Report of the Royal Commission on the care and control of the feeble-minded, Volume VIII.

  • Great Britain. Royal Commission on the Care and Control of the Feeble-minded.
Date:
1908
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

Credit: Report of the Royal Commission on the care and control of the feeble-minded, Volume VIII. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by Royal College of Physicians, London. The original may be consulted at Royal College of Physicians, London.

    304/552 (page 272)
    MENTALLY DEFECTIVE PERSONS AND THE LUNACY COMMISSION. Chapter XXXVIII. The Chancery Jurisdiction and the Lunacy Commission. Suggestions of Cozens-Haidy, M.R., as to con- stituting one Central A uthority—contd. Cozens-Hardy, L.J., Vol. IV., 28457. Vol. IV., 28494. Nature of woik done by the J udge and IMasters in Lunacy. James, Vol. IV., p. 193, c. 2. “ If this is sound in so far as the administration of the lunatic’s own property Cozens- is concerned, it is almost too clear for argument that the trustee work (including ’ mortgages) should be transferred to the Chancery Division. Apjiointment of p. ii7, c.’i new trustees, with vesting orders, is part of the regular business of that division. If a trustee is abroad, or cannot be found, yoi^ go to the Chancery Division. Why not if he is a lunatic ? I never heard any argument in support of this anomaly. It not infrequently happens that an order has to be made both in Chancery and in lunacy, and this is highly perplexing. “As to the inquiry itself, that is a matter which is not administrative in character. In the majority of cases there is no opposition on the part of the alleged lunatic, and the result is almost a foregone conclusion. And even when there is opposition there may be no demand for a jury. In all such cases one of the Commissioners, by preference one of the legal Commissioners, might hold the inquiry. But where the question of unsoundness of mind is really in issue, and a jury is demanded, a trial before a master is scarcely satisfactory. A judicial officer of high rank and considerable experience ought to be called in. And this can be done by directing an issue to be tried before a judge of the High Court (Section 94), as was done in two recent cases with great advantage. The order directing an issue, which is now made by the lunacy judge, might just as easily be made by the Chancery Division judge. In short, I would have the inquiry conducted by one of the Commissioners in every case except where an issue is directed.” 790. In answer to questions by us, his Lordship said, “ My strongest feeling, I confess, is about the absurdity of requiring the lunacy judge to make vesting orders, and appoint new trustees, and deal with mortgages and so on. The Chancery Division have no jurisdiction in that way [in lunacy] as matters now stand. That is business which is designed and intended for the Chancery Division, and there is no possible reason why that should not go to its natural place.” 791. In explanation of so much of the scheme as relates to the holding of inquisitions he said: “ At the present moment, as Lord Justice, I make an order for an inquiry. That goes before one of the masters ; then I have done with it for the present. If the matter were transferred to the Chancery Division the judge would make the order for the inquiry, either before a Commissioner, if it were practically unopposed, or by an issue to be tried before a judge of the High Court. I have a very strong feeling that in contested cases, one of which we had recently, and another of which came before me personally, and gave me a good deal of trouble, it is extremely desirable that a judge of the highest position and experience should deal with what is one of the most difficult problems which can be presented to any man. I think it ought not to be dealt with by anyone but a judge of the first rank.” 792. Mr. Christopher James, barrister at law, who has held the office of “ Sec- retary to the Lords Justices for Lunacy business ” since the year 1883, furnished pp. 193-194. us with a statement showing the nature of the business at present transacted by the Lords Justices and the masters in lunacy, and explanatory of the manner in which such busin ,ss would be conducted if the scheme recommended by Lord Justice Cozens-Hardy were adopted. This statement is prefixed to the printed notes of the evidence given by Mr. James. 793. The following is a short sketch of the nature of the work done by the Lords Justices and the masters. The business in lunacy may be classed under four principal heads :— A. Proceedings antecedent to an inquiry into the lunacy of a person alleged to be of unsound mind ; the inquiry itself; -and pro- ceedings for a supersedeas by which the insane person is upon recovery restored to the management of himself and his affairs. B. The management and administration dm-ing lunacy of the property of a person who has been found by inquisition of unsound mind, or of a person whose property may, under Clauses (c) to (/) of Section 116 of the Lunacy Act, 1890, in effect, be administered as if he had been found of unsound mind. C. The supervision of the lunatic in regard to his residence, maintenance, and treatment. 272 I