On the amendment of the Law of Lunacy : a letter to Lord Brougham / by a phrenologist.

  • Tichborne, Thomas.
Date:
1843
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: On the amendment of the Law of Lunacy : a letter to Lord Brougham / by a phrenologist. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by Royal College of Physicians, London. The original may be consulted at Royal College of Physicians, London.

    26/40 (page 26)
    had been four or five times to Sir R. Peel’s house to see what sort of a person he was, and he formed a conclusion that a certain individual was Sir R. Peel; having seen that individual four or five times come from the house and proceed to Sir R. Peel’s office, he drew the same conclusion that a sane man would have rfroicw—namely, that it was Sir R. Peel. He was mistaken, hut so might any sane man have been. He meant to kill Sir R. Peel. (Lord Campbell ex- pressed dissent.) He understood so—that the person he shot he supposed to have been Sir R. Peel. He was mistaken, hut he took the same steps which a sane man would have done. He purchased a pistol—to make all sure he pur- chased two pistols ; he bought poAvder and ball; he charged both pistols; he Avaylaid his victim, and fired in such a manner as to kill him, and he was going to fire the other pistol (Lord Campbell again dissented)—it was perfectly indilferent whether he was going to fire the second pistol, or not; he did what a sane man would have done, till he was stopped hy a policeman. That Sir Robert Peel was the object of this person was clear, and he had acted so very like a rational man, that it teas thought there ought to he some means of punish- ing persons labouring under that peculiar malady. The Archbishop of Dublin thought that an act of this enormity should be a punishable oflence; but he (Lord Brougham) was of opinion, with deference to the most rev. prelate, that he had innocently fallen into a very great error. It was clear, that there were cases of partial insanity—monomania, as it was termed, though improperly, as there might be two points upon which a person might be insane. The question, whether a person was legally sane or insane, whether the act was one of guilt or not, must depend upon his state of mind immediately before and at the time the act was committed. If he knew what he was doing,—that he was killing a man; if he had contemplated his purpose, and knew at the time he ivas doing the act that it was an act which the law had forbidden, that was a test of his insanity, and he (Lord Brougham) was sure that the judges would give no other test, and he should go down to the grave in the belief that this teas the sound, consistent, and true test. [Lord Brougham cannot be ignorant of the value of Mr. Sampson’s Criminal Jurisprudence,” unless the above be an inaccurate report; for all that is original or not obsolescent in bis speech is evidently derived, but without acknowledgment, from that gentleman’s second edition of his Criminal Jurisprudence” (pp. 6, 23, and 115) : con- sequently, the public have been electrified by his Lordship with harrowed—with 'phrenological thunder. Alas ! in this ignoble career his Lordship has long since been outstript, and is (fazY?/jostled by the greatest modern authorities, but without any one but the phrenologists even dreaming of the shameless and prevalent system of plagiarism. Such is 'mere animalized intellectual greatnessy but not real magna- nimity.—See Athenceumy March 18, 1843.] Lord GOTTEN HAM concurred in the opinion of his noble and learned friends, as to the sense which the judges put upon the terms “ right” and “ wrong.” It had been said, that insane persons might be deterred by the fear of punishment, though incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong ; but, though the fear of punishment might operate in a lunatic asylum, and the dread of discipline might regulate their conduct, such a motive could not act upon persons at liberty. His noble and learned friend had said, that persons in a lunatic asylum had been aware that they were insane, and had spoken of an insane person as not liable to punishment because he was “ one of them;” but he (Lord Cottenham) thought such examples were rare; in his experience he had found that persons labouring under the disease Avere not aAvare of their delusion : they Avere, in fact, deluded, because they Avere not aAvare of their delusion. Hoav could such persons be subjected to punishment by laAV ? He did not see how a more correct definition could be given thaii had been laid down by the authorities. It Avas for the judges to lay doAvn to juries Avhat the laAV Avas, and, if juries found verdicts accordingly, no necessity for an alteration Avould arise. He apprehended that the suggestion that it Avas de-