3 o6 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



said that on last Good Friday he doled out sweetmeats, coppers, gin- 

 and-water (large quantities of which he always kept on hand) to two 

 hundred children. For some years he gave a poor old woman four 

 shillings a week. His diet was simple, though not scant. He ate 

 bread, cheese, and red herrings, and drank both milk and gin. Once, 

 however, he gave up milk and this, of course, is an important feature 

 of his case because he suspected that poison had been put into it. 

 At one time he charged a farmer who supplied him with eggs with 

 putting poison into them. When the farmer replied that it would be 

 rather a difficult thing to do, he said that some poison must have been 

 given to the old hen. He did not habitually drink to excess, but was 

 occasionally drunk. It is supposed that he drank largely of gin the 

 evening before his death, while feeling depressed. Fear of poison 

 frequently led him to change his baker, and he carefully selected a 

 loaf. In his room was found nearly a cart-load of loaves which he 

 probably suspected of containing poison. 



He died of apoplexy at sixty-one, on the 19th of April last. A 

 week before his death he appeared as well as usual; he was, in fact, 

 lively and communicative, and seemingly without any unfriendly spirit 

 or delusion regarding his friends. He spoke with an asthmatic visitor 

 very intelligently of the symptoms and causes of that disease. He 

 remembered the number of years (seven) since he had seen him, and 

 the subject discussed, which the visitor had forgotten. Sometimes, 

 however, he complained of losing his memory, and it was noticed 

 latterly that in using a Greek word he partially remembered both 

 Greek and Latin he could not recall the whole of it, and, contrary to 

 his custom, would be at a loss for a word. One who frequently visited 

 him says that he was sometimes low-spirited, crying like a child, be- 

 moaning his condition, and attributing it to the unkindness of his 

 brother, which I know to be entirely false. At other times, if contra- 

 dicted, he would fly into a passion, swear, and act so violently that his 

 guest would be glad to get out of the house. Because, while this 

 visitor was present once, a medical man happened to call, he quarreled 

 with him, and suspected the two of a conspiracy. 



That there was no imbecility of mind may at once be granted. 

 His conversation was coherent and sensible; he was shrewd and wide 

 awake in the ordinary transactions of his limited life, and he fully 

 understood the value of money; his memory was remarkably reten- 

 tive. 1 Most of his visitors failed to detect any signs of madness, and 

 it is doubtful whether any jury would have found him insane. The 

 commissioners considered his case in 1853, and took the testimony of 

 his brother and a neighbor, but concluded that there was not sufficient 



1 One of his visitors, a traveled man, was surprised to find that Lucas had so much 

 acquaintance with the various localities which turned up in conversation. His knowledge 

 of Shakespeare and of the literature of the Restoration was very considerable. A medi- 

 cal man informs me that, in conversing with him about the classics, he displayed much 

 intelligence. 



