The Sun.
London, England, 1865-10-02 00:00:00

The Test of Insanity.

This so-called test of insanity, which is the great
source of contention at the present time, is generally
said to have been laid down by the judges in their
answers to the questions of the House of Lords in
1843. As these answers are constantly referred to,
it will be well to look at them a little closer. On
March 5, 1843, Macnaughten was tried for the
murder of Mr. Drummond, whom he had shot, mis-
taking him for Sir Robert Peel. The judges were
the Lord Chief Justice Tindal and Justices Williams
and Coleridge. Before the close the Lord Chief
Justice stopped the trial and directed an acquittal
on the ground of insanity. Great indignation
was expressed on all sides at this result. It was
said that the law was in fault which per-
mitted it, and the House of Lords was urged
to pass some Act which should better secure the

punishment of such offenders. An important debate
took place on March 13, in which the Lord Chancel-
lor Lyndhurst, Lords Brougham, Cottenham, and
Campbell took part. The Chancellor asserted that
the law wanted no alteration and deprecated any
fresh legislation on the subject. " Your lordships,"
said he, " might pass such a law : you have the
power to do so ; but when you come for the first
time to put it in execution, the sense of all, the feel-
ing of all reasonable men, would revolt against it ;
and your lordships would be obliged to retrace your
steps and repeal the law which you had passed in a
moment of excited feeling in consequence of recent
painful impressions, but which you could not have
passed under the influence of sober and steady rea-
son." And then he went on to state what the law
is, and to quote the words of Mr. Justice Le
Blanc, who, in 1812, tried a man who had been
found lunatic, by inquisition, and who had com-
mitted murder when undoubtedly insane. Justice
Le Blanc told the jury, " If you should be of opi-
nion that when he committed the offence he was
capable of distinguishing right from wrong, and was
not under the influence of such a delusion as dis-
abled him from distinguishing that he was doing a
wrong act, in that case he is answerable to the jus-
tice of his country and guilty in the eye of the law."
The Lord Chancellor also quoted justice Mansfield,
who, upon the trial of Bellingham, laid down the
law in very similar terms. " Therefore," said his 4
lordship, " there is no need of any change. Canyour
lordships say that if a man when he commits a crime
is under the influence of delusion and insanity so
as not to know right from wrong, so as nob
to know what he is doing, is it possible that your
lordships can by any legislative provision say that
such a man shall be responsible for his act ?" Lord
Brougham also deprecated any interference with the
existing law, but he criticised severely the expres-
sion we so often hear, viz., the " knowing right from
wrong." " One judge," says he, " lays down the
law that a man is responsible if he is ' capable of
knowing right from wrong.' Another says, "if he
is capable of distinguishing good from evil ; another
capable of knowing what was proper ; another what
was wicked." Lord Brougham said " that he was
not sure that the public at large knew right from
wrong, though their lordships knew that' distinguish-
ing right from wrong' meant aknowledgethat the act
a person was about to commit was punishable by
law." The other lords discussed the questions
which might be put to medical witnesses, and also
the power which a judge had of stopping a case or
directing a jury to acquit. The result of the debate
was that the house acted on the Lord Chancellor's
advice, " to leave the law as it stands ;" but certain
questions were put to the whole bench of judges as
to the application of the law, and as to the way in
which certain questions might be put to witnesses.--
" Cornhill Magazine" for October.