It is considerably more than a quarter of a century since I first promulgated the doctrine that madness and unsoundness of mind are not the same thing; that madness includes more than unsoundness of mind, and that unsoundness of mind very often occurs in the sane, and is, indeed, one of the most frequent disorders of the sane. This doctrine has always seemed to me as manifestly true as the doctrine of natural selection, and, like the doctrine of natural selection, needs, it appears to me, only to be stated to secure the adhesion of every reasonable mind. In fact, I have found by experience that to the immense majority of my acquaintance it does only need to be stated to secure their adherence. Nearly everyone—everyone outside the membership of this Association—to whom I have stated it, without a single exception, has, in fact, accepted as self-evident that what matters in influencing our judgment of madness or sanity is not what a man thinks or feels, but what he says or does; not his mind, but his conduct. Even within this Association the doctrine has many adherents among the younger members, for I often receive letters from them, telling me how great an assistance it has been to them; so that things are moving, and I trust that before long we shall reach the stage that I predicted in a correspondence in the British Medical Journal, when not only will the doctrine be universally admitted to be true, but also we shall all declare that we never held any other, and that any claim of mine to have originated it will be strenuously denied. However, litera scripta manet. The minute-book of the Educational Committee will show that when I urged that conduct, as being the most important factor in madness, should be systematically studied, I could not secure even a seconder. When I subsequently brought the subject forward in this Association I had not one supporter. Nor had I when I brought it before the Royal Society of Medicine three years ago. In the third edition of Dr. Craig's book on Psychological Medicine, which has just appeared, the doctrine is not so much as even mentioned, and Dr. Craig says that insanity cannot be defined. This he says in face of the fact that at the Royal Society of Medicine I showed that there are several different concepts confused under the name of insanity, and I carefully defined every one of them; nor has any one of my definitions ever been impugned. I venture to assert that if these definitions had emanated from a German source they would have been welcomed with enthusiasm and received with reverence.