the whole peninsula by means of railways-to foster and encourage local agriculture and trade; but, above all, to institute schools and higher seminaries of education throughout every province and village. The mind of the Hindoo is acute and thoughtful-his feelings and affections are disposed to all the charities of civilized and domestic life-and he requires only kind treatment,

education (both secular and religious), and the stimulants of active and industrious life, to make him a new being-in short, to bring him back to the great IndoEuropean family to which his language, his physical structure, and his mental capabilities, evidently show him to have originally belonged.

Ir might be supposed a very easy matter to draw a line of distinction between offenders who are morally responsible for their acts, and those who are not. Yet in practice this is by no means the case; and no subject of late has given rise to such nice hair-splitting speculations, as, in the first place, what constitutes an insane act, and in the next place, whether such act should be punished or not. We say of late, for not many years have elapsed since our justiciary benches began to make any distinctions of the kind-almost all murderers being punished with death, whatever was the condition of their intellects. Thus no question was made about the moral responsibility of Bellingham, the murderer of Percival; though evidently a madman, he was hanged without any remorse; and, to come nearer to the present day, a wretched lunatic, who, in a fit of caprice, murdered a poor woman at Cramond village, in the neighbourhood of Edinburgh, also suffered death on the gallows. We think the public mind cannot be too much alive to this question, especially in connection with a subject which we alluded to in a former number-the amelioration of our criminal code. With this view we give the following case of murder by an insane person, from a work we already noticed-" Narratives of Remarkable Criminal Trials from the German."

He

Conrad Eichmuller of Lenzenberg, a day-labourer, seventy-one years old, and feeble with age, had been employed for about a week on a hill in the forest near Hersbruck, in digging and cutting up stumps of trees. always went to his work early in the morning, and returned home before dark, usually at five o'clock; but on the 7th of September 1824, night began to close in, and he was not come back. His wife, a woman of sixty-two, became uneasy about him, and sent her son by a former marriage, a young man called Lahner, with some other youths, to look after him. They soon returned with the news that the old man was lying dead in the forest, and took with them some men, and a cart to fetch the body.

Eichmuller was found about three feet from the stump at which he had been working, and in which three wedges were still sticking; he was lying with his face towards the ground, his skull shattered, and both feet chopped off; the left foot still adhered to the body by the boot, but the right lay under a tree at a distance of four or five feet. Traces of blood clearly showed that he had been dragged from the spot where he was at work, after he had been killed and his feet had been chopped off; his jacket and his two axes were scattered about, and one of the latter was stained with blood in a manner which left no doubt that it had been used in the murder and mutilation of the unfortunate old man. The wife had charged her son to take possession of the money which her husband had in his pocket, amounting to about two florins, but on searching the body nothing was found upon it, save one button in the breeches pocket.

The deed was no sooner made public than the murderer was known and brought before the tribunal at Hersbruck.

On the 7th of September (the day of the murder), Paul Deuerlein, a day-labourer, was driving a cart load of grain from Reichenschwand to Hersbruck, and at about five o'clock in the afternoon, he overtook young Sörgel on the road, and called out to him, "Where do you come from? the Hansgörgle, eh?" Sorgel replied, pointing to the hill," A year ago some one buried my

blood up there; I went to look for it last year, but it had not curdled then, and he who had buried it flogged me soundly. To-day I went up there again to look after my blood, and he who buried it was there again, and had horns, but I hit him on the head with the hatchet, chopped off his feet, and drank his blood." Deuerlein, who knew that Sörgel was foolish at times, took no heed of what he said; meanwhile they came to Hersbruck, where Sörgel's father was waiting at the door of the poor-house, into which he and his family had been received.

Sörgel came quietly along with Deuerlein, who told the father, in the presence of a blind man called Albert Gassner, what his son had been saying. The father scolded his son for talking such nonsense; but he replied, "Yes, father, it is quite true that I knocked a man on the head and chopped off his feet; I killed him in order to drink a felon's blood; and the man had horns upon his head." Gassner followed Sörgel into his room, where he added, "I also took from him a purse of mo ney, but I threw it away again, for I will never keep what is not mine." Gassner said, jesting, "Oh, you kept the money, to be sure;" whereupon Sörgel was angry, and said, "Hold your tongue, or I will strike you dead."

About an hour later Sörgel went into the barn of the inn, next door to the poorhouse, laughing heartily, and said to Katharine Gassner, "Now I am well again; I have given it to some one soundly; I hit him on the head, and chopped off both his feet, and one of them I threw away." Katharine was frightened at this speech, especially as she perceived blood upon his face; when she asked him how it got there, he answered, “I drank a felon's blood;" and he went on to tell her that the man was sitting on the ground filling a pipe, and that he (Sörgel) took up the man's hatchet, which lay beside him, struck him with it on the head, and took two florins which he had upon him.

In the evening he told Katharine Götz, the daughter of the sick-nurse in the poorhouse, that he had come upon a woodcutter who was digging up stumps in the forest, and that at first he had helped him at his work, but that the man then appeared to him to have horns, whereupon he took up the hatchet and hit him on the head; that the man groaned very much, and he then chopped off both his feet and drank his blood.

Old Sörgel, who looked upon his son's story as a symptom of returning insanity, to attacks of which his son was subject, chained him to his bed by way of precaution. The son bore it quietly, ate his supper, and joined in prayer with the rest of the family as usual, and then lay down; but towards morning he broke out in raving madness, stormed, and tugged at his chain, which he endeavoured to break. In this state he was found by the constables when they went to arrest and take him before the court, and they were accordingly forced to depart without him. Soon after, however, he became perfectly quiet, and his own father and another man took him before the court, unfettered, on the 8th of September.

He was immediately examined in the presence of his father and his father's companion. On being questioned, he stated that his name was John George Sörgel, that he was twenty years of age, a Protestant, the son of a day-labourer, born in the poorhouse at Hersbruck, unmarried, and without property, and that he had learned the trade of a knife-grinder and of a chimney-sweep.

On being asked whether he had ever been in custody before, he replied, "Oh, no; who would do any harm to me-I am an angel." He then related the murder as follows:-"I went yesterday with my father to the wood called the Hansgorgle-I left my father, and saw at a distance an old man digging up stumps of trees-I did not know this man; but it seemed to me that my own blood was buried under the stump, and I formerly dreamed that my parents were shut up in that place, and that I must drink the blood of a felon. So I went up to the old man, and struck him on the head with his hatchet, and chopped off both his feet. I then drank the blood out of his head, left him lying there, and went home." When asked what could induce him to commit such a deed, he said, "The thing is done and I cannot help it; it was because I thought he was digging up my blood.” Sörgel signed the protocol properly, but during the examination he stared about him wildly, showed great restlessness, and fidgetted with his feet and hands; moreover he continually expressed a desire of becoming a soldier, and could only be kept in the room by the promise that his wishes should be complied with.

On the same afternoon he was taken to Lenzenberg to see the body, which he approached without the slightest air of dismay, embarrassment, or remorse. When asked whether he recognised it, he said, "Yes, it is the same man whom I struck yesterday evening; he is dressed in the same clothes; I chopped off his feet so that he might never be laid in chains again." During this scene he displayed the same bodily restlessness as he had done at his examination. He frequently laughed, and said that he was an angel, and that he had known very well that the old man was good for nothing.

On the following day, 9th of September, the judges went into the prison of the accused to examine him again. When asked how he felt, he said, "My head is very full, and I have bad dreams; among other things I dreamt that I must go up to the Hansgörgle, where there is a clock which strikes very loud." You told us yesterday that you had killed a man; how did you do that? "I saw an old man digging up stumps in the Hansgörgle, and I went and sat down near him. I took up his batchet, which lay beside him, and struck him with the back of it upon the head, so that he instantly fell down dead; then I chopped off both his feet. He had an old wooden tobacco-pipe in his hand, which he dropped when I struck him; I took the pipe, but threw it away directly. I also took his flint and steel, and kept them;" (these were found upon him by his father, and delivered to the court.) Sorgel stedfastly denied having taken any money from the old man, or having confessed to any one that he had done so, nor was a single coin found upon him. Why then did you chop off the man's feet? "In order that he might not be laid in chains." Why did you kill him? "I struck him because I thought he was going to dig up my own blood." He then went on to say that a strange woman had once told him he must drink felon's blood to be cured of the falling sickness; and he added that he had felt much better since he had drunk the old man's blood. "I knew," said he, "that it was forbidden to kill people, but I killed the man in order to be cured by his blood. It happened soon before five in the afternoon, and I first drank the blood from the man's head, and then dragged him to a little distance and cut off both his feet; the left foot remained attached to the boot, and the right foot I threw away." The blood-stained hatchet was then laid before him; he looked at it attentively, and said at last, "Yes, that is the hatchet with which I struck the man and chopped off his feet." He also recognised the flint and steel which were shown him. The examination concluded with the following questions and answers: - Do you repent of what you have done? "Why, he beat me soundly last year, and that is why he did nothing to me when I hit him on the head." On what occasion did the man

beat you last year? "I went to the woods once before to catch birds, and he beat me then."

"My

On the 15th of September the court was informed that Sörgel had been perfectly quiet for several days, and that he talked coherently, without any mixture of foolish fancies. The judges hereupon repaired to his prison, in order to avail themselves of this interval of reason for an examination. His appearance and manner were totally changed; when the authorities came in he took off his cap, and greeted them civilly, which he had never done before, at the same time addressing the judge by name. On being asked, he said he had felt much better ever since he had been bled by order of the physician. That before that he had not been at all well, that his head had been dizzy and full of strange fancies, and that he had dreamt all manuer of nonsense. He was then asked if he knew the cause of his arrest. father," said he, "who generally watches beside me at night, told me that I ran away from him in the Hansgorgle and killed a woodcutter, so I suppose that is why I am in prison." Did he remember going to the Hansgorgle with his father. "No; I should know nothing of the matter had not my father told me about it the other day. I know nothing at all of having killed a man; and if I did so, it must have been the will of God who led me thither." He was then reminded that he had himself twice told the court that he had killed a woodcutter with his own hatchet. "I remember," said he, " that you were here in my prison, and that somebody wrote at yonder table, but I know nothing of having confessed that I killed a man." He as positively denied any recollection of having had a dead man with his legs chopped off shown to him, or that a bloody hatchet and a flint and steel had been laid before him, both of which he recognised. Nevertheless he knew that he had been imprisoned for about ten days, and that it was Saturday. He admitted having heard, as he added, from his mother, who had heard it from some one else, that the blood of a felon was a cure for the falling sickness, but observed that the man he killed was no felon, but rather that he himself must be one. Still he maintained that he never remembered drinking human blood or killing the woodcutter. "Every one tells me that I did so," said he, "and therefore I am bound to believe it, but I must have been out of my mind at the time." During the whole examination his demeanour was quiet and collected, he spoke coherently, and without any confusion of ideas, and his look was open and unembarrassed.

The next examination was deferred until the 28th September, but nothing new was elicited. Sörgel still answered every question by declaring that he knew absolutely nothing of all that he had formerly related to the court and to other persons. The flint and steel were shown to him, but he denied all knowledge of them, or of how they had come into his possession. The axe was likewise laid before him, but he said, "I don't know it." The court remarked that during the whole examination the prisoner behaved with composure and propriety, was perfectly easy and unconstrained, and that his countenance was open and cheerful.

It is evident that the utter ignorance of all he had done, which Sörgel professed during the examinations of the 15th and 28th August, was not affected. Falsehood is never so perfectly consistent as were his declarations in the two last examinations, nor can dissimulation ever appear so frank and unconstrained as the demeanour of this young man, who was, moreover, described by all who knew him as a simple, kind-hearted, pious lad when in his right senses. At both the two last examinations he showed himself perfectly sane, whereas, if he had had any reason for wishing to deceive the judge, nothing would have been easier for him than to continue playing the part of a madman. If his ignorance at the two last examinations was affected, his former madness must necessarily have been equally false, a supposition which is contradicted by all the evidence. None

see now nor ever should, Sörgel replied, Wait a bit; I will take a knife and cut your eyes open, and then you will see;' which frightened Gassner so that he ran away. On Saturday, 4th September, he stayed nearly all day in my parents' room, where there was a soldier lying sick. He did not seem to like this, and frequently asked the soldier to get up and go away with him. I turned him out at the door several times, but he always returned, and once he gave me such a terrible look that I was quite frightened. On Sunday (5th) he told me that he had a hair in his mouth that reached down into his stomach, and begged me to pull it out. I was going to do so, but his mouth was so full of foam that I was frightened. He then went to the well and rinsed his mouth, saying all the time that he felt so ill he must be going to die. In the evening he lay upon the bench in my room, and hung his head down backwards, which I forbid him several times, but he always did it again. On Monday afternoon he kept walking up and down in the passage, and at last threw himself violently upon his face, crying, Kill me, kill me!' and in the evening he threw himself down in the same manner under a tree, so that his father had to carry him away." Katharine Gassuer and Elizabeth Hecklin gave evidence to precisely the same effect.

After his father had taken him home on Monday evening, he again tried to escape through the window, whereupon old Sörgel sent to the constable for a chain and padlock, and chained his son to the wall beside his bed, to which he quietly submitted.

On Tuesday morning young Sörgel appeared perfectly tranquil, and begged his father for God's sake to unfetter him. His request was complied with, and he prayed and breakfasted with his parents. At last he proposed to his father to take a walk with him up the old hill, about three miles from Hersbruck, as it might divert his thoughts and do him good. His father consented, and they set out together at about eight o'clock. When they reached the very top of the mountain, young Sörgel jumped down a steep bank, broke through the thicket and disappeared. His father, seeing that it was impossible to follow him, went home, in order to prevent mischief there. What followed, our readers already know.

Nothing is more remarkable than that Sörgel's confessions, which were made during his fits of madness, should, with one single exception, tally so accurately in every point with the real facts of the case. His statement was as connected and as intelligible a one in every respect, except the fantastic motives which he assigned for the deed, as could have been made by a perfectly sane man. The only one of his assertions which was contradicted by the evidence of others is this, that before the court Sörgel denied having taken or having ever told any one that he had taken, the murdered man's purse. It was nevertheless certain that the woodcutter had had two florins in his possession, and that this money must have been taken by Sörgel. This was proved by the declaration of the widow and her son, and by the confession made by Sörgel that very evening to the blind Gassner and to Katharine, both parties agreeing exactly as to the sum. It is, however, equally certain that Sörgel did not keep this money; in all probability he took it in a fit of childish avidity, and afterwards threw it away as a useless or forbidden possession.

The perfect unconcern with which Sörgel related the whole transaction, as if it were the most ordinary event, as well as several irrational expressions which he made use of in court, prove him to have been mad, not only when he committed the murder, but also when he underwent the first two examinations. The most remarkable light is thrown upon his condition by the change which took place in him when the fit of madness had passed away. With the madness, every trace of the imaginary world which it had called into existence disappeared from his mind. His recovery was like waking from a deep sleep, which left no impression but a vague sense of bad and frightful dreains. So long as his soul was darkened

by madness, he was as perfectly conscious of his own fancies, motives, resolutions, and actions, as of the real external circumstances of the deed, and was able clearly to describe all that had passed. But these images, mo tives, and recollections, vanished as soon as the spell of madness was broken, and he heard the account with as much surprise as he would have listened to the recital of the strange deeds of some unknown person. He knew only thus much of a period of several days, "that his head was very confused, and that he dreamt all manner of nonsense." "9 He did not even remember the substance of his dreams; only one or two circumstances remained in his memory; for instance, that the judge had visited him in prison, and that some one had written at the table. He was not aware either that he was himself the principal person concerned on that occasion, that the subject of the inquiry was his own deed, or that he had confessed it.

It is well known that in madness or delirium the patient often appears to himself to be a third person, or ascribes his own feelings and actions to some one else. Thus a fever patient begs his nurse to remove that troublesome guest out of his bed, pointing all the while to himself, or says that a friend sitting by his bedside has a violent pain in the side, or is thirsty, and requests that something may be given him to drink; while it is he himself who feels the pain and the thirst which he ascribes to another. This singular confusion of persons occurs twice in Sörgel's madness, and proves its reality and the truth of his confession; and also that the confession was made during the paroxysm of insanity, as in it he relates these delusions as positive facts.

The first instance of this delusion was that which prompted him to drink the blood of the murdered man. After he had recovered his senses, he was perfectly well able to distinguish a felon from a murdered man. Thus his application of the vulgar superstition that the blood of an executed felon is a cure for the falling sickness, to the man he had himself killed, was no doubt entirely the result of this delusion. His imagination transferred to the person of the murdered man that which he knew himself to have become by the deed he had committed. We find exactly the same confusion in the motive which induced him to chop off the feet of the murdered He constantly asserted that he had done this in order to prevent their laying the old man in chains again. Now Sörgel had of late been frequently chained himself, and indeed had but just been released from the chains in which he had lain all night, and possibly still felt the pressure of the rings upon his ankles; and here again his disturbed imagination confounded his own feet with those of the dead man, and in order to secure himself from the danger of being laid in chains in future, on the presumption that a man who has no feet cannot be chained by them, he chopped off both the feet of the dead woodcutter.

man.

The physicians declared their opinion that Sörgel had committed the murder in a paroxysm of madness, when he was not accountable for his actions; and accordingly the court, on the 23d November 1824, acquitted him of murder.

For the safety of the community, he was confined in the madhouse of Schwabach, where he died in the course of a few months.

No doubt can be entertained of the justice and humanity of this decision of the Bavarian Judges. Indeed it becomes a question whether a considerable number of the cases of murder are not perpetrated by persons labouring under some kind of mental disease. It is evident in the above case, which is by no means a sin gular one, that the individual acted under two distinct mental states, the one in which he had no present consciousness of the import of the actions he was committing, and consequently a state of moral irresponsibility; the other, where his mind was awake to the consequences of all his actions,