Most of our readers are aware that on the 12th February, 1877, on the motion of Mr. Lewis L. Dillwyn, M.P. for Swansea, a Select Committee was appointed by the House of Commons, “To enquire into the operation of the Lunacy Law, so far as regards the security afforded by it against violations of personal liberty.” That Committee consisted of Mr. Stephen Cave, chairman, Dr. Lush, Mr. Woodd, Mr. Ramsay, Mr. Leighton, Mr. Tremayne, Mr. Herschell, Mr. Goldney, Mr. Joseph Cowen, Mr. Kavanagh, Mr. Butt, Mr. Birley, Mr. Hopwood, Sir Trevor Lawrence and Mr. Dillwyn. It was generally understood at the time, and came out more clearly in the course of the enquiry, that the chief reason for the appointment of this Committee was the fact that strong statements as to the inefficiency of the present Lunacy Acts for the protection of the personal liberty of sane people had been confidently made and most industriously circulated among the public and Members of Parliament by a few persons and a small society, who said they could produce facts in support of their statements. It was generally understood at the time, and came out also during the enquiry, that most of those persons had had personal experience of the deprivation of personal liberty authorised by these laws. It certainly could not be truthfully said that there was any kind of public excitement on the subject of lunacy, or any public demand for an enquiry, nor had any lunacy cause célèbre occurred recently to draw attention to the subject. To most persons engaged in administering the Lunacy Laws, the appointment of the Committee came as a surprise, and most of them, at least in the provinces, did not look on it in any kind of serious light. We fear they thought of it chiefly as a sop thrown to satisfy a few noisy importunate lunatics who were at large, so that few of them offered their evidence, or made any preparation to lay the results of their experience before the public. To this is due the fact that the non-official persons who gave their evidence before the Committee seemed to have been taken quite at hap-hazard, and that there was no proper representation of the different classes of persons who administer the Lunacy Laws, or have to do with lunatics throughout the country. Far too many of certain kinds of people were examined by the Committee, and far too few of others. This is self-evident when, in looking over the list of witnesses, one finds that 17 out of the 59 witnesses were Government officials; that out of the 26 members of the medical profession examined, all but three were specialists, and 14 were London men. The medical profession in general, apart from the specialty of psychiatric medicine, were as nearly as possible unrepresented, for only one of the three of their body was examined on anything but special points connected with individuals. And this in an enquiry as to how the Lunacy Laws affect the liberty of the subject, when 180,000 people have been certified insane and their liberty taken from them by the general body of the profession, under the authority of the Lunacy Act of 1845 ! of that great body of medical officers of unions who certify nearly all the pauper lunatics, not one was brought before the Committee. Out of that most intelligent, public-spirited and large minded body of country gentlemen who compose the Committees of Visitors of the County Asylums, and who have had the whole labour of carrying out the Lunacy Acts in the English Counties, only one was examined on any general question. Not a single Visitor of a provincial licensed house was called to be examined as to how their work was done. Not a single independent representative of the legal profession, which has practically so much to do in carrying out the Lunacy Acts and managing the property of the insane, was asked to give his evidence. The whole body of Poor Law Guardians, who levy the lunacy rates, and represent the public as regards their expenditure, were conspicuous by their entire absence. One might have thought that a few really recovered lunatics could have been got to give a true and impartial account of their treatment while insane. As for Ireland, not a doctor but Inspector Nugent, not an official of any Asylum, public or private, not a governor of an Asylum, not even a half-cured Irish lunatic, appeared to tell how the insane of that country are treated. Scotland was represented by its two Medical Commissioners, and one asylum physician from the provinces. Surely one or two of the Sheriffs, those all important officials by whose signatures every lunatic in Scotland is deprived of his liberty, might have been got to speak for themselves as to whether they acted “ministerially” or “judicially;” and whether they read the doctors' certificates through or not, before they signed their orders.

In asylums, we are used to find but small changes in the nervous centres in our dead patients, and these changes are often of so general a character, that no assistance is given towards clearing up the question of localisation of function in brain-centres.

We have attempted in the previous lectures to obtain some idea of the way in which insanity was regarded, and the manner in which the insane were treated up to the beginning of the eighteenth century. We have found that a large number of those who would now be regarded as insane had been, up to this time, either disregarded altogether, or looked upon as exercising supernatural powers of evil, or as inspired with beliefs which were dangerous to the State. Three circumstances seem to have been the chief influences that tended to prevent persons labouring under mental disease from being treated with the consideration due to that affliction, or often with any feeling that they were worthy of sympathy or requiring to be cared for. These were pointed out to be (1) the character of the social system in ancient times—powerfully affected as it was in every detail by the existence of slavery; (2) the political exigencies of communities both in ancient and mediaeval times—so seldom in prolonged possession either of the external peace, or of the internal tranquility necessary for the development of philanthropy in a government or a sense of social duty in a people; and (3) the superstitious ideas arising from ignorance—under which abnormalities of mental condition were attributed to self-induced possession by the devil or to other criminal conduct or supernatural association. In the beginning of the eighteenth century, however, these conditions had either been abolished or had perceptibly diminished in power and importance. Slavery no longer existed in Western Europe; civil administration appeared to have developed into stronger and more stable forms; and owing to the diffusion of knowledge that followed the invention of printing, the grosser kinds of superstition were rapidly dying out.

There is probably no disease to which human flesh is heir that attracts, every now and again, such a degree of public attention—that begets such a keenness of personal dread—that so frequently forms the subject of sensational narrative or comment in the public press—that causes to be exhibited so disgraceful an amount and kind of ignorance, superstition, credulity, and cruelty—as hydrophobia. Even cholera is not so formidable a disorder in the public esteem. Its cramps are not always present; and when they are, they are not comparable with the convulsions of hydrophobia. Nor is there any terrifying mental disorder in the case of cholera; whereas, in hydrophobia the morbid mental phenomena are more prominent, serious, and impressive than the motor ones. Moreover, cholera is not popularly believed to be necessarily and in all cases fatal; whereas it is currently supposed that there is no chance of escape from hydrophobia.

In the “Journal of Mental Science” for April, 1876, a short account appeared of the present state of the Irish Lunatic Asylum Service and the action then being taken by Irish Medical Superintendents to obtain a more secure footing under Government, by ranking as Civil Servants. In order to gain this object, it would be necessary that the Executive should become their paymasters, and that their salaries, instead of coming from the rates, should be paid by the Treasury. Once secure of their position as Civil Servants, the rest would follow; their services would reckon, no matter how often changed from one asylum to another; they would no longer hold the anomalous position of men appointed by Government, responsible to central authority but paid by the ratepayers and as Civil Servants they would come under the Superannuation Act of 1859. Above all, they would become more closely connected with the Government, and obtain greater support and assistance in their official duties and in their attempts to further the study of mental disease in Ireland.

Since writing the portion of the German Retrospect in the last number of the Journal, the following periodicals have been received:—

On Friday, 2nd November, a deputation of asylum superintendents, members of district boards, and managers of Royal Asylums, waited on the Lord Advocate at his chambers, Edinburgh, with the view of bringing under the notice of his Lordship an omission in the Scotch lunacy law, there being no provisions at present for granting pensions to old and deserving officers in the Scotch district and parochial asylums, as in England and Ireland. The deputation consisted of Professor Balfour, Professor Maclagan, Dr. Fraser, ex-Bailie Miller, Mr. D. Scott Moncrieff, W.S., Mr. Cowan, of Beeslack, Dr. Cameron, Lochgilphead; Dr. Jamieson, Aberdeen; Dr. Anderson, Rosewell; Dr. Grierson, Melrose; Dr. Wallace, Greenock; Dr. Makintosh, Murthly; Dr. Rutherford, Lenzie; Dr. Ireland, Larbert; Dr. Clouston, Morningside; Dr. Rorie, Dundee; Dr. Howden, Montrose, &c. The deputation were introduced by Professor Maclagan, who strongly supported the views of the deputation. Dr. Mackintosh, addressing his Lordship, said—The reasons which have caused the medical and other officers of the public asylums of Scotland to come before you are, I think, fairly set forth in the petition which was placed in your Lordship's hands some months ago. I need not, therefore, refer to them in detail, but would only draw your attention to the anomalous (and at the same time, disadvantageous) conditions in which such officials are placed when contrasted with their brethren in England and Ireland. Most of us had hoped that the matter would, ere this, have been taken up by the General Board of Lunacy for Scotland, but the Board (who received a deputation last February in the most courteous manner) has no intention of moving in this or any other legislation at present. Moreover, the Commissioners thought that the best course was that now adopted—via., to bring the subject before you ourselves. The service which we have the honour to represent is as much a public service as the army and navy, or as the civil and parochial services, and perhaps it is not exceeded by any of them in the increasing attention which is necessary, or by the harassing nature of the duties. It therefore seems the more reasonable (besides being a simple act of justice) to place the service on a footing in regard to superannuation allowances similar to that occupied by the public asylums of England and Ireland. In urging upon your Lordship the great need for as speedy a solution of the question as possible, we do so in the knowledge that several special amendments of a similar nature have been made. Moreover, we are satisfied that the insertion of such a clause as that indicated in the petition as an amendment into the Act, will be an important day in the history of such institutions, both as regards the efficiency and stability of the staff, and the comfort of the inmates. Mr. Cowan, of Beeslack, as a member of a district lunacy board, also urged the injustice and impolicy of the present law. The Lord Advocate said that he would give the subject his most favourable consideration. It seemed a very proper matter to have been brought before him, the only question being when he could get an opportunity of introducing a clause to remedy the present defect.