5. That mechanical restraint, if used at all, is liable to great abuse from keepers and nurses, who will often resort to it for the sake of avoiding trouble to themselves; and who, even when well disposed towards the patient, are not competent to judge of the extent to which it ought to be applied. 6. The patient may be controlled as effectually without mechanical restraint, as with it; and that the only requisites for enabling the superintendents of asylums to dispense with the use of mechanical restraint, are a greater number of attendants, and a better system of classification amongst the patients; and that the additional expense thereby incurred ought not to form a consideration where the comfort of the patients is concerned. On the other hand, the medical and other superintendents of lunatic asylums who adopted a system of non-restraint as a general rule, but made exceptions in certain extreme cases, urged the following reasons for occasionally using some slight coercion:-- 1. That it is necessary to possess, and to acquire as soon as possible, a certain degree of authority or influence over the patient, in order to enforce obedience to such salutary regulations as may be laid down for his benefit. 2. That, although this authority or influence is obtained in a majority of cases by kindness and persuasion, there are frequent instances where these means entirely fail. That it then becomes necessary to have recourse to other measures, and, at all events, to show the patient that, in default of his compliance, it is in the _power_ of the superintendent to employ coercion. 3. That a judicious employment of authority mixed with kindness (and sometimes with indulgence) has been found to succeed better than any other method. 4. That the occasional use of slight mechanical restraint has, in many instances, been found to promote tranquillity by day and rest by night. 5. That it prevents, more surely than any supervision can effect, the patient from injuring himself or the other patients. 6. That, particularly in large establishments, the supervision must be trusted mainly to the attendants, who are not always to be depended on, and whose patience, in cases of protracted violence, is frequently worn out. That in such cases mild restraint insures more completely the safety of the attendants, and contributes much to the tranquillity and comfort of the surrounding patients. 7. That in many cases mild mechanical restraint tends less to irritate, and generally less to exhaust the patient, than the act of detaining him by manual strength, or forcing him into a place of seclusion, and leaving him at liberty to throw himself violently about for hours together. 8. That the expense of a number of attendants--not, indeed, more than sufficient to restrain a patient during a violent paroxysm, but nevertheless far beyond the ordinary exigencies of the establishment--is impracticable in asylums where only a small number of paupers are received.