Scope and authority of Lunacy Commission greater than described
Controlling London madhouses had been the Metropolitan Commission's only
significant function, at least until 1837 (see
Central records and national interests), hence its
title.
The Inquiry Commission had visited County houses, County Asylums, Hospitals
and some workhouses nationally, but although
able to exercise influence, it
had no formal powers outside London apart from being able to release
patients from county houses
(see law)
. Control remained with the JPs
(see 4.3 following) and the Poor Law Authorities until 1845.
It was not made clear in the
1844 Report; in
Ashley's speeches on the 1845 Bills; or even
in
the Act
itself that a commission of
the scope and authority I have summarised
was envisaged.
The 1844 Report's
Suggestions for the Amendment
of the Law made only three recommendations specifically
relating to the need for a central board:
9.
"That the Sites, Plans, and Estimates for every County Asylum hereafter
to be erected, be referred to some Board or authority, constituted for the
visitation and supervision of Lunatics, for the purpose of receiving
suggestions, previously to the final adoption thereof by the Magistrates."
13.
+
25:
"That, with a view, amongst other things, to the formation of a
complete Register of the Insane" notices and an annual statement of
admission, discharge and death of certified patients should be sent to the
Metropolitan board.
16.
That all asylums and hospitals for the Insane should be subject to
official visitation.
Ashley presented the Bills in a piecemeal
fashion, itemising the
amendment to existing legislation proposed. No mention of the overall
transformation of the degree of Government intervention was made at any
stage - apart from making it clear that the Counties were to be compelled
to provide asylums. The spirit was one of cautious amendment to established
legislation:
The second Bill.. will be an extension of the" [1828 County Asylum Act].
"We have.. been scrupulous in departing as little as possible from its
provisions."
(Hansard
6.6.1845
col 186)
The establishment of the full-time salaried commission was presented as a
financial retrenchment, a control on the excessive expenditure occasioned
by the 1842 Inquiry Act:
The first of the Bills.. will establish a permanent Commission, and thereby
secure the entire services of competent persons. It will give the power of
more detailed and frequent visitation and fix the limits of expense, now
regularly increasing.
(Hansard 6.6.1845
col 182)
In
5.3 I use the information Ashley presented to illustrate this
point, in
order to show the curves of the Commission's increasing activity before,
during and after the Inquiry.
The extent to which the Commission (established under the Lunacy Act) had
acquired new powers rested in a large part on the extent to which it was to
regulate the activities of JPs under the County Asylums Act. Ashley seems
to have striven not to present the bills as a unity. The one bill was:
to provide for pauper lunatics, and the other to render permanent the
Commission, and provide rules for private asylums, and for general
visitation.
(Hansard 11.7.1845
col. 401)
The link between the two, mentioned once,
was that:
To assist magistrates in erecting asylums and ascertaining the
proportionate numbers of curable and chronic lunatics, and providing
separate buildings for them, and for diminishing the expense of building
asylums, the plans are to be submitted to the Commissioners in Lunacy; and
the estimates to the Secretary of State.
(Hansard 6.6.1845 col.187)
Even when, as I have done in the
legal summary, the Acts are presented
together, the Commission's role remains ambiguous: it was to advise the
Home Office on plans for County Asylums and Contract Houses, but not on the
estimates or the General Rules
(see law).
This is misleading: In practice everything concerning County Asylum
provision was referred to the commission for their consideration and
report, before the Home Secretary approved or disapproved it. The
commission's minutes record, for example, on 6.8.1846, that the
Home Office
had submitted proposed General Rules for
Nottinghamshire
and
Hanwell, and
on 28.8.1846 the proposed rules for
Cheshire and
Cornwall. Estimates
were considered by the Commission and its architects along with plans
(See
County Asylums Plans and Rules). The distinctions in the Act had
no practical
significance and it is
clear from the Commission's minutes that the Home Secretary dealt with his
responsibilities under the County Asylum Act through the medium of the
commission (*). When the Home Secretary
made his first decision on the basis of the commission's report, the
question arose whether the commission or the Home Office should communicate
it to the JPs. The Home Secretary, it was noted, thought the commission
should.
(MH 50. 23.7.1846. Disapproval of Derby County Asylum Plans).
Generally Home Secretaries endorsed the opinion of the commission' reports;
although when this conflicted with the JPs there could be strong pressure
on him to overrule the Commission, and on at least one occasion (respecting
plans for the new Middlesex County Asylum), he did so.
(*) The 1890 Lunacy Act contains a general clause which reflects the long-
established practice:
s.272: "For the purpose of procuring the approval of a Secretary of
State for any agreement, contract, or plan requiring approval under
the Act" [it] "shall be submitted to the Commissioners, and to the
Secretary of State, and the Commissioners shall.. report thereon to
the Secretary of State, who may approve the agrement, contract or
plan, with or without modification, or may refuse his approval."
5.2.2
County Asylum Plans and Rules
Plans
In October 1845 the commission received a suggestion (initiated by an
architect) that they might consider appointing a consultant architect
(MH 50. 31.10.1845). This was obviously taken seriously for in
May 1846 the
Home Office approved their doing so
(MH 50. 6.5.1846).
In view of the claims that existing County Asylums had been designed and
built on too costly a scale (4.8.5 + 4.11) the selection of Mr Moffat of
Scott and Moffat as the Lunacy Commission's consultant architect
is
significant
(MH 50. 26.5.1846). This firm were experienced workhouse
architects, who, Wildman says, had
effectively cornered a large part of the market in workhouse design in the
central and southern areas of England. (Quoted in
Longmate, N.
1974 p.287)
Moffat had competed unsuccessfully for the design of Derby County Asylum
and was therefore embarrassed when its plans were submitted to him as the
Commission's consultant. To avoid such problems it was decided to retain
three architects instead of one. A
Mr Elms and a
Mr Mosley were appointed,
and the Derby plans were sent to Elms.
(MH 50. 4.6.1846)
All plans and estimates for County asylums were sent to the consultant
architects for their opinion
(1847 Report (B)). At first, it appears, they
were sent without guidance on how they should be evaluated because on
25.6.1846 a request from Elms for specific instructions was minuted and on
the following week it was noted that the architects were to confer about
some general rules
(MH 50. 1.7.1846).
With the assistance of the architects the Commission drew up a set of
general rules for County Asylum construction consisting of rules to be
observed in selecting the site; a set of suggestions about design; and
specifications for the plans, maps and contract details that the JPs should
supply to the commission. These were printed and circulated to Asylum
Committees in
November or December 1846. With them went advice to the
architects for County Asylums that if they attended to the suggestions it
would
prevent the delay that might otherwise arise from returning plans.. for
alteration.
In April 1847 Asylum Committees were told that they need not submit plans
in such a finished state, and that this would save labour and expense in
alterations when the commission objected to them. It was suggested
preliminary plans should be kept in pencil and an ink tracing sent to the
commission, so that alterations the Commission suggested could be made
without delay or expense.
(1847 Report (B)
p.32 + appendix E.
MH50
12.11.1846)
5.2.3
Pauper lunatics
Pauper lunacy had been the
central theme of the 1844 Report of the
Metropolitan Commission, which
had recommended that every County
should have a "Hospital" to receive "all recent cases" of insanity amongst
its "insane poor", and had spoken of the need to remove chronic
patients from these asylums. Concerned about dangerous lunatics in
workhouses (who might be recent or chronic), Home Secretary Graham
had said
the government would ensure asylums were provided for both "incipient
lunacy" and the long term care and custody of chronic lunatics.
By the 1845 County Asylums Act it was sought that eventually all pauper
lunatics should be treated in County Asylums provided by the JPs.
The programme was to be enforced and controlled by Central Government which
was to provide most of the funds as a loan
(see law), and to
approve the
plans. It could determine the General Rules, and enforce the Act on any
recalcitrant JPs via the courts
(see law).
The Lunacy Commission was the Government department which, under the
Ministerial authority of the Home Secretary ,
oversaw the
great
scheme for the cure of pauper lunacy that
Ashley had outlined
in the House of Commons. It
monitored County Asylum
provision
and it
monitored the transfer of pauper lunatics from licensed houses, workhouses
and outdoor relief to County Asylums. Because it reported to the Home
Secretary on an asylum's General Rules (see law), it also monitored the management of
County Asylums and their system of treatment.
Masterminding the County Asylums scheme, and dealing with the major
problems that arose in its implementation, was initially the Commission's
central function., its roles respecting licensed houses and paupers in
workhouses being closely related.
The census of the insane
in the 1844 Report had shown that the majority of pauper lunatics were in
licensed houses or workhouses, or were on outdoor relief
(see table).
Clearly they could not be sent to County Asylums until the JPs provided
them. The 1845 County Asylums Act, however required that those in
workhouses or on outdoor relief were to be admitted immediately to an
asylum.: if not to a County Asylum then to a licensed house or hospital
(see law)
Initially, therefore, large numbers of pauper lunatics had to be taken
into licensed houses whilst the County Asylums were built.
This part of the programme obviously had to be vigorously controlled. Where
JPs
made contracts
with licensed houses to take their pauper lunatics,
the Home Secretary approved the contract on the commission's
report, and the contract house became subject to County Asylum and
licensed house controls. This meant that Commission had more control,
because whilst the JPs retained immediate licensing control, the commission
had acquired ultimate control over County licensing because the Lord
Chancellor, on its recommendation, could
revoke or prevent JPs renewing a
licence.
In all licensed houses and hospitals the commission could
determine the
pauper lunatics' diet.
Pauper lunatics in workhouses and outdoor relief.
The Commission was the undisputed central authority with respect to all
asylums. The paupers, in workhouses and on outdoor relief, who were to be
sent to those asylums, however, were already the responsibility of the Poor
Law Commission. With respect to them the two Commissions had to work
closely together.
We
have seen how, during the Inquiry years, co-operation had already been
established between the two Commissions
over the production of statistics.
The Lunacy Commission received the returns from the Poor Law medical
officers of
which paupers they deemed lunatic
.
Lunacy
Commissioners regularly visited pauper lunatics who remained in workhouses
and reports of their visits were sent to the Poor Law Commission
(see law).
The Poor Law Commission, in its turn, referred reports from its own sources
concerning lunatics to the Lunacy Commission. Of necessity the control of
the local poor law authorities was a joint responsibility of both
Government departments.
5.2.4
Ministerial Responsibility
The question of who the Lunacy Commission was responsible to was a problem
even for contemporise. In Committee on the Lunacy Bill, Duncombe said they
ought to have:
"paid Commissioners responsible to the Government and the
country, and not men who were part amateurs and part professional, and who
were responsible to nobody"
Wakley believed one commissioner, "who should be responsible to the Home
Office for his actions", would do more good than the commission as it was
composed.
Duncombe objected to any honorary commissioners
"He could see no advantage in having one of the Commissioners
in the House; it would not make the Board more responsible. He wished to
see them responsible to the Lord Chancellor or the Secretary of State"
In fact the commission was responsible to both (in law and in practice) on
different issues. If they had been appointed by the Home Secretary, as the
Metropolitan Commission was from 1828 to 1832, and the Home Secretary had
retained his other responsibilities under the 1828 Act, the situation would
have been more straightforward, for the bulk of the commission's activities
were primarily Home Office concerns. This is reflected in the Lunacy
Commission's preferred
choice for the location of its office, in the vicinity of
Whitehall,
close to the Home
Office
and other departments of administrative
government.
Because of the political sensitivity of any investigation of the affairs of
the rich, however, the appointments were transferred to the Lord
Chancellor in 1832 (See
3.5). The same and related issues probably explain the
continuation of this arrangement
(See case of Mrs Henry Howard, for example). The commission had
a judicial function,
its activities infringed on issues of property and liberty that sometimes
led to high-profile court cases (see 1858, 1872 and
1884), and some
consistency was needed between
its activities respecting lunacy and those traditionally belonging to the
Lord Chancellor.
However, the pattern of departmental relations, outlined below, shows how
lop-sided this arrangement was in term of the numbers of lunatics each
Minister was responsible for.