Your Lordship seems to consider that we have derived some advantages by the issue of a commission to ascertain this _unsoundness_ of mind, and without such due consideration, it is presumed you would not have adopted it; but the citation of your own accurate phraseology, as it appears in your judgment of 1815, on the Portsmouth petition, will best illustrate the subject. "It seems to have been a very long time before those who had the administration of justice in this department thought themselves at liberty to issue a commission, when the person was represented as not being idiot ex nativitate, as not being lunatic, but as being of UNSOUND MIND, importing, by these words, the notion, that the party was in _some such state_, as was to be contra-distinguished from idiotcy, and as was to be contra-distinguished from lunacy, and yet _such_ as made him a proper object of a commission in the nature of a commission to inquire of idiotcy, or a commission to inquire of lunacy." These words clearly imply a morbid state of intellect, which is neither idiotcy nor lunacy, termed _unsound mind_, and yet the legal remedy for the protection of the person and property of the possessor of this _unsound mind_ does not differ from that which is applied to idiot and lunatic. The process of law is the same. This undescribed state of unsoundness is contra-distinguished from idiotcy and lunacy; but we are left in the dark concerning the peculiar circumstances by which it is contra-distinguished, and under such defect the advantages of introducing a new and undefined term are not apparent. For what purpose "those who had the administration of justice in this department thought themselves at liberty" so to act, is not explained: but your Lordship having adopted such practice, and highly commended the authority from whence it has been derived, can, doubtless, afford the necessary elucidation.