Recent events, and especially the Gouffe trial in Paris, have brought the question of the employment of hypnotism for criminal purposes prominently before the legal and medical professions, and a word on the subject will not be out of place here. It is very fully discussed by Dr. Liegeois in his book, already referred to, and Mr. Taylor-Innes, of Edinburgh, has treated it at some length in an article in the Contemporary Review for October, 1890. Mr. Brodie-Innes states the case in the Juridical Review for January, 1891. Dr. Kingsbury has written an able criticism on the former article in the Nineteenth Century for January, 1891, in which he throws great doubt on the possibility of criminal acts being suggested and carried out in the hypnotic or post-hypnotic state: and his arguments, so far as they go, are conclusive.Charcot, also, and his school discredit the idea that hypnotism can be made the vehicle for criminal suggestion; and contend that the subject was perfectly aware of the harmless nature of the act he was committing when, in obedience to Dr. Liegeois, he seized a paper-knife on waking, stole to his wife's side, and stabbed her to the heart.

He knew it was acting, and did his part well, that is all - so explains Milne Bramwell. The same thing applies to other test criminal actions, as, for instance, the theft of jewellery, or the discharge of a revolver loaded with blank cartridge, either at the patient's own breast or at a stranger's. The subject knew about the trick, and the experiment was simply a laboratory one, which would fail if put to a real test. We here see a curious circumstance, and one which, to my mind, is strong testimony to the thoroughgoing honesty of the Nancy school. They are engaged in strenuously maintaining that in hypnotism the evil-disposed have a weapon which will give them absolute power over their agents, and ensure the accomplishment of crimes without any risk to themselves. What contention could possibly be more fatal to the extended employment of hypnotism which they advocate, or more certain to arouse popular feeling against the treatment? I consider that the question should be met with perfect frankness, and agree with Mr. Brodie-Innes that lawyers should seriously study the possibilities of hypnotism. In approaching the matter, it is necessary to bear in mind a few points in order to be able to arrive at a proper conclusion.

In the first place, only a small proportion of the population are sufficiently affected by hypnotism to be reduced to automatism or powerless-ness. In a large number even of these the loss of will and self-control is not sufficient to render the subject absolutely helpless, and in many cases where there is apparent helplessness personal violence or criminal suggestions would restore complete consciousness and the power of resistance. It is difficult, and often impossible, for even a skilful medical man to judge of the precise depth of sleep; and so pronounced a somnambulist as Mrs. H------often retains a degree of latent consciousness, and remembers subsequently things I have said to her in the hypnotic state: but no doubt criminal assaults might be committed on women while in the deepest sleep, and in some cases there would be no subsequent recollection of the circumstance. Here we have exactly analogous abuses of chloroform and other drugs, and the criminality should in each case be considered the same. The chief point of interest is not whether hypnotism may be used as an anaesthetic for the performance of brutal outrage, but whether it may be used with any prospect of success as the vehicle for criminal suggestion.

I believe that, under certain circumstances, it might be so used, and I here give my reasons for the belief. Hypnotism acts chiefly, as we have seen, by immensely increasing the capacity for receiving, and the desire to act upon, suggestion. It is this property which we make use of in dealing with drunkards and morphinomaniacs, and our suggestions of abstinence and self-control are received and acted upon in proportion to the depth of sleep attained and the natural receptivity of the patient. I have, however, seen suggestion curative in a case of chronic drunkenness where the influence of hypnotism was barely discoverable, and I have seen it fail where somnambulism was induced. In the first case the patient's desire was for cure, and the natural force of moral suggestions had to be but slightly increased in order to obtain success; whereas in the latter instance the patient had no real desire to give up his bad habit, and the suggestions found no soil in which to take root. I see no reason for supposing that a somewhat similar result would not follow criminal suggestions.

It would be vain to make criminal suggestions to the disciplined and moral man, for he would either wake up at once or would ignore them; but it would be an easy task to corrupt the naturally weak and ill-disposed. If, as has already been said, one told a sincere teetotaler that on waking he was to drink a glass of brandy, it is certain that the suggestion would fail, no matter what was the degree of sleep induced; but the half-hearted abstainer might perhaps succumb, just as he would yield to the pertinacious solicitation of his ordinary companions, because the wish to abstain was not strongly grounded or an essential part of his individuality.* Dr. Norman Kerr's objection to hypnotism, that, if it enables the physician to cure a drunkard, it will enable a scoundrel to debauch a sober man, is extremely fallacious; he brother Mason whom I had hypnotized some scores of times, and who is one of the best subjects I have ever seen, that he should tell the secrets of the craft. He became extremely disturbed, and vigorously protested that nothing would induce him to break his oath in such a manner.

This patient was so susceptible to my suggestions that if I told him during the hypnotic state that his tie - a red one - was green, he would accept the suggestion and stoutly maintain on waking that it was green. Another patient, who is also a profound somnambulist, though a man of great muscular strength and keen intellect, carries out ordinary post-hypnotic suggestions with accuracy, but when the suggested act is contrary to his volition, he argues the point and does not execute it. For example, I tell him that five minutes after waking he is to take a pin from a pincushion and stick it into the curtain. He does so in a somewhat shamefaced manner, and perhaps says afterwards that he does not know why he did it, but that he felt he must. But when I tell him to pay me a visit at two o'clock on Saturday - the time when he pays his men - he tells me that the thing is impossible, and I am unable to persuade him to consent (see also Dr. Forel's case, p. 190).

* This theory is borne out by some experiments made by Professor Lombroso, of Turin ('Studi su l'Hypnotismo,' Turin, 1886). He hypnotized two medical students of good character, and suggested to them that they were to steal some articles of value. One of them woke up crying,' No, I will not be a thief;' and the other, after much opposition, did seize the things, but almost immediately threw them from him. On the other hand, the same physician found that a hysterical young woman of doubtful character received with evident satisfaction the suggestion that she was a thief or a brigand, but resisted the assertion that she was a savant or moralist, and declined to give a disquisition on the beauty of virtue. I have never gone so far as to suggest criminal acts to my subjects, and I should regard such a course as very objectionable; but I have suggested lines of conduct opposed to the disposition of the patient, and I have generally seen the order ignored or very partially obeyed. For instance, I suggested to a Dr. Kingsbury was able to demonstrate this point before the meeting of the British Medical Association in 1890, for his subject, a Manchester merchant, refused to execute any order, opposed to his natural disposition.