To pursue the history through the 18th century would be useless, and almost impracticable. We engaged in it chiefly from curiosity, and need only add, that the minor works on this subject are collected by J. C. Traugott Schlegel, published in six small volumes at Longosalissa; but we must remark, that of this city and some others we have found it impossible to discover the vernacular name. The obscure towns in Germany have not found a place in any Latin or geographical dictionary to which we have access.

To account for the numerous German and French publications on this subject, we must observe that the laws of these countries are much more minute in their distinctions respecting crimes than the criminal code of this kingdom. This may be one reason why the subject has been so much neglected, that it has not former any portion of a course of lectures; and very lately only has a professor of forensic medicine been established in a British university. To treat of this branch of medicine, therefore, with all the subtility of a German lawyer, will be unnecessary, and we must confine ourselves to the outline of those topics, which must be the subject of inquiry in an English court of justice.

We must first consider forensic medicine as it is a branch of medical investigation, and next as it. is connected with the conduct of the surgeon.

Mania is one of the most frequent subjects of forensic inquiry, in which the physician is called on to decide; and, to the disgrace of science, we find the most opposite opinions adduced by practitioners of eminence. Much depends on the period during which the physician sees the supposed lunatic, and more on a few necessary distinctions, which we fear are sometimes designedly neglected. It is possible for an interested relation to fix on a day when the patient is calm and rational, an hour when he is usually collected, to introduce the physician who pronounces him sane. Another, in different circumstances, might pronounce him mad. It is necessary, therefore, to guard against such deceptions, to visit him frequently at different times, and at the most unsuspected hours. If this is refused, a collusion will be evident. We remember seeing a man, who was confined for a crime and defended on the plea of idiotic insanity. We visited him frequently, while unsuspecting any such examination, and found the plea strictly true. Yet, when called into court for the purpose of acquittal, when cleaned and dressed, roused also perhaps by the novel appearance of the Scene, his look assumed a meaning, and he was almost rational.

In the general relations of life, a man may be thoughtless, ridiculous, and extravagant, yet these errors will not be sufficient to fix the charge of insanity, which consists either in false perceptions or erroneous reasoning, on objects distinguished in their true colours. Many individuals of this kind require guardians for their property as much as persons really insane; but the law entrusts no practitioner with such discretionary power. The difficulty arises when this wild absurd conduct is attended with no such inconsistencies as lead to the suspicion, that the perceptions or the reason are affected. This situation is a question of prudence, rather than of jurisprudence, or medicine. The reflecting physician will not fix, unnecessarily, the stigma of insanity on a whole race; nor will he expose a family to ruin by a too great delicacy. In this difficulty, he will rather take the opportunity of a calmer moment to induce the patient to adopt such plans as may prevent the ruin of the family, and may properly make use of the alternative as an argument, in case of refusal. But this, as we have said, is not a medical question.

There is another doubtful state, in which the physician is often called on to decide, viz. when from disease, from general weakness, or any constitutional cause, the mind is so much enfeebled as to render it uncertain whether the patient can judge of the proper disposition of his affairs. This too is a question of discretion, for the afflicted person may be taught to answer common questions readily, or may be awed by some interested attendant. In this case, if the physician.

when alone with his patient, talks to him of his affairs, suggests, for the sake of a reply only, some objections to his arrangements, he will soon find whether the testator has judged properly, or only repeats a lesson. The circumstances themselves often suggest doubts; and when an infirm old man disinherits obedient or near relations, for the sake of those connected with him only by accident, the presumption is, that his mind is not sound.

We have said, in the article Mania, that by a fiction of the law every mania, we have been informed, is supposed to be relieved by occasional lucid intervals, and that if the act of a madman is reasonable and proper, it is a proof that the interval was a lucid one. Thus in the case, which has just been considered, whatever be the apparent state of the patient's mind, if his will be judicious and proper, there is no reason why the physician should not pronounce him in a sound state. Yet, in criminal cases, the law is not equally indulgent, nor has it always, perhaps, been equally humane. Lucid intervals, in cases of murder, are not allowed, and the man who has been proved to be mad on the Monday and Wednesday is not allowed to be sane on the intervening day; yet decisions have occurred of a different kind; and an art in planning, a coolness in executing, a deliberation in the conduct, have been supposed to constitute soundness of mind. On these grounds lord Ferrers and Mr. Oliver were executed. Yet, if the motive is at any time connected with the hallucination, the subsequent action should certainly be considered as a part. In later trials the opinions have leant more on the side of humanity.

The question of confirmed insanity must be decided by a comparison of the patient's state with the pathognomonic symptoms. Yet there are many sources of doubt, and often room for hesitation. In many instances the mind wanders, at first, on one subject only; and, when the madman has any point to gain, he will, with great success, counterfeit a calm reasonable state. Each point must be carefully guarded; yet the experienced physician will not be easily baffled. A wildness of the eye, a tension of the skin of the temples, a dry furred tongue, often a hurried pulse, will explain the real state. The madman is also a coward, and we have drawn from this a good pathognomonic symptom. If threatened with some vehemence with any punishment, however wild and impracticable, he will shrink and tremble, forgetting all his art, or returning to his original deviation of mind.