Psychological Retrospect
297
The Medical Press and Circular has devoted a considerable portion of its space to a ” Lunacy Depai tment, such a proceeding ought to receive the encouragement and thanks of those interested in the subject. We extract the following from this department:?
MR. DILLWYN’S LUNACY BILL.
We have been looking forward for some information in reference to what Mr. Dillwyn proposes to intioduce into his ” Lunacy Bill.” We are not surprised that this Member should have taken the initiative in the matter, for he is alone respon- sible for the Lunacy Committee held last year, and for the mode in which it was conducted, and for the evidence which was deemed as admissible. The Member for bwansea^ has at various times during his parliamentary career occupied the attention of the House by asking questions relative to lunacy matters which from time to time have cropped up, and one ot the last that we remember was in reference to the confinement of Miss Wood, one of the Shaker Community, who was placed under certificate in a private asylum in the countiy. ihe question asked in the House was indeed an extraordmaiy one, and proved that the Honourable Member was ignorant of the very elements of the Lunacy Laws. He asked by what clause in the Lunacy Act the incarceration of a person in an asylu? could be allowed, who was not dangerous to herself or others? And as it was not shown that Miss Wood was so, whether she was not confined illegally? The House evidently could not answer the question, but next day a letter appeared fiom Dr L. Forbes Winslow in the Times, drawing the Honourable Member’s attention to the fact that it was not necessary for a person to be either dangerous to herself or others to be placed in an asylum, and there was no clause which could be so construed. The various questions asked by the Lunacy Committee pioed that most of the members were lamentably ignorant of the subject they had under their consideration. When we find the leading members of the specialty asked whether it is not possible to place a sane person in an asylum, and whilst there drug him with certain medicines until he becomes insane, and this ques- tion asked over and over again, we shudder to think that men of high calibre who composed this Committee should have tolerated such preposterous nonsense. Why did not the mem- bers of the Lunacy Committee visit all the private asylums near London, or some of them, instead of listening to the ” hair-brained chatter of irresponsibility,” and believing the insinuations made by discharged lunatics? In such a question, affecting as it does the management of asylums and the care and treatment of those mentally afflicted, we state that the proceeding of the Committee in general was badly regulated and utterly failed in its modus operandi to arrive at a right or just conclusion on the subject.
The Lunacy Amendment Bill of Mr. Dillwyn, now before the House of Commons, is of itself peculiar. It contains in all seventeen sections, and with the exception of one of these, it is. worthless as an addition to our present Lunacy Law. The result of a long Parliamentary sitting of the Lunacy Committee has given rise to this Bill, but which does not, however, reflect much credit on the framers of its various clauses. It com- mences by a section in which the justices are empowered to purchase private asylums ; but this is not compulsory, and the proprietors of the private asylums can suit their own con- venience in this matter, [f a private asylum is purchased, it becomes immediately converted into a public one, and is to be governed as such according as the existing Lunacy Law directs. Private asylums are to be under the jurisdiction of the justices and not of the Commissioners in Lunacy. Before a patient can be received into a private asylum he must be certified by two medical men, and an order for his admission must be signed by a justice of the peace, who, however, is not obliged to personally examine the alleged lunatic. In a case of sudden and violent attack of insanity, a person can be received into an asylum upon one certificate called an ” emergency certifi- cate,” without any order being obtained previous to his re- ception. In such a case, however, a second medical certificate and a justice’s order must be given within forty-eight hours fiom the time of the admission. There is one clause which refers to the admission of voluntary patients into asylums w rich is likely to do good service ; a provision is here made . y which lunacy certificates need not be signed except when a bsolutely necessary. One of the chief objections at the pre- sent day to placing patients in asylums is a general antipathy to lunacy certificates, and the fear of being ” branded” as a person of unsound mind to the detriment of future generations should the patient recover his reason sufficiently well to be liberated from restraint and supervision. By this clause it appears that it will not be illegal for the proprietor to receive into his establishment patients who may be stated to be on the borderland of insanity. Notice of this must be given to the Commissioners within three days from the reception. There is one extraordinary section enabling anyone to apply for permission to send two medical men to examine a person confined in a private asylum. If the Commissioners think proper to grant this request, the medical men visit the patient on two separate occasions, seven days intervening between the visits, and if they consider the case to be a proper one for discharge, he is set at liberty. The person who signed the order has notice of this, but no provision is made for him to take any steps to protest against such interference. This clause is most unsatisfactory in many respects, and is likely to be followed by endless complications. Attendants can be licensed to take the legal care of lunatics in private houses. This is most objectionable; it reminds us of the treatment of lunatics in the olden time, when attendants were entrusted with the responsibility of taking care of the insane, and when they knew that they were free from supervision they would lock the hapless lunatic in his room and repair to the nearest pot- house. Human nature is the same now as it was in those days to which we refer.
The proposed Act may be summed up as inadequate and useless for the purpose for which it was intended, and as there is no possible chance of such an Act passing, it is to be re- gretted that the work done by the Lunacy Committee has been in vain.
There have been few cases within our remembrance whicli have been allowed to occupy the time of our law courts in such a useless manner as the one recently concluded. Mr. Nunn, the unfortunate plaintiff, has been the inmate of no less than three asylums. He was placed in 1873 under the care of Dr Forbes Winslow, in consequence of his having made two distinct attempts on his life; the first, by jumping out of a first-floor window, and the second, by swallowing his shirt studs. Iu addition to these he had made attempts on the lives of his children, and threatened that of his wife. He escaped from Winslow’s asylum?in which he was treated as a drawing-room patient, having a certain amount of liberty and parole?to Munster House, Fulham, under the care of Dr Blandford and Mr. Hemmings, in which asylum he alleges that he was placed in a padded room as a punishment for an attempted escape, and was subjected to cruel treatment by being ” ducked” twelve times in a bath. This is the charge, but beyond originating in his own imagination it is not substantiated by a single witness. The attendants who were at the asylum at the time were all summoned at the trial, and testified, one and all, that the whole was a pure fabrication of the unfortunate plaintiff. The Lord Chief Baron endeavoured to close the case imme- diately after the examination of Mr. Hemmings; Sergeant Parry, the leading counsel for the plaintiff, would not consent to such a course, but for what reason we are at a loss to compre- hend. The following medical men testified to Mr. Nunn’s state of mind at various periods :?Dr Andrew Clarke, Dr Boyd, Dr. Blandford, Dr Stephens, Mr. Hemmings, Dr Forbes Winslow, and Dr Puller. It is, however, rather surprising to us that the latter gentleman, who had come expressly to ‘give his testimony in the case, should have entirely forgotten that he had signed two certificates for Mr. Nunn’s incarceration?one for Dr. Winslow’s asylum, the other for Munster House.
Every medical man who signs a lunacy certificate should keep a copy of what he has signed for reference. In addition to the evidence of the medical men and attendants was that of Mrs. Nunn, who proved that she had taken the utmostcare of her husband during the commencement of his abnormal mental state when at home, and was reluctant to place him under restraint, until it was found absolutely necessary to do so for the protec- tion of herself and family and for his own good and safety. The chief delusions under which this gentleman appears to have laboured, were that he was ruined, too wicked to live, and that he was starved. All these were proved in evidence to be delusions. From beginning to end the case was regarded as a sensational one. A crowded court who were never loath to publicly express their opinion, though they received a stern rebuke from the learned judge: an audience of women anxious to see asylums and their proprietors denounced and swept from the face of the earth, doubtless from personal motives and eager for revenge?in fact, the so-called ” lunacy reformers ” of England. The Chief Baron addressed the court as follows on this subject:?
‘ Looking at the assemblage of Englishmen, and I suppose must call them, Englishwomen, who crowd this court, and f?i “^ulge in an abuse of the privilege of attending a public ria y giving vent to expressions of applause or condemnation, I would have cleared the court before this, however difficult it might have been, but that I might have excluded many who take a fair, just, and natural interest in the case, and who have conducted themselves with perfect propriety.”
A case like this calls for small comment from us. Such allegations as those made by the plaintiff, substantiated by no witness, may be pronounced delusions. The learned judge evidently held this opinion, also the jury, and there could have been no sane person in court who could have arrived at any other conclusion. It is, however, a monstrous shame that a professional brother should be liable to be dragged into a court of justice, put to great personal expense, as well as mental anxiety, on the insane assertions of an escaped lunatic. On the merits of the case the Lord Chief Baron says as follows in his summing up :?
” Is it true ? The defendant says it is a delusion absolutely, and there is a great body of evidence showing that the plaintiff has had delusions of a disordered brain. In his story the plaintiff is directly contradicted by every living man who could have witnessed the scene if it occurred. While in support of his claim there is not one single witness who has deposed to one fact, nor any confirmatory evidence.”
After this statement of the learned judge, Mr. Hemmings “would be justified in informing the proper authorities that this unfortunate gentleman is still at large. On the other hand, the learned judge let fall remarks to the effect that the state- ment of the plaintiff could not be substantiated by one single living witness, who could have been brought forward; and if for one moment we can regard the plaintiff as a sane man, the only course open to Mr. Hemmings would be to indict him for corrupt and deliberate perjury. Mr. Hemmings leaves the court with the sincere sympathy of his professional brethren, and we say emphatically without a stain on his character. A case involving an important medical issue came lately nnder the consideration of the Marylebone County Court.
Dr Edwards, of Hyde Park, was consulted in reference to a lady who had been of unsound mind for a year, and in whom the symptoms were rapidly increasing, and, in addition to the mental excitement, she practised self-abuse to such an extent that an ulcerated mass had formed around the labia and clitoris from the introduction of certain foreign bodies into the vagina. This diseased tissue, acting as an irritant, excited a desire to mastur- ate, and Dr Edwards, after consultation with Dr Alfred Meadows, decided to remove it. He informed the family of the nature of the proposed operation (which was not, however, clitoridectomy). As a result of the operation the masturbation ceased, and the patient improved in every respect, both mentally and bodily. Some time after it was decided to place her under certificate in a private family, Dr Edwards visiting her once a fortnight, and acting as her medical attendant, under the Lunacy Act. He continued his visits until it was found de- sirable to transfer the patient to an asylum. Fees had been paid from time to time, and the patient, now passing out of the care of Dr Edwards, the amount of his claim up to this time, which had been previously agreed to by the family, was naturally sent to the relatives. To his astonishment, it was dis- puted, and a counterclaim set up by the solicitor of mal-practice in performing the operation, and so causing the patient to be- come chronically insane. No mention of this was made until after a lapse of one year from the operation, when notice of it was given to Dr Edwards through a solicitor. At the hearing of the case the chief questions which arose ‘were what the effect of such an operation upon the mental state of a person would be, and whether it would be justified by the circumstances of the case. Many medical witnesses were in court prepared to testify as to the propriety of the operation. The judge evidently from the first entertained a strong opinion. Dr Meadows was called and sworn, but the solicitor threw up the case, which, in our opinion, ought never to have been brought into court. Dr. Edwards had done everything in his power for the patient com- mitted to his charge. He had not performed any operation without first consulting Dr Meadows, and after communication with the family. He had acted quite professionally, and the judge endorsed this view in the highly complimentary manner in which he addressed him at the termination of the case.
THE ROYAL COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND PRIVATE ASYLUMS.
At a general meeting of the College of Physicians for the purpose of formally admitting the Fellows who had been elected by the College, the President was asked whether the report was true that at the recent meeting of the Council to nominate the Fellows a resolution had been passed to exclude proprietors of private asylums from being admitted to the Fellowship of the College.
In reply he stated that as the proceedings before the Council weie strictly secret, he did not feel himself bound to answer e question, but that he would do so by saying that no such resolution had been made, and if it had it would be in the power of any future Council to upset it. A discussion here took place, when one of the Fellows, a Councillor, remarked that the ques- tion was not in order. This, however, the President, overruled. The same Fellow stated that he wished to clear himself from a report in circulation to the effect that he had proposed this resolution. We do not for one moment say that a formal resolution was passed, but it is quite possible for any member of the Council to have compared proprietors of asylums to hotel keepers, as has been done in one of the medical journals, and to have stated that it would have been derogatory for the College to have elected such persons to its Fellowship, and so prejudiced the minds of the Council, who might have agreed to this without passing any positive resolution. We are credibly informed that such was the case, and it answered the same purpose as a resolution. It was doubtless to this that the President alluded when he remarked that such a resolution might be thrown out next year if it had been passed.
We consider that if such a statement were really made and carried it was an insult to a large body of men, who have advanced science and literature in a way equal to most of their professional brethren.
During the second reading of the proposed Act to legislate for the care of chronic inebriates, the Archbishop of York proposed that a clause should be introduced prohibiting dipso- maniacs from being taken care of in licensed houses as existing at the present day for the reception of the insane. This appears to us very absurd, and we regret that such a clause was allowed to be carried. Insanity and dipsomania are so closely allied, and the latter so often the cause as well as the effect of the former, that it appears difficult to draw a line of demarcation between them. The physicians who have the care of the insane should also be entrusted with the responsibility of supervising the individuals over whom the new Act is intended to legislate. ^ e are of opinion that there should be some provision in the Bill enabling those under confinement for drink to be transferred to asylums upon their condition proving that the craving is the effect of some cerebral mischief, and not a disease per se, and Presumably curable by restraint for some months. We cannot see how the present Act, framed as it is, can fulfil what was in- tended by the agitators in the matter who drew the attention ?f Parliament to the existing crying evil, and when we find, in addition, that the care and treatment of these individuals is, by
an absurd clause of the Archbishop of York’s, taken out of the hands of those medical men who have made insanity and its ally, dipsomania, their special study, we shall not be surprised to find that the Bill will be a failure as to effecting any permanent cures.
GERALD MAINWARING.
From information and data placed in our hands respecting Gerald Mainwaring, convicted and subsequently reprieved for the murder of a police constable at Derby, we are in a position to give what we consider to be important facts con- nected with the case.
The prisoner received his earlier education atRossall School, and after leaving school he resided with his father in Stafford- shire. At this time it appears he evinced marked peculiarities ; he became very taciturn, and avoided the society of others, preferring solitude to even the association of those most inti- mate, causing remarks and suspicions among his friends, so that even at this period he was considered eccentric. He left England in 1875 for Canada, remaining there for four years. Whilst there he conducted himself so far well as to avoid getting into any scrape, residing with Capt. Brereton, Stipen- diary magistrate, in Toronto. He returned to England in 1879, in consequence of the removal of Capt. Brereton’s family from Toronto, the death of his father, and disappointment at not receiving remittances from England, for which he had written in pressing terms.
Shortly after his return to England he visited his brother at Oxford, but whilst there only drank claret, stating that ” brandy made him mad.” But we shall have more to say upon this point when we come to the consideration of the hereditary predisposition to drinking and the general effect that alcohol appears to have had upon members of his family. One peculiar feature, and what we consider to be most material in connection with his case, is the circumstance that none of the prisoner’s family ever saw him the worse for liquor, so we are credibly informed.
With regard to his antecedents, we have reason to believe that other members of his family were equally liable to become affected from indulgence in alcohol. We thus have a man who, from his own statement, had a horror of strong drink, and evidently keen and apprehensive as to the danger of imbibing brandy, but at the same time one who could be easily led astray by any person who endea- voured to guide him in the wrong direction, of strong animal passions, and by nature headstrong.
The murder was committed on July 12, and we have evidence of the prisoner drinking incessantly from the 10th to this date, the liquor chosen not being ordinary wine, but brandy, of the effects of which he had such a fearful dread, as appears from the remark made to his brother at Oxford that ” brandy made him mad.” Once, however, forgetting this circumstance, and in- dulging, it was impossible for him to desist. The more brandy he took so the fatal fire gradually increased, until it ac- cumulated in one maddening flame, rendering his brain in such a state of excitement as to make him not only heedless of what lie did, but ignorant of the gravity of his acts, and consequently irresponsible for his crime.
The question for the jury was, whether his state was such as that he was to be held irresponsible for the murder, and, whether a verdict of manslaughter or murder should be returned. To determine this vital question the jury were upwards of three hours in deliberation, evidently showing the grave doubts which must have existed in some of their minds. One most important fact is, that the jury unanimously signed and forwarded to the Home Secretary a petition expressing their conviction that the prisoner was, at the time he fired the pistol, “in a state of com- plete intoxication, and had no intention of doing an illegal act, or deliberately inflicting harm on the deceased, Joseph Moss, or any other person.”
With regard to the way in which they arrived at their de- cision it is no province of ours to discuss; suffice it to say, that it will doubtless prove a deathblow to trial by jury when scientific questions are involved. We have frequently advocated the necessity of medical assessors, and had they been employed in this case, a British jury would never have come to the conclusion that Gerald Mainwaring had committed wilful murder with malice aforethought, and that at the time he did so he was in such a normal mental state as to be held responsible for his actions.
LUNACY CERTIFICATES.
Under the existing state of our Lunacy Law a person can be confined in an asylum on two lunacy certificates, which may be signed by any two medical men who may be ignorant of the very elements of insanity. Those who sign these documents must examine the patient separately, in order to elucidate the indications of the mental disorder. There is no clause relating to lunacy certificates that prevents the two medical men from consulting together either previous or subsequent to the certify- ing of the lunatic. We have carefully looked through the Act, and cannot find any section which can be so construed. The question lias, however, of late been discussed, and we take the opportunity of drawing the attention of our readers to it. There is no doubt but that the important question of confining persons in asylums should receive the careful attention of the Legislature ; but it is ‘difficult to suggest anything in lieu of the present system. Lunacy certificates must exist, but tbe granting of them must be differently arranged, either by some officially appointed assessors, or by members of the profession, who must be licensed to sign certificates in the same way as some solicitors are authorised to deliver oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature, and this only after they have proved them- selves competent to be considered as sufficiently versed in mental disorders. As long as the present system is in force, so long will the practice of signing lunacy certificates be open to grave suspicion. If a certificate is not signed by a specialist, or one who has had experience in mental disorders, there is invariably some omission or mistake which, though not invalidating the document, will, nevertheless, cause much trouble to the official Board who have to peruse carefully all the .certificates. At the present time the forms are too complicated, and consequently those who sign are liable to make some error, and they might with advantage be improved.
LUNACY LAW AMENDMENT.
The reply of Mr. Secretary Cross to a question respecting an amendment of the Lunacy Acts, has cleared up many of the wild suggestions which have been bandied about as to supposed material alterations in our existing laws. It was to the effect that Mr. Cross would put himself in communication with the Commissioners in Lunacy on the matter. The very best answer that could possibly have been given. The Commissioners in Lunacy, having the entire supervision of all persons of unsound mind and the visitation of asylums and institutions for the insane, are fully aware of the present working of the Lunacy Laws and of its shortcomings ; so that we may now expect an amendment in clauses which will be beneficial to all those interested in the care and treatment of the insane, and which we trust will protect the proprietors and superintendents of asylums from a possibility of the base insinuations which have of late been so freely made against them. We hope some con- sideration will be given to the question of allowing persons addicted to intemperate habits to place themselves voluntarily under supervision in an asylum. Under the present existing state of the laws, for anyone to be received as a boarder in an asylum, he must have been previously a certified patient in an institution. We have carefully examined the report issued by the Lunacy Committee who sat during last session, and we must confess we are unable to find any suggestions there worthy of the attention of the Commissioners with a view of amending the Lunacy Law. We are very glad that a Lunacy Committee was appointed, as it enabled society in general to find out that the allegations of discharged lunatics must be received with grave doubts and caution. Much time would have been saved if the Committee had examined the Commissioners and Govern- ment officials previous to their admitting the evidence of former inmates of asylums, which, to a certain extent, prejudiced some individuals. The accusations so made, and which were proved afterwards to be purely imaginary and delusive, naturally draw our attention to the fact that but little credibility should be given to the wild and exaggerated statements made by persons of unsound mind in courts of law. But it is to be regretted, however, that the public are too anxious to believe such innuendoes without further investigation, and to condemn innocent persons who have been so unjustly attacked upon ex ‘parte statements.
Disclaimer
The historical material in this project falls into one of three categories for clearances and permissions:
Material currently under copyright, made available with a Creative Commons license chosen by the publisher.
Material that is in the public domain
Material identified by the Welcome Trust as an Orphan Work, made available with a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
While we are in the process of adding metadata to the articles, please check the article at its original source for specific copyrights.