theory it is, perhaps, that the dogmatism of the critique is so strong and unwavering, the encyclopædic knowledge and mental philosophy so wide and deep as to be the envy and despair of the "younger brethren," not to speak of the seniors. The critic enters, without a halt, "the dark portals of metaphysics," and runs riot in its misty glades. He even condescends to state the real process of reasoning that should have led Skae to the construction of the system, and then touchingly says-"Alas! We should be wrong in ascribing to Dr. Skae as much logic as is involved in the above simple process." Ah! if this logician had only been at the procreation, what a progeny we should have had!

One other point I must allude to before I have done. Dr. Browne refers not only to Dr. Skae, but to the school which he founded, and the pupils that studied under him. He says that those pupils "perpetually parade "the system, "diligently vaunt" it, "obtrude it on attention," that its "great principles have been pronounced binding by an oecumenical council at Morningside, and he who profanely questions them places his promotion in jeopardy;" that they oppose the " study of mental symptoms," and have an "antipathy" to "everything mental;" and that "a philosophical problem is their detestation," &c., &c. He even ascribes to them Dr. Sankey's views as to the non-occurrence of primary mania. Now, these are a series of acts and sentiments ascribed to a number of gentlemen, not one of which would be acknowledged by them as correct. Can Dr. Browne prove any one of them? If not, I must take the liberty of repudiating them entirely. If those are the mere rhetorical embellishments of the critique, has not the Morningside school some reason to complain? Is it justifiable, in a scientific controversy, to employ such garniture?

Dr. Browne is quite right that Skae "would have been the last man to misinterpret the motives of any honest antagonist," and would have respected "hard-hitting, evenif directed against his own progeny;" but in a critique on a system whose author had entered the eternal silence, surely there was no room for noise and bluster, no provocation to envy and evil speaking.

The Plea of Insanity in Cases of Murder. The Case of Tierney. By D. YELLOWLEES, M.D. Edin., F.F.P.S.G., Physician Superintendent Glasgow Royal Asylum.

The following case occurred at the Glasgow Circuit Court, in September, 1875, and seems well worthy of record in the "Journal of Mental Science." It is especially important, as showing that the Crown, disregarding the formal definitions of the Judges, has practically recognised that insanity, like other diseases, varies greatly in degree, that it may modify without destroying legal responsibility, and that it may mitigate without annulling the penalty due to crime.

That the insane retain more or less knowledge of right and wrong, more or less sense of responsibility, and more or less power of self-control, are truths which have always been recognised by physicians; and they are the foundation of all asylum Government, as well as the basis of all moral treatment. The following case is merely the application of these principles in the administration of justice, and to an individual whose mental deficiency was not so great as to have obtained for him the benefit of asylum care.

While to alienists this case is thus but the natural and legitimate application of principles for which they have long contended in vain, it marks a wonderful and most welcome advance in our legal administration. It gives grounds for hoping that insane criminals may at length be dealt with on some reasonable and uniform principle, and that an end may be put to the utter uncertainty and the constantlyrecurring errors which have made these cases a scandal on our administration of justice.

The facts of the case were simple, and were not disputed. The prisoner Tierney and his victim, Campbell, had been employed for years in the same coal-pit, and for months had worked together in the same "heading." No other collier worked in that heading, and these two filled alternately the hutch, or tram, in which the coal is sent to the surface. As coal-cutting is paid according to quantity, each man tries to send up as many hutches as possible; and as the full hutch must be removed before the empty one can enter the heading, each man in turn may have to wait for the other. Disagreements are thus apt to arise, and it was proved that these two men had repeatedly quarrelled about their hutches, the oversman of the pit stating that his interference had

been necessary to arrange their disputes, and that he had generally found Tierney in the wrong. On the forenoon of April 21st, 1875, the two men had been working together as usual, but Tierney suddenly left the pit, and some fellowworkmen, who were employed about twelve yards off and had heard no quarrel, were attracted to the heading by groans. They found Campbell in a dying state, with two large stones lying upon his body, and with many fractures of the skull, evidently caused by blows from a collier's pick. Tierney was arrested the same evening at some distance from his home.

While in prison awaiting trial, allegations were made as to Tierney's insanity, which led the Procurator Fiscal to desire a special medical examination and report as to his mental condition. This duty was entrusted to Dr. Robertson, of the City Parochial Asylum, Glasgow, and myself. We twice examined the prisoner in July last, and spent about an hour with him on each occasion, a week elapsing between our interviews. We also examined the warder who had charge of Tierney and a fellow prisoner who was associated with him, as to his behaviour in prison; while the prisoner's wife and the Roman Catholic priest informed us as to his previous history and general character.

This evidence was all brought to us at our request by the Procurator Fiscal, and it was impossible to get such facilities for fully investigating the whole case, as well for as against the prisoner, without feeling how important for the accused, as well as for the public, is the existence of a Public Prosecutor. Had Tierney's deed been committed in England no such aid would have been given him; and as his poverty precluded so full a defence, he would in all likelihood have been executed. No one can tell how many partially insane criminals have thus suffered wrongfully the extreme penalty of the law.

The result of our most anxious investigation was a Report, of which the following sentences formed part:-" His manner was peculiar, reserved, and suspicious, and his replies to questions were slow and evasive. He was fully aware that he is charged with murder, but denied all knowledge of the crime, and appeared quite easy and indifferent as to his serious position. His present mental peculiarities are quite consistent with the occurrence of a previous prolonged attack of insanity, with occasional subsequent relapses, and are even suggestive of it; but we were unable to dis

cover any such mental aberration or defect as would justify us in certifying that the prisoner was insane at the time of our examinations." In transmitting this report, we directed special attention to the statement made by the prisoner's wife, which of course required confirmation, but which went to show (1) that Tierney's father and cousin had been insane; (2) that Tierney had been insane for a considerable time. about sixteen years ago; (3) that he had had several subsequent relapses; and (4) that at no time had his mental condition been perfectly restored to what it was previous to the first illness. I may say here that the first of these allegations was not substantiated eventually, and seems to have been incorrect; the second was true, the third, though not proved at the trial, was apparently true, and the fourth was also probably true.

We again examined Tierney just before his trial, which took place at the Glasgow Autumn Circuit Court, before Lord Ardmillan, and found his condition unchanged.

The following details were elicited at the trial, and are important. The murder took place shortly after eleven a.m. on 21st April, 1875. About eleven o'clock a hutch filled by Tierney was taken away, and a witness, who saw Campbell take in the empty hutch, and heard the noise caused by filling it, was told by him that it was his fifth, and that Tierney and he had already filled four each. Another witness, who had heard the two men quarrelling about their hutch only a day or two previously, was the first to enter the heading after the murder. He saw a hutch full of coal and Campbell lying near it beneath two stones. When he asked the prisoner "What had done that," Tierney, who was putting on his coat, said, "It was me." Tierney had come to this witness a few minutes previously for a light to his lamp, and when asked, "What was wrong, that he required a light," he answered, "Nothing."

66

On his way from the heading to the bottom of the shaft, Tierney was asked by two witnesses, "Where he was going,' or why he was going so soon ?" To one he answered that he was going home, and that he had filled five hutches, and to the other that some supports were required in his working, and that he was dropping off until they were put up. He had to wait for about ten minutes at the bottom of the shaft, till the engine resumed work, and he there had a conversation with the oversman of the pit, who ascended with him. He told him as his reason for leaving work at that unusual

hour that he was going from home; and he also asked for a change of place in the pit, as he did not like his present working. The oversman promised him a change, and saw nothing unusual about him. As he hurriedly left the top of the shaft, he told the pitheadman, "quite coolly and collectedly," that he had filled five hutches. Neither did this man see anything unusual in his manner. "He had known Tierney for six years, and never noticed anything peculiar about him."

Tierney did not go home, but went to the house of a neighbour, and asked for his wife. Finding that she was out at work, he said to the woman of the house, "Where shall I hide ?" The woman was afraid of Tierney, "for he looked excited, and he had a name of not being right in his mind," and asked what was wrong. She understood him to answer that he had "put the pick in Campbell." She said, "Dear me, was he meddling with you?" and he replied, "Of course." He then asked for water that he might wash, which was given him : the woman got his clothes from his own house, his son brought him some money, and he went off. He was apprehended the same evening at Rutherglen, on his way to Glasgow. There was nothing strange about his manner then; and when charged with the murder, he only asked, "Who saw me do it?"

It was proved that the stones which were found on Campbell's body could not have fallen upon him from the roof, but must have been carried some yards. It was also proved that four hutches of coal had come to the pit-head from each of the men that morning, and that a fifth hutch, bearing Tierney's mark, came up next day.

Tierney had been regularly at work during that month, up to the 21st, on which day the murder was committed, with the exception of one day.

The medical witnesses, who had been allowed to remain in court, in order that they might hear the other evidence, were next called. It seems to me an error in the procedure, that the medical testimony should be taken before all the facts, for the defence as well as for the prosecution, have been proved in court. The present course hampers the witness, who cannot quote in his evidence, nor entirely found his opinion upon, facts which have been certified only by near relatives or interested friends; and it no less hampers the prisoner's counsel, who can elicit replies pertinent to the case in hand, only by putting questions on hypothetical cases. It would be much