CIRCUMTEXT:
Mr Knollys 11.6.96
Mt Russell. This is an unpleasant case, but I do not think any further action by the Board seems necessary as Mr Preston Thomas has spoken to the officers. Knollys June 13. 1896
I agree. 16.6.96 Put by. W.K. June 7
TEXT:
Mr Knollys
Before receiving your minute of the 8th instant, I had yesterday inspected the Chelmsford Workhouse & found that a woman named Sally Ann Nelson (admitted to the Workhouse on the 11th January 1894) aged about ninety had been placed under restraint in accordance with the certificate of ^[dated]^ the Medical Officer of the 6th February last, entered in the register of Mechanical Restraint & couched in the following
terms: –
Name. Sarah Ann Nelson Duration. Constant Certificate.
“I certify that restraint was employed in this case on the following grounds: – old age, constantly trying to get to the fire and fireirons, has fallen in fender two or three times. Tethered to bedstead so that she cannot wander more than two yards from her bedside. (sd) [Theo. H. Waller”
I learned that Nelson, although not under certificate as an imbecile, was weak-minded; that when not supervised she has seized every opportunity of running about; that she has in this way fallen down a flight of four stone steps; that she has wandered away from the Workhouse and been brought back by the Relieving Officer from two or three miles distant; that she had a sort of mania for playing with fire and had repeatedly burnt her fingers by taking live coals from the grate, & that she has been a constant source of anxiety to the Nurses & of annoyance to the other inmates of the Infirmary.
The Medical Officer had therefore caused her to wear a padded belt round her middle and this was secured by a strong leather strap several feet in length fastened to a staple in the wall by her bedside. When I visited the Workhouse, I found her in a courtyard basking in the sun but tethered to the bench on which she was sitting.
I immediately directed the removal of the belt, and the Master, Matron & Nurse undertook that in no circumstances should it be used again. I explained added that someone must be at once obtained to keep the woman under constant supervision, and I arranged with the Clerk to the Guardians that this should be done, pending a decision on her ultimate disposal. I also called on the Medical Officer, explained to him that as the woman was not certified under the Lunacy Act, he had no busines to keep her under restraint and that even if she had been so certified the only ^mechanical^ means permissible would be those specified in the regulation made by the Lunacy Commissioners on the 17th April 1895 of which I gave him a copy.
Also suggested that even the apparatus described in that regulation was not intended to be used in such cases as Nelson’s and that conduct like hers must be dealt with by personal supervision and not by mechanical restraint. The Medical Officer expressed regret for having acted in ignorance of the law, & stated that he proposed forthwith to take the necessary steps for having the woman removed to the County Lunatic Asylum.
I have no doubt that the adoption of this treatment – injudicious as it was – was prompted by the best motives. The belt was so made as to not hurt the old woman; she seemed perfectly well & talked cheerfully. She will, I understand, be sent to the County Lunatic Asylum as soon as the legal formalities can be completed and that is the best place for her.
- Preston Thomas June 10/96