The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1875-08-07 00:00:00

STOURBRIDGE OTIStRVER.

which date the statute gave me no legal control over the
patient.
When first admitted he was the subject of insanity in an
ordinary phase, with considerable excitement, which in a few
days subsided, when his disease took the form of moneseania
of pride ("la monomanie vaniteuse ou arrisse," of the
French authors.) in this state he continued for some time,
when his case became again one of ordinary insanity, but
with far less excitement, from which state he gradually re-
covered. With the exception of the first three or four days
after his admission, he was, in my opinion, at no time
an irresponsible agent ; he always had the most complete
control over his actions, was thoroughly capable of ap-
predating right from wrong, and knew the result of
wrong'and avoided it, When he left the asylum he was of
sound miud and understanding, in good mental and bodily
health, and as responsible for his actions as any other of Her
Majesty's subjects. Moreover, having perused carefully the
newspaper reports of his trial, I can cense to no other con-
clusion but that there has been a miscarriage of justice, and
that George Blampied is free from the penalties of the law,
and that issalL
Leaving the question for a few moments as to whether the
prisoner was of sound er unsound mind ; whether he were
morally or legally responsible for the act which he com-
mitted whether he wen.; the subject or not of a so-called
"uncontrollable impulse" (a hackneyed phrase always at
hand to gild the guilt of the murderer), and omitting all
consideration as to the amount of moral turpitude which
attaches to him for the offence against society which he has
committed, it is nevertheless much to be regretted that no
physician specially learned in the treatment of the insane
should have been called to give evidence at his trial, and
that the jury should ,have been asked to give a verdict
upon the professional evidence alone of a gentleman (of
whom personally and professionally I desire to speak in the
highest terms possible) who had not made insanity his par-
ticular study.
From the foregoing observations you will observe, Sir, that
there are three distinct errors in the conduct of the case.
First no medical attendant from the asylum gave evidence at
the trial, nor was any subpcenaed. Secondly, the man dtd
not suffer from the form of insanity known as melancholia,
but from mania and monomania of pride. His notions were
extremely exalted; he considered his body to be the Temple
of the Holy' Ghost, and any one who offended him he looked
upon as doing despite to the Majesty on High; he was very
proud, revengeful, with unbounded conceit, thought himself
very handsome, and would stand for hours at the looking-
glass admiring himself, none of which symptoms are ever
prominent in melancholia. Thirdly, although discharged
from the asylum as " cured " and "believed to be cured," the
certificate of his discharge was not at first "absolute and
unqualified," and it only became so upon the receipt of Mr.
Buchanan's certificate at the expiration of his mouth's pro-
bationary leave of absence.
The following observation appears in one of the daily
papers :—" Blampied, it is now obvious, ought never to have
been discharged from the asylum in which he was detained
so long." With reference to such an assertion, I may men-
tion that when released he was of sound mind in the opinion
of myself and my two professional colleagues, all of us hav-
ing had him under our special and daily observation for a
period of just four years. His fitness for release had also
been proved to the satisfaction of two magistrates, who
authorised his removal, and confirmed subsequently by Mr.
Buchanan's certificate, and by two visits which the man paid
afterwards to the patients and attendants in the asylum, on
one of which occasions he joined cheerfully in a game of
cricket with his late chums. His last visit was on January 31 of
this year, and on neither occasion was there any reason to
suppose but that he was in good mental and bodily health.
For about two years and a half, moreover, before his dis-
charge he was employed daily in the carpenter's shop, having
free access to, and being in constant use of, all the dangerous
Instruments (including an adze) common to the trade, and on
no occasion for that period did he offer violence to any one.
As regards the criminal responsibility of the insane and the
"uncontrollable Impulses" to which they are subject, there
Is no doubt that teere is much danger of alarming conse-
quences resulting from the forcing of theories in place and
out of place. Many lunatics are capable of appreciating right
from wrong, have a thorough and sound knowledge of the
quality of sinful acts, and are morally and physically able to re-
sisetheir impulses to commit them. I could produce hundreds
of instances to support my statement. The doctrine of "un-
controllable impulses" has been ridden so hard that the pub-
lic will soon begin to think that all the "mad doctors"
are "heist with their own petard," and that not one can
give evidence in a case of criminal magnitude without
betraying his delusion. Upon one occasion, when reproving
Blampied for 'having assaulted a harmless fellow-patient
for some trifling offence, he told me that he would strike
him, and that if I attempted to prevent him he would
murder me. I pointed out to him that the punishment
for minder was death according to the English law, when
he replied with much promptitude, "Oh I no, not for me;
as I am a lunatic, I am not responsible for my actions, and.
If I do commit murder you cannot punish me for it, be-
cause it is contrary to the law to punish an insane man."
I told him that if he could argae in that manner, whether
sane or insane, he was morally responsible to the Almighty
for his actions, and that if he committed an offence of the
kind he ought to be punished. His reply was, "Yes, I
know that ; but you cannot punish me, whatever I do."
Threats of this stature he was constantly holding out to
attendants, patients, and others; and this kind of threat
Is common among the insane. After such a conversation as
this, fsw would (unless their minds were perverted by the
" uncantrollable impulse" mania) question the propriety cf
Blam pied's being held responsible for his actions. On another
occasion, when remonstrating with him for a series of assaults
upon harmless patients—for he never used to attack any
patient woo he knew could return the blow with interest
—his behaviour was most threatening to myself and every
one around. I then told him that, knowing better, I
shoeld hold him responsible for his future behaviour as
regards personal assaults, and that for every blow he must
forfeit a week's allowance of tobacco. What was the result?
How many weeks' allowance of tobacco did he forfeit? One
only. At the close of the week (Friday being the day for
issuing the tobacco) he placed in my hand a well-indited
penitent letter, promising amendment, and giving me his
" word and honour" that he would not strike again. I took
his word, removed him to a quieter ward, restored his
tobacco the following week, and had no occasion again to
withdraw it.

Now, Sir, cases I say of this kind are of frequent occur-
rence among the insane, and for the "plea of insanity" to
be made available for defence in so many cases of persons
charged with capital crimes does, I feel thoroughly con-
vinced, act upon the minds of persons of both sound and
unsound mind, not as a preventive or deterrent to the
commission of murder and other offences, but in many
eases as an incentive to them to yield to their unholy pas-
sions and impulses. Death is richly merited in all those
cases where there is a deliberate vxaction of human life as
&penalty for small offences where the offender is a respon-
sible agent; and in my opinion George Blampied and many
others have escaped the extreme penalty of the law by the
childish straining of a maxim good if properly applied, but,
like all good things, subject to abuse.—l am, Sir, your obe-
dient servant, W. KIRKMAN, Id. D.
Kent County Asylum, Banning-heath.

claimed because everybody is entitled to it, but lee-
cause the claimant is desiions of having it recorded
that he is specially entitled to it as being
•a
Wesleyan mini, ter? I have no doubt that the Woe-
leyan minister in this case would conscientiously and
honourably admit it to be so. Instances were also
adduced in which Ministers of State had addressed
Wesleyan ministers with the superscription of
'Reverend;' and if the question were simply one of
social status or general etiquette, this reference would
be very pertinent and proper. But the case is surely dif-
ferent when the question relates to the alleged obligation
of the clergyman to confer by a permanent inscription
in his own 'churchyard upon another person that
peculiar religious title by which he alone has been
hitherto designated and known to his own parishioners
and his own church. It has been argued, indeed,
that there was a time when the clergyman was not
addressed by the title of Reverend,' but by some
other title of distinction. It is not, however, denied
that this title has been accorded to them for more
than two centuries, whereas I am informed by counsel
that previously to the year 1811 the assumption of the
title in dispute by a Wesleyan minister was absolutely
forbidden by the ruler of the Wesleyan body. I do
not, however, think that the Court has simply to de-
cido whether the prefixing the title Reverend ' to the
description Wesleyan minister' be so clearly illegal
that even if the clergyman consented, the Court ought
to prohibit it. I do not pronounce an opinion to that
effect, but it is the duty of the Court to consider not
only whether it would be lawful in the abstract to
allow such an inscription as this, but also whether it
would be expedient and proper to do so. This con
sideration sometimes must, and often may, depend on
local circumstances, of which the Bishop is, by reason,
law, and practice, the fittest judge. I have heard it
frequently stated by my immediate and distinguished
predecessor in this Court (Dr. Lushington) that in all
cases of faculty great weight ought to be ascribed to
the opinion of the Bishop of the diocese. Now, in the
present case, the Bishop has deliberately and emphati-
cally expressed an opinion adverse to the prayer of the
petitioner. The Bishop, in his letter to the petitioner,
says:

'What title should be given you by your own co-religionists
is not the point at issue, and I express no opinion upon it.
But the question is whether the title of "Reverend" should
be conceded to you on a tombstone by ministers of the
Church of England, who are the responsible guardians of her
churchyards. It in not easy to determine what is the exact
meaning of the title of Reverend as claimed by a Wesleyan
preacher. If the title is to be taken to imply that he is a
person in Holy Orders, duly qualified to minister the Word
of God and Sacraments in a church, then I am bound to say
the law to which Lam subject would not allow me to recognize
him in that capacity. I hope to have the happiness before long
of admitting some Wesleyan preachers to Holy Orders in the
Church of England, after due training and trial; but I should
be chargeable with equivocation and oluplicity towards them,
and with dishonesty and treachery towards the Church of
England, if I were now to designate them by the title of
Reverend, to which they will have a just claim after ordina-
tion and by its means. If the title of Reverend, to whish you
lay claim, and by which you desire to be designated ma con-
secrated burial-place of the Church of England, is intended
only to designate that you are appointed to preach in a Wes-
ley an place of worship, I would venture to remind you of
another epitaph, that which was inscribed on the tomb
of the founder of Wesleyanism himself. There John
Wesley was described as the "patron and friend of lay
preachers." He regarded his preachers as laymen; he
warned them against calling themselves ministers; and
after his death the Wesleyan Conference in 1703 and 1791
forbad them to assume the title of Reverend. Any one
who gives them that title contravenes the injunctions of
John Wesley, for whose memory I entertain sincere respect,
and to whose authority I desire to defer in my relations with
the members of that important religious community which
derives its name from him. A title is a distinctive attribute
belonging to a special person or class. If I give a title to a
person to whom it does not belong, I am liable to a charge
of flattering him, and of wronging those to whom the title
does belong. For such reasons as these I have abstained
from giving the title of Reverend to Wesleyan preachers,
not (I need hardly say) from any feeling of disparagement
towards them, but because 1 honour consistency and truth,
and bnause I am sure they would despi me if I acted
against my conscience and were to practise the kiad of
liberality which courts popularity by giving away what does
does not belong to it.'

I do not think that it would be proper or consonant to
practice that this Court should overrule, not only the
direct dissent of the incumbent, but also the deliberate
judgment and authority of the Bishop in a matter,
not of strict law, applicable to all cases, but of dis-
cretionary permission, applicable to the particular
case; and I think that in refusing to do so, I act in
accordance with the spirit both of the general law and
of those rubrics in the Book of C =mon Prayer which
relate to the authority of the Ordinary. I decline to
issue the faculty as now prayed.'
Notice of appeal to the Judicial Committee of tho
Privy Council was at once tendered.
Dr. Stephens, Q. 0., and Mr. R. A. Rayford were
the counsel for the petitioner.

The Times :—" I find at page 167 of the African
Travels of the late -John Davidson a description of a
fish similar to that noticed by you in The Times of
Friday. Talking about the country near Wadnoon,
he says : "The Tigghi, a small &It like the sand eel,
is found in most of the livers of &Maxi. The effect
produced by this on the system is very curious. Like
the torpedo or the gymnotits lumbrieus, it paralyzes
the whole body and takes away the senses for nearly
half an hour. It is about Bin. long, and is much
dreaded by the people.' I send this, as the "Tra% els
in Africa' were privately printed (1839), and are now,
of course, but little known."
Mr. R. Bruce Reid writes on the Fame subject
"In a notice of the electric fish in The Times of Fri-
day I find it said, 'lt is believed that no living
example of this fish has been previously brought to this
country.' I beg to say that in 1865, I brought from
the Ohl Calabar River, West Coast of Africa, eight of
these fish, all in good condition most of them intended
for Mr. George Henry Horsfall, of the firm of Charles
Horsfall and Sons, Liverpool. It does not Feem to
have struck the persons who brought this fish to Eng-
land that you get a shock of electricity by merely
putting you hands in the water; but the best shock is
obtained by holding the end of a stick, the other end
of which is in a metal basin or tank in which the fish is.
These fish will not live together in confinement, the
writer having seen many destroyed by placing two or
more together in a basin, when the stronger at once
kills the weaker, the fight in some cases being very
fierce and protracted."