maintain that there is an unfortunate class—that of idiots—which has not hitherto received that share of attention to which it is entitled. Why is this? Is it due to a pampered selfishness which has chosen to draw a curtain of indifference around this unfortunate branch of the human race? Is the fountain of charity frozen up in East Anglia? Nothing of the kind, and I think this apparent neglect is mainly due to a misconception as to the nature of idiocy, and as to the amount of amelioration of which the subjects of this unfortunate infirmity are susceptible. It is with the view of removing this erroneous impression, that I have been requested to say a few words to you about idiocy, from a scientific point of view, my desire being to instruct the mind of the public as to the nature and character of the evil to be contended with, as to the probability of alleviating it, and as to the means best adapted to the attainment of this object.

In the few remarks that I shall make, I hope to show you that the study of idiocy is fraught with interest, not only to the man of science and the philanthropist, but to the political economist, the statesman, and the theologian. If it be asked what possible connection there can be between theology and idiocy, I would say, that if time permitted, I could show that the study of the nature and attributes of the idiot has a striking bearing on the much-disputed question of the connection between matter and mind, and also that it points to a conclusion directly opposed to the materialistic tendencies of the day.

DEFINITION OF IDIOCY.

Great confusion exists in the public mind as to the nature of idiocy. What is an idiot? Dr. Séguin, a celebrated writer on this subject, has described idiocy as a "specific infirmity of the cerebro-spinal centre," a definition which I need not say applies to a variety of infirmities to which flesh is heir, and such a definition only serves as a cloak for ignorance. Shakespeare, that wonderfully accurate observer of human nature, in several of his dramas has given a very good description of the acts of the idiot, who, he says, is "one who holds his bauble for his God;" and again, as "one who tells a tale full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." But neither he nor the psychologists of his day knew enough of the natural history of the idiot to attempt a logical definition.

As I have spent a great deal of time in the investigation of obscure points of cerebral pathology, of course the question of the idiot has not escaped my attention, and I submit the following definition:—

An idiot is a human being who possesses the tripartite nature of man—body, soul, and spirit, σωμα, ψυχη, πνευμα, but who is the subject of an infirmity consisting, anatomically, of a defective organisation and want of development of the brain, resulting in an inability, more or less complete, for the exercise of the intellectual, moral, and sensitive faculties. There are various shades and degrees of this want of development, from those whose mental and bodily deficiencies differ but slightly from the lowest of the so-called sound-minded, to those individuals who simply vegetate, and whose deficiencies are so decided as to isolate them, as it were, from the rest of nature.

Dr. Langdon Down[1] divides Idiocy into three primary groups: Congenital, Developmental, and Accidental. The Congenital includes all cases which at the period of birth manifest signs of the defective mental power. The Developmental group includes cases where the child manifests an average intelligence through infancy, but he is born with a proclivity to a mental break-down during one of the developmental crises, such as the first dentition, the second dentition, and puberty; the brain and nervous power are sufficient for their early years, but are insufficient to carry them through evolutional stages. The Accidental group includes cases where the child has been born with a normal nervous system, when unfortunately a fall, a fright, epilepsy, or some other cause may lead to a mental break-down, not of a genetic, but of a purely accidental origin. The various forms of idiocy are described in minute detail by Dr. Ireland,[2] to whose classical work I would refer those who may desire further information on this subject.

The first idiot that attracted the attention of scientific men was looked upon as a savage man, and every treatise on the subject contains some allusion to the so-called savage of the Aveyron, who excited so much curiosity, speculation, and interest among the psychologists of Paris in the early part of the present century.

In old books on medical nomenclature idiocy was classed amongst the varieties of insanity, and the visitor to a lunatic asylum half a century ago, would find the idiot skulking in the corner of a courtyard chained to a staple, and lying on a litter of straw; in fact, he was considered and treated more like a wild beast than a human being. He had but little talent given, and by neglect or abuse that little was lost; until, growing more and more brutal, he sank unregetting and unregretted into an early grave, without ever being counted as a man. Now, idiocy is not a form of insanity, and it is most important that no confusion should exist in the public mind upon this point, as the association of idiots and insane patients in the same asylum is a positive disadvantage to both classes. It is always a painful thing to see idiot children, whose mental faculties and physical powers, as I shall presently show, are capable of much development and improvement, wandering, without object or special care, about the wards of a Lunatic Asylum. They cannot receive there the training and supervision they specially require, and they often seriously interfere with the comfort of the other inmates, and meet in return, with ridicule and unkindness; moreover, their presence is a serious obstacle to the complete recovery of convalescent lunatics. I desire especially to press this point upon the legislators of the country, and, as in this county, our union houses are far too large for the requirements of the age, I would suggest that one or more of them might, with advantage, be devoted to the care and treatment of pauper idiots.[3]

Insanity is a loss more or less complete of faculties formerly possessed, it consists of a perturbation of the mental faculties after their complete development, it begins with average intelligence which gradually diminishes; whereas idiocy begins with a low amount of intelligence, which, in many instances, gradually increases; the difference has been thus beautifully described by a French psychologist, "L'homme en démence est privé des biens dont il jouissait autrefois, c'est un riche devenu pauvre. L'idiot a toujours été dans l'infortune et la misère." (The man that is mad is deprived of possessions which he formerly enjoyed, it is a rich man become poor; whereas the idiot has always been in