BY the old common law there is a writ _de idiota inquirendo_, to enquire whether a man be an idiot or not[m]: which must be tried by a jury of twelve men; and if they find him _purus idiota_, the profits of his lands, and the custody of his person may be granted by the king to some subject, who has interest enough to obtain them[n]. This branch of the revenue hath been long considered as a hardship upon private families; and so long ago as in the 8 Jac. I. it was under the consideration of parliament, to vest this custody in the relations of the party, and to settle an equivalent on the crown in lieu of it; it being then proposed to share the same fate with the slavery of the feodal tenures, which has been since abolished[o]. Yet few instances can be given of the oppressive exertion of it, since it seldom happens that a jury finds a man an idiot _a nativitate_, but only _non compos mentis_ from some particular time; which has an operation very different in point of law. [Footnote m: F.N.B. 232.] [Footnote n: This power, though of late very rarely exerted, is still alluded to in common speech, by that usual expression of _begging_ a man for a fool.] [Footnote o: 4. Inst. 203. Com. Journ. 1610.] A MAN is not an idiot[p], if he hath any glimmering of reason, so that he can tell his parents, his age, or the like common matters. But a man who is born deaf, dumb, and blind, is looked upon by the law as in the same state with an idiot[q]; he being supposed incapable of understanding, as wanting those senses which furnish the human mind with ideas. [Footnote p: F.N.B. 233.] [Footnote q: Co. Litt. 42. Fleta. _l._ 6. _c._ 40.]