A brief reference to the history of the development of the present legal conceptions of criminal responsibility will justify the comments made by Ray. The terms idiocy, lunacy and non compos mentis were all used by Coke in his "Institutes of the Laws of England" written, as nearly as can be determined, in 1625. A differentiation between the significance of the word idiot and non compos mentis appeared as early as 1325 in the English statute "De Praerogativa Regis," which delegated various responsibilities to the crown that are recognized to this day. Sir Matthew Hale, about 1670, described a partial and a total insanity, the former not being accepted as relieving the accused of responsibility for the commitment of a crime. It is an interesting fact that we still hear the question of partial insanity seriously discussed. In 1723 Justice Tracy in a murder trial ruled that "a prisoner in order to be acquitted on the ground of insanity must be a man that is totally deprived of his understanding and memory, and doth not know what he is doing no more than an infant, than a brute or a wild beast." As a result of this ruling a man was found guilty of attempting to murder a neighbor who sent devils and imps into his house at night for the purpose of disturbing his sleep. Fortunately the sentence was commuted to life imprisonment. In 1812 the Attorney General of England[79] ruled that "a man may be deranged in his mind—his intellect may be insufficient for enabling him to conduct the common affairs of life, such as disposing of his property, or judging of the claims which his respective relations have upon him; and if he be so, the administration of the country will take his affairs into their management, and appoint to him trustees; but, at the same time, such a man is not discharged from his responsibility for criminal acts."