It is true that the plea of insanity, just like any other plea, is often set up when there is very little ground for it. But there is good reason to believe, that it is very seldom established and made the basis of an acquittal, when it ought not to be. Dr. Bell remarked upon this point in 1844, that “it may be a consolation and an encouragement to juries, in faithfully following out their own sincere convictions upon the law and evidence in such cases, to know, that in a pretty diligent inquiry as to the event of every case of homicide in New England, where the accused has had the defence of insanity ‘set up’ for him, and been acquitted on that ground, it has been found that _not a single instance has occurred, where the progress of time has not abundantly verified the soundness of the defence_.” And he has recently informed me that this assertion holds true up to the present time. While it is important that justice should be secured to the insane, when placed under trial for acts which they have committed, it is of still greater importance that such acts should, if possible, be prevented. If, when a man in an irresponsible condition destroys the life of a fellow-man, we prevent his innocent blood from being shed, we do well: but if we recognise the existence of that condition, and the danger to others which attends it, sufficiently early, to take measures to prevent his destroying the life of his fellow-man, _we do better_. This point of prevention should be made an especial object of legislation. But in this country the laws which aim at this object are exceedingly defective. In Connecticut it is the duty of the civil authority and select men to order “any lunatic, who is dangerous and unfit to be without restraint to be confined in some suitable place.” If they fail to attend to the complaint, in three days it may be brought before any justice of the peace, and he can issue such an order. In Massachusetts the judges of Probate may commit to the hospital any lunatic “who in their opinion is so furiously mad, as to render it manifestly dangerous to the peace and safety of the community, that he should be at large.” The objectionable points in these provisions are two. 1. Those are made the judges of the fact of insanity, and of the danger to the peace and safety of the community attendant upon it, who are not competent to pass such judgment. When we say that judges of probate, selectmen, and justices of the peace are not thus competent, we say nothing to their discredit. Insanity is a subject which they have no opportunity of understanding with any definiteness or to any extent. 2. The terms in which these provisions are couched show, that only great and manifest danger is contemplated by them. Some outrage or attempt at outrage is commonly therefore to be proved, in order to authorize in the view of the law the confinement of the person complained of.