LORD BUCKMASTER'S BILL.
[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] Sin,—This Bill, as passed some time since by the Lords, contains one clause—that relating to lunacy—to which, considering the deplorable condition of things existing in asylums, grave exception must be taken. This clause provides that if a husband or wife who has once been certified fails to recover after five years of the treatment to which they are usually subjected, he or she shall be liable to divorce. Such a proviso, being known to those incarcerated, is likely grievously to accentuate the trouble of their mind and to militate seriously against their recovery.
Besides, according to the present Lunacy Act, a wife or husband (who, as a rule, possesses the rights and privileges of " petitioner ") has power to keep the other under lock and key for five years ; and there is nothing to hinder this being done, with the definite object of securing divorce—a proceeding manifestly inhuman and unjust.
A peer so notable for his love of liberty as Lord Buckmastet is surely not one to advocate (when he comes seriously to consider the situation) the retention of a clause in his Bill so detrimental to our rudimentary sense of justice and fair play.
It is extremely difficult to prophesy whether or no a given case will recover. All manner of circumstances have to be taken into account, as well as the conditions under which the patient is confined. Except in relation to a small minority, it is both unscientific and untrue to apply the designation " incurable." Most asylum-keepers are desirous of retaining their inmates, and every imaginable objection is often raised against their release. So we find that pro- longed detention is anything but an infallible index to their curability. Very many quite slight and harmless cases, who do not require imprisonment, are detained for many years upon one pretext or another—not infrequently to suit the convenience of relatives.
Until appropriate rest-homes are provided on a purely hospital footing (i.e., free from detention and from association with lunacy) for cases who are not " dangerous or unfit to be at large," no reliable conclusion can be drawn as to their chance of cure. Until a Royal Commission is appointed and the Lunacy Act itself—as regards its emancipating pro- viSions and its safeguards—has been overhauled, such a proposal as that eMbOdied in the lunacy clause of the Divorce Bill is wholly out of place, and ought, in accordance with every distinct for justice, to be dropped on reintroduction of the measure.—I am, Sir, etc., MEDI CUS.
Previous page
