In Scotland, a conviction has long since been felt that some law was absolutely necessary to meet the cure of insane drinkers; and in 1857 and 1861, the commissioners in lunacy gave utterance to most decided views to that effect. Some with them have thought that provisions of this kind should be embodied in a lunacy act. But there is good ground for holding that the case requires special legislation; and that separate asylums, sanatoria, reformatories, or by whatever name inebriate institutions may be called, should be provided and licensed for this class of the unsound in mind. Inter ference with personal liberty would thus he more in accordance with the delicacies of the case, less painful to the feelings of those chiefly concerned, and more likely to secure the humane and remedial objects contemplated. Besides, the arrangements proposed would greatly relieve ordinary asylums, and apart from this, the malady itself could in many respects be much better treated when separated from other insanities.
Were sufficient facilities afforded, under government sanction, for the control of dipsomaniacs, and their detention until fit for liberation, there is no doubt numerous institutions—and better than those hitherto existing on voluntary enterprise—would spring up in various parts of the country, to accommodate individuals of all grades of society. Institutions so licensed, and endowed with necessary powers, would not only be productive of much public good, but be remunerative. Even supposing it necessary that government should establish three or four inebriate asylums in central situations of the country, these would soon be found to a great extent to be self-supporting, while they would assuredly lessen the burdens of the country otherivise, by the diminution of disease, destitution, and crime. Parochial boards, too, might send their inveterate drunkards into such asylums with more benefit and more economy than they can keep them in the wards of a workhouse.
To remove objections, two points must be attended to. The first is, that careful inspection of the proposed institutions be made by commissioners appointed for the purpose, so as to secure that all necessary humane and remedial arrangements be prop erly carried out, and no one detained longer than is essential for recovery; and the second is, that they, along with the medical superintendents, should decide when inmates, although still under control, are sufficiently sane to execute any testamentary deeds, or to conduct other business matters, or to perform—under more or less surveil lance, of course—any external civil privilege; or when they may be allowed probational leave of absence, as a preliminary step to final liberation.
In 1870, Mr. Dalrymple, took up the foregoing views warmly, and in the fol lowing year introduced his first bill. On the second reading a select committee was appointed to inquire into the whole subject; and a great mass of testimony borne by magistrates, governors of prisons, medical men, superintendents of lunatic asylums, and of inebriate asylums in America, was taken, and has been given at full length in the blue-books.
In the following session, Mr. Dalrymple brought in his second bill, founded on the report of the aforementioned committee, which strongly recommended the adoption of certain legal provisions of a mixed reformatory and punitive character; hut the death of Mr. Dalrymple shortly afterwards arrested the further prosecution of any measure on this subject before parliament. However, a subject of so much importance and general interest was not likely to be altogether pushed aside and forgotten; and accordingly it was revived and warmly agitated in 1874-75 by variou branch associations of the British medical associations; and a further impulse given to it by the paper read by Dr. Peddle at its meeting in Aug., 1875, and the discussion which followed. The practical result was the formation in London of a " Society for Promoting Legislation for the Control and Cure of Habitual Drunkards," with lord Shaftesbury as president, and a long list of church dignitaries, members of parliament, and others as vice-presidents and other office bearers. The society set at once to work to frame a bill on the basis of the select com mittee's report; and br. Cameron, m.r., took charge of it. but too late for the second reading. A new bill was thereafter drawn and introduced in 1879 by lord Shaftesbury in the house of lords and Dr. Cameron in the house of commons, through both of which it had an easy passage. This is not difficnit to understand, as its provisions are so mild, and its character so different from that desired by those who had given most attention to the subject, that it Was not thought worth any active opposition. The emasculations of the select committee's report, of Mr. Dalrymple's bills, and Dr. Cameron's first bill, may be at once understood, when it is mentioned that the mental phase of habitual drunkenness is kept in the background; that the existence of retreats is merely sanctioned, but when erected, to be regulated and inspected, and that admission is never to be compulsory, but only permissive, although some power of detention is given. No wonder that the last report of the society mildly says: " The 'Habitual Drunkards' act,' as passed, does not quite come up to the expectation of your committee, but they con gratulate all interested in the reformation of the inebriate on the affirmation by parlia ment of the principles on which the act is based;" and again: " Your committee have eVery confidence that, provided only adequate opportunity be afforded, many confirmed drunkards will gladly avail themselves of the power of isolation for a time from the many temptations by which they are at present surrounded." It was fixed that this act should come into force on 1st Jan., 1880, and it is to be hoped that it may prove more wide in its operation and more effective than can at present be fairly anticipated; for the existence of a compulsory clause is essential to the working of the voluntary clause, and would have led to arrangements for reformatories for the habitual drunkards of our police courts and prisons, and not confined the operation of the act simply to the better classes of society.