596

THE CASE OF WILLIAM BOURKE KIRWAN.

witness went back together, and told Mr. Kirwan they could not find the clothes; Mr. Kirwan then went up the hill, and witness after him; Mr. Kirwan brought back a shawl, and something like a sheet in his hand, and slipped when coming down; Patrick Nangle and Mr. Kirwan then proceeded to put the clothes on her; he ordered Patrick Nangle to go for the clothes; Nangle did so, and brought them down."

Thus it appears that Mr. KIRWAN did not attempt to conceal the fact (how could he? the witness MICHAEL NANGLE was "after him," that he had discovered the clothes, as he actually brought back a portion of them, and told the man where he would find the remainder. PATRICK NANGLE was sworn to tell the whole

the lungs alone, but that it is customary to find all the interna organs of the body gorged with blood. Then, are we to admit that the swelling of the upper lip and of the inside of the mouth furnishes any proof of violence by pressure? It would be most absurd to come to any such conclusion. At the time when the body was found; on the next day, when seen by a number of persons, there was no swollen lip, no sign of injury until a month afterwards. When the body had been soaking in to the mouth, and not one word was said of such appearances two feet of water in a grave, the Doctor finds a swollen upper

truth. Why did he omit these facts? The zeal of the witness lip, and infers from that circumstance that the deceased had not did not add to the value of his testimony.

Next, we come to the evidence of Dr. HATCHELL, who was called as a witness for the prosecution, and who made the post-mortem examination of the body exactly at the expiration

of one month after the death had occurred. At the time the body was disinterred there were two feet and a half of water in the grave! The water, says the Doctor, was in the coffin, and must have hastened the decomposition of the body. He says, "I "examined the head very carefully; I did not find any marks of "violence on the scalp." How is this! PATRICK Nangle swore that there were "cuts" on the forehead; but, be it observed,

no such "cuts" were seen by Mr. HAMILTON, on the day after the death — none seen by Dr. HATCHELL at the expiration of a month-and this NANGLE is the witness who swore that he had found the clothes in a place that he had previously searched. Dr. HATCHELL states that the tongue protruded. No wonder. At the expiration of a month, decomposition has often the effect of protruding the tongue to the utmost possible extent; and sometimes from the same cause, the eyes are completely thrust out of their sockets.

Dr. HATCHELL concluded his examination in chief thus: "From the appearance of the body, I am of opinion that the death "was caused by a sudden stoppage of respiration." (How then does he account for the existence of the froth at the mouth?) "I think, from all the appearances of the body, pressure must “have caused the stoppage. I am of opinion pressure was the sole "cause." What pressure? Where applied? If upon the chest, or upon the mouth, how, we ask, does the Doctor account for the existence of the froth at the mouth at the time when the body was found? On cross-examination the Doctor stated, that "engorgement of the lungs was not compatible with drowning alone"! Any statement of a more unfortunate character could not have been given at a trial where the life of a fellow-creature was concerned. It is perfectly well known to the profession that engorgement of the lungs is a common condition of those organs in the bodies of drowned persons. Probably it is the most common of all the post-mortem appearances found in the bodies of persons who have died from suffocation by drowning. Where then is the evidence which proves that the unfortunate lady died from the effects of pressure? Proof of pressure upon the chest there is none. Proof of pressure on the mouth there

is none.

On cross-examination, the Doctor stated, that "there were appearances of the body that would not be accounted for by "drowning alone; the congestion of the vagina and of the lungs, "the swelling of the upper lip and the inside of the mouth, were "such appearances." This is most extraordinary testimony. As we have already stated, it is well known to the whole profession, that congestion of the lungs is common in drowning; and not of |

died from the effects of simple drowning. Surely the Docter would not refer the swelling to active inflammation in the grave! On reflection, he must admit that, whatever was the cause of the death, that appearance was the result of decomposition-and

of decomposition alone. If the lips had been pressed upon the

teeth so as to have been wounded and cut internally, then it would have been evident that force of some kind had been applied to the mouth, but of the kind of force we might still have remained in utter ignorance. Looking, therefore, at the medical evidence, as called in support of the prosecution, it is our decided opinion-and that opinion is not recorded until after the bodies of hundreds of suffocated persons have been seen by us, that in not

a single particular does the medical evidence sustain the dreadful accusation which has been made against the wretched man who is now under sentence of death.

As, in truth, there was no medical evidence called by the Crown that was calculated in the remotest degree to sustain the charge against the prisoner, we feel that we can for the present defer all reference to the medical testimony that was adduced on behalf of the prisoner. But we cannot refrain from directing attention to the extraordinary proceedings which took place at the conclusion of the trial, and before a verdict of "Guilty" was returned. The learned judge (CRAMPTON) having summed the Dublin Evening Mail states-we quote the exact words, up,-as it appears to us, with perfect impartiality, the report in placing some of them, however, in italic characters—

lordships left the bench. At twenty minutes before eight o'clock
"The jury then (seven o'clock) retired to their room, and their
their lordships resumed their seats, when

Mr. Justice CRAMPTON directed the sheriff to summon the jury.
Having made their appearance in court,

Mr. Justice CRAMPTON, addressing the foreman, asked him if they were likely to agree.

The Foreman-I don't think we are likely to agree.

A second Juror.-There is not the most remote chance of our agreeing.

A third Juror-There is not the slightest chance of an agreement. Mr. Justice CRAMPTON-It will be necessary for you, in that case, gentlemen, to remain in your room during the night.” Why remain the night? If the Jury agreed on their verdict at half-past eight, at nine, or at half-past nine, or at ten, why, in such an awful case, when a man was on trial upon the result of which his life depended, were the Jury summoned and brought into Court at the expiration of forty minutes, and thus disturbed in their early moments of solemn deliberation, and questioned as to whether they were likely to agree, and threatened, that as they were not likely to agree, with an intimation that they must remain during the night?

After the learned Judge had informed the Jury that they were likely to be incarcerated until the morning, (we still quote from the report,)

"The foreman inquired what would be the latest hour at

THE CASE OF WILLIAM BOURKE KIRWAN.

which his lordship would receive a verdict in the event of an agreement?

Mr. Justice CRAMPTON, after a brief conversation with some of the jury, said he would return to Court at eleven o'clock, for the purpose of ascertaining if they had come to an agreement. The jury then retired, and special constables having been sworn to prevent any communication with the jury-room, the Court adjourned till eleven o'clock."

597

and questioned whether they were likely to agree upon their verdict; and if they were not, they were to suffer the accumulated miseries of their position for a further period of at least ten hours' duration.

We still quote verbatim from the report :—

"A Juror said they wanted chairs; they had only two forms

The learned Judge, after having, we presume, gone home and in their room, and some of them had to walk about while others dined, re-entered the Court at eleven o'clock.

"His lordship" (says the report)" having taken his seat, the jury were called out, and the prisoner was placed at the bar. The foreman, in reply to an inquiry from the learned judge as to whether they had agreed, stated that they had not. Mr. Justice CRAMPTON-Are you likely to agree? Foreman-Upon my word, my lord, I don't think we are. Mr. Justice CRAMPTON-Is there any use in my remaining in expectation of your agreeing?

Foreman-I don't know, my lord, I cannot say; but I will take the opinion of the jury again.

Another Juror said he did not think there was any likelihood of their agreeing.

Mr. Justice CRAMPTON-If I thought you would agree to a verdict within any reasonable time, I would think it my duty to remain; but if you are not likely to agree, all I can do is to let you remain together for the night, and adjourn the Court till to-morrow. Consult together again for some time, and let me know if you can agree.

The jury having conferred for a few minutes, the foreman stated that there was not any likelihood of their agreeing, and that they did not make any progress towards an agreement. One of the jurors wished to hear the evidence of Dr. Adams again.

Mr. Justice CRAMPTON said that his note-book was at home." Ah! we felt quite confident that the learned Judge had gone home to dine; and, as the labour of refreshing an exhausted system occupied only about two hours and a half, probably he had left the notes of the evidence on the dinner-table in the hurry of his departure. Did the learned Judge reflect on what might be the condition of the Jury at eleven o'clock, they having been without refreshment up to that time, if he, at eight o'clock, was so reduced in energy, that it required two hours and a half to administer the necessary quantity of nutriment and stimulants to his frame?

At eleven o'clock, almost in the agony of despair, depressed, with minds weakened and bewildered by physical and mental exhaustion, with a dreary night, with at least ten long hours before them, promising nothing but further exhaustion, hunger, and pain, it could not be surprising if a verdict were abruptly returned before midnight. But let us see what was done. The learned Judge having stated that he had left his note-book at home,

observed,

Another Juror asked if his lordship could take the verdict at nine o'clock next morning. Mr. Justice CRAMPTON-If you have agreed to a verdict at that hour I will come down to court; but if you have no question to ask now upon the evidence, you had better retire, as I can be of no assistance to you. I hope you have your great coats.

We quote literally, without adding or omitting a single word. In the midst of this extraordinary scene there stood the wretched prisoner at the bar, well knowing that on the simple utterance of the word "Guilty," or the words "Not Guilty," his life or his death depended. Instead of finding that the facts of the case, as disclosed in evidence, were subjected to the calm, deliberate, and solemn investigation of the Jury, who in reality, at that time, had become his judges, he was exposed to the horror of seeing their attention distracted, their feelings agitated, and their minds disturbed by their being summoned repeatedly before the Court,

sat.

The learned judge directed the sheriff to provide every accommodation for the jury except refreshment, which the law did not allow," (to the jury!)

Strange enough, all this! But we would now earnestly and particularly direct the attention of our readers, and we would really ask, after a verdict of “Guilty” so returned, and considering the defective and altogether inadequate evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, whether it would not be perfectly horrible if the sentence pronounced on the convict were to be carried into execution? Still, be it remembered, we copy verbatim from the report in the Dublin Evening Mail:

"A Juror asked if his lordship could state to them the evi-dence of Dr. Adams as to what the appearance on the body might be caused by-whether by accidental or forcible drowning?

Mr. Justice CRAMPTON said the evidence of the doctor was, that congestion of the lungs and the other parts might arise from simple, innocent drowning, or by drowning caused by forcible immersion.

A Juror-Those appearances might be from simple drowning? Mr. Justice CRAMPTON-They might; and that excludes the other appearances. His evidence was substantially the same as that of Dr. Rynd and Dr. Hatchell. The appearances of the body might result from simple drowning under particular_circumNone of those medical men saw the body. Am I to wait now, stances, or it might be the result of strangulation or suffocation. gentlemen?”

Is it not perfectly evident that the learned Judge expected an acquittal? He told the Jury that all the medical witnesses had agreed that the appearances noticed on the body might have resulted from simple or, to use his own words "innocent" drowning. On hearing this most important statement, it was ejaculated by a suffering juror—

"If your lordship will be good enough to wait for five minutes more !

The jury then conferred together for a short time, and the foreman said there was a likelihood of their agreeing, and asked for a few minutes longer to consider the matter."

The report continues:

Mr. Justice CRAMPTON-Very well, gentlemen, you had better retire to your room.

The jury then retired, and after an absence of about twenty minutes again came into court. The utmost desire was now evinced by those present to learn the result, and the prisoner cast an anxious and searching look up to the juror's box, from which his fate was about to be pronounced. The most profound stillness prevailed in court as the foreman handed down the issue paper. The names of the jury having been called over, The Clerk of the Crown asked-Gentlemen, have you agreed to your verdict?

Foreman-Yes.

Clerk of the Crown-How say you, gentlemen, is the prisoner,
William Kirwan, guilty or not? You say he is GUILTY.
The Clerk of the Crown having recorded the verdict, Mr.
Justice Crampton directed the prisoner to be removed till next
morning."

Thus, then, the results are recorded. That at eleven o'clock at night the learned Judge returns to the court. The Jury are brought before him. They are asked if they have agreed on their verdict. He is told they have not. Inquiry is then made whether they are likely to agree. The learned Judge is informed it is not likely. A juror then said he wished "to hear the evidence of Dr. ADAMS again." The learned Judge having left his note-book

598

BETHLEHEM HOSPITAL-HISTORY OF THIS CORPORATE INSTITUTION.

"at home," stated to the Jury, that Dr. ADAMS had said that the ap- | issued in 1403. It appears that lunatics were then received pearances on the body might have been produced by simple drown- there. The Commissioners were unable to inquire concerning ing-or, to use the strongly-characteristic expression of the Judge, the alienation of the possessions of the house, the citizens of by "innocent drowning." He also added, that the evidence thus London claiming to be exempt from their jurisdiction. Thus given by Dr. ADAMS was in conformity with the evidence of Dr. early was the spirit of exclusion developed. Bethlehem was RYND and Dr. HATCHELL. On hearing from the learned Judge included in the charter of St. Bartholomew's Hospital, granted this distinct enunciation that all the appearances observed on and by HENRY VIII. in 1546, whereby the King granted to the in the body of the deceased were compatible with a perfectly | Mayor, &c., and their successors, the custody and government crimeless death, a juror exclaimed-" If your lordship would be of the hospital, called Bethlehem without Bishopsgate. At a "good enough to wait for five minutes more." The jury imme-general court of the Governors of the Royal Hospital, held in diately intimate to the learned Judge that there is a likelihood of 1557, Bethlehem Hospital was placed under the management their agreeing-that is, having heard from the bench that all the of the Governors of Bridewell, one treasurer being appointed medical witnesses testify to the fact that the appearances found for both houses. This union still subsists. By an Act of on and in the body are compatible with the innocence of the ac- Parliament of the 22nd year of the reign of GEORGE III., the cused person, in twenty minutes they announce a verdict of government of these great institutions was transferred to a "GUILTY!" Such circumstances, and such a result, are, we President, Treasurer, the Aldermen of London, twelve believe, without a parallel in the history of the criminal trials of Common-Councilmen, and an unlimited number of Nomination this country. Governors. The Nomination Governors are elected by ballot, and benefactors of £50 are eligible, if named by a person who has served the office of steward of the annual dinner at Bridewell. The President has the right to appoint two Governors annually, and the Treasurer one, without benefaction or ballot.

We have bestowed considerable pains on the examination of the "Observations of the Governors of Bethlehem," and the appended "Remarks" of the Physicians, upon the Report of the Commissioners in Lunacy, with the anxious desire to discover some explanation at least, if not a refutation, of the very serious charges advanced against the ruling and administrative authorities. We feel the deepest humiliation in being obliged to confess, that although the Governors have produced a pamphlet extending over 180 octavo pages, they have done nothing towards redeeming the character of an institution which, from its metropolitan position and the vaunting pretensions of its officers, is so prominently exposed to be regarded by foreigners in the light of a national establishment. Too long, far too long, has Bethlehem occupied a position obstructive to the progress of psychological science, and tending to compromise the reputation of the profession of medicine in this country. Qualis ab incepto should be its motto. Its whole history consists in the unvarying relation of financial abuses, of corporate jobbing, of reckless or ignorant disregard of the claims of the afflicted, of a blind and obstinate indifference to the performance of those duties towards the public which they have always been eager to usurp. Bethlehem is one of those institutions which present the most striking illustrations of the sluggish evils of irresponsible government. An attentive survey of its past history will reveal no instances of activity, but fitful manifestations of internal reform, too plainly stimulated by occasions of public observation, and the consequent dread of external interference; and this, its traditional character, is impressed upon the latest proceedings. We gather from a most instructive account of Bethlehem, abridged by Mr. FRANCIS OFFLEY MARTIN from the Report of the Charity Commissioners of 1837, some of the following statements:*

Bethlehem was founded as a convent A.D. 1247. As far back as 1330 it seems to have acquired the character of a hospital In 1346 it was received into the protection of the City of London. An inquisition is extant, taken under a commission

Abuses seem always to have found within the walls of Bethlehem a congenial home, and to have flourished so vigorously as to have from time to time excited the scrutinizing observa. tion of the public. It seems probable that from the first reception of lunatics into Bethlehem, their condition and treatment were wretched in the extreme. Iron chains with locks and keys, and manacles and stocks, are spoken of in the visitation of 1403, and indicate but too plainly the system then pursued. In 1598, a committee deputed to view the house reported that it was so loathsome, and so filthily kept, that it was not fit for any man to enter. In an inquisition made in 1634, mention is made of divers sums expended for straw and fetters. For many years a revenue of £400 a year was derived from the payments made by visitants attracted by an idle and wanton curiosity. In 1815 the condition of Bethlehem attracted the especial attention of a committee of the House of Commons appointed to inquire into the state of the mad. houses in England. The revelations then made exhibit the most systematic and the most revolting barbarities towards the patients; and the conduct and defence of the Physician and the Governors of that period are so like what we now witness, that we could almost suppose that the precedents of 1815 had suggested the course adopted in 1852. So strong that between 1814 and was the love of unrestricted power, 1816, the governors expended £600 of the hospital funds in opposing the Madhouse Bill in Parliament. It might have been expected that the shameful mismanagement exposed by the committee, and a proper feeling of the public responsibility they had taken upon themselves in resisting external supervision, would have incited the governors to a more vigilant execution of their trust. But the vices of their constitution were incorrigible. In 1837, it devolved upon Mr. FRANCIS OFFLEY MARTIN, one of the Charity Commissioners, to investigate the condition of Bethlehem. He took a most elaborate and minute survey of the past history and actual state of the hospital. He lays bare the vicious form of

* An Account of Bethlehem Hospital, abridged from the Report of the late Charity Commissioners, (by Francis Offley Martin.) Pickering its government; the abuses of corporate trust, the jobbing, Piccadilly. 1853.-Mr. Martin has rendered an important service to the the defalcations of the officers passed over-almost connived public by this opportune publication of much valuable and authentic matter, which might otherwise have escaped general observation. at- by the Governors, the misappropriation and waste of

NECESSITY FOR QUALIFIED SURGEONS TO PASSENGER SHIPS.

funds, the numerous defects in the building and other arrange ments for the patients: the whole presenting such a case as must excite the utmost surprise that Parliament could for one day longer suffer such a state of things to continue. And yet, a year after this inquiry, we find the laying of the first stone of the new buildings celebrated with civic ostentation, and a public breakfast, at an expense to the hospital funds of £464; and to spread still wider the fame of the worthy President, a narrative of the proceedings, embodying his speech, was drawn up and printed at an additional cost to the charity of £140! In 1845 the regulation of the public and private asylums again came under the consideration of Parliament; and again the Governors of Bethlehem evaded the design of the House of Commons to place them under public inspection. We know not at what cost to the funds of the charity this was effected. The recent report of the Commissioners in Lunacy shows too painfully how greatly it operated to the detriment of the patients. And what were the cogent arguments, the special circumstances, which were urged upon the Legislature to induce it to renew an absurd and pernicious immunity in opposition to all principles, and in the face of all experience? Of any such arguments or circumstances, we are in perfect ignorance. On the other hand, the reasons why an opposite course should have been pursued are abundant and unanswerable. One alone is sufficient. The governors of Bethlehem were the self-constituted trustees of the money of other people, and possessed little or no claim on the strength of any contributions of their own. But above all, and which facts ought chiefly to have weighed with the Legislature, the funds out of which the present hospital was erected were mainly derived from parliamentary grants. Out of £107,699, no less a sum than £72,800 was contributed by the State; and the criminal wings were erected alongside the principal building at an expense of £25,000 to the Treasury Where is there such another instance of enormous Government grants entrusted to a corporate body without the condition of a rigorous Government control ?

We will not lengthen our remarks by again insisting upon the paramount consideration we have often previously enforced the obvious duty of the Government to afford every security to the public for the proper treatment of the State lunatics, and a guarantee against illegal detention that should be free from all suspicion.

Having thus brought our readers down to the present period, we purpose, in the next LANCET, to review the "Observations" of the Governors upon the recent Report of the Commissioners in Lunacy.

LAST week we commented, perhaps with some severity, but we believe, with truth and justice, upon the fact, that the law did not insist upon a passenger-ship, on long voyages, carrying a competent surgeon. The number of our journal which contained that article had scarcely been published, when the following melancholy illustration of the evils which we pointed out appeared in the Times newspaper. How long, we ask, is such a state of things to continue?

THE LAST SURVIVING OFFICER OF THE AMAZON.-On Tuesday, November 9, there died among us, of fever, Mr. Vincent, second officer of the Royal Mail steam packet Esk, which arrived on the 6th inst. This unfortunate young gentleman, who has been thus early cut off in the very opening of his career, was the only officer who survived the loss of the Amazon-thus every officer attached

59.9

to that unfortunate ship has perished in the execution of his duty. Although some diversity of opinion may have existed as to the conduct which, under the frightful circumstances, young Vincent should have pursued, public opinion, on the whole, determined in his favour, and we think the record was just. The dangers of the sea are not confined to the four elements that his Honour President Best, of Barbadoes, anticipated on that memorable night. Fire, air, earth, and water spared young Vincent and left him to perish of disease-an enemy which true statistics prove to be more destructive to the sailor than all the other elements combined, and which has dealt a fatal blow to this promising youth at a time the least expected. This morning the remains resting-place by Captain Restarrick, the officers of the Esk, and of the deceased young gentleman were followed to their last a very respectable attendance of military and civilians, who deeply sympathized with his bereaved family. We cannot understand consider themselves justified in sending the Esk to sea without on what ground the directors of the Royal Mail Steam Company any medical officer on board. Whether they justify themselves on the ground of the comparative worthlessness, in their eyes, of their officers and sailors, they have at least no right to break faith with the passengers whom they embark in their large vessels, and who are informed that an experienced surgeon is on board their ships. The facts in this case are, that Governor Gregory, family, and servants, eight in number, arrived by the Plata at St. Thomas' some two days and a half before the assigned time. About 110 passengers by the Plata were thus unnecessarily exposed to the infection of a fever locality for that period, being the period intervening between their arrival and that fixed for their departure. This period, it is to be presumed, from what is already few. The Esk had been ten or eleven days at St. Thomas' before known, must have proved pregnant with mortal disease to not a sailing; her crew had, consequently, been more exposed to the influences of the infected locality than the passengers. It would be expected, therefore, that they would manifest the results of the influences in a greater proportion than the home passengers. Accordingly, six of the white crew (sixteen in number) and two These persons, had it not been for the fortuitous occurrence of of the nine white, and one coloured passenger were affected. one of the passengers being a medical man, would, under the regulations of the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company, have had no medical aid whatever, under circumstances where the most prompt medical aid is absolutely essential to the saving of human life. For the medical aid rendered, the crew and passengers have nothing to thank the company; on the contrary, we think the latter will find some difficulty in placing themselves in a satisfactory light before the people of England. A few words of caution before we part with the company. It is their bounden duty, as long as fever prevails at St. Thomas', not to bring their redblooded and predisposed passengers from Europe in such a hurry that an unprofitable and needless exposure of some days to an infected fever spot must be the necessary result. We take it for granted, that the discreditable occurrence of sending their ships to sea (in this case 900 miles) without a surgeon, and with an insufficient supply of medicine, will not require to be again recorded by us.-Bahama Herald.

Medical News.

ROYAL COLLEGE OF SURGEONS. The following gentlemen having undergone the necessary examinations for the diploma, were admitted Members of the College at the meeting of the Court of Examiners, on the 17th inst.:COOPER, CLARENCE, Brentford, Middlesex. CORNISH, WILLIAM ROBERT, Cambridge-street, Pimlico. FOSTER, JOSEPH, St. Kitt's, West Indies. GARMAN, JOHN COOPER, Bow, Middlesex. HARRIS, CHARLES, Northiam, Sussex. HOWES, GEORGE EDKINS, Dublin. HUNTER, THOMAS, Royal Navy.

LIZARS, JOHN LIZARS, Canada.

NORRIS, JOHN JAMES, Cork.

SALTER, ARTHUR, Exeter.

SHEARMAN, CHARLES JAMES, Sheffield.

SPARROW, JOHN, Tours, France.

STILLMAN, WILLIAM, Birmingham.
SWEENY, JOHN, Australia.

WARREN, THOMAS ROBERT, Cork.

WHITEFIELD, CHARLES, Barnstaple, Devon.

At the same meeting of the Court, JOHN CHAMBERLAYNE INGLIS, and THOMAS BALL FORSTER, passed their examination

MEDICAL NEWS.-ANSWERS TO CORRESPONDENTS.

PENINSULAR AND ORIENTAL STEAM NAVIGATION COMPANY. Dr. Willis, of Polliskenny, has been appointed by M.R.C.S., (Bristol.)-We cannot again enter into the case of Bourn v. Cox. the Directors to the Medical Staff of the Company.

George Soulby, M.D., of Clarence-lane, Dover.-At Bathurst, J. W.-Yes. The papers should be condensed as much as is possible and Gambia, John Berry, Staff-Assistant-Surgeon.