THE KING OF PILLS.

Evening Star, Issue 11511, 30 March 1901, Page 8

THE KING OF PILLS.

FAMILY JARS. [From Our Special Correspondent.] LONDON, February 15. “The King of Pills,” as the lads of St. Helens style Mr Beecham, does nob seem to have exhibited his infallible remedy on his own family too successfully. Mrs B. was till recently b a lunatic asylum at Northampton ; in fact, her sudden removal therefrom was the subject of some interesting proceedings in the Divorce Court on Monday last. Last December the case came first before the courts, bnt.no question was raised as to Airs Beecham’s condition by her daughter and the relatives who are opposed to the husband and father. It seemed then to bo admitted that Mrs Beecham suffered from delusions, notably . that she was a prominent personage; also her language on joccaedon was strong enough, and-—well, tutti-frutti enough to turn every well-btentioned pill m the St. Helens factories pink with dismay. In December, however, Mr Bargrave Deane,

K.C., gob an order from the courts obtaining access to the lady for her solicitors and tho daughter, Miss Emily Beecham. Mrs Beecham used the permission to take an action for divorce agabst Mr B. Last week Miss Emily Beecham went to the asylum to see her mother, but she was not allowed to do so. Then she leamb that Mr Beecham had visited Northampton the day before, and had removed his wife. Miss Beecham was refused her mother’s address. On Monday Dr Bayley, the medical superintendent, and his son, who was said to Lave refused the asked-for permission, were present m court in order to show cause why they should not be committed for contempt in rcfnsbg to carry out the Judge’s order. Mr Inderwick, who represented Dr Baytey, said that the doctor desired to-tell His Lordship exactly what took place. The Judge: Is the asylum at Northampton a private asylum? Mr Inderwick exp lamed that it was a public one. It was a big place, charging big fees to rich patients, so that it could charge -smaller snms to patients who were poor. Airs Beecham was sent to the asylum m Alarch, 1899. Although her daughter alleged that she was unlawfully detained, medical certificates showed that “ she was sullen in her demeanor, with a certain amount of violence, talked loudly, refused to answer questions, and had hysterio-epnleptic attacks.” A nurse described her as imagming herself to be the Princess of Wales, violent in her behaviour, using disgusting At this point- Mr Bargrave Deane objected. There was absolutely no reason, on tbs occasob, to drag in" these details about the unfortunate lady. So Air Inderwick dropped medical particulars, and said it would be shown that on the particular day Aliss Beecham wasn’t allowed to sec her mother; her mother absolutely refused to see her. But- before that she had been seen many times by Miss Beecham, her brother, and Air Becke, a Northampton solicitor. On one of those occasions—as a result of many previous visits—Mrs Beecham signed the affidavit in reference bo the judicial separation action. “Bub did Dr Bayley refuse to tell Miss Beecham where her mother had gone?” asked the Judge •Mr Inderwick could not say. He went on to describe Air Beecham’s visit to the asylum on February 5. He called “in the usual way ’ to see his wife. And he saw her.

“ Did he get Dr Bayley’s permission to do so?” asked Sir Francis Jeune.

“ He didn't see the doctor,” was the reply. Anyway Air Beecham saw his wife, and there was a most affectionate meeting! She “ flung her arms round his neck.” They had a long talk, and the lady said tbit she wanted to go home with her husband and to her cbldreo. She explained to her husband that the desire on her part for a judicial separatbn, had been all due to her daughter, who, tellbg her all, kinds of awful thbgs about Air 8., “had talked her over.”

With that the couple saw Mr Becke, and the lady signed a neecssary legal document which bore the notice that she desired that the action for separation from her husband should be stopped. Dr Bayley was seen and consulted. He thought that the lady was well enough to leave, and so she left with her husband, caught the six o’clock train from Northampton that very evening, went home to Lancashire, and is now livin'* with her husband and children.

Mr Hargrave Deane protested against all these mis-statements. Mr Beecham had doubtless good reasons for avoiding the ahem! inconveniences of the Divorce Court, but if there were a “ talker over ” in the case it certainly didn’t appear to be Miss Beecham.

Ultimately it was arranged (both parties protesting that they desired only the best and wisest course) that Mrs Beecham should be privately interviewed by Sir Francis Jeune on Wednesday and questioned as to her real wishes. Meanwhile the daughter and relatives were to be kept away from her as advised by Dr Bayley. ' ’