tween good and evil[1] . And there was an inſtance in the laſt century, where a boy of eight years old was tried at Abingdon for firing two barns ; and, it appearing that he had malice, revenge, and cunning, he was found guilty, condemned, and hanged accordingly[2]. Thus alſo, in very modern times, a boy of ten years old was convicted on his own confeſſion of murdering his bedfellow; there appearing in his whole behaviour plain tokens of a miſchievous diſcretion : and, as the ſparing this boy merely on account of his tender years might be of dangerous conſequence to the public, by propagating a notion that children might commit ſuch atrocious crimes with impunity, it was unanimouſly agreed by all the judges that he was a proper ſubject of capital puniſhment[3]'. But, in all ſuch cafes, the evidence of that malice, which is to ſupply age, ought to be ſtrong and clear beyond all doubt and contradiction.
II. The ſecond cafe of a deficiency in will, which excuſes from the guilt of crimes, ariſes alſo from a defective or vitiated understanding, viz. in an idiot or a lunatic. For the rule of law as to the latter, which may eaſily be adapted alſo to the former, is, that "furioſus furore ſolum punitur." In criminal caſes therefore idiots and lunatics are not chargeable for their own acts, if committed when under theſe incapacities: no, not even for treaſon itſelf[4]. Alſo, if a man in his found memory commits a capital offence, and before arraignment for it, he becomes mad, he ought not to be arraigned for it ; becauſe he is not able to plead to it with that advice and caution that he ought. And if, after he has pleaded, the priſoner becomes mad, he ſhall not be tried ; for how can he make his defence? If, after he be tried and found guilty, he loſes his ſenſes before judgment, judgment ſhall not be pronounced; and if, after judgment, he becomes of nonſane memory, execution ſhall be ſtayed: for peradventure, ſays the humanity of the Engliſh law, had the priſoner been of found memory, he might have alleged ſome
