The old English equity court of Chancery held jurisdiction over the estates of the mentally ill from 1201 to 1875. Through an inquisitions process a person’s kin or friends could seek a commission to have attorney (called a committee) over their health care and financial affairs. If the court found the individual to be suffering from ‘lunacy’ (a legal designation), Chancery assumed jurisdiction over the individual’s estates and had power of oversight of the work of the committee, including any Chancery litigation involving the property. This chapter uses quantitative and qualitative methods on untapped sources to uncover the history of the mentally ill. It uses metadata from the C 11 Chancery pleadings database for the years between 1710 and 1760 and Master Blunt’s exhibits at C 124 at the National Archives (UK). The results challenge the historiography of mental health histories and offer new insights into the nexus of state and community care in the case of people designated Chancery ‘lunatics’.

错误:搜索内容不能为空,请输入英文关键词
错误:关键词超出字数限制,请精简
高级检索

The Hidden History of ‘Lunacy’ and Gender in the English Court of Chancery

  • Amanda L. Capern

摘要

The old English equity court of Chancery held jurisdiction over the estates of the mentally ill from 1201 to 1875. Through an inquisitions process a person’s kin or friends could seek a commission to have attorney (called a committee) over their health care and financial affairs. If the court found the individual to be suffering from ‘lunacy’ (a legal designation), Chancery assumed jurisdiction over the individual’s estates and had power of oversight of the work of the committee, including any Chancery litigation involving the property. This chapter uses quantitative and qualitative methods on untapped sources to uncover the history of the mentally ill. It uses metadata from the C 11 Chancery pleadings database for the years between 1710 and 1760 and Master Blunt’s exhibits at C 124 at the National Archives (UK). The results challenge the historiography of mental health histories and offer new insights into the nexus of state and community care in the case of people designated Chancery ‘lunatics’.