"The object of these Acts is not, as your lordship is aware, so much to confine lunatics, as to restore to a healthy state of mind such of them as are curable, and to afford comfort and protection to the rest. Amongst the many persons confined as being lunatics, or of unsound mind, those who are manifestly dangerous-that is to say, those who, by some overt act, have already proved themselves to be dangerous, are comparatively few in number; the far more numerous classes consisting of,-1st, Those who are sent into lunatic establishments for the purpose of treatment, with a view to the alleviation and cure of their malady; 2ndly, Those who, from disease of mind, are incapable of self-government, and who therefore require, at certain periods (or perhaps generally), the most careful supervision and control; and 3rdly, Those who are incapable of taking care of themselves or their affairs, and are likely, therefore, to sustain serious injury if left at large and unprotected."

The letter of the commissioners to the Lord Chancellor also points out those varieties of insanity indicated by Dr. Conolly, in which supervision becomes necessary, though the subject of it may not be "dangerous to themselves or others." The commissioners enumerate among them idiocy or imbecility, theomania, erotomania, nymphomania, and various other forms of moral insanity which it would be tedious and unnecessary to particularize.

Another grave question has arisen out of the Nottidge case. Granting that persons of unsound mind, not "dangerous," may properly be confined, are the defences of society against kidnapping into lunatic asylums sufficiently strong to prevent the confinement of sane persons by interested parties? We have all experienced the dread of kidnapping in early childhood. The public, made up of "children of larger growth," has taken up the notion that medical men are kidnappers, or the instruments of kidnapping, and that lunatic establishments are the receptacles for their victims. We scarcely forbore a smile when, the other day, a great organ of opinion exclaimed, "We are at the mercy of four signatures!" The writer was evidently trembling, or affecting to tremble, for the preservation of his own liberty in the face of doctors and commissioners. Let us see what the commissioners say about these "four signatures," and of the circumstances which should convince any reasonable person of their validity as proofs of insanity, and also the reasons why the occasions are very rare in which the immediate liberation of any person legally placed in an asylum can be ordered.

"Every person placed in confinement as a lunatic, must primâ facie be presumed to be insane. Before a private patient can be legally detained in any house, there must exist an order, signed by

some friend or relative, two certificates from different medical practitioners, who have each separately examined the patient, and also a third certificate or statement from the medical officer of the establishment, all expressing the condition of the individual as of unsound mind, and a proper subject for confinement. It would argue great rashness and imprudence, to say the least, on our parts, to determine on the immediate, or even the very speedy liberation of a person so certified, unless we had reason to suppose that the certificates had been fraudulently obtained, or we were strengthened in our own impressions by the opinion of the medical officers having the care of the patient, that the confinement had, from the first, been improper, or that the nature of the malady was such as is usually of short duration, and that a perfect cure had been effected. Although, in a few cases of acute mania, the disorder is sometimes of short duration, yet where there exist actual delusions, the process of recovery (if ever it takes place) is slow and gradual, and the question as to the probability of cure can scarcely be determined satisfactorily until after a considerable period has elapsed."

For ourselves, we can hardly imagine such a conglomeration of villany, as that three medical men, and a "friend or relation," should be found to act together in such a hideous business as that of the premeditated confinement of a sane person, in the face of the certain and speedy exposure and punishment which must inevitably ensue, from the many means of check and detection which the law has provided. A gentleman of the long robe, Mr. C. Curton Cooper, is, however, of a different opinion; but, though desiring to examine his letter to the Lord Chancellor with all candour, we cannot say he has supported his view by any very striking or cogent arguments. Still we deem it our duty to give our readers the benefit of his opinions. We quote his opening sentences, to show how vague and shadowy his own notions are upon the matter. We italicise the words which imply so much distrust and hesitation as almost to nullify the opinions of the author :

"A person is not merely related to or connected with an individual, but, as not unfrequently happens, he has, the possession, or the control, or the management of his property, or the receipt of his income-in what character, and under what circumstances, is not material to my purpose. Now, such person being related to, or connected with the individual, has the power to have him confined as a lunatic upon his own order and statement, provided he can get the necessary medical certificate-and that, be it remembered, may be the certificate of any two apothecaries. Sometimes the certificate of one will suffice-at least, for a space. He must, of course, undertake to pay to the proprietor of the house the expenses of the individual's maintenance; but as he remains in the enjoyment (should

his proceedings be successful, in the undisturbed enjoyment) of the alleged lunatic's fortune, this he most willingly does."

The strongest hypothesis put by Mr. Cooper, for he never advances beyond hypothesis or general assertions, is this:

"There is a very general impression that persons are sometimes confined in houses licensed for the reception of lunatics, whom a jury would find to be of sound mind. My own experience induces me to think that such impression prevails not without cause. Sup posing, however, the impression to be erroneous, it will not be denied that means should be used to remove it; and the best way of effecting this is to afford all possible facilities for ascertaining the real state of those unhappy persons. The object of these few lines is to inquire whether, in the law now regulating the custody of lunatics, those facilities exist. Should such facilities not exist—should that be the conclusion at which you arrive, those who have observed your lordship's public career are satisfied that no long period will elapse before the defect-once that it is perceived by you-is supplied."

To this passage we shall make more than one demurrer. There must be more than the certificate of two apothecaries-there must be the certificate of the responsible superintendent of the asylum, liable to the loss of reputation, the character of his establishment, and the forfeiture of his licence, in case of collusion or wrong doing. The certificates are sent to the Commissioners in Lunacy, who are bound to see and examine the patient at certain specified periods, so that in reality they must become a party to the three certificates. Independently of the commissioners, there is another inspecting power, in the districts not included under the word "metropolitan”— viz., the visiting magistrates, and it certainly requires some stretch of imagination to believe that with such checks and counter-checks false confinements are possible in the present day. We are, indeed, glad to see that Mr. Cooper himself is obliged to quote his examples from times long anterior to the present law of lunacy coming into operation. We ought to observe that the case to which he alludes, in which a maniac may be consigned to an asylum in a case of emergency upon one certificate, is the existence of a furious paroxysm, in which the patient is imminently dangerous if allowed to be at large.

But is it fair to consider the chances of dangerous lunatics remaining at large as well as the possibility, for we will not say probability, that the sane may be confounded with the insane. Insanity being an hereditary malady, the relations of insane persons are generally slow from motives of self-interest to admit the existence of

insanity in their families. In many cases great mischief results from the pride which disguises the presence of insanity. After the admission of any person into an asylum, he may be discharged summarily by the commissioners, or by the visiting magistrates. The commissioners are lawyers and medical men of the greatest experience in insanity, and who are necessarily skilful in the highest possible degree in the diagnosis of the disease. Any attempt to hoodwink them by certificates respecting insane persons, even supposing three members of our profession could be found sufficiently villanous to act in concert in such a matter, would be hopeless and absurd. The cry about the "four signatures" is especially ridiculous. Are we not in a thousand things at the mercy of a quadruple conspiracy against property and life? were it not that there is some honesty in man, some safe-guard in society, and some dread of detection and punishment? Again, the visiting magistrates are always accompanied by a physician officially appointed to assist them in the inspection of asylums. Thus the public is not altogether defenceless against medical knaves and tyrants; on the contrary, the legislature has provided in a very remarkable manner for the prevention and detection of all misdoings in the matter of false confinement on the plea of lunacy. Not only have the commissioners and the visiting magistrates the power and the duty to restore cured and sane persons to society, but the relations of the patient may do so at any moment they may please. In the letter of the commissioners they say

"The person signing the order for a patient's confinement (generally a relative or friend) not unfrequently, indeed, takes upon himself the responsibility of liberating a patient whilst still under a delusion, and before recovery, and the Commissioners have no right, and never attempt to interfere. The consequence of the premature discharge of a lunatic patient, however, is frequently a relapse, and should as much as possible be avoided. Even with all the caution now exercised by the medical officers of asylums, many of whom possess great experience, and have daily opportunities of watching the process of recovery, it has been found necessary to re-admit, within a short period, many patients whom they have discharged as recovered."

In legislating on the subject of lunacy, two great points are to be considered society must be defended from the insane, and the risks incident to their improper removal from all control. On the other hand, the insane themselves are to be defended, and especial care should be taken that sanity should never be confounded with insanity. Are these matters sufficiently cared for under the present state of the law

and its administration? We say boldly and truthfully, YES. If there be any leaning of the balance of justice one way or the other, we believe it to be in the opposite direction to that in which public feeling, a spurious humanity, and a jealousy of the profession, point. We believe that at the present moment, society is less guarded against the insane, than are the insane against society. In the present constitution and course of things, it is far more likely that insane persons may go free to the destruction of themselves and others, than that any person not insane should be detained, even for ever so short a space, in an asylum for lunatics. But we are not content with this expression of our opinion. We have given the data upon which we form it. Let others judge. If we are threatened with mischief, it is from LAXITY, rather than from DISCIPLINE.

Original Communications.

IMPULSIVE INSANITY. THE FRENCH VAMPIRE.*

A MOST striking and appalling instance of insanity has just occupied the attention of the French psychologists. It has called forth the talents of Brierre de Boismont, of Michea, and of several other celebrated mental pathologists. It is one of those cases which, whilst it shocks the feelings of all those who have the ordinary susceptibilities of human nature, is accompanied with such disgusting traits of unnatural sensation, that many of the points must still be left in mystery, as they are scarcely fit even for medical discussion. It is true that our neighbours are less delicate on such subjects than we are, and that the scientific journals that have narrated the occurrences have entered with a minuteness upon them that would scarcely be palatable to our own more sensitive tastes; and they have ransacked both ancient and modern records to furnish forth similar proofs of moral depravity.

Towards the close of the year 1848, a rumour was prevalent in Paris that awoke the most fearful alarm, It was whispered about that the cemeteries of the dead had been broken into; that bodies lately interred had been dragged from their gloomy receptacles and savagely mutilated. To a people so singularly devoted to respect the remains of their friends, who take frequent opportunities of visiting their graves, and who, more particularly amongst the humbler classes, are accustomed on certain days to hang upon the tombs

Communicated by G. Sigmond, M.D., F.S.R.S., formerly Professor of Materia Medica to the Royal Medico-Botanical Society, and Lecturer on Medical Juris prudence, Grosvenor School, St. George's Hospital.