indifferent observer. These little urchins ought to be provided for and educated in some manner, however defective. A little education and a little discipline would be better than none; a great point would be gained if they were taught how to keep themselves clean, and, above all, enabled to do so. They might be taught something; they would only be too ready to learn that something, whatever it might be; and who doubts but that they would be but too glad to keep their little hands from picking and stealing, if only some of the "dons" would assist them in doing so. As it is, they grow up in darkness and destitution their only trade is that of providing for themselves by petty larceny, for which they are convicted before the bench, sentenced to hard labour, and sent to the House of Correction, where they associate with others like themselves, and from whence, at the end of their term of "durance vile," they come forth hardened in shame and confirmed in their evil propensities. The end of it is, that they have the ignoble satisfaction of furnishing statistics of crime to be duly laid before honourable members and the public in general, in the shape of a Blue Book of three or four hundred pages of questions and answers, to be eventually legislated upon pro bono publico in its proper order, time, and place. Much, if not all, of this cumbrous machinery might be effectually dispensed with by looking after the numberless outcasts of society, and protecting them, not so much for their sakes as for our own. We are compelled this quarter to postpone our critical analysis of one of the most recent essays on insanity in relation to crime.* We subjoin the following resumé of the conclusions to which the writer has arrived: "That the insane man is responsible for his insanity when the latter has been produced or occasioned by circumstances over which he either has or had control. “The insane man is not responsible for his insanity when the latter has been occasioned by circumstances over which he has or had no power of control." In "1. The insane man is responsible for actions which present no discoverable relation to the definitely morbid condition of his mind. other words, the insane man is responsible for those actions which cannot be traced to his insanity. "2. The insane man is responsible for his criminal actions when there is no evidence of insanity beyond that of the act performed. It may be questioned in many cases whether the individual is insane at all. But it is assumed that the plea is raised, and that the case is considered one of so-called 'insane impulse.' "Criminal Lunatics: Are they responsible? Being an Examination of the Plea of Insanity, in a Letter to the Right Hon. the Lord Chancellor." By J. Russell Reynolds, M.D. London: 1856. "3. The insane man is not responsible for those actions which are the direct result or expression of his insanity. The presence of a distinct delusion or erroneous belief (!) which the individual cannot correct, but upon the faith of which he acts, and it may be criminally, is sufficient to establish his irresponsibility. "4. The insane man is not responsible for criminal actions when without any distinct or persistent delusions the whole tenor of his mind is deranged." The next point raised is this: "Is the insane man, when responsible, as much so, or equally responsible with the sane ?" The following are the propositions: : “1. The insane are as responsible as the sane for actions committed through insanity which they have voluntarily brought upon themselves. "2. Under all other conditions of insanity there is some diminution of responsibility, inasmuch as the benefit of doubt should be extended to those who have this claim upon the mercy of society. But granting that responsibility is diminished, no definite lines can be drawn for fixing its amount, except from a consideration of the requirements of particular cases." We extremely regret that Dr. Reynolds, in flapping his newlyfledged psychological wings, should have authoritatively sanctioned doctrines so repugnant to reason, so opposed to sound mental pathology, and so contrary to the principles of justice and humanity. It is indeed a sad but significant sign of the times to find an educated physician living in the present enlightened epoch gravely enunciating, in a pamphlet addressed to the highest judge in the land, that an insane person should be considered legally responsible for offences committed against the state, if the insanity "has been occasioned by circumstances over which he either has or had control;" and that "the insane are as responsible as the sane for actions committed through insanity, which they have voluntarily brought upon themselves." "They" (continues Dr. Reynolds, speaking of lunatics legally responsible for their conduct in consequence of the insanity being self induced) "have possessed and employed the faculty of choice; they have recognised possible advantages and possible evils; they have preferred self-gratification to every other good, and if by a course of this description they have become criminal, they are justly responsible for the crime, and as responsible as if they were sane at the time of its commission." "A Daniel!—a second Daniel !-come to judgment." What are the judges to think of crude, unphilosophical, and inhumane opinions like these, if they can properly be received as an embodiment of the sentiments of the British psychological physician? God forbid that such doctrines should ever fasten themselves upon the public, professional, and judicial mind. Is there a type of mental derangement that may not, agreeably to Dr. Reynolds's signification of the term, have "been occasioned by circumstances over which he (the lunatic) either has, or had, control ?" A man is exposed to a heavy domestic calamity, the result, perhaps, of reckless speculations on the Stock Exchange. In a few hours he is reduced from affluent to indigent circumstances. Prostrated by the affliction, his bodily health becomes seriously impaired, the mind succumbs, and insanity, in its most serious form, develops itself. This man may have been guilty of great improvidence and indiscretion, and have shown a culpable want of judgment, common sense, and ordinary forethought. He has ruined himself by his own voluntary acts of folly, and the sad consequences to his body and mind have clearly been "occasioned by circumstances over which he has had control." Would Dr. Reynolds-kind and humane physician we believe him to be-witness without emotion this man dangling from the end of a rope, in the convulsive agonies of a painful death for the amusement of some 20,000 blackguards, if he should happen, in a paroxysm of delirium, connected with his "voluntarily induced insanity," to murder his wife or child? The principal cause of insanity that prevails to so great an extent among the pauper portion of our population is, beyond all doubt, intemperance. Dr. Reynolds could easily satisfy his mind upon this point, if he will take the trouble of visiting any one of our County Lunatic Asylums. The insanity of many of the poor unhappy beings confined in these institutions is clearly" occasioned by circumstances over which they had control"-they have voluntarily drank of that which "Takes the reason prisoner," and, therefore, agreeably to Dr. Reynolds's psychological test, "they are as responsible as the sane for their actions," and should be hanged, or otherwise severely punished, if they in a state of profound dementia, idiocy, or maniacal excitement, committed the crime of murder. When alluding to the subject of self-created insanity, in our comments on the case of Mrs. Brough, we remarked : : "The same cause (intemperance) is in operation but to a limited extent in the middle and upper classes of society; but insanity may often be traced to a criminal indulgence in depraved habits and vicious thoughts, to reckless and unprincipled conduct; to long indulged self-will; to a censurable neglect of the cultivation of habits of self-control; to an utter disregard of all mental discipline and training. "If we are justified in considering every person accountable and amenable to punishment, whose insanity can be clearly traced to selfcreated causes, where are we to draw the line? The man who, as the result of a series of debaucheries, voluntarily drinks himself into a state of furious delirium, is, as long as that delirium continues, non compos mentis, and he ought not to be considered accountable for any act committed during his paroxysm of self-induced and temporary insanity. We may regret that there should not exist, for cases like these, a secondary form of punishment, which, if judiciously awarded, might prevent much of the deplorable misery we are daily compelled to witness in social life; but until our criminal code has undergone material alterations, it is not for us to draw refined distinctions, and say that one class of insane persons should not escape the legal penalties to which they have by their conduct exposed themselves, simply because their mental disease can be traced to intemperance, unbridled passion, or unchecked vicious impulses and thoughts; and a different class of the insane, whose sad condition has originated from causes quite out of their own control, should entirely escape punishment and censure.' If we were to carry into practical operation Dr. Reynolds's theory, our courts of law would necessarily become arenas for the discussion of subtle points of psychology, practical medicine, and therapeutics; for in cases in which the plea of insanity is urged as an excuse for crime, the question for the consideration of the jury would not be, is the prisoner sane or insane, responsible or irresponsible, but was the alleged insanity occasioned by circumstances which he could or should have controlled; could he have warded off his attack by avoiding all undue excitement, anxiety of mind, sudden mental emotion, or by having paid stricter attention to dietetic rules, to the state of his stomach, digestive organs, and liver? It would be the duty of the jury to consider, whether the unhappy culprit's insanity had not resulted from his having voluntarily neglected to comply with certain organic conditions of mental health. If this could be established to the satisfaction of the court, Dr. Reynolds's test of responsibility in connexion with crime and insanity would be demonstrated, and Calcraft would have an opportunity of exhibiting his skill by hanging the poor imbecile, or idiot, "His gallant bark of reason wreck'd, A poor quench'd ray of intellect, Let Dr. Reynolds ponder well upon this subject-let him seriously reconsider this important matter, and he will, we feel assured, be the first to eschew doctrines alike abhorrent to the feelings of a Christian, repulsive to men of science, and subversive to the first principles of sound judicial psychology. * "Psychological Journal" for Oct., 1854. THE JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGICAL MEDICINE AND MENTAL PATHOLOGY. OCTOBER 1, 1856. Part First. Original Communications. ART. I.-ON MONOMANIA. It is related that Pinel, on one occasion, took a lady to look over the arrangements of the Salpétrière. Having passed through several wards, the lady suddenly stopped, and asked where the insane people were, and if she might not be allowed to see them. By this she meant the violent insane; and after visiting them, she would doubtless leave the hospital with the full conviction that there were two perfectly distinct forms of insanity at least -an opinion which the most cursory glance at the inmates of any such establishment would tend to corroborate. This man was yesterday perhaps a man of science, of genius, of extended philanthropy, piety, and benevolence. Look at him, and listen to him now,-his irregular and disorderly actions, his incoherent, perhaps blasphemous words, in which you may nevertheless trace the partial mechanical reproduction of vanishing ideas,—his indiscriminate, aimless violence-all betray a mind utterly overthrown, at war with itself and with the world. This woman was yesterday gentle, modest, affectionate, and fulfilled all the relations of life with prudence and propriety. See the contrast: "her timidity is changed into boldness, her gentleness to ferocity, her conversation consists of abuse, obscenity, and blasphemy; she respects neither the laws of decency nor of humanity; her nudity braves all spectators; and in her blind delirium she menaces her father, strikes her husband, or strangles her child."* A little while, and this will have passed away, but to * Esquirol. LL NO. IV. NEW SERIES. |