honoured name of Dr. Charlesworth, we cannot help expressing our conviction that these gentlemen are bound to speak out before the public that which they have not hesitated to say in private.*

But apart entirely from these considerations we ask, in sober seriousness, whether on other grounds Mr. Hill has any right to put himself forward as the "discoverer," or originator" of the "non-restraint system of treating the insane"? The great "discoverer," the illustrious "originator," was unquestionably the immortal PINEL; but this FACT appears to be entirely ignored and lost sight of by those who have busied themselves in this noisy controversy. Mr. Gardiner Hill may have adopted and carried out in this country a principle of treatment developed by this celebrated physician; but he has no more claim to the designation of "originator" or discoverer," quoad the abolition of restraint, than a man has to call himself the "originator" of vaccination, simply because he enforces the importance of Jenner's discovery, as a protection against small-pox! Does not Mr. Hill expose himself to the charge of arrogance and presumption by designating himself, as he ostentatiously and absurdly does in all his advertisements, as the author (?) and originator of the non-restraint system of treatment in lunacy.”‡ We never read his often-repeated advertisements without a feeling of pain and humiliation.. Let the honoured mantle fall upon the right shoulders; let the revered name of Pinel have all the credit of the "discovery" or "authorship," as Mr. Hill ridiculously terms it; but, for God's sake, let it not be said that any Englishman endeavoured by stealth to filch from the immortal Frenchman the honour to which he is so justly entitled, and which the whole civilized world awards to him, for first recognising the important principle that it is possible in the treatment of the insane to dispense (in a great measure) with the use of mechanical restraint! If Mr. Hill asserts that Pinel only took the initiative-the first step in the matter, and that it remained for him (Mr. Hill) to mature the discovery, and to establish that it is possible to treat all cases of insanity without mechanical restraint, then we understand his position and can appreciate the validity of his claim to the title of "originator,' "author," and "discoverer." If we are right in our estimate of Mr. Hill's much

*The question has further been put in the clearest light in an able and faithful summary of the history of the Lincoln asylum in "The Lancet." The conclusion from that summary is irresistible.

+ It is a curious fact, and one not generally known, that the idea of carrying out a more humane system of treating the insane originated with two men whose names are seldom mentioned in connexion with this subject. We refer to Tenon and Rouchefoucald. But this fact does not detract from the great credit due to Pinel for his heroic exertions at the Bicêtre, where the experiment was first tried. The subjoined passage refers to the fact:" Enfin, en 1768. Tenon publia un mémoire rémarquable, dans lequel se trouvent indiquées les premièrees notions d'un régime doux et humain pour les aliénés. Un citoyen, La Rouchefoucald, en comprit toute la portée, et joignit plus tard ses efforts aux siens, en faisant en 1791, à l'assemblée constituante, plusieurs rapports, qui dévoilaient l'état misérabl dans lequel languissaient les aliénés. C'était là sans doute la douleur d'une belle âme et de nobles efforts auxquels il est juste de renvoyer la cause prémière des amélio ra tions que Pinel put l'executer l'année suivante à Bicêtre."-Scipion Pinel, "Trait é Complet du Régime Sanitaire des Aliénés.” 1836. Pp. 55, 56.

Vide the Medical Directories.

vaunted" discovery," then we will only now say, that if it be his deliberately formed opinion that no case of acute insanity can possibly occur in which the application of restraint would be justifiable if such be his dictum, he will find himself opposed to the united experience of all the practical physicians of England, France, Germany, and America.

We have ourselves heard Dr. Conolly (who has always been deemed in this country the leading advocate of the "non-restraint" system of treating the insane) declare, in a court of law, that "mechanical restraint" could not invariably be dispensed with; that cases will present themselves in which it may be necessary to have recourse to it.* We may, in a few words, take our leave of this disagreeable subject. We have stated that all the honour of this "discovery" is, beyond all question, due to Pinel. Nor can any one of reflection and experience admit the possibility of one man having conceived the splendid project of working such a mighty revolution against the tyranny of opinion and the inertia of custom, and of carrying out this work to practical perfection in the course of a few years. More than half a century has expired since the first step was taken by Pinel: and the gigantic labour has not yet reached its consummation. Many minds have been earnestly striving to forward the good work. Foremost amongst these, in this country, must ever stand the name of Charlesworth. thirty-five years he never wearied in the task. If to the Lincoln system is due the high honour of having shown a bright example of what may be done in the abolition of barbarous instruments, that honour it owes to Dr. Charlesworth. To render this abolition feasible, how many reforms were necessary! The whole physical and moral aspect of the scene had to be changed. This was a work of time—of devoted patience of never-failing courage and perseverance. This was the work of Dr. Charlesworth. Let the applause of his fellowmen--the only reward he can now have-be accorded to him.

For

If ever the motto of Lord Somers, " Prodesse quàm conspici," could be justly assumed by any other man, that man was the late Dr. Charlesworth. We hope it may not be interpreted as evidence of an unkind feeling towards Mr. Hill-a feeling we altogether disclaim—if we invite his attention to this admirable maxim. It is doubtful whether any man ever made good a claim to priority by blazoning his pretensions before the world in the shape of advertisements. Such a course of proceeding will hardly promote his cause amongst men of science and reflection, and is not altogether free from injurious imputations.

If Mr. Hill be the "author and originator of the non-restraint system of treatment in lunacy"-if he really did make this great discovery-then we ask, is it professional or even decent for him to parade this fact in the advertisements that announce his being the proprietor of a private asylum? If he be the "coming man," the psychological star "looming in the future," the world will not be long in recognising his merits, and thus release this gentleman from the fatigue and inconvenience necessarily consequent upon his being always obliged to blow his own trumpet!

NO. XXV.

The trial of "Hill v. Philp," Court of Queen's Bench.

M

154

BY

STATISTICS OF INSANITY.

SIR ALEXANDER MORRISON, M.D., PHYSICIAN TO THE SURREY
COUNTY LUNATIC ASYLUM, ETC.

IN a Paper lately laid before the Society for Improving the Condition
of the Insane, established in 1842, by the late Earl of Shaftesbury, the
following highly gratifying statement is given by Sir Alexander Mor-
rison, of the result of treatment in the Public Establishments of which
he has been Physician during the last thirty years :-

The admissions amounted to ... 6779

Of the 806 uncured, 173 were either paralytic, epileptic, or idiotic.

The causes of the disorder assigned in 1428 of the cases recovered
were as under :-

[WE select the following for several reasons-because it is by a Spaniard, and because it seems to us as bringing prominently forward several points in aid of the settlement (if ever it can be settled) of this question. Witness a late case, where the jury acquitted a seduced female of the crime of murder, on the score of insanity, and the next moment the judge gave her a free discharge, because he could see no proof of insanity. The article itself purports to be taken from the Gac. De Madrid, and may be found in the Medical Times and Gazette of January 29th, 1853, and we can hardly gather from it what portion of it belongs to the author or to the translator.— American Journal of Insanity for Oct., 1853.]

The author commences with a eulogy on Esquirol's work on Homicidal Monomania, 1837, and quotes examples from Pinel, Marc, Gall, and Mende. These show the existence of a partial delirium, whether in the form of a fixed idea or an excited sensibility, extravagance in the passions, or error in judgment. In every instance there has been disturbance of the mind, and hence the words addressed by an advocate to Dr. Marc, upon the occasion of a trial of simple barbarity. "If monomania be a disease, its cure is upon the scaffold." The following bit of legal bloodthirstiness also merits being handed to posterity: "Your so-called homicidal monomania is an hypothesis, a modern and convenient invention to shield the guilty, and to withdraw them from the power of the law."

The author proceeds to say, that from the works of Magendie and other physiologists, he can prove that there are certain powers in man, which drive him in a definite direction, without his possessing a will sufficiently strong to offer opposition. These powers, which can be reduced to four, reside in the corpora striata, the cerebellum, the crura cerebri, and the medulla oblongata. Injuries to these parts in animals, cause different involuntary movements, and the author concludes therefrom that there are in man different impulses stronger than the will. Governed by these impulses, the homicidal maniac commits his crime.

A man who commits murder upon a false idea, with powerful impulse, should be considered as suffering from disease in the same part of the brain. Now we cannot see the application of Magendie or Flourens' experiments in the elucidation of psychical disturbance, nor comprehend why, upon division of the crura cerebri, the injured and dizzy animal rolls over and over. We have before complained with justice of the gross ignorance of morbid anatomy displayed by the generality of "mental physicians" in all countries, and we think it hard to refute statements made upon no foundation whatever. The examination of the bodies of criminal lunatics does not confirm in any one point the loose assertions of Dr. Raimundo. Neither the corpora striata nor the crura cerebri are often found in an abnormal condition; the cerebellum is for the most part natural in structure; the medulla oblongata unaltered, except that the membranes covering it become thickened, when other parts of the encephalic coverings have undergone a similar change. We have no ground whatever for asserting that these parts are essentially the seat of morbid actions during life. The cause of insanity is to be sought for in a source deeper that that supposed by those philosophers of a somewhat materialistic school. The author endeavours for judicial purposes to found a differential diagnosis between the maniac and the responsible culprit, both of whom have committed murder.

HOMICIDAL MONOMANIA.

The person is one of weak constitution, of nervous excitable temperament, irreproachable character, working in business for the immediate necessaries of life.

The monomaniac is alone.

The maniac kills without interest or passion, without motive, making that man an offering who may be unfortunate enough to meet him.

The maniac disdains to fly, and often gives himself up to justice; he often details the particulars of his act, and seeks punishment more than pardon.

CRIMINAL MURDER.

The criminals are mostly persons of strong constitution, sanguineous or choleric temperament, bad education, given to idle courses, and occupied in immoral pursuits.

The criminal is rarely alone; has usually accomplices to share the booty.

The criminal has a motive; has some passion to gratify, and selects his object accordingly.

The criminal withdraws from observation; tries to mislead the judge; to cast suspicion on others, and to do his best to avoid punishment.

We doubt if these aphorisms will stand their gound as unerring tests in this difficult question. The records of the criminal department of Bethlem Hospital would point to many an inmate imprisoned for murder, whose constitution was good and frame powerful and muscular. Many a criminal has had sufficient nerve to take life alone, unassisted by others; even the last who forfeited his life in the metropolis fell under this class. Should we be justified in asserting that he was mad, because he was alone in his wife's chamber when he cut her throat?

Again, the maniac mostly takes life, not by chance or hazard, but in obedience to a fixed, though erroneous idea, sometimes in sudden passion. Who can at all times either discover or appreciate motives?