We have thus then presented to the reader the various avenues of information, which the sciences of anatomy and physiology are capable of disclosing; and it will, we trust, appear evident, that the forensic physician can rarely furnish more than presumptive evidence in the support of cases of imputed child-murder.

With the moral circumstances of the case the medical-jurist can have nothing to do; and yet it is impossible not to inquire whether the deed may not frequently be the result of insanity. Such was the opinion of Dr. Hunter; and we cordially agree with Dr. Smith, that a verdict to this effect might be returned in many cases of this kind with at least as much truth, as in some of suicide. It must not be urged, continues the last mentioned author, that the insanity here is not real because temporary, as long as temporary insanity is so readily admitted in the other case; and we know well that in many instances of the like state of mind, where suicide is unsuccessfully attempted, the supposed lunacy shortly disappears. This plea, however, rarely avails the child-murderer; and yet if the loss of property, or other misfortunes, are to be taken into account as presumptive causes of insanity where there is real evidence of the fact, (the feelings arising from which being the real goad that stings some men to their fate) are we to give a modest female,—one that has probably erred through excess of confidence and attachment—no credit for despair, and distraction, under the anticipation of the infamy that is approaching her?^[86]

It is stated by several authors, that the period at which puerperal mania and phrenitis supervenes is variable, but that it is seldom, if ever, sooner than the third day; often, not for a fortnight; and, in some cases, not for several weeks after delivery. We must be cautious, however, in not applying this general assertion, to the disparagement of particular cases; for several instances are recorded which furnish striking exceptions to the rule. “In the year 1668 at Aylesbury, a married woman of good reputation being delivered of a child, and not having slept many nights, fell into a temporary phrenzy, and killed her infant in the absence of any company; but, company coming in, she told them she had killed her infant, and there it lay; she was brought to gaol presently, and after some sleep she recovered her understanding, but marvelled how or why she came thither; she was indicted for murder, and upon her trial the whole matter appearing, it was left to the jury with this direction, that if it did appear that she had any use of reason when she did it, they were to find her guilty; but if they found her under a phrenzy, though by reason of her late delivery and want of sleep, they should acquit her; that had there been any occasion to move her to this fact, as to hide her shame, which is ordinarily the case of such as are delivered of bastard children and destroy them; or if there had been jealousy of the husband that the child had been none of his; or if she had hid the infant, or denied the fact, these had been evidences that the phrenzy was counterfeit; but none of these appearing, and the honesty and virtuous deportment of the woman in her health being known to the jury, and many circumstances of insanity appearing, the jury found her not guilty, to the satisfaction of all that heard it.” 1 H. P. C. p. 36. Had this woman been of doubtful character, though innocent, she might have been executed, for want of medical evidence to prove the nature and frequency of puerperal insanity.