Those who read the Italian Retrospect in the last number of this Journal, may, perhaps, remember that Professor Lombroso's book was reserved for a separate examination. Mere excellence of treatment would hardly have led us to ask for further room in reviewing a work which deals with a disease happily unknown in England, and therefore of no practical importance.

Considering the history of France for the last eighteen months, there would have been little reason for surprise if our brethren there had entirely ceased to contribute their share to the literature of psychological medicine. They have, however, continued to write and to publish, although three numbers of the “Annales” were published during the siege of Paris, and one under the reign of the Commune, when Paris was cut off from the rest of the world. The “Journal de Médecine Mentale” seems to have been more unfortunate, as only one number was published for the last four months of 1870, since which we have received no more.

When this case first appeared in the Court of Session, Edinburgh, in March last, it excited much attention among the general public, and it formed a frequent subject of discussion among members of the medical and legal professions. The progress of the suit was watched with much interest; the evidence led was carefully weighed; the opinions of the medical experts were freely criticised; the charge of the judge gave the utmost satisfaction to some, while the verdict of the jury equally delighted those who held a contrary opinion. The case presents many points of interest for those engaged in the study and treatment of mental diseases, but any remarks to be made on the points which demand special notice will be given after an abstract of the evidence has been presented to the reader. It may be remarked that the evidence was very voluminous, and that while every effort has been made to make the present abstract as short as possible, care has been taken to avoid obscurity, and no really important piece of evidence has been omitted for the sake of brevity. It must also be added that this account of the case has been made up from the reports of the proceedings which appeared in the “Scotsman.”

The following is an abstract of the above paper. It begins by saying that :—

So many cases of insanity consist of simple brain excitement, and in so many more is excitement the most distressing symptom, that if we could discover any agent which would subdue this excitement, and at the same time not interfere with the improved nutrition of the brain which rest, tonics, and good diet will effect, and on which complete recovery of its normal functions depends, such an agent would be a most incalculable blessing. There are many cases in which a physician knows that if he could tide over his patient for a few weeks of excitement, recovery would come as the natural termmination of the attack. Much distruct of strong narcotics prevails among the profession since Dr. Anstie's work on “Stimulants and Narcotics” appeared. And yet how is such a case of maniacal excitement to be managed without them out of a lunatic asylum? The exact condition of the brain cells in mania being as yet quite unknown, we cannot apply a direct antidote. At best we can only work empirically. But our empiricism may be founded on a rational and scientific examination of the effects of the drugs we use, and the natural history of the disease we treat, or it may be a mere haphazard employment of some agent recommended by some one who had no rational ground for his recommendation at all.

During the last six years Dr. Browne bas made an extensive series of experiments with ergot of rye in the treatment of the various forms of insanity, and lias arrived at some remarkable results.