himself for voluntary treatment has become incapable of knowing what is being done with him. As far as this Amendment is concerned, we are either agreed or we are not, agreed on the main question of principle on which this Bill is founded. I am not going to discuss the merits of that now. I should like to point out that the fears with regard to these words remaining in are really unfounded. At the same time, I should like to suggest that the hon. Lady was wrong in saying that it was impossible for the procedure under Clause 5 in the case of a person who was already a voluntary patient to be taken by the person in charge of that 1745 patient. It is quite possible, in a proper case, for a person in charge of a voluntary patient who has become incapable of expressing himself as willing to remain under treatment, to take steps to have that person confined under Clause 5, not in his own institution, but in some other institution.
Sub-section (2), of Clause 5, says that, primarily, application has to be made by the relative. It must be made to the person in charge of the institution, that is, the institution into which the person is to go. Therefore, presumably, it cannot be made to the person who has the patient already in custody. If there are reasons why the application cannot be made by the relatives, then the application may be made by someone else. I cannot see on the face of the Clause, why application should not be made by the person who has already the custody of the patient, provided good and valid reasons are stated for the fact that the application is not made by the relative on the basis of the form which appears in Schedule 1. I suggest that the hon. Lady put the matter too high when she said that in no circumstances should the application be made in that way.
However that may be, it does not frighten me at all. I should have thought that it was perfectly logical that when you have a person who, submitting himself as a voluntary patient, has become mad in one form or another, he must not be detained indefinitely as a voluntary patient—with that, I think, everybody will agree—and in his own interest it is right that it should be possible to take one of the other two courses instead of merely turning him out into the street, where it may be dangerous for him to be. In the proper case it may be right that the person who has actual charge of the patient, if there is no other proper person to do so, or if other people refuse to do it, should take the necessary steps and see that he gets treatment under Clause 5, or certification, or whatever may happen to be the proper treatment. Otherwise, if you cut out these words the moment a person becomes incapable of voluntarily submitting himself for treatment you have to cast him out on to the street and begin all over again. I cannot imagine that hon. Members really mean that.
§ Sir B. MERRIMAN
That is determined, in the case of a person who has become a voluntary patient, in precisely the same way as if he is a person at large. There is no distinction between the two cases. We come back to where we started. What we are really discussing is the propriety of the procedure under Clause 5, because there is no real difference in the responsibility for deciding the question as to the passing of volition when the person is already under treatment as a voluntary person and when he is in his own house. There is no distinction between the two, and we are now really discussing the whole principle of Clause 5, which is the essential Clause in the Bill. I join with the Parliamentary Secretary in suggesting that the House should reject this Amendment.
§ Mr. BECKETT
The gist of the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Rusholme (Sir B. Merriman) is that we are discussing the procedure under Clause 5, and I hope, when we reach that Clause later to-night and press our reasons for considering it as a great importance, that all these arguments will be repeated. Obviously, the question can be better discussed directly on that Clause than in the indirect way in which we are discussing it at the moment. At the same time, I think this discussion has found the House at its very best. No question of party policy is involved, and there is a genuine desire on the part of hon. Members to find out whether the proposals sponsored by one Front Bench and adopted by another Front Bench, supported by some back benchers and opposed by others, supported by some members of the medical profession and opposed by others—
§ Dr. MORRIS-JONES
Will the hon. Member give us the name of the medical man in this House who opposes the Bill?
§ Mr. BECKETT
My hon. Friend who sits for one of the Lanarkshire divisions voted against the Bill on the Second Reading, and informed me to-day that he had not altered his opinion. In the closest trade union of all there is a certain amount of diversity of opinion on this point, and it is encouraging to find distinguished members of the only other 1747 union which can rival this one supporting us in this matter. We are dealing here with a class of unfortunate people who have no means whatever of defending themselves, and I appeal to the Minister, on an Amendment of this description, on a Bill of this description, which he admitted is a non-party Measure, to leave the question to a free Vote of the House. It would be nothing short of a public scandal if, on an issue of this great importance, where no question of party policy is involved, on which the safety of the Government and the efficiency of the right hon. Gentleman in the administration of his Department does not arise, that the Government Whips should be put on to lead members of this party who have not heard the Debate into the Lobby to defeat the Amendment. It would be unworthy of the reputation which the right hon. Gentleman enjoys in this House and in the movement outside if he did not allow this matter to be decided by a free Vote of the House. This is no Left Wing revolt against the Government; it is no desperate and fanatical plea for Socialism in our time—
§ Mr. BECKETT
This is not a question which involves the administrative efficiency of the Department. I want to give reasons why the Amendment is in my opinion necessary for the safety of the subject. Speaker after speaker who has supported the Bill, the hon. Member for Royton (Dr. Davies) and the hon. Member for Denbigh (Dr. Morris-Jones) have repeatedly made the point that there is a stage when a voluntary patient is alleged to be in a state where he is not capable of continuing as a voluntary patient and a decision has to be taken as to whether he should be certified. The question in my mind is, who is going to make this decision between the lunatic and the sane man? I do not trust the medical profession on this point. If I had lost an arm I should be quite happy in going to any of my medical colleagues in this House and asking them whether I had lost an arm. I could rely upon their opinion. If it were a question of carpentry, I should, with such qualms as are only natural to weak human flesh, submit myself to their skill with the saw and the knife, but when it comes to more 1748 intricate matters of the human frame and human psychology I have yet to have it proved to me that there are many, if any, members of the medical profession any more capable to decide on the question of sanity than any ordinary Member of this House. I think the honest doctor will admit that the realms of mental balance and sanity are almost a closed book, and to the fields of medicine this is a most inexact science. The hon. Member for Royton (Dr. Davies) started out to prove, in a most amazing way, that this provision was really a safeguard to the person because it would prevent a person from being illegally detained; a very interesting warning to the House of the state of the average, not-too-well-informed-on-this-subject, medical mind. His one great theme was: "For goodness sake, let us prevent him being illegally detained"—there are very grave fears that that has happened in the past—"and, therefore, let us have the power to certify him quickly."
§ Mr. BECKETT
The whole question is that of the 72 hours. If there is anyone whose nervous system is sufficiently tense or sufficiently unbalanced that they feel that they would be better under medical treatment to go as a voluntary patient, then this period of 72 hours in the kind of places that are sanctioned by the Board of Control would be enough to swing over that delicate piece of mechanism and throw such person on to the insane side. It gives time for the Board of Control inspector to be sent for and to come and, although he has not the power to certify, he has the power to get the person certified in double quick time if the advisers think fit for him to do so. In Clause 5 (12) the period of 72 hours is extended to 28 days for different types of people. There are so many dangers and pitfalls into which this Clause may lead us that I will not weary the House by describing them, but I would ask hon. Members, regardless of party, to read the Amendment and then to read Clause 5, which will be put into full effect if we do not carry the Amendment, and I think they will then realise that without the Amendment they are sanctioning one of the most terrific engines of oppression and injustice. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be content to leave this ques- 1749 tion of administrative efficiency to the good sense and judgment of the House, and take the Whips off and let us have a free vote.
§ 10.0 p.m.
§ Sir JOSEPH LAMB
I support the Amendment. I had not the opportunity of being a member of the Committee and of hearing the argument in Committee, but I have read the Bill very carefully add I have listened to the speeches this evening, and I am not competent to say that a voluntary patient should be kept longer that he voluntarily desires to be kept. If I am not competent, how is it possible for me to impart confidence to that individual who I am hoping would go to an institution for the benefit of the treatment to be received. I would appeal to the Minister on this point. Would it not be very much better for him to err perhaps on the lenient side and try, if possible, to put this Bill into operation in the form which we are now suggesting by the Amendment, rather than to allow it to go from the House with this feeling of uncertainty which, undoubtedly, is going to militate against the Bill and against the good which we hope the Bill will do. If the patients have the slightest doubt that they are going to an institution from which they have not as free an opportunity to go out as they had to go in, the object of the Bill will be defeated.
§ Mr. KINLEY
In supporting the Amendment I suggest that to defeat the Amendment will mean virtually the ruin of the high hope with which the Bill was introduced. When the Bill was first brought before us it was stated by the Minister, confidently and on reliable information, that if only the necessary service could be provided people who at the present time are becoming certified patients would in a very large proportion of cases never reach the certifiable stage. In order that that might be ensured it was proposed that a new service should be set up. This is part of the new service. In order that those who are suffering from mental trouble may be encouraged to come along and take advantage of the new service the existing order was extended and two new categories were laid down—the voluntary patient on the one hand and the temporary treatment patient on the other.
1750 The voluntary patient is the individual, who is still in full control of his faculties. He is the one who, in the stress of his every day circumstances, from one cause or another, feels that the strain under which he is still living is likely, sooner or later, to lead to his becoming unbalanced unless he can get skilfully treated at an ealy date. Therefore, the Bill offers to him the hope that that treatment will be provided and made available for him. The Bill extends to him the invitation: "Come along at your own free will, while you are still in full possession of your faculties, the earlier the better, and take advantage of our treatment, relying on our promise that this treatment is provided for the specific purpose of guaranteeing that you shall never be a certified patient." We are setting out with the idea of preventing certification. If we are not preventing certification, why are we wasting our time with this Bill? In this Amendment we are seizing one of the few remaining opportunities that we have of trying to preserve the spirit of freedom for the individual, which every hon. Member ought to strive to preserve.
We want to have it definite throughout the country that with the passing of this Bill when an individual decides to take advantage of its provision as a voluntary patient he shall have the guarantee of this House that, so far as we are concerned, he shall never cease to be other than a voluntary patient, and that we are not extending to him a trap that is going to lead him from his voluntary status to that of a certified patient. Directly he reaches the border line, when no medical man is capable of deciding definitely on his case, he is in danger every moment of finding himself certified as a lunatic without being consulted and without his friends being effectively consulted. He who walks in voluntarily, hoping to take advantage of a new service, hoping to stave off a possibility of certification, eventually finds he has been certified in spite of all his hopes. It is because that guarantee, the one guarantee that may, and should, lead to an extension of the services at present existing to a large number of people, thus giving them an early opportunity of receiving the treatment we are now providing, is needed, that I hope the House will agree to the passing of this Amendment. It has been said, I think, by the hon. Member for Denbigh (Dr. Morris- 1751 Jones) that the Royal Commission did not find any cases of wrongful certification. I agree.
§ Dr. MORRIS-JONES
I said that the Select Committee had not been able to find any cases of wrongful detention.
§ Mr. KINLEY
What is the difference in the asylum between detention and certification? So far as the individual in the asylum is concerned, it does not matter whether he is detained or certified. The point, however, I wanted to make was, that whatever there may have been in the mind of the Royal Commission as to whether there may have been wrongful detention or wrongful certification, they were equally emphatic that, provided the necessary service could be given, there were at present a large number of persons in the asylum who never need have been there; and it is because of that that we want patients to be given this guarantee. We want the public to know that they can take advantage of this service, resting assured that nothing can happen to them inside the building, and that if the worst comes to the worst they will come out to their friends before anything further shall happen to them.
§ Mr. LEIF JONES
The hon. Member who has just spoken has been asking for more than can be granted, because he asks that before anyone goes into a voluntary home he should have the assurance that in no circumstances would he be certified. That is an assurance we cannot have, and it seems to me, in supporting the Amendment, that he is going further than he can ask the House to go. I find myself in difficulties, along with many hon. Members. We were not on the Committee upstairs, but I have listened to the Debate here, and have appreciated the point of the Amendment, and I find differences of interpretation given by learned Members and others. The Minister assures us—and this is the point upon which we are all agreed—that the person who goes into a voluntary home shall not be in any worse position as to certification if his state of mind changes, and will not be in any more danger of detention than if he were at large. The Minister assured us that such a person was in the same position as if he had remained in his own home, that he was in no greater danger and 1752 was subject only to the same possibilities of certification or treatment as if he were at home.
§ Mr. McSHANE
I am sorry to intervene, but this matter is of importance. The purpose of this Bill is to deal with people before the break has come, and unless they are assured that there is some safety in this respect, that, at any rate, they may go back to their friends, they will not go in.
§ Mr. JONES
I understand from the Minister that that is the position, that in the event of their growing worse while in a voluntary home, the relatives will have the same power in regard to them that they would have had if they were outside. On the other hand, my right hon. Friend opposite has doubts about it, and I am bound to say, after having heard the speeches that have been made to-night, that there is some possibility that persons who go into a voluntary home will not have the same opportunities as they would have had had they remained in their own homes. This Clause is meant to get people to go into voluntary homes, and it is the fear of action taken behind their backs that will keep people out of the homes and defeat the purposes of the Bill. On this point the House wants fuller information and assurances from the Government. If the hon. Lady is right in her interpretation, then I am satisfied, but I think there will be great difficulty in passing the words as they stand unless the House is given that assurance. I desire to support the Bill, and I am anxious that these voluntary homes should be used by the border-line cases, but there is this fear of certification, and we must be clear on this point.
§ Miss LAWRENCE
With regard to a person under this Clause, precisely the same steps can be taken which would be taken under Clause 5, under which the relatives must make the application. If there are no ascertainable relatives it is possible in that case, if the reasons are set out for persons other than relatives, to make the application; but the relatives come first. If for any reason these persons should have no relatives, the doctor in charge, or the hon. Member, or myself, or any Member of the House, might make the application in that exceptional case. In no case can persons be received as tem- 1753 porary patients without the recommendation of two doctors. The procedure in the home is precisely the same as the procedure for those who are at large. It is conceivable that the doctor in charge is the only person who can make the application, but that is a wholly exceptional case.
§ Mr. J. WILSON
I had not intended to intervene in this Debate, and I would not have done so had it not been for a few sentences which fell from the lips of my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mr. Beckett). He made an appeal to the Minister to allow this Amendment to go to a free vote of the House, on the ground that it would be unfair to whip Members into the Lobby on a question of this kind when they had not heard the Debate. He knows as well as I do that it is physically impossible for Members to remain throughout the whole of an eight hours sitting, and I make a protest against my hon. Friend's suggestion which I am sure will be reechoed by a large number of my Friends on this side of the House. I say that the attendance at this moment shows the real interest which Members are taking in this question.
§ Mr. BECKETT
If I said anything which seemed to convey that the Members of this House were not doing their duty in the matter of attending Debates, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for having pointed it out, and I beg at once to withdraw any such suggestion, but I was not aware of having given that impression.
§ Mr. WILSON
I am very glad I have been able to give my hon. Friend the opportunity of making it clear that he had no intention of conveying such an impression. The same hon. Member said that he had no confidence whatever in doctors.
§ Mr. WILSON
He said he had no confidence in doctors on the question of certification. I desire to join issue with my hon. Friend on that point. It has been my privilege, or otherwise, for 20 years as a magistrate, to examine cases both for admission to and release from mental institutions. To the credit of the doctors let me say that I have always found them very careful about certification and always anxious to use what 1754 influence they could—having due regard to the safety of the individual—to encourage magistrates to sign orders for release. The Royal Commission has gone very fully into the whole question, and after very exhaustive inquiry their conclusion is that there is no ground for believing that there is any ulterior motive for retaining people in these institutions who are fit to be at liberty and who aught to be at liberty.
§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
On a point of Order. Are we not discussing an Amendment dealing with a particular question?
§ Mr. SPEAKER
On each Amendment there seems to be an inclination to discuss the whole Bill, and it is therefore difficult to keep Members to the point.
§ Mr. WILSON
I do not think I have been going beyond the points which have been raised in previous speeches, but if I have done so, I am sorry. I was certainly alarmed when I heard the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood). He tried to convey that if some person went as a voluntary patient into an institution, that then, without let, or hindrance, someone who was managing the institution was going to take that person by the scruff of the neck and, willy nilly, take steps to certify him as being unfitted to exercise his judgment. I think the speeches to which we have listened from the hon. Lady and other hon. Members who were privileged to serve on the Committee have blown sky high that theory advanced by the right hon. and gallant Member. I was going to draw another analogous case to that advanced by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton West (Mr. W. J. Brown), when he pointed out the case of a relative of his who, under this Bill, would probably have been confined as a lunatic. I had another experience, that leads me to the conclusion that it is rather dangerous for people who are not able to exercise medical judgment, and who have not had some experience of cases of this kind, to interfere too freely. In former times, when I was a Member of this House, I used all my influence in order to get liberated from an institution a certain person who was certified to be insane. I went to see the person—
§ Mr. WILSON
I went to see this person myself, in a voluntary institution, and I used all the influence I could, and succeeded in securing her release, but evidently a mistake was made, and better would it have been to take the advice of the doctor rather than the advice of a politician, because within a few days of
§ being released, this unfortunate person herself committed suicide.
§ Several HON. MEMBERS rose—
§ The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Arthur Greenwood) rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 249; Noes, 105.1757
|Division No. 290.]||AYES.||[10.24 p.m.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Gibbins, Joseph||Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)||McElwee, A.|
|Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgle M.||Gill, T. H.||McEntee, V. L.|
|Alpass, J. H.||Gillett, George M.||McKinlay, A.|
|Amman, Charles George||Glassey, A. E.||MacLaren, Andrew|
|Arnott, John||Gossling, A. G.||Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)|
|Aske, Sir Robert||Gould, F.||Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||MacNeill-Weir, L.|
|Ayles, Walter||Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)||McShane, John James|
|Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)||Gray, Milner||Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)|
|Barnes, Alfred John||Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)||Mander, Geoffrey le M.|
|Barr, James||Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Mansfield, W.|
|Batey, Joseph||Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)||March, S.|
|Bellamy, Albert||Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Markham, S. F.|
|Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood||Groves, Thomas E.||Marley, J.|
|Bennett, Captain E. N. (Cardiff, Central)||Grundy, Thomas W.||Marshall, Fred|
|Benson, G.||Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)||Mathers, George|
|Bentham, Dr. Ethel||Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Matters, L. W.|
|Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)||Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)||Messer, Fred|
|Birkett, W. Norman||Hardie, George D.||Middleton, G.|
|Blindell, James||Harris, Percy A.||Millar, J. D.|
|Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret||Hartington, Marquess of||Milner, Major J.|
|Bowen, J. W.||Hastings, Dr. Somerville||Montague, Frederick|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Haycock, A. W.||Morgan, Dr. H. B.|
|Broad, Francis Alfred||Hayday, Arthur||Morley, Ralph|
|Bromfield, William||Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)||Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)|
|Bromley, J.||Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)||Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)|
|Brothers, M.||Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)||Mort, D. L.|
|Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)||Herriotts, J.||Moses, J. J. H.|
|Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)||Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)||Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)|
|Burgess, F. G.||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)|
|Burgin, Dr. E. L.||Hoffman, P. C.||Muff, G.|
|Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)||Hopkin, Daniel||Muggeridge, H. T.|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)||Horrabin, J. F.||Nathan, Major H. L.|
|Calne, Derwent Hall-||Hunter, Dr. Joseph||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)|
|Cameron, A. G.||Isaacs, George||Oldfield, J. R.|
|Cape, Thomas||Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)|
|Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)||John, William (Rhondda, West)||Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)|
|Charleton, H. C.||Johnston, Thomas||Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)|
|Church, Major A. G.||Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)||Palin, John Henry|
|Clarke, J. S.||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)|
|Cluse, W. S.||Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)||Perry, S. F.|
|Cocks, Frederick Seymour-||Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.||Phillips, Dr. Marion|
|Daggar, George||Kennedy, Thomas||Picton-Turbervill, Edith|
|Dallas, George||Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)||Pole, Major D. G.|
|Dalton, Hugh||Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George||Potts, John S.|
|Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)||Lathan, G.||Price, M. P.|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Law, Albert (Bolton)||Pybus, Percy John|
|Denman, Hon. R. D.||Law, A. (Rosendale)||Quibell, D. J. K.|
|Dickson, T.||Lawrence, Susan||Ramsay, T. B. Wilson|
|Dukes, C.||Lawson, John James||Rathbone, Eleanor|
|Duncan, Charles||Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)||Raynes, W. R.|
|Ede, James Chuter||Leach, W.||Richards, R.|
|Edge, Sir William||Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)|
|Edmunds, J. E.||Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)||Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)|
|Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Lees, J.||Ritson, J.|
|Edwards, E. (Morpeth)||Lewis, T. (Southampton)||Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)|
|Elmley, Viscount||Lindley, Fred W.||Romeril, H. G.|
|Foot, Isaac||Lloyd, C. Ellis||Rosbotham, D. S. T.|
|Forgan, Dr. Robert||Logan, David Gilbert||Rowson, Guy|
|Freeman, Peter||Longbottom, A. W.||Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)|
|Framantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.||Longden, F.||Salter, Dr. Alfred|
|Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)||Lovat-Fraser, J. A.||Sanders, W. S.|
|Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)||Lowth, Thomas||Sandham, E.|
|George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)||Lunn, William||Sawyer, G. F.|
|Scrymgeour, E.||Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)||Watkins, F. C.|
|Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)||Sorensen R.||Wellock, Wilfred|
|Shepherd, Arthur Lewis||Stamford, Thomas W.||Welsh, James (Paisley)|
|Sherwood, G. H.||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)||Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)|
|Shield, George William||Strachey, E. J. St. Loe||West, F. R.|
|Shiels, Dr. Drummond||Strauss, G. R.||White, H. G.|
|Shillaker, J. F.||Sullivan, J.||Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)|
|Shinwell, E.||Sutton, J. E.||Whiteley, William (Blaydon)|
|Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)||Taylor R. A. (Lincoln)||Wilkinson, Ellen C.|
|Simmons, C. J.||Taylor W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Sinkinson, George||Tinker, John Joseph||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)||Tout, W. J.||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)||Townend, A. E.||Wilson, J. (Oldham)|
|Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Smith, Rennie (Penistone)||Vaughan, D. J.||Wise, E. F.|
|Smith, Tom (Pontefract)||Viant, S. P.||Young, R. S. (Islington, North)|
|Smith, W. R. (Norwich)||Walkden, A. G.|
|Snell, Harry||Walker, J.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip||Wallace, H. W.||Mr. Hayes and Mr. Paling.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Everard, W. Lindsay||Remer, John R.|
|Atkinson, C.||Ford, Sir P. J.||Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)|
|Balniel, Lord||Forestier-Walker, Sir L.||Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell|
|Beaumont, M. W.||Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)||Rothschild, J. de|
|Betterton, Sir Henry B.||Greene, W. P. Crawford||Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.|
|Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman||Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Bird, Ernest Roy||Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)||Salmon, Major I.|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)|
|Braithwaite, Major A. N.||Haslam, Henry C.||Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart|
|Brass, Captain Sir William||Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)||Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.||Simms, Major-General J.|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)||Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.||Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)|
|Carver, Major W. H.||Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller||Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)|
|Castle Stewart, Earl of||Hurd, Percy A.||Smithers, Waldron|
|Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton||Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)||Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)|
|Chapman, Sir S.||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Southby, Commander A. R. J.|
|Colfox, Major William Philip||Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)||Spender-Clay, Colonel H.|
|Colman, N. C. D.||King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.||Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur|
|Colville, Major D. J.||Lamb, Sir J. Q.||Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)|
|Courtauld, Major J. S.||Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)||Thomson, Sir F.|
|Cranborne, Viscount||Leighton, Major B. E. P.||Tinne, J. A.|
|Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.||Llewellin, Major J. J.||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of|
|Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)||Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)||Todd, Capt. A. J.|
|Croom-Johnson, R. P.||Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)||Train, J.|
|Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)||MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.||Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon|
|Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip||Marjoribanks, E. C.||Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)|
|Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey||Meller, R. J.||Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert|
|Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.||Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah|
|Davies, Dr. Vernon||Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)||Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)|
|Dawson, Sir Philip||Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Duckworth, G. A. V.||Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)||Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount|
|Edmondson, Major A. J.||Penny, Sir George||Womersley, W. J.|
|Elliot, Major Walter E.||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)|
|England, Colonel A.||Ramsbotham, H.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)||Reid, David D. (County Down)||Sir Basil Peto and Mr. Albery.|
§ Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."1758
§ The House divided: Ayes, 241; Noes, 106.