resemble morbid delirium, are the result of intoxication from the lack of assimilation in even the most common-place circumstances (defective digestion, retention of urine, etc.)

Some authorities, like Benedickt,* have denied that crimes can be committed by suggestion, but others, like A. Voisin, Berillon, Liebeault, Liegeois, Bernheim, etc., are of the contrary opinion. It is impossible to have experimental truth that the latter are in the right, but it seems reasonable that they may well be so. According to Voisin, Berillon, etc., the penal responsibility of an individual who has committed a crime under the influence of hypnotic suggestion is zero.† The courts of judicature rarely admit this doctrine. Dr. Mesnet tells us the history of a somnambulist who was condemned for theft; and Dr. Bernheim speaks of an advocate "in the second state," for he possessed a double personality. In the "first" or normal state, he had forgotten, or was unconscious of everything (of offence and condemnation). Nevertheless they are beginning in France to examine the accused who plead somnambulism, stating that they have no recollection whatever of the acts imputed to them. Dr. P. Garnier relates the case of two hysterical individuals arrested for theft in a state of spontaneous somnambulism. To all the accusations they gave formal contradiction. They were completely unconscious of the offences, which unconsciousness (amnésie) was proved sincere by the medical examination.‡

Everybody is not an indivisible unity. This indivisibility of the individual is a conception which tradition maintains in us; it is contrary to all the discoveries of psycho-physiology. It is powerfully preserved, despite its falseness, thanks to our habits of language, to the fictions of law, and the illusions of introspection. In the same individuality there can be, there often is, a plurality of personalities, that is to say, a plurality of memories, of wills, of consciences; each is ignorant of that which comes to pass in the others.§ As there are several personalities in the same

* In Austria the questions of hypnotism, suggestion, etc., have been as yet little studied, which may explain the opinion of this scientist.

† Archives d'Anthropologie Criminelle, p. 544, September 1892.

Médecine Moderne, 1896, No. 98.

§ It would be instructive to read, on this subject, the works of Ribot, Richet, Bourru, Ajam, and especially Binet, "Les Altérations de la personnalité."

individual, it follows that the individual cannot be responsible for the delinquency committed in his "second" self of which his primal self has no consciousness. These phenomena may be produced naturally, but they may also be provoked by suggestion. A. HAMON,

Professor in the University of Brussels.

(To be concluded.)

A PRIEST'S REPLY

ΤΟ

"A WORD FOR THE PRIEST."

JUDGING from the article which appears under the above title in the present volume of this magazine it would seem to be an altogether unfortunate thing for the credit and the feelings of the "priest," in this country at any rate, that he is placed in that position of advantage and prominence which exposes him so much to the invectives and assaults there referred to, both upon himself and his faith. Now it is one of the services rendered to the cause of truth by those whom this magazine represents that they continue to contend for that full freedom of thought and opinion on all manner of subjects, which has been fought for so heroically by their forerunners in the same school of thought in the past. And such freedom of opinion for themselves on all religious questions contended for against the fettering tyranny of the church and the priesthood hitherto, they will doubtless allow equally to their religious opponents, and especially to those who may be fairly supposed to be amongst the most well-informed and thoughtful amongst them, the clergymen or ministers of the different churches or sects of this land.

And clergymen generally have no reason nor right, in these days of freedom of thought, discussion, and criticism on all, and even religious, subjects, and with the record of the church's treatment of its opponents in past days in view, to complain that their own faith and creeds are assailed with all possible rigor and persistency by Rationalists now.

But one might fairly ask whether it is quite consistent with that principle of freedom thus contended for, and doubtless allowed to others, and whether it is a wise learning of the lesson taught by the church's past persecutions of its adversaries, for Rationalists to assail not merely the opinions, the faith of the priest, but the ( 353 )

Y

priest himself, and that by impugning his sincerity and honesty, his character and reputation, "that honour which is his life," by which alone his position can continue to be held. The Rationalist's weapon is surely that of Reason, and of Reason only; and in this particular conflict of opinion to take up any other and less worthy weapon, is to aim at securing an undue advantage, and to show impatience of the victory of that Reason on whose side the superiority of power is held to lie. The only possible object is to overthrow the priest, to displace him, as is said, from his position of power, pre-eminence, and authority. To do this by the power of Reason alone, as hitherto, is sufficiently legitimate and consistent, though gradual and slow; but to resort to other and lower means, to appeal not only to the reason of the people, but to their avarice, envy, jealousy, is to revert to the very means denounced as being employed by Henry VIII. and others to compass their ends, is to take up and use the very weapons cast away by, or wrested from, their former opponents. Free and fair discussion we may even invite and hail, as that stage and condition of all progress dwelt on by Bagehot in his Physics and Politics. And if the victory of Rationalism is to be won, and the churches and priests to be so far overthrown, let it be by that means. That victory will be bloodless, as that of Reason should always be. It will be with that fairness, justice, honour for the very want of which the clergy are so fiercely assailed.

Now in Mr. Singer's article, and in Mr. Wiseman's work there referred to, the motive of self-interest is alleged against the clergy as the great secret of their profession of opinion, and their retention of place. And it is alleged against the clergy as a class, and as they are found to-day.

We need not, however, stay to enlarge on the recognised and proverbial difficulty of either making a charge against, or of defending, a particular class or body of men, except where there are corporate and unanimous actions or utterances on which such a charge can be founded. But it is especially difficult, as in this case, when it is the motives of men that are in question. Difficult as it is in the case of individuals, it is much more so with men in the lump. And equally in any attempted defence, we cannot, as here, nor can anyone, speak for the clergy as a whole, or any suffi

cient section of them, without a somewhat intimate knowledge of them each. We can only speak at all definitely of those we do know well, if even of them, and of the rest on grounds only of probability and uncertain inference.

This challenge of the motives of the priest is specially made by Mr. Wiseman, and is limited by Mr. Singer, to the modern, the present-day, priest, and to these only shall we refer.

But whilst this charge is made against the clerical class as a whole, it is not by any means against all, nor against any in an equal degree. It is allowed that of some, a greater or less minority, their sincerity and fidelity cannot be doubted. Their zeal is genuine, their aims are high, their motives are pure. And of the majority there are degrees of sincerity, from the merest doubt or scepticism, up to the vanishing of such sincerity altogether in a total unbelief of their religion, and the dogmas they preach.

The state of the former is one of darkness. In their ignorance of the results of modern research on biblical and religious questions, they are still in the position of those who lived in previous generations, and whose simple faith and zeal did credit at least to their sincerity. But what about the latter, the majority who have passed out of this stage of primitive simplicity and ignorance, into the scientific and critical light of advanced inquiry on these points, and who are already a respectable and an ever-increasing number? Such a challenge, however, can only apply to those who have been led as a result of their new light to at least seriously question some or all of their former beliefs, and still more to those who have abandoned the creeds in virtue of which they entered and still hold their position.

How many of these there may actually be it is impossible for us, or for anyone, to say. We may freely grant there are some, be they few or more. And let us also at once allow that these are in a false position in the ministry of any orthodox Christian church, or perhaps of any church at all, and that as long as they remain they are convicted before their own consciences, if not before their fellows, as dishonest, hypocritical, and traitorous. Few words can be too strong for them, upon whatever question they differ from the professed creed of their church, whether it mean a conversion or a tendency to Romanism on the one hand,