3.2
1774 and 1828 Madhouse Acts compared
The release of patients:
The powers of the
Westminster Courts over
the Physician Commission
were central to my interpretation
of its intended role. I argued that the 1774 Act had sought to
facilitate the court's established function or releasing people improperly
confined, by providing, through the commission, simple means to establish
the facts.
The Metropolitan Commission was not an agency for the central courts. Under
the 1828/1832 Madhouse Acts, the Westminster Courts did not have the access
to the commission's Registers, or powers to direct visits and reports or
summons and examine, that they
had under the 1774 Act.
The 1828 Act
empowered the Lord Chancellor
(as custodian of Chancery Lunatics, not simply as Lord Chancellor as in
1774)), Lord Chief Justice of Kings Bench and
Common Pleas or Home Secretary, to employ (not direct) any person to visit
and report on an asylum. The section was textually modelled on the
1774 court orders
section and my opinion is that King's Bench and Common Pleas
(both omitted in 1832) were only included in imitation of the original.
Although the 1828 (or 1832) Madhouse Act did not interfere with the court's
power to examine the sanity of a patient
, it detracted considerably from its
importance. Under it
the Metropolitan Commission and the county Quarter Sessions
could release patients. A person instituting proceedings in
Westminster
Hall incurred heavy fees, but by seeking a release via the commission or
county quarter sessions, he only incurred a fee, and then only 7/-, if he
required a search (see
law).
Licensing and visiting
The Metropolitan, like the Physician Commission, licensed and visited
London's madhouses; but this was on a
formal similarity. Under the 1828 Madhouse Act, licensing did far more than
ensure madhouses were known
(as in 1774), and
visiting was not the Westminster Courts' means of access to houses.
They were means for control of madhouses directly by the commission.
Control not
only, and not principally, of who was confined, but of the general
treatment of patients.
Under this and subsequent
Acts, licenses were
only granted if the commission or Quarter Sessions saw fit.
Licensing authorities received plans of proposed houses before licensing and could
refuse
any they thought unsuitable. Those licensed were visited at
least four times a year (in London) when, as well as seeing
the house
and patients, visitors inspected
the journal of a regular medical attendant with weekly comments
on the
house, the number of patients considered curable, and the extent to which
restraint was used. If they did not approve of what was found,
the commission (or Quarter Sessions)
could refuse, subject to confirmation by the Home Secretary to
renew the
licence when it expired, or at any time recommend the Home Secretary revoke
the existing licence
Central and local regulation
Wehereas the 1774 Act sought to facilitate High Coyurt proceedings for
the release on non-pauper patients, Gordon's Acts were principally
concerned to enable JPs (*) to regulate more effectively the treatment of
paupers.
The Metropolitan Commission was envisaged as the london
equivallent of county Quarter Sessions and visitors. To this end, London
JPs were integrated with the physicians.
(See composition under the 1828
Act)
In this sense, the 1774 Act was a central government Act and the 1828 Act a
local government Act, central government here referring to the judicial,
not the executive, elements of government.
The provisions for registers illustrate the move from judicial to local
magisterial regulation.
The change obviously relates to the
acquisition of powers of release (see
above), but it also relates to the
concern to regulate treatment.
The Physician Commission developed uses of the Registers as apart of the
process of inspection. In 1827, secretary Bright outlined the normal
visiting procedure. He went on the visits with a book containing the names
of patients. At each house, commissioners checked certificates and toured
the house checking patients against the names in the book.
Bright criticised the 1774 Act for not allowing this to be done more
efficiently. Because there were no notices of removal or death, nor of the
admission of paupers, they depended on the keepers for a true and complete
list, and could ever be sure they had seen every patient. (1827
SCHC.......)
The 1827 Select Committee heard that there were room in the White House
where paupers the commissioners had no knowledge of were confined in the
most atrocious conditions. The 1828 Act provided for
notices of all
patients, pauper and non-pauper, and for removal and death
notices.
© Andrew Roberts 1981-
Citation suggestion
Referencing
My referencing suggestion for this page is a bibliography entry:
Roberts, Andrew 1981- The Lunacy Commission
<http://studymore.org.uk/01.htm>
and references in your text to
(Roberts, A. 1981 section -)