Misplaced Pages

#516483

72-645: The predecessors of the Commissioners in Lunacy were the Metropolitan Commissioners in Lunacy , dating back to the Madhouses Act 1774 , and established as such by the Madhouses Act 1828 . By 1842 their remit had been extended from London to cover the whole country. The Lord Chancellor's jurisdiction over lunatics so found by writ of De Lunatico Inquirendo had been delegated to two Masters-in-Chancery . By

144-541: A Master in Chancery in the order of precedence . The following asylums were commissioned under the auspices of the Commissioners in Lunacy (or their predecessors): Note: The First Surrey County Asylum at Tooting (see above) was transferred to Middlesex County Council in 1888 and became the First Middlesex County Mental Hospital in the early 20th century The Mental Deficiency Act 1913 replaced

216-407: A justice of the peace , she secured the release of her daughter after obtaining a confession from the husband. A similar case in 1762 saw a man trying to obtain the release of an acquaintance, one Mrs Hawley, who he suspected had been confined in a madhouse. His initial application to Lord Mansfield for a writ of habeas corpus was rejected because he was not a relative and so had no standing, but

288-410: A "great and efficacious writ in all manner of illegal confinement". It is a summons with the force of a court order ; it is addressed to the custodian (a prison official, for example) and demands that a prisoner be brought before the court, and that the custodian present proof of authority, allowing the court to determine whether the custodian has lawful authority to detain the prisoner. If the custodian

360-598: A 14th-century Anglo-French document requiring a person be brought before a court or judge--especially to determine whether the person is being detained legally. Praecipimus tibi quod corpus A.B. in prisona nostra sub custodia tua detentum, ut dicitur, una cum die et causa captionis et detentionis suae, quocumque nomine praedictus A.B. censeatur in eadem, habeas coram nobis ... ad subjiciendum et recipiendum ea quae curia nostra de eo adtunc et ibidem ordinare contigerit in hac parte. Et hoc nullatenus omittatis periculo incumbente. Et habeas ibi hoc breve. We command you, that

432-751: A bill to regulate private madhouses; within seven miles of London, this would be the responsibility of the Royal College of Physicians ; and outside that, magistrates in county towns . The bill passed the Commons but was rejected by the Lords. In 1774, Thomas Townshend again reintroduced the Madhouses Bill. The Bill was presented to the Commons for its first reading on 2 March, and was amended in committee on 23 March. The Lords voted on it on 21 April, and made two amendments (the addition of s.19 and s.31) on 6 May, before

504-488: A central register of all the confined lunatics in order that people could locate them; outside London, the task of inspecting them would fall to the local quarter sessions . The penalty for "concealing or confining" more than one insane person without a license was set at £500, and every keeper of such a house who took in a patient without an order from a doctor was liable to a fine of £100. The Act took effect on 20 November 1774, six months after receiving royal assent, and

576-472: A person may not be subjected to any legal proceeding--such as arrest and imprisonment--without sufficient evidence having already been collected to show that there is a prima facie case to answer. The evidence must be collected beforehand because it must be available for exhibition in a public hearing within hours--or at most--days after arrest. Any charge leveled at the hearing thus must be based on evidence already collected, and an arrest and incarceration order

648-542: A result of the Habeas Corpus Acts, could be made regardless of whether the court was in session, by presenting the petition to a judge. Since the 18th century the writ has also been used in cases of unlawful detention by private individuals, most famously in Somersett's Case (1772), where the black slave, Somersett, was ordered to be freed. During that case, these famous words are said to have been uttered: "... that

720-692: A session of the Constituent Assembly , H.V. Kamath, a member, suggested the removal of specific references to writs in Article 32, expressing concern that such references could restrict judges from establishing new types of writs in the future, while Dr. B.R. Ambedkar , the Chairperson of the Drafting Committee, emphasized the significance of retaining references to the writs. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar noted that writs, including habeas corpus , are already part of

792-610: A specific procedure for the High Court to enquire into the lawfulness of any person's detention. It does not mention the Latin term habeas corpus , but includes the English phrase "produce the body". Article 40.4.2° provides that a prisoner, or anyone acting on his behalf, may make a complaint to the High Court (or to any High Court judge) of unlawful detention. The court must then investigate

SECTION 10

#1733085370517

864-565: A statutory basis for any infringements of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Basic Law while also guaranteeing judicial review; article 20, paragraph 3, which guarantees the rule of law; and article 3 which guarantees equality. In particular, a constitutional obligation to grant remedies for improper detention is required by article 19, paragraph 4 of the Basic Law, which provides as follows: "Should any person's right be violated by public authority, he may have recourse to

936-461: Is acted upon by the government. The wording of the writ of habeas corpus implies that the prisoner is brought to the court for the legality of the imprisonment to be examined. However, rather than issuing the writ immediately and waiting for the return of the writ by the custodian, modern practice in England is for the original application to be followed by a hearing with both parties present to decide

1008-439: Is acting beyond their authority, then the prisoner must be released. Any prisoner, or another person acting on their behalf, may petition the court, or a judge, for a writ of habeas corpus . One reason for the writ to be sought by a person other than the prisoner is that the detainee might be held incommunicado . Most Continental European law-influenced jurisdictions provide a similar remedy for those unlawfully detained, but this

1080-434: Is not always called habeas corpus . For example, in some Spanish-speaking nations, the equivalent remedy for unlawful imprisonment is the amparo de libertad ("protection of freedom"). Habeas corpus has certain limitations. The petitioner must present a prima facie case that a person has been unlawfully restrained. As a procedural remedy , it applies when detention results from neglect of legal process, but not when

1152-484: Is not binding on the Defence Forces during a state of war or armed rebellion. The full text of Article 40.4.2° is as follows: Upon complaint being made by or on behalf of any person to the High Court or any judge thereof alleging that such person is being unlawfully detained, the High Court and any and every judge thereof to whom such complaint is made shall forthwith enquire into the said complaint and may order

1224-430: Is not lawful if not supported by sufficient evidence. William Blackstone cites the first recorded usage of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum in 1305, during the reign of King Edward I . However, other writs were issued with the same effect as early as the reign of Henry II in the 12th century. Blackstone explained the basis of the writ, saying "[t]he king is at all times entitled to have an account, why

1296-577: Is only a procedural device to examine the lawfulness of a prisoner's detention, so long as the detention is in accordance with an Act of Parliament , the petition for habeas corpus is unsuccessful. Since the passage of the Human Rights Act 1998 , the courts have been able to declare an Act of Parliament to be incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights , but such a declaration of incompatibility has no legal effect unless and until it

1368-516: Is the respondent must prove authority to do or not do something. Failing that, the court must decide for the petitioner , who may be any person, not just an interested party. This differs from a motion in a civil process in which the movant must have standing, and bears the burden of proof. The phrase is from the Latin habeās , second person singular present subjunctive active of habēre , "to have", "to hold"; and corpus , accusative singular of corpus , "body". In reference to more than one person,

1440-506: The Habeas Corpus Parliament – being dissolved by the king immediately afterwards. Then, as now, the writ of habeas corpus was issued by a superior court in the name of the sovereign, and commanded the addressee (a lower court, sheriff, or private subject) to produce the prisoner before the royal courts of law. A habeas corpus petition could be made by the prisoner him or herself or by a third party on his or her behalf and, as

1512-629: The Assize of Clarendon of 1166, a reissuance of rights during the reign of Henry II of England in the 12th century. The foundations for habeas corpus are "wrongly thought" to have originated in Magna Carta but in fact predate it. This charter declared that: No Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseized of his Freehold , or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by

SECTION 20

#1733085370517

1584-612: The Australian parliament passed the Australian Anti-Terrorism Act 2005 . Some legal experts questioned the constitutionality of the act, due in part to limitations it placed on habeas corpus . Habeas corpus rights are part of the English legal tradition inherited by Canada. The rights exist in the common law and have been enshrined in section 10(c) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms , which states that "[e]veryone has

1656-561: The Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany provides that deprivations of liberty may be imposed only on the basis of a specific enabling statute that also must include procedural rules. Article 104, paragraph 2 requires that any arrested individual be brought before a judge by the end of the day following the day of the arrest. For those detained as criminal suspects, article 104, paragraph 3 specifically requires that

1728-449: The English courts in the name of the monarch to control inferior courts and public authorities within the kingdom. The most common of the other such prerogative writs are quo warranto , prohibito , mandamus , procedendo , and certiorari . The due process for such petitions is not simply civil or criminal, because they incorporate the presumption of non-authority. The official who

1800-551: The Lunacy Act 1842 ( 5 & 6 Vict. c. 64), these were established as the Commissioners in Lunacy and after the Lunacy Act 1845 they were retitled Masters in Lunacy . Anthony Ashley-Cooper, Seventh Earl of Shaftesbury was the head of the commission from its founding in 1845 until his death in 1885. The Lunacy Commission was made up of eleven Metropolitan Commissioners: three medical, three legal and five laymen. The commission

1872-410: The body of A.B. in our prison under your custody detained, as it is said, together with the day and cause of his taking and detention, by whatever name the said A.B. may be known therein, you have at our Court ... to undergo and to receive that which our Court shall then and there consider and order in that behalf. Hereof in no way fail, at your peril. And have you then there this writ. Victoria by

1944-525: The 18th day of January next, to undergo and receive all and singular such matters and things which our said Court shall then and there consider of in this behalf; and have there then this Writ. United States of America, Second Judicial Circuit, Southern District of New York , ss.: We command you that the body of Charles L. Craig , in your custody detained, as it is said, together with the day and cause of his caption and detention, you safely have before Honorable Martin T. Manton , United States Circuit Judge for

2016-690: The Chief Justice moving a habeas corpus petition. It was also filed by the Panthers Party to protest the imprisonment of Anna Hazare , a social activist. In the Republic of Ireland , the writ of habeas corpus is available at common law and under the Habeas Corpus Acts of 1782 and 1816. A remedy equivalent to habeas corpus is also guaranteed by Article 40 of the 1937 constitution . The article guarantees that "no citizen shall be deprived of his personal liberty save in accordance with law" and outlines

2088-644: The Commission with the Board of Control for Lunacy and Mental Deficiency . Incomplete list: Madhouses Act 1774 The Madhouses Act 1774 ( 14 Geo. 3 . c. 49) was an Act of the Parliament of Great Britain , which set out a legal framework for regulating "madhouses" ( insane asylums ). By the mid-eighteenth century, the common methods in the United Kingdom for dealing with the insane were either to keep them in

2160-619: The Constitution grants the Supreme Court the authority to issue them. The Indian judiciary, in a catena of cases, has effectively resorted to the writ of habeas corpus to secure release of a person from illegal detention. The Indian judiciary has dispensed with the traditional doctrine of locus standi , so that if a detained person is not in a position to file a petition, it can be moved on his behalf by any other person. The scope of habeas relief has expanded in recent times by actions of

2232-716: The English Parliament (1679), in Catalonia , there are references from 1428 in the recurs de manifestació de persones (appeal of people's manifestation) collected in the Furs de les Corts of the Crown of Aragon and some references to this term in the Law of the Lordship of Biscay (1527). The writ of habeas corpus as a procedural remedy is part of Australia 's English law inheritance. In 2005,

Commissioners in Lunacy - Misplaced Pages Continue

2304-789: The French Constitution and regulated by the Penal Code. These safeguards are equivalent to those found under the Habeas-Corpus provisions found in Germany, the United States and several Commonwealth countries. The French system of accountability prescribes severe penalties for ministers, police officers and civil and judiciary authorities who either violate or fail to enforce the law. Article 7 of [1789] Declaration also provides that "No individual may be accused, arrested, or detained except where

2376-507: The French team subsequently championed the habeas corpus provisions enshrined in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms . Germany has constitutional guarantees against improper detention and these have been implemented in statutory law in a manner that can be considered as equivalent to writs of habeas corpus . Article 104, paragraph 1 of

2448-613: The Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland Queen, Defender of the Faith, To J.K., Keeper of our Gaol, in the Island of Jersey , and to J.C. Viscount of said Island, Greeting. We command you that you have the body of C.C.W. detained in our prison under your custody, as it is said, together with the day and cause of his being taken and detained, by whatsoever name he may be called or known, in our Court before us, at Westminster , on

2520-560: The Indian judiciary. Usually, in most other jurisdictions, the writ is directed at police authorities. The extension to non-state authorities has its grounds in two cases: the 1898 Queen's Bench case of Ex Parte Daisy Hopkins , wherein the Proctor of Cambridge University did detain and arrest Hopkins without his jurisdiction, and Hopkins was released, and that of Somerset v Stewart , in which an African slave whose master had moved to London

2592-436: The Indian legal framework, but the existing writs are vulnerable to modifications through legislative changes, whereby the legislature, particularly with a strong majority, can amend the relevant laws, potentially leading to the suspension of writs like habeas corpus . However, following the Constitution's enactment, which includes explicit references to writs, these writs cannot be easily nullified by any legislative body because

2664-455: The Law of the land. However the preceding article of Magna Carta, nr 38, declares: No legal officer shall start proceedings against anyone [ not just freemen, this was even then a universal human right ] on his own mere say-so, without reliable witnesses having been brought for the purpose. - in the original Latin: Nullus balivus ponat aliquem ad legem, simplici sua loquela, sine testibus fidelibus ad hoc aductis Pursuant to that language,

2736-471: The Second Judicial Circuit, within the circuit and district aforesaid, to do and receive all and singular those things which the said judge shall then and there consider of him in this behalf; and have you then and there this writ. The full name of the writ is often used to distinguish it from similar ancient writs, also named habeas corpus . These include: Habeas corpus originally stems from

2808-542: The air of England was too pure for slavery" (although it was the lawyers in argument who expressly used this phrase – referenced from a much earlier argument heard in the Star Chamber – and not Lord Mansfield himself). During the Seven Years' War and later conflicts, the writ was used on behalf of soldiers and sailors pressed into military and naval service. The Habeas Corpus Act 1816 introduced some changes and expanded

2880-406: The applicant [i.e., the person seeking habeas corpus review] must establish that he or she has been deprived of liberty. Once a deprivation of liberty is proven, the applicant must raise a legitimate ground upon which to question its legality. If the applicant has raised such a ground, the onus shifts to the respondent authorities [i.e., the person or institution detaining the applicant] to show that

2952-421: The bill returned to the Commons on 10 May. The bill received royal assent on 20 May. The Act required that all madhouses be licensed by a committee of the Royal College of Physicians . This license would permit the holder to maintain a single house for accommodating lunatics , and would have to be renewed each year. All houses were to be inspected at least once per year by the committee, who would also keep

Commissioners in Lunacy - Misplaced Pages Continue

3024-419: The body ' ) is an equitable remedy by which a report can be made to a court alleging the unlawful detention or imprisonment of an individual, and requesting that the court order the individual's custodian (usually a prison official) to bring the prisoner to court, to determine whether their detention is lawful. The writ of habeas corpus was described in the eighteenth century by William Blackstone as

3096-419: The context of a sharp confrontation between King Charles II and Parliament , which was dominated by the then sharply oppositional, nascent Whig Party . The Whig leaders had good reasons to fear the king moving against them through the courts (as indeed happened in 1681) and regarded habeas corpus as safeguarding their own persons. The short-lived parliament which made this enactment came to be known as

3168-455: The courts. If no other jurisdiction has been established, recourse shall be to the ordinary courts." In the Republic of India , the Supreme Court and High Courts possess the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus , as granted by Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India, respectively. (1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of

3240-732: The deprivation of liberty was lawful. Suspension of the writ in Canadian history occurred at multiple times. During the October Crisis in 1970, the War Measures Act was invoked by the Governor General of Canada on the constitutional advice of Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau , who had received a request from the Quebec Cabinet. The Act was also used to justify German, Slavic, and Ukrainian Canadian internment during World War I , and

3312-626: The discretion to grant the writ even in the face of an alternative remedy (see May v Ferndale Institution ). Under the Criminal Code the writ is largely unavailable if a statutory right of appeal exists, whether or not this right has been exercised. As a fundamental human right in the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen drafted by Lafayette in cooperation with Thomas Jefferson , safeguards against arbitrary detention are enshrined in

3384-457: The family home, or to put them in a "madhouse", which was simply a private house whose proprietor was paid to detain their residents, and ran it as a commercial concern with little or no medical involvement. This led to two forms of abuse: the first was the keeping of "legitimately" insane people in atrocious conditions, and the second the detention of those who were falsely claimed to be insane – in effect, private imprisonment. At this stage, there

3456-447: The inmates, and no register was kept of their names. This was, the committee stated, a common situation; they noted that a number of similar cases could have been studied, and they recommended that some form of legislative intervention was needed. The Commons ordered the committee to prepare a bill, but it appears this was never brought in. The issue was next addressed in 1773 when Townshend's son, also named Thomas Townshend , sponsored

3528-567: The internment of German-Canadians, Italian-Canadians and Japanese-Canadians during World War II . The writ was suspended for several years following the Battle of Fort Erie (1866) during the Fenian Rising , though the suspension was only ever applied to suspects in the Thomas D'Arcy McGee assassination. The writ is available where there is no other adequate remedy. However, a superior court always has

3600-511: The judge arranged for a doctor to visit the house and speak to the woman. On his report, a writ was granted; she was brought before the court, and discharged. A Select Committee of the House of Commons , chaired by Thomas Townshend , was set up in 1763 to study the problem of unlawful detention in private madhouses and focused on the Hawley case. It found that she had been committed to the house solely on

3672-474: The judge must grant a hearing to the suspect in order to rule on the detention. Restrictions on the power of the authorities to arrest and detain individuals also emanate from article 2 paragraph 2 of the Basic Law which guarantees liberty and requires a statutory authorization for any deprivation of liberty. In addition, several other articles of the Basic Law have a bearing on the issue. The most important of these are article 19, which generally requires

SECTION 50

#1733085370517

3744-477: The king was a sufficient answer to a petition of habeas corpus . The cornerstone purpose of the writ of habeas corpus was to limit the king's Chancery's ability to undermine the surety of law by allowing courts of justice decisions to be overturned in favor and application of equity , a process managed by the Chancellor (a bishop) with the king's authority. The 1679 codification of habeas corpus took place in

3816-632: The law so prescribes, and in accordance with the procedure it has laid down." ... The Constitution further states that "No one may be arbitrarily detained. The judicial authority, guardian of individual liberty, ensures the observance of this principle under the condition specified by law." Its article 5 provides that everyone has the right to liberty and sets forth permissible circumstances under which people may be deprived of their liberty and procedural safeguards in case of detention. In particular, it states that "anyone deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which

3888-497: The lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful". France and the United States played a synergistic role in the international team, led by Eleanor Roosevelt, which crafted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights . The French judge and Nobel Peace Laureate René Cassin produced the first draft and argued against arbitrary detentions. René Cassin and

3960-521: The lawfulness of the process itself is in question. In some countries, the writ has been temporarily or permanently suspended on the basis of a war or state of emergency , for example with the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act 1794 in Britain and the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act (1863) in the United States. The right to petition for a writ of habeas corpus has nonetheless long been celebrated as

4032-428: The legality of the detention, without any writ being issued. If the detention is held to be unlawful, the prisoner can usually then be released or bailed by order of the court without having to be produced before it. With the development of modern public law, applications for habeas corpus have been to some extent discouraged, in favour of applications for judicial review . The writ, however, maintains its vigour, and

4104-458: The liberty of any of his subjects is restrained, wherever that restraint may be inflicted." The procedure for issuing a writ of habeas corpus was first codified by the Habeas Corpus Act 1679 , following judicial rulings which had restricted the effectiveness of the writ. A previous law (the Habeas Corpus Act 1640 ) had been passed forty years earlier to overturn a ruling that the command of

4176-406: The matter "forthwith" and may order that the defendant bring the prisoner before the court and give reasons for his detention. The court must immediately release the detainee unless it is satisfied that he is being held lawfully. The remedy is available not only to prisoners of the state, but also to persons unlawfully detained by any private party. However, the constitution provides that the procedure

4248-519: The most efficient safeguard of the liberty of the subject. The English jurist Albert Venn Dicey wrote that the British Habeas Corpus Acts "declare no principle and define no rights, but they are for practical purposes worth a hundred constitutional articles guaranteeing individual liberty". The writ of habeas corpus is one of what are called the "extraordinary", " common law ", or " prerogative writs ", which were historically issued by

4320-451: The person in whose custody such person is detained to produce the body of such person before the High Court on a named day and to certify in writing the grounds of his detention, and the High Court shall, upon the body of such person being produced before that Court and after giving the person in whose custody he is detained an opportunity of justifying the detention, order the release of such person from such detention unless satisfied that he

4392-406: The phrase is habeas corpora . Literally, the phrase means "[we command] that you should have the [detainee's] body [brought to court]"; that is, that the detainee be brought to court in person. The complete phrase habeas corpus [coram nobis] ad subjiciendum means "that you have the person [before us] for the purpose of subjecting (the case to examination)". Those are the words of writs included in

SECTION 60

#1733085370517

4464-510: The right on arrest or detention ... to have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful". The test for habeas corpus in Canada was established by the Supreme Court of Canada in Mission Institution v Khela , as follows: To be successful, an application for habeas corpus must satisfy the following criteria. First,

4536-424: The rights conferred by ( Part III ) is guaranteed. (2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus , mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by ( Part III ). (1) Notwithstanding anything in article 32, every High Court shall have power, throughout

4608-602: The territoriality of the legislation. The privilege of habeas corpus has been suspended or restricted several times during English history , most recently during the 18th and 19th centuries. Although internment without trial has been authorised by statute since that time, for example during the two World Wars and the Troubles in Northern Ireland , the habeas corpus procedure has in modern times always technically remained available to such internees. However, as habeas corpus

4680-438: The territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus , mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose. On 9 December 1948, during

4752-421: The word of her husband, who paid two guineas (two pounds and two shillings) a month for her board, and that she was unable to leave the house or communicate with anybody outside it. The inmates were treated as insane, but the agent who arranged their entry freely admitted that he had not committed a single insane person to the house in the past six years. No-one who would pay was turned away, no physicians attended

4824-730: Was freed by action of the writ. For example, in October 2009, the Karnataka High Court heard a habeas corpus petition filed by the parents of a girl who married a Muslim boy from Kannur district and was allegedly confined in a madrasa in Malapuram town. In 1976, the habeas writ was used in the Rajan case , a student victim of torture in local police custody during the nationwide Emergency in India. On 12 March 2014, Subrata Roy 's counsel approached

4896-566: Was held by the UK Supreme Court in 2012 to be available in respect of a prisoner captured by British forces in Afghanistan , albeit that the Secretary of State made a valid return to the writ justifying the detention of the claimant. Although the first recorded historical references come from Anglo-Saxon law in the 12th century and one of the first documents referring to this right is a law of

4968-402: Was monumental as it was not only a full-time commission, but it was also salaried for six of its members. The six members of the commission who were full-time and salaried were the three members of the legal system and the three members of the medical community. The other five lay members of the commission were all honorary members who simply had to attend board meetings. The duty of the commission

5040-453: Was no legislation to regulate the incarceration of anyone other than a Chancery lunatic or a pauper ; there was only a vaguely defined common law power to "confine a person disordered in mind, who seems disposed to do mischief to himself, or another person". In a case in the mid-1750s, a woman came to suspect that her son-in-law had committed his wife to a madhouse in Hoxton ; with the aid of

5112-694: Was originally stated to remain in force for five years and then until the end of the next parliamentary session. It was continued for a further seven years by the Madhouse Continuation Act 1779 ( 19 Geo. 3 . c. 15), and then continued indefinitely by the Madhouse Law Perpetuation Act 1786 ( 26 Geo. 3 . c. 91); it remained in force until repealed by the Madhouses Act 1828 . Habeas corpus Habeas corpus ( / ˈ h eɪ b i ə s ˈ k ɔːr p ə s / ; from Medieval Latin , lit.   ' you should have

5184-609: Was to carry out the provisions of the act, reporting to the Poor Law Commissioners (in the case of workhouses) and to the Lord Chancellor . The first secretary to the commissioners was Robert Wilfred Skeffington Lutwidge , a barrister and uncle of Lewis Carroll . He had previously been one of the Metropolitan Commissioners, and later become an Inspector of the Commission. A Master in Lunacy ranked next after

#516483