The Express.
London, England, 1850-07-12 00:00:00

THE
ATTACK UPON THE QUEEN.

TRIAL OF PATE.

The Meet d the bid of Robert Pate at the Central
Cried's! Court, given in yeeterday's Errs's, terminated at
the eloss of the ease kr the prisoner.
The Attorney Gomel then made a brief and elegant
reply. He assured the jury that he would willingly have
spared himself the psis of addreedeg them upon the evi-
dence that bad been addend on behalf of the
prisoner, bat his duty left him no alternative.
Re should, however Goatee his observations seeirely
to the 'Tidwell that had been &dismal, sad merely give the
reasons why he moldered the jury would not be jus Vied in
acquitting the prisoner upon the ground of inanity. His
learned friend had relieved alas from one difficulty by the
coarse he had takes, and it sow appeared to be admitted on all
heads that fames day, sad In the presents of her royal
ehildoese her Majesty had been struck by the prisoner at the
bar. It appeared tolls that his learned friend felt the diffi-
culty is which he we. pissed by the nature of the defend:
sadWebjest pears to be to endeavour to obtain &lenient
assesses upon the prisoner upon the ground that be was a
person of week mind, rather than that he should be acquitted
upon the posed of insanity, the effect of which would be
Posted
be would be lasprisosed for the rest co his life It sp-
I Posted to him. however, that it would not be a justifiable or
proper coarse that a sentence should be raged on a man who
permed &teepees, prspeneity of this description the effect
1 of whisk weiald be W set him at liberty in • short time,when
he woad peobably be unwetched and unrestrained, as he us-
fortunately appeared to have been hitherto, and be thus left
at fall liberty to resew his dangerous end violent rowed-
far ; and that the prisoner ought either to be convicted of
the offence which he had undoubtedly cminitted, or else
that he should be acquitted on the ground of Wealthy, the
effaced whish would be that be would be properly restrained
and revealed from committing further mischief. The gen-
tle*, then, which the jury had to decide was, whether the
prisoner weals such a state of mind es rendered him respon-
sible for his adieus. It hadbeen urged by his teamed friend
that the sea Ia itself was the act of a madman. He toasted,
however, that the jury would pause before they incurred the
dreadifllaclossibility of sanotioniag the principle that the
mere of an set was is itself evillest* that the party
committing t was Wane. His view of the law, subject to
the median of the wart, upon the question of the defence
of insanity was this. It was not mere extravagance or ec-
centricity of emcduct that would justify a jury in coming to
the conclusion that =accused person was insane, but it was
necessary to show that a man was not aware what he was
doing, or incapable of distixgaishing between right and
wrong, to justify them in coming to such a conclusion. This
rule had been distinctly laid down by Lord Hale and ft had
always been sated upon, and it bad been confirmed by the
judges upon the question submitted to them in the as of
ferNaghten. The whole question for the jury then was
thia. -Did the prisoner at the time he struck the blow know
he was (Wog wrung? If he did he we. guilty of the offense
imputed to him, and no consideration on earth ought to in-
duce them to swerve from the strict rule of law, and from
saying so by their verdict. Such a parson was responsible
for his act, and the law required that he should
be (punished for it. He could not deny that
this gentlemen had exhibited great seeentrieity, and that
his **duct upoo some occasions had lywn meat extraordi-
nary, bat those circumstances were very far from justifying
the jury in acquitting him upon the ground of insanity. No-
thing more had been proved than that be was eccentric, and
that he was very much affected at the loin of his dogs and
hinges. lied he ever been treated like an Jolene ptrson ?
lie was always allowed to manage his own affairs. He sold
his essamilioat and appropriated the proceeds to his own
pinery awl Wi had been always allowed to conduit his
sun bMneay and he could not help oba rving, that it ap-
peared to him there had been some neglect on the
part of his father in not taking some charge of
him when he was aware of his eccentric habits.
Did all the facts, however,prove that at the
time the prisoner struck her Majesty he did not know
whit ha was abew, or ;hat be was dei,g wring ?—and if the
jury were not satisfied of this they were bound to return a
verdict of guilty. What was the prisoner's conduct when he
was taken into custody? Did it not clearly show that he
was perfectly well aware what he had been doing. and was
his conduct anything like that of an i
ts person All he
endeavoured to do was to palliate his nce. He was per-
fectly aware he had done wrong, and he 'ought to extenuate
the act by saying that the witnesses could not tell whether he
struck at the Queen's face or at ber t. net, and he subee-
quietly said that it was only a little blow with a light stick.
This plainly showed that he knew well what he h.d done,
and that it was a wrong set, and it put an end to the defence
altogether. The Attorney-General concluded by stating
that this was in reality the only question the jury bad to de-
cide, and h
satisfacte felt satisfied they wuuld retnsurn • verdict that
would be satisfactory to their OM co:iences and to the

country.
Baron Alderson then summed up. He said they would
hue no daculty with regard to the fact of the prisoner
having struck her Majesty, or that his intention was one of
injuret in the indictment. That he intended to
inj her Majesty was apparent from the fact that he actually
did injure her, and that blood finer& in conesquence of the
blow. With' regard to alarming her Xsjesty, probably
from the natural courage of the family to which she be-
longed, that was not done; but there was no doubt that
the former count, and also the one charging an intention
to break the public peace, had been clearly mule out
by the evidence. He would not waste their time
by going through the evidence for the prosecution, be-
cause it wee admitted that the prisoner had committed
the get, and that if he was a man of sound mini
and understanding he was responsible, and whether he was
so or not was the only question they had to decide. It was
clear that at the present time the prisoner was perfectly
sane. They began with that fact, and the law threw upon
the prisoner the onus of proving that he was in a different
state at the time the offence was committed, and the jury
would say whether that had been done after he had ex-
plained to them what wu his opinion of the law upon the
subject. In the first place, they must clearly understand
that it wee not because a man wee insane that he wee die-
punishable— and he must say that upon this point there
wu generally • very grievous delusion in the minds of
medical men. The only insanity which excused a man
fur his acts was that species of delusion which con-
, &teed to and drove a man to commit the ACi alleged
against him. It, for instance, a men being under
the delusion that another man would VII I ins, killed
" that man, aa he supposed, for his urn pr.tection, he would
be dispunishable for such an act, because it would appear
that the act was done under the delusion that he could not
protect himself in any other manner, and then the particular
description of insanity conduced to the offence. But, on the
other hand, if a man had the delusion that his head was
made of glue, that would be no mine for his killing • man.
lie would know very well that although his he id was made
of glass that was no reason why he should kill another man,
and that it was a wrong act, and he would be pr .perly sub-
jected to punishment for that act. These were the principles
which ought to govern the decision of juriss in such cases.
They ought to have proof of • formed diseue of the mind--a
disease 'Using before the act was c msmitted, and which
made the person accused incapable of knowing at the time
he did this act that it was a wrong act for him to do. This
was the ran he should direct them to be governed by. Let
them try it by this test. Did the unfortunate gentleman
know it was wrong to strike the Queen on her forehead?
Now, there was no doubt that he was very eccentric in his
conduct, but did that eccentricity disenable him to judge
whether it was right or wrong to strike the Queen ? Was
eccentricity to excuse • man for any crime he might after-
wards commit? It was true, that after the prisoner had
committed a breach of military diacipline by going away
from his regiment without leave, he had Ken excused on
account of the unposed weak state of his -oind, but that was
no criterion for the jury, and they mus..t.hicre to the law in
its strictness. The prisoner wa proved to have
been perfectly well aware what ho had done im-
mediately afterwards, and in the interview which he
had had since with one of the medicai gentlemen, he ad-
mitted that he kaew perfectly well what he hod done, and
'scribed his conduct to some momentary uncontrollable im-
pulse. The law did not acknowledge such an impulse if the
party was aware that it was a wrong act he was about to
commit, and he was amenable for the consequences. A man
might say that he picked a pocket (coos some uncontrol-
lable impulse, and in that case the law would have an
oacontrollable impulse to punish him for it. What
evidence was therue, then, in the case to justify
them in coming to the cqpclusion that when the
prisoner struck the Queen he did not know it wee a wrong
act—in fact, that what he was doing wu wrong ? The
learned judge then read over the whole of the evidence for
the defence, commenting upon it as he Foes eded. He went
on to say, that the prisoner was anehject for commiseration
wee quite clear, and that he should also have been taken
better care of was equally true, but the question they had
here to decide was, were they satisfied that he was suffering
from a disease of the mind which rendered him incapable of
judging whether the act he committed towards the Queen
was a right or • wrong act for him to do ? If they were not
satisfied of this fact they must say that be was guilty, but on
the contrary if they thought he was not aware what he was
about or capable of distinguishing between right and wrong,
they would then say that he was not guilty on the ground of

inunitT.
The jury retiree:lst twenty minutes past three, and did not
return into court until five minutes past , when they
save a verdict of Guilty.
The prisoner was immediately called up
for judentent.
Baron Alderson addressed him to the following effect ;
Robert Pate, the jary hove found you guilty after • very
long and patient inquiry, and there can be no reasonable
doubt that they have come to a right conclusion. At the
i same time, it s quite clear that you are a peonof very
eccentric habits In in some deer= differing from other men,
and it is probable that it has pleased Qod to visit you with
some mental addiction for which you are to be pitied. The
offence you have committed, however, is one of a very
potions and important character. You hare been fosnd
guilty of striving a female, which, for a soldier, is a very
shocking thing ; but when it is oonakiered that thief/male was
your sovereign, that it was one entitled to the respect of
the whole country by her virtues and her exalted position,
that set, which in =ordinary case would be a very serious
effeses, ender these circumstances becomes truly heineus.
Bow could it happen that you, a soldier of the country, could
insult one beloved by all =oust not only of Ittr exalted
alai., but her domestic virtues? Yet shows' the object
of your attack, and whom you insulted by a blow. emai-
-1 daring the station of your family end your own position, the
wart will not indict the disc rueful punishment of whipping
, spas you. The court hu some respect for you,
though you had no respect for others. It will still,
however, be its duty to pass such a sumacs
upon you as will prevent you, at all events tor es