The Sun.
London, England, 1840-07-10 00:00:00

in persons who said they had not an ungratified wish,
but felt impelled by an impulse. Persons who
labour under this disease can frequently properly perform
all acts that may be required of them, and exhibit occa-
sional acuteness. I saw the prisoner yesterday, in COM-.
psny with Dr. Conolly, by cider of the Secretary :of
State. I should consider his state of mind essentially un-
sound; there seems to be a mixture of insanity and im-
becility.

Cross-examined by the SOLICITOR-GENERAL—The per-
sons who exhibited this propensity to suicide were per-
forming all the avocations of life. It might be dependent
on a physical cause, which cause might not have been de-
veloped. Laughing and crying are connected with hys-
teria as well as imbecility, but in hysteria it is connected
with other symptoms, such as globus hystericus. I en-
deavoured to impress upon his mind that be was wrong in
supposing that it could not be proved that there were balls
in the pistols, and that he would most certainly be decapi-
tated. He said it was of no consequence, be bad been
decapitated a week ago, for be had a cast of his head
taken. He insisted that there were no balls in the
pistols ; and when I endeavoured to impress upon
him that it could be proved themwere, he said it
was impossible. During the whole time I was there he
was playing with a
pencil and India rubber without ex-
hibiting acute feeling or consciousness. When told to
walk across the room, he did so naturally and briskly. I
made no notes. Mr. Maule was present during the latter
part of the examination.
By the COURT.—I was here yesterday. and judge partly
from what I saw of his manner then. I have nothing to
observe as to the form of his head. I subjected him
to the arithmetical test, and found him tolerably ready.
Mr. J. F. Clarke-1 am a surgeon. I have had some
experience in the treatment of insane persons. I have
been in the habit of attending the family of the pri-
soner. I have known the prisoner two years. I accom-
panied Dr. Conolly and Dr. Chowne in their visit to him
the day before yesterday. lam of opinion that he is labour-
ing under imbecility decidedly of unsound mind. During
the time that I have attended his mother and sister, I have
observed him, and remarked a general hyterical ten lency
in him. He did not seem to- have that: control over his
emotions generally possessed by other persons. His
mother feared he would be as his father was. I did not
know his father. I heard the answers he gave to the two
last witnesses. I watched his manner during the interview;
it was much the same manner I had observed on former
occasions. On one occasion he was sitting reading by the
fire, his mother made an observation, to which he did not
reply ; she did this a second time, and then touched him ;
he rose suddenly, and declared he would stick her. In
cases of hereditary insanity, connected with acts of violence,
Esquirol says, that three out of six take place between the
ages of fourteen and twenty.
Cross-examined by Sir F. Poi-Lock—l never prescribed
for the prisoner. I never recommended any course of
treatment for him. I never gave any advice. I merely
expressedssed my
me owphineon. and Myself.m together. I communi-
cated the last witnesses,
cated my opinion to the medical gentlemen before they
saw him. I did it to assist them in their investigation.
anilesoeirea
I was in Court last session when he was brought up. I
heard the affidavit read on that occasion. I was not
asked to make an affidavit.

Re-examined—l never was asked to prescribe for him.
His bodily health appeared good.
This closed the case for the defence.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said the Jury would shortly
have to perform the most important part of their duty—to
consider the fair weight to which the evidence offered to
them was entitled. In common with his Learned Friend,
all who were associated with him would be rejoiced if; at
any period of the trial, they could have seen that, in the
performance of their duty, they could have consented to a
verdict of insanity. But in this case they were called on
decide upon a question involving the most important
inter: sts. He considered the duty he had to perform was of
such a public nature that he should not observe upon
the general observations of his Learned Friend. If they
ould, consistently with their duty to themselves and the
country, they would find that the charge was not proved
—but. that verdict of acquittal to be satisfactory to the
public must be founded upon evidence. The public would
be best served by Juries on all occasions occupying them-
selves with the proper business, without looking to other
considerations—their duty only was to consider whether
the crime had beeu committed by the prisoner, and
whether he was answerable for his actions when he com-
mitted it. Violence, irregularity of conduct—nay in-
Sanity itself, might exist without doing away with the
responsibility of his conduct. The defence rested on
three poiets:—lst. Whether the Queen was the
cotr smaterially
questions,
o c theue
object of attack; 2d, whether the pistols were
loaded with hall ; 3d, the state of the mind of
te
consideration prisoner.
o In
consideringinsanity
the
two fit
The commission of the fact was totally distinct from
the responsibility which might result. It was admitted
that premeditation and contrivance were not always symp-
toms of sanity. Was it made out by the evidence that the
object of the prisoner was to shoot the Queen? No other
individual filled that station in society which could present
such an object of attack as the Queen, whether to a sane or
an insane person. They would remember that he had
expressed his determination to see the Queen, and that on
another occasion he had known she was at Windsor. If
Prince Albert had been the object of attack, the prisoner
had an opportuniaPf shooting him on his return from
Woolwich ; the pritZl was levelled at the carriage. He
inquired, as soon as his cell-door was open, if the Queen
was hurt. His Learned Friend's answer, that perhaps he
thought she might be hurt by the wadding—perhaps by
the ball—which was the most likely ? Would not
those facts prove that the Queen was the object of attack?
Had he aimed at any one else, would his inquiry have
ended with asking as to the Queen ? She was the sole
object of his attention ; no other individual occurred to
his mind. There could be no reasonable doubt as to the
Queen being the sole object of attack. In a subsequent
part of the case matter would arise, calculated to lead to
the same conclusion. If the prisoner should beAnflu--
enced by vanity„, and a desire of making himself the. ge-
nerd;l ' olfect,. of attention throughout the country,
iable and important as the life of Prince Albert must
b', it could not be compared in importance with that of her
Majesty : and if influenced by desires of destruction the
prisoner had done this deed, this would point at the Queen.
There was no other individual to whom the evidence
would apply except to the Queen. It was the duty of
his Learned Friends, and they had discharged that duty
with great ablity and diligence, to present to the
Jury every object, and they would have produced
leen calculated to show that the prisoner had aimed at
some other individual bad such been in their possession.
With regard to the question of the pistols being loaded
with ball, he considered that the consideration of insanity
would rather lead to the conclusion that such was the case
than otherwise; but there were other circumstances. The
prisoner applied to Gray to purchase caps and balls, and
recommended him to the place to purchase balls. He is
fund of practising with balls at a shooting gallery. He
had a bullet mould adapted to the pistol, and loose balls
were found in his box. If an individual levelled a pistol
and discharged it in such a manner as to indicate an in-
tention of murder, it would be a very dangerous doctrine
to assume that there were no balls in the pistol unless
such balls were found. In the case alluded to
by his Learned Friend, the pistol was not discharged,
but when the pistols were discharged, and powder and ball
were found in the person's possession, the case was dif-
ferent. What was the object of firing ? Destruction.
Could any other be suggested. Ode pistol was fired ; and
if his object had been to create alarm merely, why dis-
charge the second ? but if his object were destruction,
having fired the first without effect be would fire the
second,. and that was a circumstance for them to Iconsiler
when they came to consider whether the object was to
produce edeath. Would those circumstances leave any
doubt:that there were balls. The question asked by the pri-
soner distinctly proved that an act had been done by
which the Queen might have been hurt. The prisoner's
expression too to one of the witnesses, telling him
if his head were at the muzzle of the pistol, and the
ball had struck it, he would have known. Again,
when the question was distinctly put, he saidloaded with ball. If incidental and direct admission
they were
left it uncertain in the execution of criminal justice,
whether a man who levelled a pistol at another in the open
air had loaded that pistol with ball or not—no ono would
be safe. If the pistols were loaded without ball the pri-
soner should show it. His expressions were confirmatory
of the conclusion fairly deducible from the facts of the
case that the pistols were loaded with ball. Supposing
him to have been labouring under delusion, unless he
were so mad as not to know the consequences
of pulling
the trigger, what was there to lead to the conclusion that
the pistols were not loaded with ball ? Considering the
evidence of the witnesses, who stated they heard the whiz-
zing, what was then to lead to the conclusion that the
pistols were loaded with powder only ?
There were two
was the marks
Suppose they are
mistaken, what then ? If the Jury had every discharged guns
gupenontlethmeenwawlihowesrtaetethdethmaatrktsheoifr
boalplisn.ion
limited space,
or pistols, and attempted to look for the balls, they
Considering the height of the
slight elevation of the muzzle of the
wall, a very:
pistol would be sufficient
fired
ocarry the ball over the
owfoufildndiknngowa
ball.the difficulty, even in a
ion'mPit°btaoblioliatdY
wall; the second pistol was up the road, and it was
extremely difficult, of course, to see what direction it took.
thathis
pistols either fromwwith
h
Their duty would be to weigh well the probabilities which
would arise from the conduct of the prisoner on other
odcecsaigcinonosr,
pisonerf'rsomwillthweasc now
ball on this occasion. With regard to the third point ;he
They had
d validity, what
was traced from school into three distinct services. They
had had his employers' evidence ; they had heard a great
accident he
to the case ; but in a
in litigation, and this evidence of
itsinsanity would be
many witnesses. Suppose the
would Y heara heard quotations
theh
e extreme
should
awtoteumldptbeed
theto ebffeeetinofterirtl
civil case a very different rule of decision was required from
ftrhoemrutleexot-fwrlaitwersth—eythewyeretoapply
a criminal case. If he apprehended aright, the rule itself
in this ease was not difficult ; its application was more so.
Lord Erskine had entered more at large into the question
of eiiminal responsibility than any other writer, and public
justice di.:l not require that they should measure the pri-
soner's responsibility by any other rule than that laid down
by Mr. Erskine in defending Hatfield. It was a safe and just
rule. Before he reverted to the evidence, he would once more
call their attention to it. The principles were laid down
very shortly by Lord Lyndhurst in the case of the King
Oflard. It was an indictment for murder, and Lord Lynd-
hurst said that to acquit the prisoner it was necessary that
the Jury should be of opinion that he did net know the
consequence of what he was doing, that he was not
aware that lie was acting against the laws of God and of
man. Sir J. Jekyll had said rightly in the Duchess of
Kiegstoit's case, thc law would ne,t. measure the'capaeity of
man's tincieretaricling:ptevl4ed he ee Orenoe.rnentis. :Lord
Hail said that partial insanity Would euese a person flece
responeibilite fkorn his l aelleils•—( The Learned
Getttlenian then read the opinion of Lord Erskine, and
authorities on the subject.) The ques.

CkUOtetllTlth., • - • ,
nen for them to decide would he,, whetner tile prisoner
was in a situation to know right from wrong—to know
that the consequence of his act would be the infliction of
death, and that he wo4ld thereby subject himself to