fingers. To tear lace and destroy the finer textures of female ornament seemed to gratify him exceedingly, and he seldom walked out without finding an occasion of indulging this propensity. He never became attached to any inferior animal, a benevolence so common to the generality of children. To these creatures his conduct was that of the brute; he oppressed the feeble, and avoided the society of those more powerful than himself. Considerable practice had taught him that he was the cat's master; and, whenever this luckless animal approached him he plucked out its whiskers with wonderful rapidity; to use his own language, 'I must have her beard off!' After this operation he commonly threw the creature on the fire or through the window. If a little dog came near him, he kicked it; if a large one, he would not notice it. When he was spoken to, he usually said, 'I do not choose to answer.' When he perceived any one who appeared to observe him attentively, he always said, 'Now I will look unpleasant.' The usual games of children afforded him no amusement; whenever boys were at play he never joined them; indeed, the most singular part of his character was, that he appeared incapable of forming a friendship with any one; he felt no consideration for sex, and would as readily kick or bite a girl as a boy. Of any kindness shown him he was equally insensible; he would receive an orange as a present, and afterward throw it in the face of the donor."

This unfortunate lad seems sometimes to have been sensible of his melancholy condition. When, on a certain occasion, he was conducted through an insane hospital, and a mischievous maniac was pointed out to him who was more strictly confined than the rest, he said to his attendant, "This would be the right place for me." He often expressed a wish to die; and gave as a reason, "That God had not made him like other children."

§ 450. Of moral accountability in cases of natural or congenital moral derangement.

The question recurs here, also, whether persons who are the subjects of a natural or congenital moral derangement are morally accountable, and in what degree. If

there is naturally an entire extinction of the moral sense, as in some cases of Idiocy there is an entire extinction of the reasoning power, which, although it may not frequently happen, is at least a supposable case, there is no moral accountability. A person in that situation can have no idea of what right and wrong are; nor can he be conscious of doing either right or wrong in any given case; and, consequently, being without either merit or demerit in the moral sense of the terms, he is not the proper subject of reward and punishment. He is to be treated on the principles that are applicable to idiots and insane persons generally.

In other cases where the mental disorder is not so great, but there are some lingering rays of moral light, some feeble capability of moral vision, the person is to be judged, if it is possible to ascertain what it is, according to what is given him. If he has but one moral talent, it is not to be presumed that the same amount of moral responsibility rests upon him as upon another who possesses ten. The doctrine which requires men, considered as subjects of reward and punishment, to be treated alike, without regard to those original diversities of structure which may exist in all the departments of the mind, not only tends to confound right and wrong, but is abhorrent to the dictates of benevolence. Many individuals, through a misunderstanding of this important subject, have suffered under the hands of the executioner, who, on the principles of religion and strict justice, should have been encircled only in the arms of compassion, long-suffering, and charity.

THE END.

66

99 66. THE INTELLECT,'

EMBRACING

THE SENSIBILITIES," AND THE WILL,"

IN THREE VOLUMES.

ALSO, AN ABRIDGMENT OF THE SAME IN ONE VOLUME.

THE undersigned respectfully request the attention of the public to the philosophical works which they now take the liberty to present to them. It is neither their interest nor their wish to express their sense of the value of these works in any undue and exaggerated terms; but they suppose that, as publishers, they may be permitted to commend them te the notice of the public, at least so far as they deserve it. It has been the object of the author of these volumes, by a long and careful induction of facts, to give a connected and full view of the mental operations. He has aimed at nothing less than the true philosophy of the human mind. Of the intrinsic difficulty of this undertaking, we suppose there can be but little or no difference of opinion. And as to the manner in which the author has acquitted himself in it, the subsequent testimonials, coming from men standing high in the public estimation, will enable the reader to judge. The demand for a system of mental philosophy is urgent. The teachers in our various seminaries all agree, that a system of education, without some knowledge of mental philosophy, cannot be considered complete. On the contrary, they seem to regard the knowledge of the human mind as in some respects more important than any other form of knowledge. And we have no doubt that they will cordially welcome any system which gives evidence in its preparation of learning, good judgment, and candour.

Of the qualifications of Professor Upham for the great task (the results of which, in a stereotype, uniform, and cheap edition, we now present to the public), as well as of the works themselves, we might leave the subsequent testimonials to speak. They say all we could wish them to say; and the reader can judge whether the writers of them, filling, as they do, very high and responsible stations, are worthy of credence. But we venture to intimate to the public, that the most satisfactory testimonial is to be found in the works themselves. It was our intention to point out some things by which these volumes are characterized, and by which they are favourably distinguished from other works; but we conIclude, on the whole, to leave this to the examination of the reader. We think we run no hazard in saying, that those who will read and study them carefully, will see no reasonable and sufficient ground for dissenting from the favourable aspect in which they appear in the following statements.

New-York, 1840

HARPER & BROTHERS,
82 CLIFF-STREET.

UPHAM'S SERIES OF PHILOSOPHICAL WORKS

FOR ACADEMIES AND COLLEGES.

From Rev. LEONARD WOODS, D.D., |
Professor of Theology in the The-
ological Seminary at Andover.
As I understand that you have it in
contemplation to publish a new edition of
the several works on Mental Philosophy
by Professor Upham, I take the liberty

to say,

candid an inquirer after truth. Most sincerely do I wish ample success to the author and the publishers of the works in question; especially at a time when the public mind is allured by books on these subjects in many respects dreamy and unintelligible to the great mass of

M. STUART.

From Rev. WILLIAM COGSWELL,
D.D., Secretary of the American
Education Society.

I fully concur in the opinion of Professor Stuart, expressed in the prece ding certificate, and could add more in favour of the works named were it ne

readers. that I regard them as among the best and most popular works on the va rious subjects which he has treated. He is a charming writer, and his views are well expressed and well guarded, and are adapted to be extensively useful at the present day. His Abridgment is very much liked by those teachers who have used it. Mr. Coleman, principal of the High School, or, as it is called, the Teachers' Seminary, in this place, says, he finds it much more intelligible to young men, and much more complete, than any text-book he has used. And his judgment is worthy of confidence. The next edition is to receive still farther improvements. I hope you will be encouraged and sustained in this undertaking by a very extensive patronage from an enlightened community. Yours respectfully,

LEONARD WOODS.

To the Messrs. Harper.

cessary.

WILLIAM COGSWELL. Boston, Dec. 6, 1839.

From Rev. S. LUCKEY, D.D., editor
of the Christian Advocate and
Journal, Quarterly Review, &c.
To Messrs. Harper.
Gentlemen,

I am happy to learn that you are about to publish a stereotype edition of Professor Upham's works. To this gentleman the literary public are much indebtFrom Rev. MOSES STUART, Profes-ed for his " Elements of Mental Phisor of Sacred Literature in the Theological Seminary at Andover.

losophy," a work which was greatly needed as a text-book in our colleges and academies at the time it was first pubAndover, Dec. 4, 1839. lished. is now used, I believe, in I have read with much satisfaction most of our literary institutions; and I Professor Upham's works on Intellect hesitate not to say, it is better adapted ual Philosophy and on the Will. The to the wants of students, in the science tone and manner of these books must be of which it treats, than any other work pleasing to all who love calm, dispas- extant. It cannot but be satisfactory to sionate, and accurate investigation, and the friends of science, that the worthy moderation in defending one's own opin- author has prepared an edition of his exions and canvassing those of others. I cellent work, with additions and improvehave no hesitation in saying, that I re- ments, to be issued in a more permagard Professor Upham's books as giv-nent form. Of his Treatise on the ing the best views of the subjects named Will I cannot speak with the same conwhich we have in the English language,fidence, not having read it; although I and as worthy of being read and studied have heard it well spoken of by compein the schools and colleges of our country. tent judges. Even those who may differ from him in opinion, will feel no disposition to indulge unkind feelings towards so sincere and

S. LUCKEY.

Methodist Book-Room,

Dec., 1839. }

Commendatory Letters-continued.