how he distinguishes practically, or even in any
defined way theoretically, between " vice that is
not perversion," and " moral obliquity, supposing
it to mean perversion"?

The perfect honesty and simplicity of faith
with which these doctors follow the lead
suggested to them, appears in the complete frankness
of their admissions. Both Dr. Mayo and
Dr. Winslow state as matter of course that they
took for granted what they were told of the
person whose state of mind was in question
before they examined him, and that they read
him by the light of their instructions. Dr.
Tuke, on the other side, who is part author
of a text-book on Psychological Medicine,
being first called in on behalf of the defence,
forms immediately, and also quite honestly,
all the opinions that suit the defence, goes down
to consult with the attorney for the defence,
calls the whole matter at the outset a
"disagreeable family quarrel"— " never during all
his interviews with Mr. Lovelace saw the least
indications of unsoundness of mind" and when
asked why he did not push home this or that
line of interrogation, says, as candidly on his side
as the other doctors had said on their side, " I
wish you to understand that I entirely wiped
out of my mind the notion that Mr. Lovelace
was labouring under delusions." Taking his
facts from the defendant, to whose sanity he
was to bear witness, " I always," he says
frankly, " took his truthfu'ness for granted, and
never thought of testing it." It "could not
ever enter his mind" that his client was imbecile,
"considering his powers of observation, the
manner in which he instructed his solicitor about
his defence, and his delicacy in conversation."

Dr. Sutherland, again— applied to by the
friends of the defendant— gave the high authority
of his opinion in support of the defence. He
dissented in court from the published authority
of Dr. Copland as to the right description of an
imbecile, chiefly because he desired to add the
physical signs of a small head and thick knuckles.
We should like to hear from an observant
hatter whether the most intelligent of his
customers are those who require the largest hats,
and from a shrewd glover whether he estimates
the ability of his customers by the knuckle test.
Yet Dr. Sutherland is, no doubt, an accurate
observer. He is assuredly right in demanding
physical as well as other evidence of imbecility.
But let us suppose that Mr. Lovelace's head had
been a little smaller and he a little wiser, instead
of his head being a little larger and he a little less
wise than the average, and that his knuckles had
been thick, what might have been his fate had
Dr. Sutherland, possessed with an ex-parte case
against his soundness of mind, been asked to
examine him for signs of imbecility?

Dr. Seymour, again, a physician of wide
special experience, invited to examine the
accused, and getting the affidavits made on his
behalf instead of those against him, found him
only "a very young man for his age;" adding,
that he has known " many young men of his age
in possession of their property who have weaker
minds." We ought not to find fault with
evidence, endorsed by the verdict, wherein we
agree;— and we beg to add that we do not
believe that any amount of instruction and
affidavit for the accusation would have made Dr.
Conolly's admirable evidence other than what it
is— a distinct scouting of the whole attempt to
convert what is but a too wretchedly common
default of right training and good sense, into
legally disqualifying imbecility. Dr. Hood, the
physician of Bethlehem Hospital, also evidently
went with pen and ink before him very honestly
about his work, and did not omit the effort to
be helpful to a foolish and neglected youth,
with manly reasoning, reproof, and counsel.

What opinion are we to form upon the
whole case of the facility with which a mad-
doctor can insensibly adapt his theories to either
side? Even in the less uncertain fields of
science, we have seen in great criminal trials
eminent chemists as well as eminent mad-doctors
retained for the defence, flatly contradicting
eminent chemists as well as eminent mad-doctors
retained for the prosecution. The value of the
skilled witness has usually its visible
measure in questions of material fact that
concern the body. In questions that concern the
mind, the less heed we pay to the theorist, and
the more distinctly we require none but the
sort of evidence patent to the natural sense of
ordinary men in determining what citizen shall
suffer the privations, or what criminal shall
enjoy the privileges, that belong to proved
unsoundness of mind, the better it will be for us.
Let us account no man a lunatic whom it
requires a mad-doctor to prove insane.

THE LOCOMOTIVE IN SLIPPERS.

THE railway in the East has been like a lancet
thrust into an apoplectic and sleepy sick man.
It has saved the patient from death, but it
has not restored him at once to health. The
railway itself has become sleepy in the land
of Nod, and has lost somewhat of its European
energy. The details of management are
conducted in a careless drowsy way. There is
a good deal of screaming, wrangle, and torpid
delay. The trains run once a day where they
ought to run five times; information about them
is difficult to obtain; there is no proper
foresight or provision to remedy accidents, and
no proper tariff for refreshment; in fact, the
railway system in the East has become Orientalised.
It has already put itself into slippers,
crossed its legs, shut its eyes, and taken to
the chibouque. A train in Egypt is rather a
caravan drawn by steam, than a railway train.
I cannot better illustrate the way in which
the railway system works, or rather does not
work, in the East, than by sketching a railway
accident that I was witness of, on the grand
trunk railway that runs between Cairo and
Alexandria.

It was just one month after the subsidence of
the highest inundation known in Egypt for
twenty years. The river had been "too good,"