The antagonism of law and medicine in insanity, and its consequences : an introductory lecture / by Thomas Laycock.

  • Laycock, Thomas, 1812-1876.
Date:
1862
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: The antagonism of law and medicine in insanity, and its consequences : an introductory lecture / by Thomas Laycock. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The Royal College of Surgeons of England. The original may be consulted at The Royal College of Surgeons of England.

    9/16 (page 9)
    of easy virtue, and lavished thousands upon her in gifts and settlements. An inquiry was instituted, and the question submitted to the jury by the presiding judge, a Master in Lunacy, was whether this young gentleman was of unsound mind or not; that is, whether his mind was morbid, so as to disqualify him for the management of.his aifairs. It was not whether he was imbecile in judgment or incapable, but whether he was unsound in mind. And that this was put with deliberate regard to the dicta of legal authorities is proved by the opinions which Lord Chelmsford expressed in his highly lucid speech on the motion for the second reading of the Lord Chancellor’s bill,—“Under the existing law, no person,” he said, “ however extravagant, foolish, or prodigal, could be made the subject of a commission of lunacy unless his acts were such as to lead a jury to the conclusion that he was of unsound mind; and a verdict founded on imbecility or weakness of mind only would be set aside as contrary to law.”1 Further: in his bill the Lord Chancellor used the terms “unsoundness” and “imbecility” of mind as equivalent terms; and, in reply to Lord Chelmsford, remarked,—“ It is through having regard to the nature of the alleged lunacy that the mischievous practice lias been introduced of carrying back the inquiry in this manner [as in Mr Windham’s case]. My noble and learned friend seemed to imagine that there was some peculiarity in the law respecting idiocy. But in their results idiocy and lunacy are precisely the same : originally there wras a difference, but it has long since disappeared.” And, as an illustration of the farcical nature of medical evidence, he quoted that of a medical practitioner who said he knew “the alleged lunatic” when lie was a child four years old, and that he was of opinion that he was then of infirm mental organization, and that the infirmity was congenital; that he had always shown evidence of congenital mischief such as he should have expected to ripen into idiocy in after age. This evidence of congenital defect, in the opinion of the Lord Chancellor, was a “farce,” because the proofs of “lunacy” at twenty-one were carried back seven- teen years. Such, then, being the legal dictum, how far does it coincide with medical science and common sense ? The law of England considers a man incompetent to manage his property until he is twenty-one years old: till that age he is a sort of physiological imbecile as to property. There is nothing physiologically peculiar to the exact age of twenty-one in the attainment of wisdom ; but it is a matter of common observation, that the mental faculties (which are hardly manifested at birth and during early infant life) are more and more developed as age advances and experience of the world is attained, so that the average indi- vidual is held to “arrive at years of discretion” when he completes his twenty- fiist yeai. Uiis development of the faculties varies in degree, however, in diffeient individuals; so that some, like Mr Peabody, the eminent American mer- chant, are equal to the affairs of life at so early an age as fifteen, some at a much later age than twenty-one ; nevertheless these also attain to sound judgment, for the development is merely delayed. In others, however, there is not merely retar- dation, but arrest of development. This may occur in early infancy, and the man of twenty-one be an idiot—as devoid of mental power as an infant; or in boy- hood, in which case he may be a childish imbecile as a man; or at puberty, when he will be a mischievous imbecile, strong as to his appetites and passions, weak as to.his self-control; or he may be born idiotic or imbecile, the consequence of injuries acting upon him when in his mother’s womb. If, then, the capacity of a man to manage his property be brought in question, in consequence of his pro iga ffies and follies, and the aid of medical science is sought, the scientific inquirer will determine, first, from his actions, what are the defects in his mental powers; and then seek, by an examination of his person, and an inquiry into his 1 Times newspaper, 12th March 18G2.