of governing himself and his affairs by reason of unsoundness of mind. Mere weakness of character, mere liability to impulse or susceptibility to influence, good or bad, mere imprudence, extravagance, recklessness, eccentricity or immorality-no, not all these put together-would suffice unless they (the jury) believed themselves justified on a review of the whole evidence in referring them to a morbid condition of intellect1."

The general type of allegations in this summary are just those that might occur in a case of alleged moral imbecility and no doubt a similar line would be taken in any modern proceedings. It is of interest, too, to note the final phrase is 'morbid condition of intellect.' For the law, man is a reasoning animal, it is only the newer psychology which would regard supposed reasoning as a rationalization of instinctive obedience to unconscious urgings. This reliance on intellect fits well with Dr Tredgold's submission that the moral imbecile is deficient in wisdom, and does not altogether disagree with Professor Burt's class of temperamental defectives, since he makes his factor of stability the quotient of emotionality by intelligence. The wisdom referred to by Dr Tredgold is however largely an acquired character arising from education in the broadest sense. It seems doubtful if Professor Burt has made adequate allowance for suppression and repression in his estimate of emotionality, but perhaps these would affect stability only indirectly through the imbalance of the emotions. After all, both suppression and repression depend on factors which were once conscious and dependent on the intelligence, so that in the end the two views approximate to one another. I hope to urge later that the fundamental defect is one of feeling tone and so even more primitive and innate.

The terms 'strong vicious and criminal propensities' also require a little consideration. Elsewhere Dr Tredgold has argued that the term 'strong' is intended to exclude those of such weak character and impulse that they can scarcely be said to have strong propensities of any kind. Unfortunately, however, some such are serious public menaces. As regards 'criminal' the matter is simply a matter of law, though as pointed out some things are called crimes which would scarcely be regarded in public opinion as vicious; these can perhaps be excluded from present purview. It is unfortunate that so much affect attaches to moral questions as to prevent many from considering problems of alleged vice in the relatively dispassionate way they do matters of defect of intelligence. For example, some regard the fact of a woman being an habitual and unrepentant prostitute as being in itself and without other evidence 1 The Times, January 30th, 1862.

sufficient proof that she is a moral imbecile; irrespective of any considerations of her early environment and upbringing, or her possibly urgent needs. From this angle, it is a pity that the phrase 'despite careful upbringing' should have been omitted, for it must be clear that before conduct is ascribed to mental abnormality it must be established that a normal person would not have arrived at the same end if forced to travel the same social path. It is the customs and beliefs, the taboos of the particular local group forming the immediate environment of the alleged defective in his or her early years that matter. No one would think of judging the mentality of a savage solely by his reactions to a civilized code, but rather by his reactions to his own tribal customs, yet less is known of the true social anthropology of our cities than of many savage areas. "Those without the law shall also perish without law as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law." To those brought up in sheltered homes lapses may be deemed to show the probability of mental defect, that would be but natural actions in those raised under other and laxer circumstances. Though there is the converse side; there are those who have been too sheltered and thus are ignorant of common facts, and have had no adequate channels for ordinary adolescent emotional developments; such may sin unwittingly. A careful survey of the alleged vicious propensities, their circumstances, and the motives assigned by the subject, is essential, for it may be that the import of certain facts which at first seemed serious may fade away upon closer scrutiny. As a case in point: a youth in an Industrial School was described as a moral imbecile apparently mainly on the information given to the practitioner by others to the effect that the youth persistently wandered at night, committed acts of petty pilfering, and was found sleeping or staying away from his dormitory, on which acts rigorous punishment had had no deterrent effect. Enquiry on the spot showed that the acts complained of took place during the height of the rationing of food and fuel in a winter of the war. The youth rose from his dormitory, raided the dumps, and took two or three potatoes to the furnace-room, where he roasted and ate his spoils. The dietary at the time was admittedly scanty, and the furnace-room the only really warm part of the school. Even allowing that this was serious conduct, since had all done the same the school allowance would not have sufficed, the results were of such real value to the forager that they might well be set off against the disadvantages of the inevitable punishment and the whole regarded as a normal reaction to a difficult problem of reality.

On the matter of 'punishment' it would seem most generally accepted

that parental punishment must be assessed as well as legal punishment of which there would be evidence from the police. Parental punishment is of importance mainly in relation to the evidence of early age. From the psychological standpoint, it is important, however, that the punishment should be recognized as such by the individual recipient. If a boy receives praise from his companions for his attitude in taking it without a murmur, sentiments of honour rather than of shame may be aroused. Also, if a boy is punished at school or by a court for misdeeds, while at home all are willing to profit by the proceeds of a successful foray, any blame or feelings of wrongness will become attached not to the deed itself but to the lack of skill which enabled the perpetrator to be discovered. This may be a good training for the intelligence but not for morality. The method was actually employed as a form of training in classical days in the schools of Crete and Sparta. Too often unfortunately alleged moral imbeciles turn out to be spoiled children who have never been punished beyond a half-hearted reprimand, the bad habits being thus impressed rather than broken or checked by the resulting immunity from serious discomfort. Dr Hamblin Smith's statement re legal punishment is no doubt the result of his cases being mainly those coming under Sections 8 and 9 of the Act. His remarks on the conflict between the pleasure and the reality principles constitute the basis of the deterrent effect of punishment. Were legal or scholastic or parental punishment as inevitable and impersonal as is Nature's punishment for playing with fire or hitting a stone with the hand, all save idiots would learn the lesson. It is the occasional escapes that keep up the idea of the worthwhileness of misconduct, while doubt as to the motive of the disciplinarian may spoil the moral lesson proposed.

Taking all in all, it would seem that there are cases that can rightly be certified under the definition of moral imbecility though the administration would have been easier if the terms had been less ambiguous.

The second main topic of this symposium concerns the existence or otherwise of a special clinical type which could be described as defective more in the moral than the intellectual sense and yet have the bases of their mentality abnormal. Such a type or types seem to exist, but only in a few instances would the members of this class comply with all the postulates of the legal definition of a moral imbecile.

The cases I have in mind show no defect of intelligence as measured either by formal intelligence tests or by the scholastic method of public examinations. They can render lip service to any ethical tests and could discuss ethical problems with considerable wisdom, for they are free to

an unusually large extent from unconscious affective bias. They have even largely escaped the effects of the early example and precepts, forcible or otherwise, of the parents or their surrogates by the fact that their feelings were not excited and so there was nothing to cause endopsychic conflict or to lead to repression. It may of course be urged that there may be the alternative explanation of masochism.

In a sense they may be said to have solved their difficulties in the same manner as the perverts. Having little feeling of their own, they ascribe little feeling to others; possibly ascribe is the wrong word for it may be doubted if there is any conscious process of thought. They differ from the temperamentally defective in that they can scarcely be described as unstable, being more like a pathological exaggeration of the class called by Guthrie 'the unemotiona child.' The extent to which the individual instincts are affected varies from one to another; when the self-regarding instincts have a low emotional tone, the person may sink into low, degraded habits. In one such case an educated girl who had worked in a government office during the war had become so degraded that even the lowest of waterside labourers and seamen, among whom she was finally a prostitute, could no longer tolerate her habits. She seemed to have no conflict, to take it all as a matter of course, as she had done seduction, and even incest, both of which seemed to have occurred without arousing emotion, though she was at the time in full adult life. The great feature of these is that their misconduct or callousness is shown in all directions. They are unfeeling to all around, to their parents, brothers and sisters, and to animals alike. They do not show the specialization noted in the criminal, and, indeed, in most vicious persons, but offend in all directions often to all appearance needlessly and senselessly. They cannot have shame nor apparently much joy, self-regard being often low; they form practically no altruistic sentiments and no social attachments. When the self-regarding impulses are only affected to a minor degree and intelligence is high, they may attain to a considerable success in life, though their proclivity for sacrificing others to themselves may be so utterly unbounded that from all ethical aspects they must appear undoubtedly mentally defective, albeit not necessarily certifiable. In the families of such it is common to find psycho-neurotic brothers or sisters and sometimes actual examples of ordinary mental deficiency, a feature that has also been noted in the family history of many sexual perverts. Where the defectives of this type have had children, these have often an inferior intelligence to their parent. No doubt it was some such observations that led to the old saying "clogs to clogs in three

generations." When possessed of good intelligence, such persons may make good, and even without that quality may do little harm unless one of the more aggressive instincts is dominant, but members of this type being without feelings for others may at times be the worst of scourges. It must be noted that this is not the type of the whiner who alleges he is never given a chance, that everything is always unfairly against him but that next time he will make good. Those now under consideration simply seem as if they could not be bothered to care about the matter but just go on with their conduct as a right. When they have shown the necessary strong propensities and have been ineffectively punished, such are clearly comprised within the definition. For the diagnosis of this type there would be:

(a) Evidence of low emotional tone in discussing events of present and past history, as also a history throughout of carelessness both for others and for self.

(b) A history of persistent misconduct of a very varied nature from childhood onwards, despite careful upbringing, and graduated exposure to temptation.

(c) A lack of consideration of their present position.

(d) Usually a history of neuropathic conditions in other members of the family.

(e) The absence of other explanations of the conditions revealed in examinations and history.

Dr Tredgold might reasonably maintain that it is lack of wisdom which is of the essence of the defect, but to me it seems to be the lack of feeling tone which keeps their social reactions, or many of them, at an infantile level, checks the action of the herd instinct, for many such do not seek or much concern themselves over the society of their own class, prevents their appreciating or caring about the fact that they are being or have been punished, and leaves them in the extreme of selfishness invincibly ignorant of the second great commandment of the Law.