We have in past pages referred to magisterial authority in relation with the pauper insane, as frequently exercised prejudicially, and with reference to asylum construction and organization, as sometimes placed in antagonism to acknowledged principles and universal practice, much to the injury of the afflicted inmates. Its operation is not more satisfactory when extended to the duties of inspection. We have heard complaints made that magistrates sometimes act very arbitrarily in their capacity of visitors to asylums, and that it is not uncommon for them, instead of acting in concert with the Commissioners in Lunacy, to place themselves in opposition to their views. In fact, the Annual Reports of the Commissioners testify to the not unfrequent want of harmony between the visiting magistrates and the Commissioners in Lunacy; and the very facts, that the latter have to make special yearly reports to the Lord Chancellor on the neglect or unfitness of certain private houses, and that they have sometimes to apply to him to revoke licences, demonstrate that the magisterial authorities are at times backward and negligent in their duties. Indeed, the impression to be gathered from the annual reports of the Commission is, that almost the only efficient supervision and control of provincial asylums are exercised by the Lunacy Commissioners.
The publication of the evidence before the Select Committee (1859) adds fresh proofs that magistrates make but indifferent visitors of asylums, and but imperfectly protect the interests of the insane; and that an extension of the jurisdiction and of the inspection by the Lunacy Commissioners is much needed. We would refer for particulars to queries and answers numbered from 2582 to 2605, and from 2788 to 2789.
We have commented in previous pages on the manner in which the Visiting Justices of public asylums perform their duties, and need not repeat the statements already made; yet we may here remark that the visitation of the wards of county asylums is often so very carelessly made, that it has little or no value, and that it is frequently difficult to get the quorum of two Justices to make it, the majority objecting on personal and other grounds.