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.

    9/40 (page 9)
    and elucidated by the researches of Gall and Spurzheim, and its pathology and its therapeutical treatment unfolded in the most masterly manner in the writings of Spurzheim, Conolly^ A. Combe, Browne, Sir W. Ellis, Broussais, and other celebrated French their attempting to define the disease. Insanity does not admit of being defined. It is not in the power of any human being to embody, within the limits of a definition, all the peculiar and characteristic symptoms of mental derangement. The malady assumes so many forms, and exhibits itself in such Protean shapes, that it is out of our power to give anything bearing the semblance of a correct or safe definition of the disorder—such a definition that could be referred to as a standard in doubtful cases of deranged mind. If it be difficult to embrace Avithin the bounds of one sentence anything like a true description of the symptoms of general mental aberration, a fortiori, how abortive must be the attempt to lay down any rule by which Ave are to test, in any particular case, the presence or absence of moral responsibility. After consideration of the cases which have been brought forward in this Avork, it must be evident that the capability of “ distinguishing between right and wrong ” is not an unerring test to which to appeal. A person may be perfectly competent to draw a correct distinction between right and Avrong, and yet labour under a form of insanity Avhich ought unquestionably to protect him from legal or moral responsibility. I allude to cases of insanity AA'here the patient is driven, by an irresistible impulse, to destroy, after struggling for some time against the morbid desire, being, at the same time, perfectly conscious that he is impelled to do what is Avrong both in the sight of God and man. Were the legal test to be rigidly applied in this case, the unfortunate maniac would have no chance of escaping. To my conception, the law draws a most absurd distinction between civil and criminal insanity. A person who exhibits the slightest aberration of mind is considered to be incapable of discharging his duties as a citizen, is not allowed to have the management of his affairs, cannot make a Avill, and is safely shut up in a madhouse; but should the same individual, pronounced by the. Commissioners of Lunacy to be of unsound mind, commit, in a moment of frenzy, a criminal act, he is considered amenable to the laAV. He may fancy himself the King of England, a tub of butter, or a pane of glass, yet be viewed responsible for his conduct; and, if he be guilty of a capital crime whilst labouring under any of these delusions, he is liable to undergo the extreme penalty of the laAV, provided no connexion can be established between the act and his mental hallucination. The laAv on this subject is clear. Collinson (LaAV of Lunacy, vol. i., p. 474,) says—‘ Neither is any person against whom a commission of lunacy may be sustained, of a description to commit an offence Avith impunity. To excuse a man in the commission of a crime, he must, at the period Avhen he committed the offence, have been wholly incapable of distinguishing betAveen good and evil, or of comprehending the nature of what he is doing ; a state of mind distinct from that Avhich is merely unequal to the pursuit of a regular line of conduct, or the management of private affairs.’ If such be the laav, does it not need considerable alteration ?”— Vide Winslow’s Plea of Insanity in Criminal Cases, pp. 73—5. Renshaw. London, 1843. [Though agreeing Avith Mr. WinsloAV in many respects, I beg most emphati- cally to differ in opinion Avith that gentleman as to Lord Ferrers’s case. Let any unprejudiced man compare that gentleman’s and Dr. A. Combe’s consistent and philosophic vicAvs upon all the facts of that case, and, I submit, the conclusion is irresistible, that Lord Ferrers was an homicidal, or moral maniac ; hoAvever, upon the whole, I have great pleasure, notAvithstanding a feAv rather palpable, but only occasional inconsistencies therein, in recommending Mr. Winslow’s well-timed and useful compilation to my readers, especially if they be too bigoted or too indolent to go to the fountain head and consult those original phrenological records from Avhich Mr. W. has so abundantly (I regret he did not publicly and specifically acknowledge his overAvhelming obligations), draAvn the far greater portion of his facts, of his illustrations, and nearly all his Itathological and medico-legal views of insanity.—Fiat justitia, mat ccelum.]