Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-pwrkn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-18T13:21:50.473Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dangerous to Themselves and Others: the Victorian Debate over the Prevention of Wrongful Confinement

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2014

Peter McCandless
Peter McCandless*
Affiliation:
The College of Charleston
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Wilkie Collins's Victorian novel The Woman in White contains a scene in which the hero unknowingly aids the woman of the title, Anne Catherick, to escape from an asylum. When he learns that she was an escaped patient, he reflects on his action: “what had I done? Assisted the victim of the most horrible of all false imprisonments to escape; or cast loose on the wide world of London an unfortunate creature, whose actions it was my duty, and every man's duty, mercifully to control?” The question was one which, less directly, confronted Victorian society as a whole. The nineteenth century saw the rapid expansion of an asylum system designed “mercifully to control” the insane, a development of which many Englishmen felt proud. Yet this pride was often accompanied by an endemic, nagging fear that persons were being improperly confined in asylums. Occasionally, the exposure of some apparently egregious case of wrongful confinement raised these fears to epidemic proportions and produced what the Victorians called “lunacy panics.” These outbursts of public rage symptomized the tensions within a society determined to ban the mad from its midst, yet uncertain of the boundaries of madness, skeptical of the abilities of those it had chosen to draw those boundaries, and undecided as to the actual purposes of confinement. Indeed, the Victorians never clearly established what they meant by “wrongful” confinement. At times they seemed to mean the confinement of the sane; at other times they seemed to include those who were insane but not manifestly dangerous.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of British Studies , Volume 23 , Issue 1 , Fall 1983 , pp. 84 - 104
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference of British Studies 1983

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Collins, Wilkie, The Woman in White (n.p. 1937), pp. 23–24Google Scholar.

2 For a discussion of these anxieties, see McCandless, Peter, “Liberty and Lunacy: The Victorians and Wrongful Confinement,” Journal of Social History, (1978), 11, 366–86CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed. This article has also been reprinted in Scull, Andrew (ed.), Madhouses, Mad-Doctors, and Madmen: The Social History of Psychiatry in the Victorian Era (Philadelphia, 1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Chapter 13.

3 8 & 9 Vict. c. 100 and c. 126; McCandless, , “Liberty and Lunacy,” 366Google Scholar.

4 Smith, Roger, Trial by Medicine: Insanity and Responsibility in Victorian Trials (Edinburgh, 1981)Google Scholar, passim; Jones, Kathleen, A History of the Mental Health Services (London, 1971)Google Scholar, Chapter 7.

5 Lancet, 1878, I, 521Google Scholar; London Medical Gazette, (1828) I, 278–79Google Scholar.

6 3 Hansard 165:1297 (March 11, 1862); Smith, , Trial by Medicine, Chapters 2-4, p. 106Google Scholar.

7 First Report of the Alleged Lunatic's Friend Society (London, 1846), 5, 24–25Google Scholar.

8 See, for example, Saumarez, Richard, Address on the Laws of Lunacy Especially as they Affect the Lunatic Wards of Chancery (London, 1858)Google Scholar.

9 On Mulock, see the excellent short summary of his life in Prebble, John, The Highland Clearances (London: Penguin Books, 1963)Google Scholar, Chapter 6; Paternoster, Richard, The Madhouse System (London, 1841)Google Scholar, passim; Parry-Jones, William L., The Trade in Lunacy (London, 1971), 25–26, 231Google Scholar; Lowe, Louisa, The Bastilles of England (London, 1883)Google Scholar.

10 Perceval, John, Perceval's Narrative: A Patient's Account of his Psychosis (London, 1962)Google Scholar ed. with an introduction by Gregory Bateson; Gray, Denis, Spencer Perceval (Manchester, 1963), p. 52Google Scholar, note; PRO, Perceval to the Marquis of Normanby, Sept. 18-20, 1840, Perceval to Home Office, March 2, April 4, 1861, HO 44-36, HO 45-7102; Select Committee on the Care and Treatment of Lunatics, in Parliamentary Papers, 1859, Sess. 2, VII, 526-27, 554; PRO, Hints on the Abolition of Private Madhouses, HO 45 7102. For a short summary of Perceval's life, see Macalpine, Ida and Hunter, Richard, “John Thomas Perceval (18031876) Patient and Reformer,” Medical History, (1962), pp. 6, 391–96Google Scholar.

11 Times, March 27, April 11, 1846.

12 Macalpine, and Hunter, , “John Thomas Perceval,” 394Google Scholar; Select Committee on the Care and Treatment of Lunatics, 1859-60; Select Committee on the Operation of the Lunacy Law, 1877-78; 52 & 53 Vict. c. 41.

13 Walk, Alexander and Walker, D. Lindsay, “Gloucester and the Beginnings of the Royal Medico-Psychological Association,” Journal of Mental Science (1961) 107, 603–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 Lancet (1887) II, 285Google Scholar.

15 Westminster Review (1883), 120, 550Google Scholar; see also, Times, Jan. 18, 1887; Paternoster, , The Madhouse System 11–12Google Scholar; Mulock, Thomas, British Lunatic Asylums (Stafford, 1858), pp. 10–11Google Scholar.

16 McCandless, , “Liberty and Lunacy,” 373Google Scholar.

17 “The Lord Chief Baron's Law of Lunacy,” Fraser's Magazine (1849) 40, 366Google Scholar.

18 Paternoster, , The Madhouse System, p. 26Google Scholar; Lancet (1881) II, 637Google Scholar; PRO/HO 45-7102; Saumarez, Richard, The Laws of Lunacy and Their Crimes (London, 1859), p. 18Google Scholar.

19 Lancet (1858) II, 235Google Scholar, (1881) II, 637; Parry-Jones, , The Trade in Lunacy, p. 269Google Scholar.

20 Mulock, , British Lunatic Asylums, p. 15Google Scholar; see also Reade, Charles, Hard Cash (London and New York, 1889)Google Scholar.

21 Report of the Metropolitan Commissioners in Lunacy, 1838, in Parliamentary Papers, 1841, sess. 2, VI, 240Google Scholar; Report of the Metropolitan Commissioners in Lunacy (London, 1844), 68Google Scholar; Report of the Commissioners in Lunacy, 1847, in Parliamentary Papers, 147-153, 184; Parry-Jones, , The Trade in Lunacy, pp. 264–73Google Scholar.

22 Third Report of the Commissioners in Lunacy, in Parliamentary Papers, 1849, XXII, 5–6Google Scholar.

23 Lancet (1852) I, 498Google Scholar; also, 406, 449.

24 Select Committee on Lunatics, 1859, sess. 2, 554.

25 Letter of the Commissioners in Lunacy to the Lord Chancellor, in Parliamentary Papers, 1849, Reports from Commissioners, 8.

26 Hodder, Edwin, The Life and Work of the Seventh Earl of Shaftesbury, K. G. (London, 1886), II, 77Google Scholar.

27 Mulock, , British Lunatic Asylums, pp. 33–34Google Scholar; see also Lancet (1852) I, 406Google Scholar.

28 Select Committee on Lunatics, 1859, sess. 2, 554Google Scholar; Mulock, , British Lunatic Asylums, pp. 12–26Google Scholar. Mill, J. S. enunciated similar views in On Liberty, (Chicago; Gateway Edition, 1955), pp. 13–14, 99–100Google Scholar.

29 John Bull, June 30, 1849; Times, June 25, 26, 30, 1849; Lancet (1849) II, 81Google Scholar; PRO, Minutes of the Commissioners in Lunacy, May 11, 1848, MH 50-3.

30 Times, June 27, 1849.

31 3 Hansard 107: 818-819 (July 23, 1849). Lord Monteagle (Thomas Spring-Rice) was an Irish Whig who had promoted lunacy reform both in England and in his native Ireland.

32 “The Lord Chief Baron's Law of Lunacy,” 369-71; Conolly, John, A Remonstrance with the Lord Chief Baron (London, 1849), p. 6Google Scholar; Lancet (1849) II, 21Google Scholar.

33 “The Lord Chief Baron's Law of Lunacy,” 370-71; Conolly, , Remonstrance, p. 6Google Scholar.

34 Winslow, Forbes, “The Lord Chief Baron and the Nottidge Case,” Journal of Psychological Medicine (1849) 2, 564–77Google Scholar; “The Law of Lunacy,” Journal of Psychological Medicine, (1849) 3, 16–17Google Scholar. See also Spectator (1852), 752Google Scholar; Journal of Mental Science (1855), 1, 191–98Google Scholar.

35 Letter to the Lord Chancellor, 4-6.

36 Report of the Metropolitan Commissioners in Lunacy, 1844, 170Google Scholar.

37 See Winslow, , “The Lord Chief Baron and the Nottidge Case,” 571–77Google Scholar; Conolly, , Remonstrance, p. 7Google Scholar.

38 McCandless, , “Liberty and Lunacy,” p. 369–70Google Scholar.

39 See Parry Jones, The Trade in Lunacy, for a detailed discussion of the “merchants of madness” stereotype; Mulock, , British Lunatic Asylums, p. 34Google Scholar; Times, Aug. 24, 1858; McCandless, , “Liberty and Lunacy,” 369Google Scholar.

40 Lancet, April 2, 1859; Sprigge, S. S., The Life and Times of Thomas Wakley (London, 1897)Google Scholar; Peterson, M. Jeanne, The Medical Profession in Mid-Victorian London (Berkeley, 1978, esp. pp. 26–27Google Scholar; Cartwright, F. F., A Social History of Medicine (London, 1977), p. 55Google Scholar.

41 Lancet (1878) II, 666, 782–783Google Scholar; (1877) I, 848; (1881) II, 217.

42 McCandless, , “Liberty and Lunacy,” 377–80Google Scholar; Fee, Elizabeth, “Psychology, Sexuality, and Social Control in Victorian England,” Social Science Quarterly (1978) 58, 632–46Google Scholar.

43 Select Committee on Lunatics, 1860, vii–viiiGoogle Scholar.

44 Seymour, Edward, A Letter to the Earl of Shaftesbury on the Laws which Regulate Private Lunatic Asylums (London, 1859), pp. 6–8Google Scholar; See also Heywood, Thomas, On the Want of Remedial Treatment for the Poor of Unsound Mindin England (London, 1841), pp. 12–13Google Scholar.

45 Conolly, John, “Residences for the Insane,” Transactions of the National Association for the Promotion of Social Science (1858), pp. 516–19Google Scholar; See also, by the same author, Treatment of the Insane without Mechanical Restraints (London, 1856), pp. 323, 328Google Scholar; Remonstrance, pp. 33-34.

46 Winslow, Forbes, “Baron Alderson's ‘Charge’ against Private Lunatic Asylums,” Journal of Psychological Medicine (1852) 5, 400Google Scholar.

47 Monro, Henry, Articles on Reform in Private Lunatic Asylums (London, 1852), pp. 62–63Google Scholar; Lancet (1860) II, 443Google Scholar; Winslow, , “Baron Alderson's ‘Charge,’” 400Google Scholar; Times, letter to editor from S. W. Cobbold, January 3, 1885.

48 Lancet (1879) I, 773, 774Google Scholar; also, (1880) I, 647-48.

49 Select Committee on Lunatics, 1859, sess. 1, 94–97, 136–38Google Scholar, sess. 2, 570, 1860, vii; Select Committee on the Lunacy Law, 1878, 43Google Scholar, iii.

50 British Medical Journal (1881) II, 163–64Google Scholar, (1886) I, 568; Times, Jan. 3, April 2, 1885, March 3, 1886; Lancet (1880) I, 340–41Google Scholar.

51 British Medical Journal (1889) I, 1189–90Google Scholar; Lancet (1889) I, 955–56Google Scholar; Times, May 8, 1890.

52 An act of 1819 had required two orders for the confinement of a pauper. In 1845 the number was reduced to one. The magistrate's order was also required after 1845 in the case of private patients committed to public asylums. See 59 Geo. III c. 127; 8 & 9 Vict. c. 126 ss. 48, 52.

53 First Report of the Alleged Lunatic's Friend Society, 28, 30; PRO, Perceval, Hints for the Abolition of Private Madhouses, HO 45/7102.

54 Mitford, John, The Crimes and Horrors of Warburton's Private Madhouses (London, 1823), p. 31Google Scholar; Griggs, William, A Letter to the Lord Chancellor (London, 1832), p. 12Google Scholar; Mulock, , British Lunatic Asylums, p. 11Google Scholar; Law Times (1848), p. 12Google Scholar; Times, Sept. 25, 26, 1844; PRO Perceval to the Home Office, April 5, 1840, HO 44-36, April 25, May 2, 1861, HO 45/7102.

55 Select Committee on Lunatics, 1859, sess. 1, 104; Winslow, Forbes, “The Parliamentary Inquiry,” Journal of Psychological Medicine (1860) 13, 45–47Google Scholar.

56 Select Committee, on Lunatics, 1860, vii–viiiGoogle Scholar; British Medical Journal (1885) I, 752, (1887) I, 338Google Scholar; Times, July 8, 1886.

57 Bucknill, John, The Care of the Insane and their Legal Control (London, 1880), pp. 38–39Google Scholar.

58 Bucknill, , “The Newspaper Attack on Private Lunatic Asylums,” Journal of Mental Science (1858) 4, 152–53Google Scholar; Winslow, , “Dr. Winslow's Address,” Journal of Mental Science (1858) 5, 58–66Google Scholar.

59 The commissioners and alienists often complained that the committal of pauper patients was unduly delayed, hut they generally blamed that on the poor law authorities or the patients' families rather than on the justice's order.

60 Bucknill, , “The Newspaper Attack,” 152–53Google Scholar; The Care of the Insane, pp. 38-41.

61 British Medical Journal (1884) II, 636, 1148–49Google Scholar, (1886) I, 1035-36, (1888) I, 653-54; Lancet (1888) I, 932, 1002Google Scholar; Times, Oct. 2, 1884, Jan. 3, 1885, Aug. 19, 1885.

62 The doctors got part of what they wanted in the Lunacy Act of 1889, which gave the certifier protection against vexatious actions provided he had acted “in good faith and with reasonable care.” 52 & 53 Vict. c. 41 s. 12.

63 On the uncertain status of the alienists within the profession and public distrust of the alienists see Scull, , Museums of Madness, Chapter 5, esp. pp. 176–77Google Scholar; Smith, Trial by Medicine, passim. On the medical profession's drive for status in the Victorian period, and the divisions it aroused among medical men, see Peterson, Medical Profession in Mid-Victorian London.

64 Lancet (1880) I, 373Google Scholar, (1883) I, 692-93, (1887) I, 1035, 1289, (1889) I, 955-56, 992-94, II, 33-34; British Medical Journal (1884), I, 911–12Google Scholar, (1885) I, 960, (1886) I, 451, (1887) I, 338, (1889) I, 1181-82.

65 “Dr. Winslow's Address,” 61-62; British Medical Journal (1885) I, 118Google Scholar; Lancet (1880) II, 902Google Scholar; Times, Sept. 30, 1884, April 7, 1885.

66 Lancet (1882) I, 75Google Scholar; see also (1882) I, 117, 204-05, (1887) I, 1035.

67 Lancet (1852) I, 498Google Scholar, (1877) I, 848, II, 637, (1881) II, 637.

68 British Medical Journal (1885) II, 305–06Google Scholar.

69 Times April 2, 1885; see also The Spectator (1852), 752Google Scholar; Carlisle Journal, Dec. 12, 1862; McCandless, , “Liberty and Lunacy,” 368, 373–382Google Scholar, Scull, Museums of Madness, Chapter 5.

70 Times, Sept. 30, 1884, letter to the editor from Edgar Sheppard; see also Tuke, D. H., “Legislation for the Insane,” Contemporary Review (1877) 30, 752Google Scholar.

71 52 & 53 Vict. c. 41 ss. 2-4, 8.

72 Royal Commission on Lunacy and Mental Disorder, in Parliamentary Papers, 1926, XIII, 38–40Google Scholar; Royal Commission on the Law Relating to Mental Deficiency, PP, 1957, XVI, 89–92, 133–134, 148–149Google Scholar; 7 & 8 Eliz. II c. 72.

73 British Medical Journal (1976) II, 549Google Scholar; Lancet (1976), 350Google Scholar; Gostin, L. O., The Human Condition: The Mental Health Act from 1959-1975 (MIND Special Report, National Association for Mental Health, 1975)Google Scholar.