Care of the Feeble Minded: Interesting Address at Cambridge by one of the Royal Commissioners: At a largely attended meeting, arranged by the Cambridge Committee for the care of the Feeble Minded, and held in the Council Chamber of the Guildhall, on Saturday evening, Mrs. Hume Pinsent, a member of the Royal Commission on the care and control of the Feeble Minded, gave an interesting address on this most important subject. The mayor (Mr. W. P. Spalding) presided and was supported by Sir T. Clifford Allbutt. Professor Bateson, Professor Inge. Dr. Wingate, Mr. E. H. Parker. Mr. Horace Darwin, and Mr. Turner (Supt. of the Eastern Counties Asylum at Colchester). Apologies for absence were announced to have been received from the Bishop of Ely. Mr. H. Butcher, M.P., and Canon Stanton. In introducing Mrs. Pinsent, the Mayor remarked that the subject which she was about to speak on was by no means a new one. Many of them for a long time had been interested in the welfare and treatment of the feeble minded, and they hoped that they had done some little good in the district in helping to get a large number of the feeble minded into the admirable institution at Colchester—(applause)—which treated them so happily and frequently beneficially. Mrs. Pinsent would speak to them about the Royal Commission appointed to go into the question, and it seemed to him was a question deserving of most careful consideration. THE MAIN RECOMMENDATION of the Royal Commission was that the care of the feebleminded should be undertaken by a committee of the County Council, subject to a Board of Control. It was a great national responsibility that the feeble minded should be taken care of but how a new system could be brought into operation without injuring the voluntary system which at present existed was, to his mind, a question of extreme difficulty. They had no doubt an inclination to regard with suspicion any proposals that would in any way interfere with the institutions, which had admittedly been doing good work hitherto, but whilst both sides of the question would have to be taken into account, they must not forget that the chief thing to be considered was the feeble minded themselves. (Hear, hear.) If the voluntary institutions were not able to provide for all the feeble minded in any given district it stood to reason that they ought not to be content to allow the evil to exist and the terrible misery the feeble minded frequently brought upon the homes in which they were located. (Applause.) MRS. PINSENT’S ADDRESS: Mrs. Pinsent pointed out that the report of the commission showed that the number of mentally defective persons in England and Wales, apart from the certified lunatics, was estimated at 149,000, which was very nearly one to every 200 of the population. Of these about 65,000 were at present urgently in need of provision, either in their own interests or in the interests of public safety. In these figures, they were told, only such cases were included as were the opinion of the investigators improperly, unsuitably, or unkindly cared for, or by reason of the characteristics were a source of danger to the community. If they added to these figures the number of certified lunatics, they found the total number of mentally defective persons over 271,000 or very nearly one in every 100 of the population. These figures did not convey the full GRAVITY OF THE SITUATION because these people could never pay back to the community the equivalent of the time, energy, and money spent upon them. Not only were they a burden on the resources of this generation but they were producing children who, in their turn, would have to be supported by the labour and at the expense of the next generation. The difficulty of supplying adequate, and at the same time humane provision for this vast number of people presented a grave problem. In their, report the commissioners said: — “There are numbers of mentally-defective persons whose training is neglected, over whom no sufficient control exercised, and whose wayward and irresponsible lives are productive of crime and misery, of much injury and mischief to them-selves and to others, and of much continuous expenditure WASTEFUL TO THE COMMUNITY, and to individual families. We find a local and ’permissive’ system of public education, which is available, here and there, for limited section of mentally-defective children and which, even if it be useful during the years of training, is supplemented by no subsequent supervision and control, and is in consequence often misdirected and unserviceable. We find large numbers of persons who are committed to prisons for repeated offences, which, being the manifestations of permanent defect of mind, there is hope of repressing, much less of stopping, by short punitive sentences. We find LUNATIC ASYLUMS CROWDED with patients who do not require the careful hospital treatment that well-equipped asylums now afford, and who might be treated in many other ways more economically, and as efficiently. We find also, at large in the population, many mentally defective persons, adults, young persons, and children, who are some in one way, some in another, incapable of self-control, and who are therefore, exposed to constant moral danger themselves, and become the source of lasting injury the community.” This was the picture the commissioners had drawn for them, and they suggested A NEW ACT OF PARLIAMENT for the care and control of the feeble minded. She had no time to give a full explanation of the Act but would deal with two of its fundamental ideas. The first point was that there should be unity of control, and secondly continuity of control. In regard to the first point the commissioners recommended that there should one central authority to be called the Board of Control to supervise and regulate the provisions made for the accommodation, the maintenance, care, treatment, education, training, and control of all the mentally defective, and also that there should be only one local authority to deal with the feeble minded. In order to carry this out, they suggested that there should be a new Act, which should contain all the necessary provisions of the Lunacy and Idiots’ Act combined with any additional statutory powers necessary to extend the protection afforded by this Act to all degrees of mental defect, and also to bring A COMPLETE SCHEME for their care and control into operation. The principle was that which was already adopted by the Lunacy and Idiots’ Act, that those who by reason of mental defect could not take part in the struggle of life, should be afforded State Protection, suited to their needs. This principle, it was proposed, to extend to all grades of mental defect. Many mentally persons were dealt with as paupers or criminals, but at present there were no means of dealing with them primarily as mentally defective. If the mentally defective were to be dealt with, it was necessary to know who and where they were, and it was suggested that this should be ascertained chiefly through the Education Authorities. This had already been done in places where special schools existed. She believed that in Cambridge there were no special schools, and they therefore did not know how many defectives they had, or what kind of care or control they would need in the future. It was further suggested that the present Lunacy Commission, enlarged and strengthened, should constitute THE BOARD CONTROL; that England and Wales should be divided into at least eight suitable districts, and that an Assistant District Commissioner should be appointed to each district; that Honorary Commissioners possessing special knowledge likely to be useful should be appointed; and that inasmuch as women were deeply concerned in the care and control of the mentally defective, one at least of the members of the Board of Control should a woman. It was concluded that in organising the care and control of the mentally defective, it would better to follow the precedent of the Lunacy Acts rather than the Poor Law, and the Commissioners recommended that THE LOCAL AUTHORITY should be the council of each county and county borough, and that they should be required by statute to make suitable and sufficient provision for the mentally defective. It was further suggested that they should exercise the powers it was proposed to confer on them through a statutory committee for the care of the mentally defective and should be called the committee for the care of the mentally defective, and should take over the duties of the Visiting Committee, or what was sometimes called the Asylums Committee, of the County Council. They further recommended that the statutory committees should co-opt additional members of special experience, of whom one at least should be a woman, and that a medical officer should be appointed by the County Council to assist the committee for the care of the mentally defective. In regard to her second point, the continuity of control, Mrs. Pinsent explained that the Commissioners recommended that subject to certain safeguards, in cases not under suitable parental or other control, the committee might resolve that until the child reached the age of 21, all the powers and rights of the parent should vest in the committee. This recommendation followed the precedent of the Poor Law Act of 1899, which allowed Guardians to proceed on similar lines with orphan children or with children whose parents were unfit to control them. This, if adopted, would remove ONE OF THE GREATEST DIFFICULTIES in dealing with cases where the parents refused to allow mentally defective children to be placed in institutions, or withdrew them from institutions before they were fit to be discharged. When such mentally defective persons reach the age of 21, it was recommended that the committee should report as to their condition to the Board of Control, who should decide what further steps should be taken in view of the continuance of such persons under care and control. In conclusion, Mrs. Pinsent pointed out that the birth rate amongst the mentally defective was high and urged the segregation of the mentally defective as the best way to prevent the birth of mentally defective children. (Applause.) In the discussion which followed, Professor Bateson said that Mrs. Pinsent had dealt with a difficult question in a way which was likely to lead to real and profitable results in the future. He spoke of the seriousness of the descent of crime and mental deficiency from one generation to another, and said he thought the reason the present state of things was allowed to continue was because they did not fully realise what was happening. Prof. Howard Marsh also complimented Mrs. Pinsent on the excellent way in which she had dealt with the subject. A great beginning had, he said, been made, and he wished the movement every success and a rapid transit into better things. Mr. Wilkinson, a ratepayer of Cambridge, wanted to know what they were going to do with the Commissioners’ report. Were they going to let the Government take it carelessly and cast it into the wastepaper basket? So far as this local aspect was concerned it rested with the ratepayers to see that they kept their local authorities doing their part, and also to see that the Government gave effect to the recommendations of the commissioners. Mr. J. Congreve (Clerk to the Cambridge of Board of Guardians), and Mr. Turner. Supt. of the Eastern Counties Asylum also took part in the discussion. Sir Clifford Allbutt, in proposing a vote of thanks to Mrs. Pinsent, said that the mentally defective were not, as a rule, progressive, but he believed that three or four per cent of them were progressive, and ultimately, by discipline, something could be made of them. Professor Inge seconded the vote of thanks, which was carried with acclamation.
Transcribed in whole or part from scanned originals: Presented with or without modified text and punctuation. For absolute accuracy refer to the original newspapers. Source: The British Newspaper Archive
Referenced
GRO0245 Devonport: Ellen Frances Parker: 1866 – 1949