82 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY, 



In another part of them it is said, in reference to the same supposed 

 case, that " notwithstanding the party accused did the act complained 

 of with a view, under the influence of insane delusion, of redressing 

 or revenging some supposed grievance or injury, or of producing 

 some public benefit, he is nevertheless punishable, if he knew at the 

 time of committing such crime that he was acting contrary to the 

 law, by which is meant the law of the land." This answer really 

 conflicts with a former answer ; it is obvious that the knowledge of 

 right and wrong is diflerent from the knowledge of an act being con- 

 trary to the law of the land; and it is certain that an insane person 

 may do an act which he knows to be contrary to law, because, by rea- 

 son of his insanity, he believes it to be right, because, under the influ- 

 ence of insane delusion, he is a law unto himself, and deems.it a duty 

 to do it, perhaps " with a view of producing some public benefit." 



The uprightness of English judges hks happily been seldom called 

 in question, but it may well be doubted whether the result of their 

 solemn deliberations, as embodied in their answers to the questions 

 put to them by the House of Lords, will commend their wisdom to 

 the approbation of foreign nations and future ages. If it be true, as 

 is sometimes said, that the verdict of foreign nations is an anticipa- 

 tion of the verdict of posterity, there are already sufliciently strong 

 indications that their conclusions will be no honor to them in times 

 to come. That they are unanimously condemned by all physicians 

 who have a practical knowledge of the insane, may not affect the con- 

 fidence of those who accept them, seeing that judges and physicians 

 take such different stand-points ; but when the judges of other coun- 

 tries condemn them with equal earnestness, it is impossible for the 

 most confident to help feeling some hesitation. In the case of State 

 V, Jones^ tried in the court of New Hampshire, America, Judge Ladd, 

 after passing in review the answers of the English judges, thus speaks 

 of the doctrine embodied in them : 



" The doctrine thus promulgated as law has found its way into the text-books, 

 and has doubtless been largely received as the enunciation of a sound legal 

 principle since that day. Yet it is probable that no ingenious student of the 

 law ever read it for the first time without being shocked by its exquisite inhu- 

 manity. It practically holds a man, confessed to be insane, accountable for the 

 exercise of the same reason, judgment, and controlling mental power, that are 

 required in perfect mental health. It is, in effect, saying to the jury, the pris- 

 oner was mad when he committed the act, but he did not use sufficient reason in 

 his madness. He killed a man because, under an insane delusion, he falsely 

 believed the man had done him a great wrong, which was giving rein to a mo- 

 tive of revenge, and the act is murder. If he had killed a man only because, 

 under an insane delusion, he falsely believed the man would kill him if he did 

 not do so, that would have been giving the rein to an instinct of self-preserva- 

 tion, and would not be crime. It is true in words the judges attempt to guard 

 against a consequence so shocking as that a man may be punished for an act 

 which is purely the offspring and product of insanity, by introducing the quali- 



