his gratitude; that, with few exceptions, he had no further intercourse with him until 1844, when he accidentally met him in London; that knowing the testator to be a proprietor of East Indian Stock, he solicited him for his vote and interest for the office of Director; that he informed Mr. Prinsep of the Chancery proceedings, and occasionally corresponded with him in respect of his affairs, but did not interfere therein, except to apply to the Lord Chancellor to allow him a better income, which was granted; that in the latter end of 1845, or the beginning of 1846, Mr. Mahon, who was then unacquainted with Mr. Prinsep, called upon him in London, and stated the terms of his engagement with the testator, and of which he had been apprised by a letter from the testator himself; that Mr. Mahon informed Mr. Prinsep of the intention of the testator to renew his application to supersede the commission of lunacy, and showed him the opinions of medical men, and other statements and evidence on which his expectation of success was founded; that Mr. Prinsep being thereby led to think more favourably of the case of the testator than he had previously done, he visited him in 1844, both at Dover and Paris, and saw him on several occasions, on each of which his conduct and conversation were rational and sensible; that about January in that year, he expressed a desire to make his will, and made particular inquiries of Mr. Prinsep as to who would succeed to his property in case he left no will; that Mr. Prinsep, in reply thereto, informed him that his wife and sisters would divide it equally between them, but, as regarded his wife, provided her claims were not barred by her marriage settlement, and as regarded his sisters, provided they were born of the same mother, and that his father's marriage with his mother could be proved; that he requested Mr. Prinsep to make inquiries of Lord Metcalfe, who, as he stated, knew everything respecting their birth and parentage; that Mr. Prinsep had two interviews with his Lordship, who said he believed that the testator and Mrs. Troup were children who were introduced to him at the Begum's house, at Delhi, but he could give no information about any younger child; that Mr. Prinsep informed the testator of the purport and effect of the statement of Lord Metcalfe, who in reply expressed his surprise at the reserve of his Lordship, for that he must have known the circumstances relating to the birth of Madame Solaroli, and that she was the daughter of his father by a slave girl; that in consequence of the death of Lord Metcalfe, Mr. Prinsep was unable to consult him again; that after the first mention to Mr. Prinsep of his wish and intention to make a will, he repeated it on several subsequent occasions, both verbally and by letter, and requested Mr. Prinsep to ask the solicitor to the East India Company to go to him at Paris for that purpose; that Mr. Prinsep accordingly applied to Mr. Lawford, who declined to make such will, or to advise the testator in reference thereto, by reason of the testator having some unsettled claims upon the East India Company which it might be his duty, upon the part of the Company, to resist; that the testator, when in London, in November, 1848, again adverting to the subject, asked Mr. Prinsep to procure from his own solicitors a form of a will which he might fill up, but, on applying to Messrs. Desborough and Co., he was informed that no such form could be recommended, and upon further communication with him, he requested Mr. Prinsep to desire one of the firm to call upon and converse with him on the subject; that the testator never spoke to or consulted Mr. Prinsep as to the contents of his intended will, and he was ignorant of the purport of it until after his death, save that he informed him after its execution that he was appointed one of the executors; that in or previous to 1848, Mr. Mahon, in consideration of services which he had rendered to the testator, in procuring him the enjoyment of his entire surplus income, claimed to be reimbursed his expenses, and to be compensated for his losses and trouble; that the testator proposed to refer the claim to arbitration, and with a full knowledge of the opinion of Mr. Prinsep in respect of the justice of the claim, and a concur

rence in that opinion, urged Mr. Prinsep to accept the office of arbitrator, which he ultimately consented to do, and Mr. Richardson was appointed by Mr. Mahon to act on his behalf; that throughout the proceedings and inquiry before the arbitrators, the deceased evinced himself to be of sound mind; that in the spring of 1851, Dr. Winslow, who was then staying at an hotel at Paris, was visited by the testator, and requested to examine him in case there should be any dispute about his will; that Dr. Winslow had long and repeated interviews with him on several successive days, during about three weeks; that the testator discussed with him the various proceedings to supersede the commission of lunacy and the result, and produced to him various affidavits and other documents connected therewith, and freely and unreservedly conversed with him thereon, and especially in respect to his wife, and Madame Solaroli and her husband, and as to his alleged delusions in regard to them; that the testator throughout such interviews evinced himself to be of perfect sound mind; that the testator, when at Paris and elsewhere on the continent of Europe, was watched by persons employed for that purpose, by or on behalf of his wife, which were used in opposing the petitions presented by him to the Court of Chancery, and that the testator was well aware of it; that Mr. Charles Shadwell, his solicitor, in reference to several affidavits filed in opposition to the last petition, which came on for hearing in May, 1851, informed him that they had been treated by the Court with the contempt they deserved, and that the petition had been opposed in every possible way; that on his arrival in London in 1851, he complained of such, the conduct and proceedings of his opponents, and especially of his wife; and at an interview which he had with Mr. Prinsep, produced and commented in severe terms upon the contents of a note which he had just received from her, in which she solicited an interview with him; that he had associated with common prostitutes in India, and that occasionally, while resident in the Upper Provinces, he had appeared in his dwelling-house and in places of public resort in a state of nudity, or without any article of clothing except a "lungotee" fastened round his loins and hips; that from an early period of life he was in the habit of making use of oaths and profane and angry expressions without cause or provocation; that though lavish in his expenditure, or in his presents to the women with whom he cohabited, and also upon his amusements, yet he was at all times careful in the investigation of pecuniary demands upon him; and that in regard to his habits and conduct there was no change at any time prior to his decease.

To Correspondents.

The conclusion of the article on Oinomania is unavoidably postponed until our next number.

THE CASE

OF

LUIGI BURANELLI

Medico-legally Considered.

BY

FORBES WINSLOW, M.D., D.C.L.

LATE PRESIDENT OF THE MEDICAL SOCIETY

CASE OF BURANELLI.

THE case of Luigi Buranelli has excited, among all classes of the community, an intensity of interest almost unprecedented in the records of British criminal jurisprudence. That this miserable man was a lunatic when he committed the crime for which he suffered an ignominious death upon the gallows; that his life was cruelly sacrificed in blind submission to the speculative medical and mystical metaphysical opinions of those who, in the performance of what they no doubt conceived to be a painful professional duty, swore to his sanity and responsibility, are points easily susceptible of conclusive and triumphant demonstration. Were we to defer to the dictates of our own personal feelings, the curtain should drop at once and for ever upon this terrible drama this dreadful legal tragedy; but the sacred call of HUMANITY, of JUSTICE, of DUTY, imperatively and irresistibly forces us to bring this subject, in all its revolting details, before our readers, and renders it necessary that we should accurately analyse and rigidly criticise the general and scientific evidence adduced during the trial of this unhappy criminal. It is a sad, sickening, and repulsive duty that we have imposed upon ourselves; but we cannot conscientiously shrink from its performance.

The execution of Buranelli will, we fear, be a foul stain and a "damned spot" upon the humanity and intelligence of the nineteenth century, and will, we apprehend, do an incalculable amount of injury to the advancement of the science of medico-legal testimony in cases of alleged lunacy, and seriously retard the progress of British Medical Psychology. The execution of Buranelli, in direct opposition to the evidence adduced in favour of his insanity, and in defiance of the strong protest subsequently made against his death, will throw judicial psychology back in this country for at least half a century. Enlightened medical jurists had flattered themselves that great progress had in recent times been made in the dissemination of just and humane principles in reference to criminal jurisprudence. Able judges and distinguished advocates have certainly exhibited of late years a disposition to entertain views in regard to criminal insanity, more in unison with the deductions of modern science; but this event throws a melancholy