he ought to be let out. The principal | of the licence. Then the patient could object of these retreats was to produce be at once taken back to the retreat, perfect tranquillity in the mind of the instead of being allowed to go on a patient. If he knew he was in for a prolonged drinking bout. certain time he would remain there quietly, and go out at the end a better man. But if these words were inserted in either this clause or the 17th clause, the patient would be in a constant state of agitation; and therefore, for his sake, it would be a cruel thing to pass the Amendment. THE CHAIRMAN: Do I understand that the Amendment is withdrawn? MR. DILLWYN said, he would withdraw it, on the understanding that the Under Secretary (Sir Matthew Ridley) would propose the Amendment he had sketched out when Clause 17 came on. He admitted that he objected to the principle of the Bill, and he was doing. his best to minimize its evils. He preferred his own Amendment; but he would, nevertheless, accept the suggestion of the Under Secretary. MR. WADDY hoped the hon. Baronet the Under Secretary would not give way to the suggestion. If the Amendment were carried, a man might make 52 applications to go out during the year he was under restraint, and even more, if there were several Justices resident in his district. The Amendment would make the Bill unpractical and absurd. He hoped the hon. Baronet would give no such pledge. It was one thing to make a suggestion; if, on the other hand, an Amendment was moved from the Government Bench, it largely increased the difficulties of the promoters of the Bill. SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY said, he certainly never intended to convey that he would move the words which he had suggested would be more fitly inserted, if at all, in Clause 17. It would, of course, be his duty later on to consider how the Bill affected his Department; but before putting down Amendments, he was anxious to see how the Bill would be shaped in Com An hon. MEMBER hoped that the Under Secretary would give no such pledge. The proposed Amendment would frustrate the whole Bill and render it useless. A person once in would always be coming out if this Amend-mittee. ment were accepted. MR. DILLWYN said, he would himself propose the words as suggested. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause, as amended, agreed to. THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. Member for Glasgow that Clause 12 cannot be passed in the present form, as the Committee has not yet reported the Resolutions on the Bill. DR. CAMERON said, he would postpone that clause, and Clause 13, till the Report. Inspection and Visitation of Retreats. DR. CAMERON said, the provision in the Bill for granting licences was intended for a numerous class of persons who could not afford to submit to any prolonged detention, and who, if they were obliged to do so, would prefer not to submit to any restraint whatever. Many cases had come under his notice of gentlemen belonging to certain Professions who for a long time would be perfectly sober and rational, and very anxious to keep free from the weakness of which they were perfectly well aware; but every now and then they would break out and go desperate lengths. It occurred to the promoters of the Bill that many gentlemen who, from the nature of their occupation, could not submit to a long incarceration, might be induced to put themselves under restraint for a short time, on the under-rity) postponed. standing that they should be let out under licence under the care of friends. These persons would hold licences, and the fact of their escaping from the care of their friend, or giving way to intemperate habits contrary to his advice and command, would be deemed a revocation Clause 12 (Inspectors and assistant inspectors of retreats may be appointed by the Secretary of State) postponed. Fees to be accounted for to local autho- Clause 14 (Inspection of retreats). DR. CAMERON moved, in page 5, line 23, after "retreat," to insert "And shall at the same time furnish to the clerk of the local authority of the district in which each retreat is situated, a copy of any report affecting such retreat." His object simply was that copies of the Reports sent to the Home Secretary should also be sent to the clerk of the local authority, in order that they might know what was going on in the district under their jurisdiction. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 15 (Rules as to visitation of retreats) agreed to. Clause 16 (Judge of High Court of Justice, &c., may make orders to inspect) agreed to. Leave of Absence from Retreat. Clause 17 (Permission that person detained may reside out of retreat). MR. DILLWYN said, he would move, as suggested by his hon. Friend the Under Secretary, in page 6, line 3, after "drunkard" to insert "Or at the request of such person, a clear week's notice having been given by him or her to the licensee of the retreat, may." He would only say, in answer to what had fallen from his hon. Friends, that of course the magistrate would use his discretion, and would not grant a licence without due inquiry. Something had been said of the American system; but he happened to have some American papers sent him the other day, in which it was said that these retreats had broken down in that country, and been an entire failure. Amendment proposed, In page 6, line 3, after the word "drunkard," to insert the words "or at the request of such person, a clear week's notice having been given by him or her to the licensee of the retreat may."-(Mr. Dillwyn.) Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted." MR. MITCHELL HENRY said, if his hon. Friend had read all that the American newspapers had said about these retreats, he would have learned that one great reason why they had failed was because the period of detention was not long enough. Another point brought out very strongly by a very pains-taking and patient Committee, which sat on this subject upstairs three years ago, was that to be effectual the confinement of the patient must be for a considerable period of time, or it was perfectly useless. The Committee must remember that this Bill was not intended for persons who occasionally got drunk, but for persons who were almost insane, who were quite unable to control themselves, who dissipated their property, and brought untold misery on their families by their craving for drink, and yet who were not mad enough to be called insane. So far from this power of leaving the retreat being any good to such people, it would be a great evil inflicted upon them. 66 EARL PERCY said, the Amendment did not read, for it spoke of " such person" although there was no person previously mentioned in the clause. As to the principle of it, he could only point out, as he had done before, that if this power of appealing to magistrates were given, a man would be certain to find some Justice who would give the required licence. That would result in removing the control which it was the object of the Bill to confer. As to what was said about America, the principle of the Bill had already been discussed, and these points were then satisfactorily answered. In any case, that objection struck at the Bill itself, and should have been raised on the second reading. Member for Swansea appeared to claim MR. DALRYMPLE said, the hon. the support of his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for the Home DepartDalrymple) understood that the Under ment for his Amendment, but he (Mr. Secretary did not do more than suggest that this was a suitable place to propose the Amendment; and he certainly did not understand him to say he would support it. The great point was to get the patient into one of these retreats, and not to let him be able to leave it prematurely, which would do him the greatest possible harm. He certainly should oppose the Amendment, and would divide upon it, even if no one else would do so. MR. WADDY said, the Amendment would place the Justice of the Peace in a very great difficulty. A man might be sufficiently sober to be quite fit apparently to go out; and yet his craving for liquor at that very time might make that exactly the position in which he ought not to be. MR. ANDERSON said, the keeper of the retreat was the man most interested in keeping people in, and yet it was solely on his petition that they were to be allowed to get out; and as regarded the argument of the noble Lord opposite (Earl Percy), who seemed afraid of facile Justices, he asked if Justices might not be as easily influenced to put men into these retreats as the noble Lord seemed to think they would be to let them out? It might even happen that a Justice might be a relative of the patient, and pecuniarily interested in shutting him up. Care should be taken that there were not too many facilities in the Bill for putting persons in these MAJOR NOLAN said, he would advise the hon. Member for Swansea not to go into the Lobby with so small a number of Members again. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) had formed a Schedule of all Members who voted in Divisions under 20; and if the hon. Member divided again he would find himself scheduled. the attention of the licensee to his patient. THE CHAIRMAN pointed out that the Amendment did not read. DR. CAMERON explained that the Amendment applied to Clause 22. THE CHAIRMAN said, that the hon. Member was now too late to move it. DR. CAMERON said, he would bring it up on the Report. He, would then move to insert in place of the words "lawful authority" the words "the authority of the licensee or the medical officer of the retreat." The only question was as to with whom the right to order these things rested, and the Amendment cleared that up. LORD FRANCIS HERVEY asked whether the authority of the licensee, when he was not a properly qualified medical officer, was sufficient for the administration of narcotics and the other drugs mentioned? If they left the administration of these drugs to a person who was not a skilled practitioner, they might have serious consequences. DR. CAMERON said, it would be the business of the licensee to conduct the institution in such a way that his administration should be attended with the greatest amount of success. If he were to allow the indiscriminate use of stimulants in the retreat he would defeat his own object, and very soon come to the ground. It was very desirable to guard against any improper use of Clause 18 (Absence to be reckoned in stimulants, but occasions might occur on time of detention) agreed to. Clause agreed to. Clause 21 (Penalty for false statements) agreed to. which it would be necessary to adspot; and if the medical officer were not minister something of this kind on the there, the insertion of the suggested words would enable the licensee to use them. Otherwise, no person could administer stimulants without being liable to some penalty. LORD FRANCIS HERVEY said, he remembered a case in which some patients were treated with hydrate of Clause 22 (Offences by licensees of chloral, or something of that sort, to retreats) agreed to. Clause 23 (Offences by officers, servants, and other persons). DR. CAMERON moved, in page 6, line 38, after "act" to insert "Or neglects, or permits to be neglected, any habitual drunkard placed in the retreat in respect of which he is licensed." These words were inserted to remedy a defect in the Bill-that it did not secure keep them quiet and make them amenable to discipline, and death was the result. However that might be, the licensee might be tempted to treat unruly and undisciplined patients in this way; and if the licensee were not a medical man and acquainted with drugs the most serious consequences might happen. DR. CAMERON said, in the case referred to a medical man administered the drugs, and therefore there was no want of the proper qualification. In the case of sleeplessness arising from the want of drink there was a very considerable difference of opinion among medical men as to the use of narcotics and stimulants, and it was certainly not the intention that unqualified and uneducated licensees should treat such cases. MR. HERSCHELL said, as to bringing stimulants on to the premises, authority might be intrusted either to the licensee or the medical officer. He would suggest that the words should run thus- "Without the authority of the licensee or the medical officer brings into any retreat or without the authority of the medical officer of the retreat, except in case of urgent necessity gives or supplies," &c. In case of urgent necessity there would be power to do it; while, in the case of general treatment, it would only be fair to require the authority of the medical officer. That would meet the objection. Amendment agreed to. DR. CAMERON moved, in page 7, line 9, after "sedative" to insert narcotic." Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. 66 Clause 24 (Offences by habitual drunkards while detained in retreats) agreed to. Clause 25 (Escape from retreat). MR. DILLWYN said, he should move an Amendment here, undeterred by the warning of his hon. and gallant Friend (Major Nolan), and he did hope the Home Office would support him a little more strongly. The clause dealt with the re-capture of escaped habitual drunkards, and he thought it would give rise to great abuse of the law. Where a man escaped he ought not to be liable to re-capture, at any rate by the servants of the retreat; but a proper officer should be employed. He entirely objected to Jack, Tom, or Harry being intrusted with this power, and he would move, in line 26, to leave out "by any officer, attendant, servant, or other person employed in or about such retreat." THE LORD ADVOCATE said, nothing could be more dangerous than to intrust the liberty of any man at large to the mere servant of any licensee in the general words of the clause. It was not done in the case of a lunatic asylum, so far as he was aware, though there were stronger reasons there for the detention and recovery of a man who had escaped. There was no limitation to the power of the clause, and a man who had been at liberty a fortnight or more might be taken back to the asylum. The framer of the Bill ought to consider the whole structure of the clause. He did not know exactly what a peace officer meant. It meant one thing in England, and another in Scotland. He had also the greatest reluctance to intrust to any man-peace officer, constable, or anyone else the right of interfering with the liberty of the subject, without a warrant at his back. If he had a warrant, it should either come from the licensee, or some person responsible for his agent. He heartily supported the Amendment. DR. CAMERON thought the suggestion a good one; but pointed out that the licence was intended to give greater freedom to the patients, and prevent the necessity for always keeping them within four walls. MR. WHEELHOUSE said, the clause was far too wide. If a peace officer had a warrant they would know whence he got his right to act; but to give him the power to act without a warrant seemed to him very dangerous, and contrary to all precedent. He would move to substitute the word "by" for the word "without" in page 7, line 28. MR. MITCHELL HENRY thought it would be better to postpone the whole clause, or allow the Law Officers of the Crown to confer with the Home Office and the hon. Member for Glasgow. MR. ASSHETON CROSS said, his hon. and learned Friend and Colleague had undertaken to see the clause was properly settled; but they certainly ought not to pass it as it stood, and it should be amended as suggested. Amendment, as amended, agreed to. the attendant of an institution the power of arrest without warrant; but to call in MEDICAL ACT, 1858, AMENDMENT BILL. BILL PRESENTED. FIRST READING. THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON, in presenting a Bill to amend the Medical Act, 1858, said, it was not necessary that he should enter at any length upon the previous legislation with regard to medical education, as he did so last Session; but he might remind their Lordships that the object of the Bill he then submitted to their Lordships, and which he had now the honour of laying on the Table, was to amend the Act of 1858, which, though it contained a great number of valuable enactments and provided for the granting of certificates by Conjoint Boards to practise in medicine and surgery in England, Ireland, and Scotland, yet contained no compulsory provision for that purpose. The Conjoint Examination Board had, in reality, never come into action. No steps had been taken by Scotland or Ireland for the formation of a Conjoint Board, though in England some progress had been made in that direction. The matter remained unaltered until the year 1870; but in the Committtee report Progress; to sit latter year the noble Marquess opposite again upon Wednesday. PRENUPTIAL CONTRACTS BILL. (the Marquess of Ripon), who preceded him in the Privy Council, introduced a measure in that House for the purpose of amending the Medical Act of 1858. (Mr. O'Shaughnessy, Mr. Courtney, Mr. Sullivan, That measure provided that the estab Mr. Joseph Cowen.) lishment of a Conjoint Board should be compulsory instead of permissive, and that a certificate to be given by the Board to an applicant should qualify him to enter the Medical Profession. That Bill was discussed and carried through all its stages in their Lordships' House; but in the other House of Parliament it failed to pass, in consequence of the Medical Association having objected to the constitution of the Medical Council. The Medical Association desired that there should be a representation on the Medical Council of the whole Medical Profession. The opposition which was instituted against his noble Friend's Bill in the other House of Parliament was successful; and from that time until last year, he (the Duke of Richmond) thought he was right in saying no medical legislation on the part of the Government had been attempted. But, occupying the place which his noble Friend recently occupied, he (the Marquess of Ripon) could |