The Sun.
London, England, 1846-12-18 00:00:00

„-P-----/-, -
4,--
i .
VIE LAW 0 , LUNACY.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.
Sin,—Your paper of ,the 20th ult., ct in 1 a.- nine, an sr
ticle on the law of lunacy, hayitz h.n p e .- -, my •
. hands, and finding th 4 rein Ow. 111 t liaM, h tii teen
brought before the public in a most unjustit,able m.Anner, I
I consider it incumbent on me to refute the orrcneous _
statements which it contains.
In the first -instance, you assert that Lord Denman, .
” declared the law of lunacy to be, that if .any medical .
man, being the proprietor of a lunatic asylum; and there-
fore
having a direct interest in the incarceration of any
Supposed lunatic, declare that- such .supposed lunatic is '
required to be put under the care of some one, because _
such supposed lunatic labours under mental delusion, a,
certificate from.tho medical man to that effect, elen it
such certificate does not set forth such delusions, is suffi-
cient to authorise the detention of such lunatic ; and, ;
that, if that certificate is bachtd by the certificate of an-
other medical man, stating the person so incarcerated is
a lunatic, these two certificates are sufficient to authorise
the detention for an indefinite period of such supposed
_ . .
lunatic." _

Now, Sir, I beg leave to state, that the writer of the
article in question must have been utterly igtairset of the
subrect on which he commented. nor dal Lord Denman .
utter any thing of the hired in hill luminous ohs( rvations.
Nu such certificate as you describe: is required nom any
medical man, proprietor of a Jimmie asylum ; and it Is,
more eivr r, prohibited in the 49th sectien, 8 and 9 Vint., '
C. 100, vela re it is clearly spe6ified " that no physician,
surgeon; or apothecary, who, or whose &tin r, brother,
son, or partner, is wholly or partly propretor of, or a re- .
gular professional attendant in, a licensed house. &c.,
shall sign any certificate for the reception of a patient,:
&c. ; that any medical man infringing this clause will be
guilty of misdemeanour."
You then proceed, Sir, to question the validity of me- •
dical certificates, when the nature of the delusions are
not minutely specified. Such a
,stateMent is net re-
quired, for in mast instances, when a anedie al man is
called upon to visit a supposed lunatic; -.he is an utter
stranger tei the party, and can only form his opinion
trim the incoherence of his conversation, when his ac- •
tions are not violent ; or from the acconnt of_the patient'
he receives from the parties who have called him in. The
law reqaires that the medical man shall spedify' in his
certificate " any fact _Aar .facts atriatag fi-utn, his owe ob-
servation, or froM-1-firEfortnation of any-otter_.,person,-
upon which he' -has- ferment= an eptuiena:that. the:
person is lunatic,", .45,„ , &C.- --Tht`n=eot e • ddes
the law consider a certificate, stating that the
medical man came to .the conclusion th:it the. -
persoiehe 'visited was of unsound mien tr,m the. con-
versation that took
,place, naturally inferring th.,t-iiidli
conversation must have been of so ines•herent a nature
I as to warrant the conclusion of the person holding it
being of an unsound mind, a sufficient document. But,
even in cases where minute particulars may hai e been
inserted in the certificate, the law dues not consider the
certificate as sufficient to confine a lunatic without Aire
ther inquiry; and the proprietors of an asylum are
obliged to send in
,to the Commissietiers in- Lunacy a
copy of the order and certificate on which a paeaut
was admitted within two days after the adniission, that
the Commissioners may themselves .examine the 'order
and certificate, and proceed to visit the patient in the
event of the order and the certificate not being in cornea-1
miry with the statute. This provision, Sit, plainly shows
the incorrectness of yoar assertion, that the original
certificate authorised the detentieen for an lode finite
period of such supposed lunatic."
Not only are the certificates examined by the Come
naissioners, but the law obliges every medical man, pre-
prietor of an asylum, to enter into a casebook, oir
Journal, the history of the patient, as far-as it can be ob-
tained, with a statement of temperament, age, religion,
profession, an account of any medical treatment to which
he may have been submitted, or of the moral means em-
ployed, with a weekly statement, if any mechanical
means of restraint or seclusion are resorted to, specifying
the nature of the patient's occupation and conversation-
Now, Sir, in the case of Mrs. Rhodes, an unfortunate
lady in a state of imbecility of mind, who had assumed
the name of Shuttleworth, but for whom you seem to take
much interest, this lady was examined within two days
after her admission by three Commissioners, Lord Sep.
mour, Dr. Turner, and Mr. Proctor; she was subsequently
examined by two more Commissioners, Dr. Pritchard and-
Mr. Campbell, who found her labouring under senile im-
becility, and the affidavits of four medical men were
prepared to meet the affidavits upon which a writ of
habeas corpus was applied for, on the plea of the lady not
being of unsound mind—this application having been
made by the person under whose care she resided, the a
Rev. Mr. Rowlett, the minister of St. Peter's, Pimlico,
who found the unfortunate lady in a state of utter des-
titution—in rags, covered with ulcers and vermin, and
without the common necessaries or comforts of life;
when this clergyman considered it his duty, as a minister
and a Christian, to have the poor lady removed to a
comfortable asylum; and this application to the Cottrt
of Queen's Bench to discharge the patient was made-by
the person under whose care she had then been found.
Now, Sir, do you think that the Judges of the Court
of Queen's Bench would have been justified if, on an 41
leged inaccuracy in the medical certificates, they had
discharged this poor creature, and replunged her in her
former melancholy, destitute state, because, forsooth,
an Old Bailey quibbler sought to prove that a conver.
sation was not a fact? Moreover, this application wise
not made at the request or by the authority of the
patient.
I now, Sir, come to the case of Mrs. Cumming, to
which you also reer,stating "thatlhad consented toiler
being taken from the establishment under my care," so
soon as she consented to make a disposition of ,her pro-
perty in favour of those who had set " the skilful per-
sons" in motion. The certificate of. the skilful persona
were shown to the writer. Now, Sir, I beg leave to do-
clare, most unequivoctaly, that there is net lone syllable
of truth in this asset tion. It is provided in the 72d clause
of the Lunacy Act, that- the person who signed the
older fur the reception of a patient-, may oi der such
patient to be discharged. However, it is provided in the
72d section, that this discharge is not to take place if
the.medical atterdant of the patient declare that such
patient is dengereua Now, Sir, in the case of Mrs.
Curemieg, a proposal. was made by her counsel to the
fats ily, who, having acceded to it, directed me to die-
charge her ; and, although convinced, as well as Sir
Al. xander Thomson, the experienced physician of Bed-
-1 lam Hospital, the Surrey Asylum, and consulting
physician of the County Asylum of Hanwell, and Dr.
Pritchard, a physician of European celebrity, that the
lady was most decidedly of unsound mind, SS I could not
declare that she was a dangerous lunatic, she was ac-
cordingly discharged by her family. As to your as-
sertion abeut " Dr. Millingen beitigconteht to receive the
guarantee of Mager Barlow arid Mrs. Cumming," I ana
utterly at a loss to imagine what you could possibly
mean to convey. Mrs. Cumming'. was placed under any
care by her family, according to the provision of the
law. She was withdrawn from my care by her-family,
and I could neither " incarcerate' her, nor ".detale
her, when legally discharged.
Your insinuation of my want of " skill" in having
considered Mrs. Cumming, of unsound Mind, I can assure
you gives me little concern, when my name is associated
with those of Sir Alexander Thomson and Dr. Pritchard,
who were of a similar opinion, as I feel convinced, that
if the jury had not been discharged by the arrangement
made on the proposal of the unfortunate lady's own
counsel, little doubt could be entertained as to what
would have been their verdict.
I remain, Sir, your obedient servant,
J. G. MILLINGEN, M.D., M.A.
First-class Surgeon to the Fever, and late Resident
Physician of the County of liddlesei Lunatic:
Asylum at Hanwell, &c. &c. &c.
P.S. I have further to add, that after failing in ob-
taining a writ of habeas corpus from the Court of Queen's
Bench, en application was made to a similar effect in that
Court of Common Pleas, which was refused in chambers
by Mr. Justice Williams.
York House, Battersea, Dec. 12, 1846.
[We have given the above, we believe, correctly, but
it is written in such an illegible hand, (moreover, it was
" backed copy," and Dr. Millingen, who has for years
been in the habit of writing for the press, understands
what that means,) that we are by no means cer-
tain as to the literal accuracy of the transcript. Dr. Mil-
lingen will perceive that we have omitted three lines which
bear not at all upon his argument, and which might
render it necessary for us to open our columns
to another medical man in reply.—En. Sun.]

We are sorry to learn that the children of the late
Thomas Hood are, in consequence of the death of their
last remaining parent, left entirely dependent upon the
small fund, amounting, we believe, to about 8001., col-
lected by public subscription at the period of Mr. Hood's
death. The pension of 1001. granted by Sir Robert Peel
ceases with the decease of Mrs. Hood, who lived but s
twelvemonth to enjoy it. We believe that Lord John
Russell has already been applied to by the friends of the
family to continue the pension to the children; but his
Lordship has intimated his inability to comply with the
request, since the pension becomes, by the death of Mrs.
Hood,wishes and intentionsthepropertyoft the public.
of theublic public will be best
answered confident that
the
answered by a new grant of the same trifling amount to
the orphans, to whose departed and highly-gifted parent
that
THE ALLEGED EXTENSIVE EMBEZZLEMENT nI A
,refiwmartdhehaasppbreeehnenis,ffioenreoc)lf
mthris.
public owes so large a debt of gratitude.
on business as a com-
wCmTec:i'semoskni3o,:ainsbssyai:gmplleuintbAthl'icaclEnandst.earin')
carryingeidobtAtiln merchant, in Strutt-stree t,
Newmarket-buildings, and well known to the manufac-
turers of the town and county. It would seem from the
inquiries which Mr. Chief Superintendent Beswick in-
stituted, ilia-,, the accused left Manchester at half-past
eight o'clock on the night of Friday, the 4th in-
st,lnt; and up to last evening we had not heard of
his apprehension. We understand the charge against
Mr. Smith to be one of a very serious nature, in-
volving the fraudulunt embezzlement of a sum which has
been variously estimated at from 10,0001. ta 16,0001,,
but with respect to which no accurate information can.
be gleaned until the judicial investigation has taken.
place. The parties whose names we have heard men-
tioned a, being the greatest losers by the defalcation are
Mr. Alderman Shuttleworth, Mr. Bateson (Liverpool),
and the firm of Messrs. W. G. and J. Strutt, cotton.
thread manufacturers of Derby, who have also a ware-
house in Strutt-street ; but whether or not any other
person, have been defrauded has not yet b en made
known. Mr. Smith has resided in Lower Broughton for
some time, and has a family of five children.—Mane
dialer Guardian of yesterday.
ATTEMPTED MURDER OF A POLICE-CONSTABLE......
Wednesday's Government Police Gazette contained the
offer of a reward of 1001. +or such information as will
lead to the apprehension and conviction of the individual
who, in the middle of the night, shot at a police-con•
stable named William Summerson, whilst on duty et
Ryton, in the county of Durham.
We regret to announce the premature demise of
the Lady Harriet Howard, daughter of the Earl and
Countess of Wicklow.