A LETTER TO _THE LORD CHANCELLOR_. A LETTER TO THE RIGHT HONORABLE THE LORD CHANCELLOR, ON THE NATURE AND INTERPRETATION OF UNSOUNDNESS OF MIND, AND _IMBECILITY OF INTELLECT_. BY JOHN HASLAM, M. D. LATE OF PEMBROKE HALL, CAMBRIDGE. _LONDON:_ PUBLISHED BY R. HUNTER, ST. PAUL'S CHURCH YARD. *** 1823. PRINTED BY G. HAYDEN, Little College Street, Westminster. A LETTER. MY LORD, THE present address originates in an anxious wish for the advancement ofmedical knowledge, where it is connected with those maladies of thehuman mind, that are referable to the court, wherein your Lordship hasso long administered impartial justice. The disorders which affect thebody are, in general, the exclusive province of the medicalpractitioner; but, by a wise provision, that has descended to us fromthe enlightened nations of antiquity, the law has considered thosepersons, whose intellectual derangement rendered them inadequate to thegovernance of themselves in society, or incapable of managing theiraffairs, entitled to its special protection. If your Lordship shouldfeel surprized at this communication, or deem my conduct presumptuous, the thirst of information on an important subject is my only apology;and I have sought to allay it in the pure stream that issues from thefountain-head, rather than from subordinate channels or distantdistributions. Although personally a stranger to your Lordship, nearlythirty years of my life have been devoted to the investigation andtreatment of insanity: of which more than twenty have beenprofessionally passed in the largest receptacle for lunatics;--and thepress has diffused, in several publications, my opinions and experienceconcerning the human mind, both in its sound state and morbid condition. The medical profession, of which I am an humble member, entertains verydifferent notions concerning the nature of UNSOUNDNESS of mind, andIMBECILITY of intellect;--and this difference of opinion has beendisplayed on many solemn occasions, where medical testimony has beendeposed. If a physician were to attempt to search into the existing records andprocedures on insanity, to collect its legal interpretation, suchinvestigation would probably be a waste of his time, the source ofabundant, and perhaps of incurable error; but to these inconveniences hewill not be subjected in attentively considering your Lordship'sjudgments, of which I have availed myself on the present occasion, andwhich, having been taken down at the time they were delivered, may bepresumed not materially incorrect. The documents to which I refer arethe judgments of the 22d April, 1815, and the 17th December, 1822, onthe Portsmouth petitions, together with the minutes of conferencebetween your Lordship and certain physicians, on the 7th January, 1823. In the judgment on the petition of 1815, it is stated by yourLordship, [A] "I have searched, and caused a most careful search to bemade into all the records and procedures on lunacy which are extant. Ibelieve, and I think I may venture to say, that originally commissionsof this sort were of two kinds; a commission aiming at, and enquiringwhether, the individual had been an idiot ex nativitate, or whether, onthe other hand, he was a lunatic. The question whether he was alunatic, being a question, admitting in the solution of it, of adecision that imputed to him at one time an extremely sound mind, but atother times, an occurrence of insanity, with reference to which, it wasnecessary to guard his person and his property by a commission issuing. It seems to have been a very long time before those who had theadministration of justice in this department, thought themselves atliberty to issue a commission, when the person was represented as notbeing idiot ex nativitate, as not being lunatic, but as being of UNSOUNDMIND, importing by those words, the notion, that the party was in _somesuch state_, as was to be contra-distinguished from idiotcy, and as hewas to be contra-distinguished from lunacy, and yet such as made him aproper object of a commission, in the nature of a commission to inquireof idiotcy, or a commission to inquire of lunacy. From the moment thatthat had been established, down to this moment, it appears to me to havebeen at the same time established, that _whatever_ may be the degree ofweakness or imbecility of the party to manage his own affairs, if thefinding of the jury is only that he was of an extreme imbecility ofmind, that he has an inability to manage his own affairs: if they willnot proceed to _infer_ from _that_, in their finding, upon oath, that heis of UNSOUND MIND, they have not established, by the result of theinquiry, a case upon which the Chancellor can make a grant, constitutinga committee, either of the person or estate. All the cases decide thatmere imbecility will not do; that an inability to manage a man's affairswill not do, unless that inability, and that incapacity to manage hisaffairs _amount_ to evidence that he is of unsound mind; and he must befound to be so. Now there is a great difference between inability tomanage a man's affairs, and imbecility of mind taken as _evidence_ ofunsoundness of mind. The case of Charlton Palmer, in which this was verymuch discussed, was the case of a man stricken in years, and whose mindwas the mind of a child;--it was, _therefore_, _in that sense_, imbecility, and inability to manage his affairs, which _constituted_unsoundness of mind. " The introduction of the term _unsoundness_, to denote a particular stateof disordered mind, which is supposed to differ from idiotcy and lunacy, has been the source of considerable perplexity to medicalpractitioners; and, in my own opinion, opens an avenue for ignorance andinjustice. The application of figurative terms, especially when imposedunder a loose analogy, and where they might be supplied by words ofdirect meaning, always tends to error and confusion. When medical persons depose that the mind of an individual is unsound, (which character of intellect, if accredited by the jury, would inducethem to find the commission, ) they ought, at the same time, to defineprecisely what they mean by such term:--and the jury, when they "proceedto infer" this unsoundness, ought to be in possession of sufficient andwell-defined premises, to warrant such inference. But where are thesematerials to be found? There is a strong presumption that thisunsoundness remains an unsolved problem to the present hour, and it isexemplified in the difference of sentiment that prevailed on a lateoccasion, [B] between the most eminent of the medical profession; wherethe same opinions and conduct impressed certain physicians, that thisnobleman was of sound mind, and others that his mind was thoroughlyunsound: so that the jury were to _proceed to make their inference_ fromthe opposite testimony, deposed by the medical evidence, or to proceedto hold such evidence in little esteem from its contrariety on a subjectwhich these physicians professed to illustrate. The term unsoundness, applied to designate a certain state of the human mind, hithertoundescribed, has not originated with medical persons; to them, therefore, we cannot refer for the solution of its import, and there canbe no analogy between the definite unsoundness of animal and vegetablesubstances, and any condition of the intellect. Timber is said to beunsound, and although we may be little acquainted with the cause bywhich it is produced, yet its actual state of rottenness is evident:--ahorse is unsound, in consequence of some morbid affection that can bepointed out by the veterinarian:--a dentist can detect an unsoundtooth:--a physician, from certain well marked symptoms, concludes thatthe lungs or liver of an individual are unsound:--particular doctrinesare held to be unsound, because they deflect from such as are orthodox, and it is presumed there may be an unsound exposition of the law. Thehuman mind, however, is not the subject of similar investigation; weare able to discover no virus by which it is contaminated--no spreadingrottenness--no morbid leaven that ferments, or canker that corrodes it. Although we may apply the word unsoundness, in a figurative ormetaphorical sense, to the human mind, yet we cannot detect in it any ofthe marks or indications that characterize the unsoundness of substancesacknowledged to be in that state: it is, therefore, under thisconviction, and with the view of increasing our knowledge of the humanintellect, that, on the behalf of the members of the medical profession, I venture to solicit your Lordship, on the first opportunity that mayoccur, to elucidate the nature of this UNSOUNDNESS OF MIND, so thatphysicians may be enabled thoroughly to ascertain its existence, andconscientiously depose to that effect, and also that it may berecognized by the jury, when they "proceed to make their inference, " inorder that, by their return, your Lordship may appoint the propercommittees of the person and property. Respecting the human intellect, two very opposite opinions prevail amongphysiologists and metaphysicians. One party strenuously contends thatthe phenomena of mind result from the peculiar organization of thebrain, although they confess themselves to be as "entirely ignorant howthe parts of the brain accomplish these purposes, as how the liversecretes bile, how the muscles contract, or how any other living purposeis effected. "--The other maintains that we become intelligent beingsthrough the medium of a purer emanation, which they denominate SPIRIT, diffused over, or united with, this corporeal structure. The former ofthese suppositions is held by many grave and pious persons to beincompatible with the doctrines of the Christian Religion; and if I amnot mistaken, your Lordship, on a late occasion, after having perused awork attempting to establish such principles, did incline, by "rationaldoubts, " to suspect that these opinions were "directed against the truthof Scripture. " It is particularly fortunate that the arguments concerning the nature ofunsoundness of mind and imbecility do not involve either of thesepresumptions:--if the most decided victory over their opponents were tobe conceded to the fautors of organization, no advantage could bederived from their philosophy by lawyer or physician, whose object isto ascertain the existing state of an individual's mind, and not todetect the morbid alterations of the cerebral structure by the scrutinyof dissection: nor is it necessary, for the elucidation of the presentsubject, to contend for the pre-eminence of the spiritual doctrine, asit would be extremely difficult, and perhaps irreverent, to suppose, that this immaterial property, this divine essence, that confersperception, reverts into memory, and elaborates thought, can besusceptible of unsoundness. These high attributes, proudly distinguishedfrom perishable matter;--this sanctuary, which "neither moth nor rustdoth corrupt, " cannot undergo such subordinate changes, without anobvious degradation. To the furtherance of that pure and substantial justice, which it hasbeen the tenor of your Lordship's ministry to award, these metaphysicaldisquisitions will in no manner contribute; nor will they assist themedical practitioner in the attainment of his object, which is toascertain the competence of an individual's MIND, to conduct himself insociety, and to manage his affairs. By the abstract term MIND, is to beunderstood the aggregate of the intellectual phenomena, which aremanifested or displayed to the observer by conversation and conduct; andthese are the only tests by which we can judge of an individual's mind. The boasted deciphering of the human capacities or moral propensities, by the appearances of the physiognomy, or by craniological surveys--themysterious pastimes of anatomical prophets, will never be accredited ina court of justice while your Lordship guides the helm. By conversation, is of course included the conveyance of thought bywriting, which, on many occasions, is a more accurate criterion of thestate of mind than oral expression. Your Lordship seems to consider that we have derived some advantages bythe issue of a commission to ascertain this _unsoundness_ of mind, andwithout such due consideration, it is presumed you would not haveadopted it; but the citation of your own accurate phraseology, as itappears in your judgment of 1815, on the Portsmouth petition, will bestillustrate the subject. "It seems to have been a very long time beforethose who had the administration of justice in this department thoughtthemselves at liberty to issue a commission, when the person wasrepresented as not being idiot ex nativitate, as not being lunatic, butas being of UNSOUND MIND, importing, by these words, the notion, thatthe party was in _some such state_, as was to be contra-distinguishedfrom idiotcy, and as was to be contra-distinguished from lunacy, and yet_such_ as made him a proper object of a commission in the nature of acommission to inquire of idiotcy, or a commission to inquire of lunacy. "These words clearly imply a morbid state of intellect, which is neitheridiotcy nor lunacy, termed _unsound mind_, and yet the legal remedy forthe protection of the person and property of the possessor of this_unsound mind_ does not differ from that which is applied to idiot andlunatic. The process of law is the same. This undescribed state ofunsoundness is contra-distinguished from idiotcy and lunacy; but we areleft in the dark concerning the peculiar circumstances by which it iscontra-distinguished, and under such defect the advantages ofintroducing a new and undefined term are not apparent. For what purpose"those who had the administration of justice in this department thoughtthemselves at liberty" so to act, is not explained: but your Lordshiphaving adopted such practice, and highly commended the authority fromwhence it has been derived, can, doubtless, afford the necessaryelucidation. For those venerable authorities of the law, who have preceded yourLordship in this department of the administration of justice, I feelimpressed with the utmost deference and respect; and these gratefulsentiments will be rendered more intense whenever their reasons arepromulgated. Medical practitioners, who have devoted their lives to theconsideration and treatment of insanity, are disposed to doubtconcerning the existence of any intrinsic or positive unsoundness ofmind, as contra-distinguished from idiotcy and lunacy. Those who haveaccumulated the largest sum of experience in disorders of the intellect, have viewed the various forms under which they are manifested, asequally conducing to render an individual incapable of conductinghimself and managing his affairs, whether the mental affection be termedmadness, melancholy, insanity, mental derangement, non compos mentis, idiotcy, or lunacy; and, if it were necessary, a more ample cataloguemight be introduced. Physicians may, perhaps, be advantageouslyoccupied in establishing nice shades of difference in the symptoms ofmental disorder; and, if we do not already possess sufficient, maycreate new terms expressive of these modifications: and such extensionof the nosological volume may have its practical utility: but the lawyercan have no interest in such speculations, he only looks to the medicalevidence to demonstrate the existence of that _morbid_ condition ofintellect that renders the individual incompetent to conduct himself insociety, and to manage his affairs. Speaking generally, the state of idiotcy is well understood, althoughcases of an intricate nature may occasionally occur: but there isconsiderable probability, that the interpretation that has adhered tothe term lunacy, more especially in the estimate of the lawyer, has beenthe source of considerable error, and has also tended to introduce themiddle and undefined epithet of unsoundness. The old physicians, forwhom modern practitioners entertain less reverence than lawyers feel fortheir predecessors, concurred, that lunatics were not only persons ofdisordered mind, but that their intellectual aberrations correspondedwith certain changes of the moon: and this lunar hypothesis which hadbeguiled the medical profession, will furnish a sufficient apology forits adoption by the lawyer. It is a necessary consequence, if the moon, at certain periods, shed a baneful influence on the human intellect, that the intermediate periods would be exempt from its contamination;or, speaking more technically, at certain phases of that luminary, aperson would be visited by an insane paroxysm, and at others, experiencea lucid interval. The belief in these alternations of insanity andreason, is perspicuously stated in your Lordship's judgment of 1815, onthe Portsmouth petition. "The question whether he was a lunatic, being aquestion admitting, in the solution of it, of a decision that imputed tohim, at one time, an _extremely sound mind_, but at other times, anoccurrence of insanity, with reference to which it was necessary toguard his person and his property by a commission issuing. " Notwithstanding it must be admitted that "There are more things in heaven and earth Than are dreamt of in our philosophy;" yet, in the present times, our faith in the influence of the lunaraspects has considerably abated, and we employ the term lunatic as afamiliar expression, to denote a person of insane mind, without anyreference to its derivation, or supposed ascendency of the moon, whichmy own observations have tended to disprove:--but as the phrase lucidinterval is, in its legal sense, connected with lunatic, someinvestigation of its meaning becomes absolutely necessary. If it were the real character of lunacy, after the visitation of theparoxysm, to leave the patient in the possession of an _extremely soundmind_, this disorder would be rendered much less formidable than we nowconsider it, and might in its effects be compared to those violentstorms of thunder and lightning that purify the atmosphere and dispensesalutary refreshment; and it is not improbable, that some, gifted bynature with mediocrity of talent, but of a philosophical turn andaspiring pretensions, might regard the occurrence of such paroxysm as adesideratum, rather than an evil, on account of the _extreme soundness_they would experience afterwards: it is moreover evident, that howeverdegraded the lunatic may be in the estimation of vigorous andenlightened intellects, yet this depreciated object, by the enjoyment ofoccasional periods of bright understanding, has abundant cause fortaunt and triumph over the victim of unsoundness; whose state is"contra-distinguished from lunacy, " and as far as has been hithertoascertained, does not revel in the luxury of a lucid interval. But thesevicissitudes of intellectual obscurity and lustre have no realexistence;--they are not the offsprings of observation and experience, but the abortions of hypothesis and precipitate deduction. Lunatics, from the excitation of various causes, become at times more violent ordesponding, and these exacerbations are often succeeded by tranquillityand cheerfulness, they are more tractable, and less impelled to urge thesubjects of their prevailing delusions: but this apparent quietude orassumed complacency, does not imply a renunciation of their pervertednotions, which will be found predominant whenever they are skilfullyquestioned. Inexperienced persons judge of the insane state from thepassions or feelings that usually accompany this disorder, and infer itsaggravation from the display of boisterous emotions or afflictingapprehensions: the medical practitioner considers these sallies as themere concomitants of a perverted intellect. This view of the subject isjustified by a fact, of too much importance to be omitted on the presentoccasion. Many lunatics, whose dangerous propensities it has beenprudent to control by a stricter restraint, and for a lengthened period, eventually become harmless, and are safely permitted to enjoy manyindulgences incompatible with their former state: yet these personsretain their original delusions, although they have acquired the habitof arresting the impulses which these delusions prompted. It maytherefore be inferred, that a lucid interval is equivalent to thecomplete recovery of the patient, and implies the absolute departure of_all_ those delusions from his mind, that constituted hislunacy:--leaving him in a condition to sustain a thorough examination, not shrinking from particular subjects, nor "blenching, " though "tentedto the quick;"--and clearly perceiving by contrast the delusions thathad prevailed, and the reason that has supervened. The term INTERVAL, by which the duration of rational discourse andconduct is to be estimated, although of sufficiently precise meaning, isyet susceptible of the most extended signification; and we speak withequal correctness when we say the interval of a moment and of a thousandyears. The time necessary to comprise a LUCID interval has not, to thebest of my belief, been limited by medical writers or legalauthorities; it must however comprehend a portion sufficient to satisfythe inquirer, that the individual, whose intellect had been disordered, does not any longer retain any of the symptoms that constituted hismalady; and this presumes on the part of the examiner an intimateknowledge of the unfounded prejudices, delusions, or incapacities withwhich the mind of the party had been affected, and also deliberate andrepeated investigations to ascertain that they are wholly effaced. IMBECILITY. THERE is another subject connected in a legal point of view with thenature of the human mind, and with the state of its morbid conditions, on which I respectfully solicit your Lordship's elucidation. In yourLordship's judgment of 1815, on the Portsmouth petition, it is laid downthat "from the moment that (meaning this questionable and disputedunsoundness) had been established, down to this moment, it appears to mehowever to have been at the same time established, that _whatever_ maybe the degree of weakness or imbecility of the party, --_whatever_ may bethe degree of incapacity of the party to manage his own affairs, if thefinding of the jury is only that he was of an extreme imbecility ofmind, that he has an inability to manage his own affairs; if they willnot proceed to infer from that, in their finding upon oath, that he isof _unsound mind_, they have not established by the result of theinquiry, a case upon which the Chancellor can make a grant, constitutinga committee either of the person or estate. All the cases decide thatmere imbecility will not do: that an inability to manage a man's affairswill not do, unless that inability and that incapacity to manage hisaffairs, AMOUNT to evidence that he is of _unsound mind_: and he must befound to be so. " A conclusion is here drawn that the establishment of _unsoundness_necessarily involves, that the extreme degree of imbecility andincapacity of mind does not constitute this unsoundness: that is, --theymay exist in the extreme degree, (or citing the words employed, ) in anydegree WHATEVER, which implies the ne plus ultra, without any resultingUNSOUNDNESS. This is a dictum, which proceeding from your Lordship, thehighest authority, is intitled to the utmost deference:--but it is notan inference from any acknowledged premises, nor established by theintervention of any corroborating argument. The very existence of thisintrinsic unsoundness, is "down to the present moment" unproved, and allthat can be inferred in this state of the question, is the accreditedmaxim that "Nil agit exemplum litem quod lite resolvit. " By the common consent of philosophers and physicians, mental imbecilityin the extreme degree is termed idiotcy; and this state may exist "exnativitate, " or supervene at various periods of human life. When a childproceeds from infancy to adolescence, and from that state advances tomaturity, with a capacity of acquiring progressively the knowledge whichwill enable him to conduct himself in society and to manage hisaffairs, --so that he is viewed as a responsible agent and considered"inter homines homo, " such a being is regarded of _sound_ capacity orintellect:--but if in his career from infancy to manhood it is clearlyascertained that education is hopeless, --that the seeds of instructiontake "no root, and wither away, "--that he is deficient in the capacityto attain the information requisite to pilot himself through the worldand manage his concerns, such a person would be deemed an idiot, and itmight be safely concluded that his intellect was _unsound_, by wantingthose capacities that constitute the sound mind. According to yourLordship's exposition he could not be pronounced _unsound_, because thisword implies "_some such state_, as is to be _contra-distinguished_ fromidiotcy. " In order that a definite signification may be affixed to theexpression "_some such state_, " it will not, I trust, be deemedindecorous to ask, what particular condition of morbid intellect is tobe understood by this "some such state?" The solution of this difficultywould be most acceptable to the practitioners of medicine, and in my ownhumble opinion of great relief to the jury, who are called upon to"proceed to infer" this state of unsoundness without any other premisesthan the words "_some such state_. " Although we are distinctly told byyour Lordship, that the extreme degree of imbecility or incapacity willnot constitute this "_some such state_" that may be denominatedunsoundness; yet I feel highly satisfied with the force and precision bywhich it is expressed in the words "_whatever degree_, " which if a scalewere constructed on which imbecility might be estimated, would imply theultimate gradation; and whenever any subject can be regulated bydefinite quantity, expressed in numbers, it conveys the most certaininformation. Your Lordship may however judge of the surprize anddisappointment I felt when I arrived at the following sentence in thesame judgment, "All the cases decide that mere imbecility will not do;that an inability to manage a man's affairs will not do, unless thatinability and that incapacity to manage his affairs AMOUNT to evidencethat he is of unsound mind, and he must be found to be so. " This, my Lord, is an ample confession that there is a degree of mentalweakness that _does_ amount to unsoundness, and in this opinion allphilosophers and medical practitioners will unhesitatingly concur: butat the same time this admission wholly upsets the former doctrine, thatno degree of imbecility "WHATEVER" can constitute this requiredunsoundness. In your Lordship's judgment on the Portsmouth petition, delivered the 11th December, 1822, it is stated, "It may be verydifficult to draw the line between such weakness, which is the properobject of relief in this court, and such as AMOUNTS to insanity, " and inthe next sentence, "This is the doctrine of Lord Hardwicke, and Ifollow him in saying it is very difficult to draw the line between suchweakness which is the proper object of relief in this court, and suchas AMOUNTS to insanity. " This is a second corroboration of an opinionthat destroys the former doctrine. Finally in the "minutes of conferencebetween your Lordship and certain physicians, held on the 7th January, 1823, in the Portsmouth case, " there is an endeavour to explain thenature of _unsoundness_, and of imbecility or weakness;--but it isinsufficient to direct the physician to any clue whereby his doubts canbe solved, and unfortunately relapses into the original contradictorystatement. "The commission which is usually termed a commission oflunacy, and which because it has that name, I observe many persons areextremely misled with respect to the nature of it, and which produced ona former occasion, with respect to this nobleman, a great mass ofaffidavits, in which they stated he was not an object of a commission ofLunacy. --I say that these words are not much understood. --The lawacknowledges the state of idiotcy, and the state of lunacy, whichproperly understood, is a very different thing from that sort ofunsoundness of mind which renders a man incapable of managing hisaffairs or his person. --And it has now been long settled, not that acommission of lunacy is to be issued; but that a commission is to issuein the nature of a writ de lunatico inquirendo, and then the object ofthe commission is perfectly satisfied, if the jury shall find uponsatisfactory evidence, that the party is of unsound mind, and incapableof managing his own affairs. --The finding of him incapable of managinghis own affairs, is not sufficient to authorize further proceedings, butthere must be a finding that he is of _unsound_ mind, and unable tomanage his affairs:--incapacity to manage his affairs being consideredas evidence of unsound mind:--yet there may be, (and that every man'smind will suggest) instances of incapacity to manage a man's affairs, and yet _no_ unsoundness of mind. " That many persons are extremelymisled with respect to a commission of lunacy, and too frequentlyconcerning all other subjects, is fully admitted: and it is equallyclear that the great mass of affidavits produced in 1814, in favor ofLord Portsmouth's soundness of intellect (for I have attentively perusedthe whole catalogue) did not go into the investigation of the supposeddifference between this hypothetical unsoundness and lunacy; butattested, as far as his Lordship's conversation and conduct had beenthe subject of their observation and judgment, that he was not a manlabouring under any infirmity, or morbid state of mind, that ought, byany legal restraint, to disqualify him from the management of himselfand his affairs. With such opinions I have no concern; they can only beregarded as negative evidence, and cannot operate against manifold overtacts of insanity. In the progress of this respectful address, after numerous butunsuccessful endeavours to grapple with this _sort_ of unsoundness, suspicions have arisen that I have been pursuing a phantom;--at times Ihave fondly imagined it within my immediate grasp, but it has alwaysevaded my seizure with unaccountable dexterity:--it even now appearsthat I could "clutch" it, as your Lordship distinctly asserts that, "lunacy _properly understood_ is a _very different thing_ from that_sort_ of _unsoundness_ which renders a man incapable of managing hisaffairs or his person. " This is at once coming manfully to the point;for the disclosure (whenever it may take place) of the circumstancesthat constitute lunacy properly understood, which means as it _ought_ tobe understood, a very different thing from this sort of unsoundness, will be the solution of this desideratum, --and this development willimpose a considerable weight of obligation on the medical profession. It now only remains to consider the last material sentence, delivered byyour Lordship at this conference, and which to my limited comprehension, appears, in the same breath, to affirm and deny the same position. "Thefinding of him incapable of managing his own affairs, is not sufficientto authorize further proceedings, but there must be a finding that he isof _unsound_ mind, and unable to manage his affairs:--incapacity tomanage his affairs, being considered as EVIDENCE of unsound mind. " With the citation of this memorable sentence, --unadulterated by anycomment, I shall conclude this address to your Lordship, submitting atthe same time my own impressions on the subject:--that, to search forits correct exposition is reverential to the law: to crave itselucidation from its exalted minister is an act of respectfuldeference:--this solicitude is increased from the consideration that thewritten opinion of the medical practitioner is deposed on oath, andthat he is examined by the commissioners and jury under the same awfulresponsibility:--therefore, when the solemnity of that obligation iscontemplated, the anxiety for accurate information will scarcely requirean apology. I am, my Lord, with the utmost respect, your Lordship's very obedient servant, JOHN HASLAM. _No. 2, Hart Street, Bloomsbury, May, 1823. _ _Works by the same Author. _ OBSERVATIONS on MADNESS and MELANCHOLY. ILLUSTRATIONS of MADNESS, with a plate. On the MORAL MANAGEMENT of the INSANE. MEDICAL JURISPRUDENCE, as it relates to INSANITY. A LETTER to the GOVERNORS of BETHLEM HOSPITAL. SOUND MIND, or the Physiology of Intelligent Beings. *** A new edition of the OBSERVATIONS on MADNESS and MELANCHOLY, withconsiderable additions, will shortly appear. *** Printed by G. Hayden, Little College Street, Westminster. FOOTNOTES: [A] The following citation was introduced, with some comments, in mywork on MEDICAL JURISPRUDENCE, as it relates to INSANITY, according tothe Law of England, 1817, which is now out of print. [B] Lord Portsmouth's Commission. [Transcriber's Note: Other than one correction (p. 8, 'ideot' to 'idiot'in 'when the person was represented as not being idiot ex nativitate'), all archaic and unusual spelling (e. G. Idiotcy) has been left as in theoriginal. ]