=Is a Lunatic a competent Witness?=--Mr. Fitzjames Stephen maintains (_Criminal Law_) that madmen are competent witnesses in relation to testimony as in relation to crime. If they understand the nature of an oath, and the character of the proceedings in which they are engaged, they are competent witnesses whatever be the nature or degree of their mental disorder. An idiot shall not be allowed to give evidence (Co. Litt. 6 b; Gilb. Ev. 144); a lunatic during a lucid interval may do so (_Id. Com. Dig. Testm._ {A}). When a lunatic is tendered as a witness, it is for the judge to examine and ascertain whether he is of competent understanding to give evidence, and is aware of the nature and obligation of an oath; if satisfied that he is, the judge should allow him to be sworn and examined (R. _v._ Hill, 2 Den. 255; 20 L.J. [M.C.] 222). =The Civil Rights of Lunatics.=--If an individual be suffering from such mental disease as to render him incompetent to manage his own affairs, the law steps in to protect him and his property from injury. But the power so used does not necessarily imply that he is deprived of his personal freedom, but merely such restraint as is necessary for his protection. Many lunatics, under the protection of the Court, live in their own houses with large establishments. A person so protected by the law is said to be subject to an “interdiction.” In these cases a commission is usually granted by the Court of Chancery, and a writ known under the name of “_de lunatico inquirendo_” issued, after certain legal matters of detail are settled, and affidavits from medical men certifying to the insanity of the party have been filed. The tests of insanity in these cases differ from those required in criminal cases, where the knowledge of right from wrong is imperatively demanded. The mental defect must not be the result of ignorance or want of education, and at one time commissions were only issued when it was shown that lunacy and idiocy alone existed, imbecility or mere weakness of mind not being deemed sufficient to deprive a man of his civil rights, or to place him under the protection of the Court. To so great an absurdity did this lead, that the man suffering from a delusion sufficient to be comprehended under the legal term “lunacy” was protected, whereas the feeble-minded were left without interference, though needing it more. The cost of these commissions sometimes reached almost fabulous sums. The expense has been somewhat lessened by recent enactments, and the process simplified--the Lord Chancellor having it in his power to direct an inquiry before two Commissioners, thus dispensing with a jury. (See the 16 and 17 Vict. c. 70, and 25 and 26 Vict. c. 86.)