In a message dated 20/05/2007 03:07:51 GMT Daylight Time, [email protected] writes: So, this Act did not refer to any mental illnesses at all. ______________________________________________________________________________ ____ Moral Defectives ~ criminal or vicious personalities. Unmarried Mothers also became absorbed into this category. See http://www.institutions.org.uk/poor_law_unions/imbeciles.htm Regards Stan Mapstone

Hi Stan The site you quote is a good one for some things & I would recommend it for people interested in Poor Law Unions. Unfortunately, while you quote an interpretation I was quoting the 1913 Act itself. And it does not refer to lunacy (as it was then called) but deficiency. It was effectively differentiating in law between lunacy & mental deficiency (what we would call learning disability). It was the Act which really kick-started the differentiation of types of hospital. For mental illness at that time, you need to look at the 1890 Lunacy Act. I looked on the web and the best I can come up with is: http://www.mdx.ac.uk/www/study/MHHGLO.HTM#Institutions18901913 At least this has direct quotes from the various Acts etc rather than interpretations. Similarly, to talk of "personalities" is problematic because it wasn't a term in common usage in psychiatry at the time (and the law will always reflect that). What the 1913 Act was getting at was people who were prone to vicious/criminal behaviour but didn't seem to learn from their errors when punishment was applied - i.e. they were unable to change/learn (because of a deficiency). Yours respectfully Mike > In a message dated 20/05/2007 03:07:51 GMT Daylight Time, > [email protected] writes: > So, this Act did not refer to any mental illnesses at all. > __________________________________________________________________________ > > Moral Defectives ~ criminal or vicious personalities. Unmarried Mothers > also > became absorbed into this category. > See http://www.institutions.org.uk/poor_law_unions/imbeciles.htm > > Regards Stan Mapstone