The Sun.
London, England, 1863-12-14 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, MONDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 14, 1863,

common at the outbreak of hostilities. And the courage of
the people will not be diminished if they bring themselves
face to face with thereal character of the struggle. "Liberty
or death" is no mere phrase to us ; and it will do no harm
if we look steadfastly at the less agreeable alternative.—
.litchmond Examiner.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

MIDLAND CIRCUIT—DERBY, Dec. 12.
CROWN COURT.
(Before Mr. Baron Martin.)

The trial of George Victor Townley for the murder of
Miss Goodwin was resumed this morning at 9 o'clock pre-
cisely.

As before, Mr. Boden, Q.C., and Mr. Bristowe appeared
for the prosecution; Mr. Macaulay, Q.C., Mr. Sergeant
O'Brien, and Mr. Fitzjames Stephen defended the prisoner.
Mr. Boden now replied on the part of the prosecution.
He contended that the evidence for the defence proved that
the prisoner knew the nature and quality of his act and that
it was prohibited ; and although, owing to a state of mind
differing from that of the majority of men, he conceived
that his act was right, yet it was clear that he well knew
that others thought it wrong. Miss Goodwin's letters,
which he had been unable to lay before them, had been
supplied by those who conducted the defence, and afforded
a clue to the prisoner's act. They showed that he went to
Wigwell-hall with a knowledge that Miss Goodwin was
desirous to break off her engagement with him, and in the
hope of inducing her to change her mind upon that subject,
It had been attempted to prove that he set out upon that
mission in an insane state of mind. The evidence used for
that defence consisted partly in the alleged existence of
hereditary insanity in the family, It had not, however, been
shown that any lineal ancestor of the prisoner had ever been
mad, and the evidence given with respect to some collateral
relations of the prisoner failed to establish hereditary insa-
nity. The other evidence painted to the state of his mind
upon and after the receipt of Miss Goodwin's letters. That
evidence entirely failed to show anything resembling insa-
nity in the prisoner's conduct, while it showed a motive for
the murder. The stronger his attachment to Miss Good win,
the more likely it was that in resenting her rejection of
him he should in a state of distress have been hurried into
the commission of this act. The prisoner's letters were the
letters of a sane and rational person. The evidence given
by Grew of his behaviour at the Midland Hotel was almost
ludicrous. His conduct there was entirely natural under
the circumstances, and it was clear that neither the land-
lady of the Bull's Head nor Mr. Harris perceived anything
at all peculiar in his manner. Dr. F, Winslow's evidence
simply showed that the prisoner entertained certain specu-
lative notions inconsistent with the wellbeing of society;
but it would be most dangerous that any one who consi-
dered that stealing was not morally wrong should be enabled
to commit robbery with impunity. The law permitted the
holding of notions of this kind, but the very essence and ob-
ject of law was to prevent those notions from being carried
into action. Dr. Forbes Winslow admitted that the pri-
soner knew his act was punishable, and that knowledge was
sufficient to make him responsible to the law. Dr. Forbes
Winslow had introduced a new species of insanity, which
he called general moral derangement, but such a doctrine
was fraught with danger to the wellbeing of society.
At the conclusion of Mr. Bolen's reply,

Mr. Macaulay rose and, addressing his lordship, observed
—I understand, my lord, with reference to the questions you
will leave to the jury, that you will ask them—first, whether
the prisoner knew the effect upon life of his act ; and second,
whether he was conscious that he was incurring legal
punishment.

Baron Martin—l shall tell the jury that, assuming that
the prisoner's mind was diseased on the 21st August, yet, if
he knew the act he did would probably cause death, and
that what he was doing was against the law of God and the
subject of legal punishment, he is responsible for his act,
Mr. Macaulay--I humbly submit—

Baron Martin—Mr. Macaulay, is this right? At the
close of your address yesterday. I read out to you the ques-
tion I proposed to leave to the jury, and gave you an oppor•
tunity, and, indeed, invited you to comment upon it. You
declined to take advantage of that opportunity, and it
would be most irregular to hear you now, after the reply of
the counsel for the prosecution is over.
Mr. Macaulay—In the absence cf the power of tendering
a bill of exceptions ?

Baron Martin—You have a much better remedy than
that.

His Lordship then, addressing the jury, said that by the
law of this country, if a man was convicted of murder the
judge must pronounce sentence of death, and the prisoner's
only hope then lay
in the mercy of the Crown. The result
of that trial was, then, of the greatest importance to the
public with reference to the protection of life. The law of
England attached the highest value to human life. Even
in the case where life was taken by accident, the law re-
quired an investigation of the circumstance. While, there-
fore, the interest of the prisoner in the result of their deli-
berations was the greatest possible, the interest of the
public was equally great, and it wts their duty to give their
verdict upon the point of law he should submit to them,
and to leave the responsibility of acting upon that verdict
to others. So far as the act was concerned, it was the
clearest case he had ever had the misfortune to try. It was
plain that the prisoner suffered as much as probably any
man ever suffered. That was clear from the evidence of his
friends and of the waiter at the Midland Hotel ; but it
was equally clear that he did not appear to be insane in the
eyes of the landlady of the Bull's Head or in those of Mr.
Harris. The prisoner then went to the hall, and remained in
the company of the young lady from half .past 6 to nearly 9
o'clock, when the deed was committed. It was probable
that he implored her to renew the engagement, and perhaps
reproached her with her conduct towards him. She may
have been conscious that she had not behaved well to him,
and may have remained in his company from a sense of his
distress and from an anxiety to do all in her power to relieve
his mind. At any rate, if that was not the true explana-
tion of what took place between them, it could not possibly
place the prisoner's case in a worse light than any explana-
tion that could reasonably be suggested. He then inflicted
upon the young lady the wounds which caused her death,
That was murder, subject only to the question of insanity.
No one could doubt that the prisoner knew what he was
doing and that it would cause death. 'Unless he was insane,
therefore, under those circumstances he was guilty of mur-
der. No word was more vague than insanity. Probably,
there was not one of the jury but was acquainted with some
man who was in the habit of doing extraordinary actions,
and of'' whom people said, " why, that man must be in-
sake." Two years ago an investigation took place into the
condition of mini of a gentleman from the eastern parts of
the county. There was a long inquiry, which excited great
public interest, and there was a great divergence of opinion
among medical men. Great eccentricity of conduct on the
part of that person was shown, yet there was nothing to
relieve him from criminal responsibility. Probably he
was not the wisest of men, yet he was of sufficient in-
tellect to take care of himself and avoid doing injury to
others. There was a somewhat similar case at the last
tGhleo ces ter
impression that Assizes,in which a young lady was under a
number of ladies had formed an
unfounded dislike to her. In all probability she was
labouring under a delusion with respect to those persons,
yet she was as subject to the criminal law as any person
in that court. What the law meant by an insane man
was a man who acted under delusions and supposed a
state of things to exist which did not exist, and acted there-
upon. A man who did so was under a delusion, and a person
so labouring;was insane. In one species of insanity the
patient lost his mind altogether and had nothing but instinct
left. Such a person would destroy his fellow creatures as a
tiger would his prey, by instinct only. A man in that state
had no mind at all, and, therefore, was not criminally re-
sponsible. The law, however, went further than that. If
a man labouring under a delusion did something of which
he did not know the real character, something of the effect
and consequences of which he was ignorant, he was not re•
sponsible, An ordinary instance of such a delusion was
where a man fancied himself a king and treated all around
him as his subjects. It such a man were to kill another un-
der the supposition that he was exercising his prerogative
as a king and that he was called upon to execute the other
as a criminal, he would not be responsible. The result was
that, if the jury believed that at the time the act was com-
mitted the prisoner was labouring under a delusion, and be-
lieved that he was doing an act which was not wrong, or of
which he did not know the consequences, he would be ex-
cused. If, on the other hand, he well knew that his act
would take away life, that that act was contrary to the law
of God and punishable by the law of the land, he was guilty
of murder. That was the real question they had to try. In
the able address of the counsel for the pro,ecution no allu-
sion had been made to the state of mind which constituted
insanity. He had called the learned counsel's attention
to that point, because he was desirous of hearing his views
on the subject. He had already stated that in his opinion
the law upon the subject was best laid down by Justice Le
Blanc, as able a judge as ever sat on the bench. Justice Le
Blanc, in ithe case alluded to, observed to the jury that it
was for them to determine whether the prisoner when he
committed the offence with which ho stood charged was in-
capable of distinguishing right from wrong, or under the
influence of any illusion which rendered his mind at the
moment insensible of the nature of the act he was about
to commit; since in that case he would not be legally
responsible for his conduct. On the other hand, provided
(hey should be of opinion that when he committed the
offence he was capable of distinguishing light from wrong,
and not under the influence of such an illusion as disabled
him from discerning that he was doing a wrong act, he
would be amenable to the justice of his country and guilty
in the eye of the law. That in his (Baron Martin's) opinion
Was a correct statement of the law. He should not allude
to Bellingham's case because many were of opinion that that
Lyndhurst told the jury that they must be satisfied, before
was an unsatisfactory trial. In Offord's case the late Lord
they could acquit the prisoner on the ground of insanity,
that he did not know when he committed the act what the
effect of it if fatal would be. with reference to the crime
of murder, the question was, did he know that ho was com-
mitting an offence against the laws of God and nature ? In
Oxfotd's case Lord _Denman said, something has been
said about the power to contract and to make a will; but• I
think that those things do not supply any test, The ques-
tion is, whether the prisoner was labouring under that
species of insanity which satisfies you that he was quite un-