6o The Lessons of the [February, 
have eaten even an Anti-ViviseCtionist had he fallen in our 
way. But the most prominent point was the alteration 
which came over our dispositions. The one theme of con- 
versation was vicious recrimination, and the attempt to 
saddle each other with the blame of losing our way. As 
the second day wore on we all began to see, or fancy we 
saw, non-existent objects, which vanished or took other 
changes as we drew nearer. Thus there was full proof that 
we were experiencing a temporary derangement, both intel- 
lectual and moral. Yet we had advantages which the crew 
of the Mignonette had not. Every few hundred yards 
brought us to a spring of the purest water. More than all, 
we were in no fear of perishing. We knew that by following 
the valley into which we had strayed we must shortly reach 
an inhabited region. This was not the case with the sur- 
vivors of the Mignonette ' s crew: they did not know whether 
they should meet with help in time ; and this very uncer- 
tainty is the most distressing, in faCt the maddening, element 
of the case. Privations endured voluntarily, and which 
must shortly come to an end, may be borne far more easily 
than those where a fatal issue is the more probable. The 
fasting Russian or Turk, the ascetic monk, hermit, or fakir, 
has each the same sustaining reflection. He knows that 
food is procurable if he finds it impossible to prolong his 
abstinence any further. 
We have further evidence of positive madness setting in, 
in its most frightful forms, after long-continued inanition. 
Relief has in recorded cases come too late. 
Seeing thus the psychical effects of starvation, we may 
well ask with what faintest show of reason men in such a 
state can be held legally responsible for their actions ? 
They are at the time being simply mad, their nervous sys- 
tems having entered upon a process which must be viewed 
as decomposition. It is idle to talk about “ temptation ” 
which was no “ excuse.” A sane man may resist “ tempta- 
tion,” but it is not within the power of the maniac. 
It is perfectly possible that Lord Chief Justice Coleridge 
may not be aware of the modus operandi of starvation. It 
is likewise possible that had the truth been laid before him 
he might have refused to recognise it as coming from his 
enemies, the physiologists. But we might have expected 
that Mr. Justice Grove — himself a man of Science — would 
not have concurred in the judgment, and would at least 
have saved the intellectual honour of the Court from 
question. 
We have now to look at the a fortiori argument in virtue 
