rather than from a defect of the human emotions; and often, as very obviously in the case of the sex-instinct, the emotional development is not retarded, but precocious. Further, it must be granted that the division between intelligence and temperament can never be too closely pressed; it is a relative rather than an absolute intensity of emotion that is the real cause of the condition; the child's capacity for controlling his impulses for organising them into sentiments and so 'sublimating' them (as the current phrase goes)-must depend to some extent upon the strength of his intelligence, as well as upon the mildness of his emotions. It is, however, convenient to retain the term 'deficiency' simply to indicate the generic class to which these cases belong.

Using the criteria I have described, about 9 per cent. of my delinquent cases would be classifiable as temperamentally defective in the sense thus defined. For the law-abiding population I have no satisfactory figure; it would certainly be well under 1 per cent. 34 per cent. of my delinquents suffer from milder degrees of temperamental instability. Among these, 19 per cent. of the whole group are markedly repressed, with or without neurotic symptoms of a more or less definite kind. Adolescent instability occurs only in 2 per cent. of my cases, since by far the majority are referred to me before the school-leaving age.

Temperamental deficiency is thus by no means the commonest emotional condition predisposing the child to crime. Further, if the certification of a temperamental case as one of mental deficiency simply meant transferring him to a special M.D. day school or to a residential institution with children defective only in intelligence I should hesitate to recommend it.

My discussion has been largely a theoretical one. For practical purposes I believe that our means of diagnosis are at present so slender, and our modes of dealing with these cases when diagnosed so limited and unsuitable, that I consider that a diagnosis or temperamental deficiency should only be pronounced with the utmost caution. To this extent I agree with Dr East that what he terms "moral imbecility" is a comparatively rare condition; and to some extent I even agree with those who have told him they have never seen such a case. ‘Moral imbecility' is, in my view, a psychological misnomer; and I would plead very forcibly for a different nomenclature and a different definition from those which the terms of the statute suggest.

III.

It may be convenient, by way of conclusion, to attempt a summary of the chief points upon which all four contributors to this symposium seem, explicitly or implicitly, to be at one1.

1. In dealing both with deficiency and with delinquency, every contributor appears to regard the intellectual aspect and the moral aspect as forming each a relatively separate problem. In particular, all have been forced to recognise that delinquency is something more than a mere matter of defective intelligence; and to repudiate the traditional attitude of earlier medico-legal writers, as based upon a psychology which was excessively intellectualistic.

2. In discussing the first of these two aspects, namely, the intellectual, and in attempting to define deficiency in intelligence, all seem generally to assume that a different criterion and a lower borderline is requisite for adults as distinguished from children of school age. This is especially clear in Dr Shrubsall's figures: and I am in entire accordance with the proposal that it might be preferable, in the case of the high-grade special school children, to use the phrase 'educationally defective' rather than 'mentally defective.'

3. My borderline is for children a mental ratio (or "I.Q.") of 70 per cent., and for adults one of about 50 per cent.; Dr Shrubsall's borderline appears in either case to be at least 10 per cent. higher. The discrepancy, however, is more apparent than real. It arises, I suspect, mainly from the fact that our measurements are based upon different age-assignments for the same tests. My revision of the Binet scale, like that of Terman, finds that for the younger years the original age-assignments were too easy. Thus, a child who gets a mental age of seven with the old arrangement (upon which, I understand, Dr Shrubsall's figures are founded) scores with me a mental age of only 6-though, of course, in either case he is passing or failing with precisely the same individual tests. A child of 9, therefore, who has a mental ratio of 70 with my standardisation (or Terman's) would appear as having an I.Q. of a little over 80 with Binet's original version2.

1 It should be noted that the foregoing portion was written, and circulated as a basis for discussion, before the two succeeding papers were received. It was thus, in the main, an entirely independent expression of opinion. The following and final section was added after a study of the remaining contributions.

2 Dr Stoddart's mental levels are, I presume, suggested by the earlier American formulations. A borderline of 12 years for a 'high-grade imbecile' and of 15 years for a 'backward' individual can hardly refer to mental ages obtained by intelligence-tests as more recently standardised.

4. With intellectual deficiency thus defined, we are all in absolute harmony upon the central issue of the discussion: namely, that the proportion of intellectually defective cases among the delinquent population is far lower than earlier investigations maintained. The true proportion is in the neighbourhood of 5 per cent., not 50.

5. Turning next to what I have provisionally called the moral aspect, we evidently concur in the view that morality as such is not innate but acquired; and accordingly, there being no inborn moral sense, there can be no inborn moral defect.

6. Dr Stoddart and myself have both argued that the real innate basis of most juvenile delinquency is to be found in the primitive instincts which we all inherit in common. Dr Shrubsall also insists upon the importance of instinctive tendencies; and Dr East upon at least one such instinct, namely, that of sex: but, possibly because they are thinking more of adults than of children, the connection between instincts and delinquencies is by them less explicitly stressed.

7. All of us appear to recognise an important group of cases where most of these instincts and their correlated emotions are inherited with an excessive strength; and all of us emphasise the especial significance of general emotional instability in its varying degrees.

8. Our combined experience is that, in most instances of delinquency, inadequate intelligence is combined with excessive emotional instability; but that, in a small proportion of cases, excessive emotional instability may be found without intellectual retardation.

9. We seem to be unanimous that a diagnosis of deficiency on grounds other than that of inadequate intelligence is only to be made with great rarity and care. Dr Stoddart's experience seems almost entirely "against the existence of 'moral imbecility."" Dr East finds moral imbecility "a rare condition," many alleged instances being simply "due to mental conflicts"; but he has "no doubt that it exists." His emphasis, however, upon "temperament and not temptation" suggests that his moral imbeciles would usually be identical with my "temperamental defectives." Finally, Dr Shrubsall agrees that it is "usually" (as he puts it) "far easier" (and, I would add, theoretically more sound) "to deal with the individual as feebleminded than as a moral imbecile."

DELINQUENCY AND MENTAL DEFECT (III)1.

By F. C. SHRUBSALL.

THE first questions that would seem to demand answers are, What are the manifestations of mental deficiency as legally recognised? and What are the proportions of defectives in the general and the delinquent population respectively?

In all places and at all times, certain persons have been noted by a majority of their fellows as showing an all-round inefficiency and irresponsibility of behaviour and from very early days it has been recognised that in some the condition dated from infancy, while in others it came on gradually or suddenly in later years of life. In early English legal writings we find the idiot or 'natural fool.' "He that hath had no understanding from his nativity" carefully distinguished from the 'lunatick' or idiot ‘a casu et infirmitate,' "One who aforetime hath had his wit and memory and happening to fail of his wit." Present day legislation deals with the defective as one who from mental causes from birth or an early age is in need of care and control for his own protection or the protection of others; thus following the ancient custom.

Before a mentally defective person can be dealt with by means of institutional treatment or guardianship, it is necessary to show by means of definite evidence:

(1) that he actually displays serious inefficiency in his daily life;

(2) that this disability is primarily of mental origin and is not due merely to the effects of physical disabilities or to an unfavourable environment;

(3) that the mental defect has existed from birth or an early age and is not due to subsequent degeneration;

(4) that the individual can be placed within one of the four classes of defective persons defined by the Mental Deficiency Act;

(5) that he is subject to be dealt with by reason of conforming to certain conditions which may be briefly summarised by saying that he is either neglected, delinquent or inebriate.

1 A contribution to the Symposium presented at the Joint Meeting of the Educational Section and the Medical Section of the British Psychological Society, April 25th, 1923.

While, therefore, the main basis on which action is taken depends on the behaviour of the subject in the nursery, the school or the world, this behaviour must be proven the result of mental defect by the personal observation of medical practitioners.

Insufficient data exist for an estimation of the total number of defectives in the population, but in 1922 there were known to be 11,000 mentally defective children under the age of 16 belonging to the County of London, or 1.3 per cent. of the population at the school ages. The figure is perhaps a little low since some of the lower grade who showed dangerous propensities may have been dealt with under the Lunacy Acts without coming to the notice of the education authority. The figure is, however, larger than that of the defectives as above defined in that it includes those who only display or need special educational methods, a rather different criterion to the need for special control. On an average of the last few years, 360 children per annum have been referred from the education to the control authority in London or approximately 6 per cent. of the annual crop of children. Bearing in mind that certain individuals have an adequate mental equipment to maintain a low place in ordinary schools yet fail to float under the conditions of social life it may be estimated that the true figure for adults lies somewhere a little under 1 per cent., diminishing as time goes on owing to the differential death-rate being against the defectives.

The proportions among delinquents may perhaps be estimated in the case of children from a consideration of the numbers in Industrial Schools; of these at the end of 1922, 2162 were in ordinary industrial schools and 85 in special industrial schools for the mentally defective. According to this 3-8 per cent. of the delinquents were defective, a proportion which agrees sufficiently well with Dr East's figures.

The next question, How far delinquent defectives are a random sample of the total defective population? may be investigated by a comparison