73, 75.) We find, also, that about Edinburgh coughs and running from the nose in horses were universal in October and November, just before the disease attacked men. (Med. Essays, ii. p. 31.) 143.) In fact, extraordinary vicissitudes have been | and fatal among horses. (De Aere, &c. tom. i. pp more remarkable than any thing else: in some places, one peculiar sign of atmospheric intemperature has been observed, and in other places a different sign; and the epidemic has frequently fallen capriciously or partially, like the blight over a country, or even over a garden. Short says that " thick, ill-smelling fogs preceded, some days, the epidemic catarrh of 1567. July, August, and September had been very hot and dry; and in the end of September came a very strong cold north wind." (History, &c. vol. i. p. 223.) Riverius, quoted by Saillant in his History of Catarrhal Epidemics, says that just before that of 1580 appeared in France, (at Nismes or Montpelier?) "a prodigious quantity of insects appeared in April and May; and the roads were covered with them in such a manner, that a person in walking might have destroyed them by thousands." (Dict. des Sc. Méd. tom. xix. p. 359.) And Petrus Salius Diversus, cited by Dunning, tells us of the birds and brute animals suffering generally the same year. (Med. and Phys. Journ. x. 143.) To these facts we may add the observation of Short, that "after a long continuance of hot, moist weather, attended with southerly winds, at the rising of the dog-star came a cold, dry, north wind; and from the middle of August to the end of September raged the malignant epidemic catarrh." (Hist, &c. i. p. 260.) Great extremes of the weather preceded the epidemic catarrh of spring 1658, decribed by Willis, (Ibid.); and Sydenham attests that "the epidemic catarrh of autumn 1675 immediately succeeded cold and moist weather, which suddenly followed an unusually warm summer." (Syd. Opera, sect. v. ch. 5.) We have no very particular account of the state of the weather in England attending the epidemic catarrh of autumn 1729; but Hoffmann does not hesitate to ascribe its origin in Germany to the uncommon "irregularity and frequent changes of the weather from heat to cold and from cold to heat, &c. which distinguished that and the preceding year, such as he had never before witnessed; causing throughout all Germany, Belgium, England, and elsewhere, unusual sickness: "tam uberi proventu enati fuerint morbi, quam vix alio tempore visum unquam." (Hoffmann, Op. tom. ii. pp. 83, 109.) Within the last century the number of observations on the phenomena in question increases very considerably; and we are thus enabled to make some approximation to general principles. Saillaint's excellent work, (Tableau des Epidemics Catarrhales, dépuis 1510, jusque celle de 1780), on the continent, and the facts which have been collected in this country, on the catarrhal epidemics of 1775, 1782, and 1803, afford us much assistance in this inquiry. De Jussieu says that "the influenza of spring 1733 appeared in France immediately after offensive fogs, more dense than the darkness of Egypt," (plus épais que les ténèbres de l'Egypte. (Dict. Art. Grippe.) Huxham remarks generally that the cause of epidemic catarrh seems to depend on a thick, moist, and cold air; and that in the autumnal months preceding the spring catarrh of 1733, epidemic diseases were very common The influenza of spring 1743 was the precursor of the great plague in some parts of Sicily. In England it was not so severe and fatal as in some other parts. About Plymouth, according to Huxham, many horses were diseased, and deer perished in January. (Webster's Hist. i. 386; and Huxham, op. cit. ii. p. 95, &c.) Sir G. Baker says that the weather in spring 1762, before the epidemic catarrh of that year broke out in London, was extremely irregular; wind, frost, snow, and rain following each other in rapid succession, and with unusual severity. In April and May, intense heat followed; and beside this, the air underwent very sudden changes from heat to cold and from cold to heat. (De Catarrh. Epid. p. 7.) A hot dry spring and summer preceded the epidemic catarrh of autumn 1775. Petit says that in France the disease was ushered in by thick noisome fogs ("brouillards fétides"), and a cold rainy autumn. (Art. Grippe, Dict. p. 359.) Dr. Anthony Fothergill says that disease among dogs and horses was general over England before the influenza broke out, (Mem. of Med. Soc. vol. iii. 36); and we are also assured that it was preceded by foggy air as well as by disease among dogs and horses in Dorsetshire, and at Exeter; and by unusual haze, easterly winds, and almost universal cough among the horses in North Wales. (See the Reports of Drs. Pulteney, Glass, and Haygarth, in Lettsom's Life of Fothergill.) About the 7th of October, 1775, it appeared in the shire of Galloway in Scotland; "and a continual dark fog and particular smoky smell in the atmosphere prevailed for five weeks, the sun was seldom seen, and though October and November are particularly rainy months in that country, little or no rain fell, the wind E S E. and S." (Mem. of Med. Soc. vol. vi. p. 323.) With regard to the influenza of spring 1782, "the spring of this year was remarkably late, with a long prevalence of cold easterly winds; the hedges were not full blown in Cornwall before the beginning of June. A similar state of weather has commonly ushered in this universal malady." (Trotter's Med. Naut. vol. i. p. 362.) Dr. Hamilton tells us that "from the first of January till the end of May, throughout most places in the kingdom, the weather was uncommonly unfavourable;" and it appears that the latter month "was remarkable in all the meteorological annals of Europe for its unusual degree of cold and humidity, with a gloomy and uncommonly disturbed state of the atmosphere." (Mem. of Med. Soc. vol. ii. p. 433 and 445.) Dr. Darwin adds his testimony, that in this year (1782) "the sun was for many weeks obscured by a dry fog, and appeared red as through a common mist:" and he supposes, "the material which thus rendered the air muddy, probably caused the epidemic catarrh which prevailed in that year." (Zoonom. c. ii. 1, 3.) Dr. Parr says that horses were affected with a cold at the same time, near Exeter. (Med. Comment. vol. ix. p. 414.) Maertens records a strik ing fact relative to the first appearance of this epidemic at Petersburg, and its connection with a particular change of the weather: «On a cold night the thermometer rose 30° of Fahrenheit; the next morning forty thousand people were taken ill with the influenza." (Med. and Phys. Journ. vol. x. p. 524.) The influenza of spring 1803, as we have said, afforded an occasion for the collection of many valuable observations. It appeared in France some weeks before it invaded this country, and was supposed to be owing to a cold and humid autumn succeeding a dry and hot summer. At Paris it was immediately followed by a severe epidemic ophthalmia, about the time the influenza first appeared in Britain. (Dict. ubi supra.) With respect to unusual extremes in the weather, such are stated to have occurred in Hampshire, London, Somersetshire, and St. Andrews in Scotland, (Med. and Phys. Journ. x. 313, and Mem. of Med. Soc. vol. vi.) "I am of opinion," says Cuming, (Romsey, Hants,) "that the remote causes of this disease originated in the sudden change of atmosphere, a change, I believe, generally felt throughout the United Kingdoms, as well as upon the continent." Epizootic diseases preceded it, in some places among one or two species of animals only, in others among several, as cats, dogs, horses, cows, sheep, swine, in Shropshire, Worcestershire, Staffordshire, Cumberland, Hampshire, Lancashire, &c. (Ibid. pp. 288, 379, 316, 414, 426, 444, 482, 576.) At Plymouth "many attributed the disorders among the horses to their having eaten insects, which for many weeks were innumerable, and covered the fields in a most extraordinary manner whorever there was any length of grass; and this, from the mildness of the season, was general in almost every field." (Med. and Phys. Journ. x. 137.) Disease was very prevalent among sheep in some parts of the north of England, last spring (1831), just before the influenza appeared; and an epidemic catarrh seems to have raged among horses in the south later in the year. The influenza of this year was remarkable for this, that it prevailed in some parts of Great Britain in spring, and in other parts in autumn. Its character was generally mild in all. With regard to the weather, an intelligent captain of a regular trader in the English channel declared to the writer of this article, that for thirty years past he had no recollection of such a long continuance of a thick and foggy atmosphere, as he has had occasion to observe within the last eighteen months, between this country and the south of Ireland. He went so far as to state that he had scarcely made one clear passage from Liverpool and back again during this whole period. and from cold weather to warm, with dampness, fogs, and easterly winds, have rarely been absent from the catalogue of natural indications. Disease among domestic animals is also to be noted as a very common precursor in many places, and in several distinct visitations of the influenza. [Dr. Graves (op. cit.) suggests that the disease may depend chiefly on telluric influence, or upon some agency connected with variations in the physical conditions, which operate on the external surface of the earth. The suggestion only indicates the little knowledge we have of the subject. In regard to the nature of the disease, various opinions have been entertained. Essentially it consists of the collection of symptoms to which the names of catarrh and bronchitis are applied; but along with these, especially in the influenza of 1837, the nervous system has been implicated. By one of the writers on the epidemic, Dr. Blakiston, it has been designated "an affection of the nervous system, with its concomitant derangement in the organs of digestion, and circulation commonly known under the name of nervous fever, accompanied throughout its whole course by irritation of the pulmonary mucous membrane," and this view seems to have been embraced by most writers on the subject. Andral, however, (Cours de Pathologie Interne,) concludes that it is a general affection, the nature and cause of which are as unknown as those of the greater part of epidemics, which appear at irregular epochs.] V. The influenza, like every other epidemic disease, has given occasion to medical observers to entertain very opposite views on the question of its contagious property. Were we to draw a general inference from the recorded statements of the majority, we should say that it was not contagious; for the numbers who have given an opinion on this side far exceed the advocates of contagion. But we must not appeal to the majority in order to decide a principle in science. It must, however, be acknowledged, that while individual or partial occurrences might lead to the supposition that influenza was propagated in many instances by contagious transmission, a comprehensive survey of facts goes far to establish the contrary opinion; for some things can hardly be explained on the principle of contagion without having recourse to suppositions that could not be warranted by a sound induction. Upon the whole it would appear that some general cause, if not originating, at least subsisting in the atmosphere, and depending on its changes, progressive also in its movements from place to place and from country to country, gives rise to the disease; but that it is probable that a limited propagation also takes place by personal intercourse, under the influence, and during the prevalence, of the epidemic constitution. One general inference offers itself to our notice on reviewing the foregoing facts, viz. that no particular phenomenon in nature universally charac- We have writers affirming that persons who terizes the epidemic constitution which precedes, have been visiting or on business in an infected or that which accompanies the disease called in-town, have been the first to introduce the epidemic fluenza; and we are led to conclude that the into their own town or neighbourhood; and it causes of this epidemic, supposing them to take cannot be doubted that the members of a family their rise in atmospherical changes of a universal and the inhabitants of a district have often been nature, are far from being marked by uniformity attacked by the influenza in succession. Hence in the signs. At the same time we are bound to these things would seem to indicate that the disadmit that the changes from warm weather to cold, case was propagated by contagious transmission more than by some universal medium. But the difficulty of proving the first to be actually the case, must, in the nature of things, be very considerable; for it would appear,-and the remark applies to almost every epidemic disease, that in many places a tendency to the epidemic has been recognised by clear indications some time before the peculiar combination of symptoms which characterize it have shown themselves, making the moment of actual invasion very doubtful; just as, it is well known, the epidemic imprints its own character for some time after upon the diseases that follow it. And though no epidemic disease with which we are acquainted is so sudden and simultaneous in its attacks as influenza, and therefore none more emphatically deserves the name of epidemic, nor more decidedly proves a universal cause; yet it is a striking fact that, with all its frequent rapidity of movement over the globe, it has in almost every country been more or less obedient to the laws which govern other epidemics, according to some progressive and consecutive operations that are as much hidden as the efficient cause of attraction. It does, in fact, mostly observe some progressive law in moving over a country and in attacking a given multitude of people, which demonstrates that, however universal may be the cause of an epidemic disease in its purest form, yet if we regard experience, the effects rarely if ever should be expected to appear without some degree of consecutive order. The difference of constitution, of age, of habits, of locality, and of other things, may be quite sufficient to account for the phenomenon of successive attack; and indeed it is what we might expect à priori. If to this we add the probability, and, indeed, necessary inference from the facts, that the cause itself is developed gradually, we shall have less difficulty in accounting for a continuous mode of attack on another principle than that of contagion. Though a successive mode of propagation over a country or city is most usual, yet on some occasions the spread of influenza over a whole kingdom, within the space of a few days, has been so general as to make the propagation by means of personal intercourse quite incredible, and almost impossible. Besides this, its sudden appearance in ships at sea, which have had no intercourse with land or with other vessels for a considerable time, can hardly be explained on any other supposition than that of its atmospherical origin. Dr. Anthony Fothergill assures us that "both the epidemics of 1758 and 1775 seized whole families on the same day, often, remote from one another, and without any intercourse. (Memoirs of Med. Soc. vol. iii. p. 36.) Again, "the influenzas of 1775 and 1782 seized some persons at sea, while others were attacked on shore, and that without any perceptible communication." (Ibid. 38.) "The appearance of the Influenza in 1803, in England," according to Dr. Woodforde, "was very sudden, and its attack extremely general, so that it is difficult to say in what or in how many parts of the kingdom it prevailed at first. It is probable that the disease broke out in all at or nearly the same time." (Med. and Phys. Journ. vol. ix. p. 505.) The following fact is very conclusive as to the operation of some general cause; for it is scarcely probable that contagion could be lurking a long time before, and then should burst forth at the same time in distant points in so remarkable a manner. Two separate fleets left the coast of England for different points of destination in the year 1782; one, under Admiral Kempenfeldt, on the 2d of May, to cruise between Brest and the Lizard; the other, under Lord Howe, on the 6th of the same month, for the Dutch coast: neither fleet had communication with any shore; and the crews of each were perfectly healthy on sailing from Spithead. But on the 29th of the month, near four weeks after, the crew of the Goliah, one of the ships under Kempenfeldt, was attacked with influenza, and about the same time the epidemic appeared also in the Rippon, under Lord Howe. The other ships of both fleets were attacked in succession. In fact, so many men of both squadrons, on these remote stations, were rendered incapable of duty, that all were obliged to return to Portsmouth about the second week in June. (Transactions of the Col. of Phys. vol. iii., and Trotter's Med. Naut. vol. i. 364.) But If we pay attention to the course or direction of the several visitations of the influenza, we may observe that its general progress is not without some order. It either follows a westerly course, or one from the south towards the north. If its course be westward, it does not usually take extensive leaps over kingdoms, and then return to those it may have missed, as would be likely to happen if nothing more than personal intercourse and the various casualties of travellers' routes exerted an influence in determining its course. it sweeps along the north from the east through Russia, Poland and the north of Germany to England; and then wheels round through France and Spain to Italy. And here we cannot but trace a striking resemblance to the career of the epidemic cholera. But if influenza arises in the south, it takes a course from Italy through Spain, France, Britain and the Netherlands, along the shores of the Baltic. In the one case France is attacked before England, in the other after it. Were we to admit that the propagation of an epidemic disease over a space of some hundred square miles in the course of a few days or weeks might be accounted for on the doctrine of contagious transmission by means of travellers and the facilities of human intercourse, analogy might supply us with an argument against the admission; for in the case of some of the domestic animals, which do not travel from country to country like man, but are comparatively stationary, epidemic diseases are observed to spread among them; sometimes in as extensive and simultaneous a manner as amongst human beings. VI. The facts we are now to notice seem to afford strong indications of the influence which the general cause that produces epidemic catarrh exerts over the human body with regard to other diseases; and so far they are opposed to the theory that contagion is the cause of it. Webster has remarked that catarrh or influenza is the disease which is most clearly connected with pestilence in the form of malignant angina, dysentery, yellow fever and plague, which it usually precedes. (See Hist. of Epid. vol. ii. p. 39 and 48.) This ob 25 servation is partly confirmed by subsequent expe- | this country so healthy as since the influenza die- Sir George Baker tells us, that "while the influenza of 1762 was prevailing in a very mild and tractable form in the villages near Lincoln, that were high and exposed, quinsies, pleurisies, and peripneumonies produced incredible destruction of life in the low neighbouring districts." (De Catar, Epid. p. 19.) Dr. Carrick of Bristol says that "one of the most open and exposed of the buildings on Clifton Hill is Richmond Terrace, which forms three sides of a parallelogram, fronting respectively the east, south, and west. On the east side, not one family, scarcely an individual, escaped the complaint (in 1803), while on the south side a great majority both of persons and families, in all other respects similarly circumstanced, escaped it entirely."(Young's Med. Literature, p. 575. See also Mem. of Med. Soc. vol. vi. p. 345.) Dr. Binns states that at the time the scarlatina existed at Ackworth School in 1803, the influenza prevailed in the neighbouring towns; yet that the latter did not attack a single individual of the family at the school, consisting of between three and four hundred persons." (Ibid. p. 351.) Burton-on-Trent, also, in great measure escaped the influenza the same year; and scarlatina, with hooping-cough and measles, were epidemic there in its place. (Ibid p. 405.) "In London the influenza of 1803 superseded or deferred the usual diseases of the spring, as the measles and scarlatina: this is also recorded by Lorry to have been the case in the epidemic catarrh that prevailed in France in 1775; but he adds, that during the summer these complaints appeared with more than usual violence and fatality." (Ibid. p. 520.) "At Aberdeen the influenza of 1775 began near the end of November and continued four or five weeks, but did not visit Fraserburg, where there was a putrid fever very fatal at that time." (Lettsom's Mem. of Fothergill, p. 642.) At Chester, according to Dr. Haygarth, demic, in 1775, attacked many who were confinthe same epied to their houses and even to their beds with other ailments." (Ibid. 637.) Dr. Vaughan says, that at Rochester, when the influenza of 1803 ceased, "an exanthematous fever prevailed, which did not appear to attack any except those whom the influenza spared." (Mem. of Med. Soc. vol. vi. p. 589.) Dr. Gibney reports that "at Navan in Ireland, after the influenza of 1803, a low fever, almost constantly prevailing in that town, disappeared for a considerable time." (Med. and Phys. Journ. vol. x. p. 527.) Dr. Currie says that "at Holywell, a populous town eighteen miles from Chester, and where there is a large cotton manufactory, a typhous fever of uncommon malignity had prevailed for a considerable time the manufacturers and inhabitants of the town had not been free from it for more than two years. On the appearance of the influenza in the spring of 1803, the typhus entirely ceased, and only one case of fever has occurred since (nearly three months). I have not for many years known VOL. III.-4 C Dr. Rush remarks that, during the prevalence of any other epidemic, and that the scarlatina anof the influenza at Philadelphia, he saw no sign ginosa, which prevailed during the summer, disappeared after the 1st of October, but appeared again after the influenza left the city. It blended itself with every species of chronic complaint." (Rush's Med. Inquiries, vol. ii.) lignant yellow fever, which, commencing in the "The influenza was the precursor of the mabeginning of September, 1802, at Port Royal and St. Pierre's, Martinique, among the French seamen and soldiers lately arrived from France, committed the most frightful devastations amongst them." (Mem. of M. S. vol. vi. p. 599.) 66 from December 1788 to May following, there were severe influenza of 1789 in its malignant form, peripneumony and angina were unusually and alWhile the influenza of 1762 was in London, G. Baker, de Cat. Epid. p. 18); and Dr. Carmost universally prevalent in the country, (Sir michael Smyth relates, that demical catarrh of 1782 quickly disappeared in the metropolis, it seemed to leave behind it an although the epiepidemical constitution which prevailed during the rest of the summer and the fevers even in the end of August and beginning of September asver accompanying the influenza." (Med. Com. sumed a type resembling in many respects the fevol. i. p. 71.) After the disease had continued some weeks, it places. In Dublin Dr. Cleghorn remarked that was observed to change its character in several accompanied, became remittent, and sometimes inthe fever with which the influenza of 1782 was termittent; in London it was intermittent, at (Med. Com. vol. i. p. 25.) Stamford and the Isle of Man, "low and putrid." enza without perceiving a connection between this We can scarcely look over the histories of infludisease and morbid affections of the mucous surhas recorded the frequent appearance of cholera face of the stomach and intestines. Thus Huxham and diarrhoea in July, September, and October, after the spring influenza of 1733. (De Aere, &c, vol. i. 86 and 88.) The same author describes at Plymouth and the adjacent country, both before the dysenteria cruenta epidemica," which raged and after the influenza of 1743: and he adds that might not be considered a translation of the latter he did not know whether the former disease to the intestines; but he had observed that epidemic dysentery was very rarely to be met with in the spring. (Ibid. ii. 99, 103.) 66 epidemic catarrh of 1762 in London with a de- diately succeeded it in that city, (Opus cit.); and of other diseases; and hence it becomes neces both he and Dr. Reynolds remarked that in 1775 diarrhoea sometimes followed the attack of influenza. (Mem. of Fothergill, supra cit.) Dr. Hamilton states that in the neighbourhood of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, "the influenza of 1782 was accompanied with colic pains and cramps in the region of the abdomen and stomach, and some had purging." (Mem. of Med. Soc. vol. ii. p. 435.) sary to render the description more particular by exclusions and restrictions. It must be added, for example, that the disturbance in the mental operations ensuing from the morbid cause in the brain is not allied to coma or to loss of consciousness and sensibility, in order to exclude from the definition apoplexy and disorders of the same class. For a similar reason it has been common to observe that madness is a species of delirium distinct from that which is symptomatic of typhus and other febrile diseases. There are some other morbid states of the brain and of the faculties dependent for their exercise on the functions of that organ, which must in like manner be exDr. Bertram of Hull remarked that some of the cluded by express limitations. Such are congenattacks of influenza in 1803 nearly resembled cho-ital idiotism, and the imbecility of old age. Now lera-morbus, others cynanche tonsillaris; and he goes so far as to express "a firm conviction of the three diseases being different types of the same disorder, and occasioned by the same cause."(Mem. of Med. Soc. vol. vi. p. 332.) In France, in the influenza of 1803, "gastric irritation was one of the most frequent complications of the disorder, and appeared in some measure to constitute an essential part of it." (Dict. des Sc. Méd. Art. Grippe, p. 362.) Diarrhoea seems to have preceded, as an epidemic, the influenza of 1803, at Plymouth Dock, as in 1743 and 1788; for Dr. May says that early in the year diarrhoea and cholera were very prevalent; so nearly similar to that preceding the influenza of 1788, that to many of his friends he hazarded a pretty confident opinion of an expected return; and in this he was not deceived." (Med. and Phys. Journ. x. p. 291.) It must be fresh in the recollection of most that the epidemic cholera which in a milder character appeared in many parts of Great Britain last year (1831), and is now running so fatal a career in its malignant type, was preceded by the influenza; and we know that the same herald of that formidable epidemic was seen also at Warsaw, Paris, and other places; and was lately announced even in the United States of America a short time before the cholera made its appearance in the transatlantic cities. These facts are collected to show that there is a closer connection between some epidemic diseases, both as to their affinity and their causes, than we commonly imagine; and that it is only by a very enlarged view of their phenomena in different countries that we can hope to improve our knowledge in this obscure branch of science. THOMAS HANCOCK. INSANITY. SECT. 1.-Remarks on at tempted definitions of Insanity.-Different varieties of the Disease referred to three principal Forms. Writers on insanity are generally agreed as to the difficulty of inventing a satisfactory definition of that disease. It is perhaps impossible to comprise in a few words a characteristic description of mental derangement which may prove to be of practical use; and it is not an easy matter to discover one that even includes all the essential features of the object which it is proposed to define. The latter of these requisites will be obtained if we describe insanity as consisting in "a disordered state of the functions of the brain, which gives rise to disturbances in the operations of the mind." This definition may correctly be applied to madness, but it also includes a variety it is obvious that a definition loses all its utility when it is found necessary to encumber it with so many particular restrictions, and it is therefore better to give up the attempt to define insanity in general terms. is But the practical purpose of a definition, which to give a clear and distinct conception of the thing to be described, will be secured if we can determine and classify the various disturbances which the mental operations undergo. These disturbances, however, present very different phenomena in different instances of the disease, and we cannot attempt to draw up a concise account of them until we have briefly noted their principal varieties. He It is generally supposed that the intellect or the reasoning faculty is principally disordered in persons labouring under mental derangement. Mr. Locke made a remark, that "madmen do not appear to have lost the faculty of reasoning; but having joined together some ideas very wrongly, they mistake them for truths, and they err as men do that argue right from wrong principles." From Mr. Lock's time it has been customary to observe that insane persons reason correctly from erroneous premises; and some instances of hallucination, or some particular erroneous impression, have been looked for as the characteristic of the disease, or an essential circumstance in it. Dr. Cullen seems to have had Mr. Locke's observation in his mind when he laid down the definition of madness which occurs in his First Lines. describes this disease to be "in a person awake a false or mistaken judgment of those relations of things which, as occurring most frequently in life, are those about which the generality of men form the same judgment; and particularly when the judgment is very different from whai the person himself had before usually formed." Cullen attempted to draw even this description within narrower limits, by observing that "there is generally some false perception of external objects, and that such false perception necessarily occasions a delirium or erroneous judgment, which is to be considered as the disease." That this is by far too limited an account of madness, and only comprises one, and that by no means the most frequent form of mental derangement, every person must be aware who has had opportunities of extensive observation. Of those lunatics whose intellectual faculties are manifestly disordered, there is always a con |