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

THE SUN,

a Queen who, as the Learned Counsel justly re-
marked, " was revered and loved by ill classes of her
subjects—a Sovereign who, perhaps, enjoyed the love
of those subjects more than any other who had ever
filled the throne of these realms." Neither did he
rest satisfied with the mere suggestion of mental in.
capacity. A number of highly respectable wit-
nesses were produced, who deposed to great ec-
centricity on the part of the prisoner, and even
as to strange delusions under which he for-

merly laboured, and which led to his removal from
the military service by the sale of his commission, an
indulgence which was only permitted under the pe-
culiar circumstances of his case, by his supposed
weakness of intellect which led to the disobedience of
the orders of his commanding officer and his absence
without leave from his military duties. Two medical
gentlemen of great celebrity in cerebral dis-
eases also gave it as their opinions that
"he was of unsound mind." The evidence
of Dr. CONOLLY, the head physician of
Hanwell Lunatic Asylum, was very important. The
learned gentleman said, "It seems to me that he has
a very small share of mental power, without object
or ambition, and unfit for all-the ordinary duties of
life. In conversation, he would undoubtedly know the
distinction between a right and wrong action, but I
should say that he would be subject to sudden im-
pulses of passion." And on cross-examination, the
learned gentleman admitted that " he was not aware
that the prisoner suffered from any particular delusion."
Now this was exactly the state of mind referred to
by the Judges in their answers to the queries sub-
mitted by the House of Lords in 1843. They
stated that, " notwithstanding a party committed a
wrong act when labouring under the idea of redress-
ing a supposed grievance or injury, or under the im-
pression of obtaining some public or private benefit,
he was liable to punishment." And again, in answer
to the question, " If a person under an insane delusion
as to existing facts, commits an offence in conse-
quence thereof, is he thereby excused ? ' to which
they replied, that " they were unanimous in opinion
that if the delusion was only partial, the party ac-
cused was equally liable with a person of sane mind.

If the accused killed another in self-defence, he would
be entitled to an acquittal, but if committed for any
supposed injury, he would then be liable to the
punishment awarded by the laws to his crime."
Tried by these tests, there can be no doubt

that the prisoner was responsible for the offence ; but
still it materially lessens its aggravated character.
It is pleasing to know that the unfortunate victim
was not in the full possession of his faculties, and that
the outrage of which he was guilty was most probably
the result of a sudden impulse, rather than of
any deliberate intention to insult or injure
her Most Gracious MAJESTY. Under these
circum stances, a e are quite contented that
the degradation of corporal punishment has been
spared, not on account of the station and respectabi-
lity of his family, for that would, in an ordinary
case, have rendered a disgraceful penalty more es-
sential, but on account of his mental imbecility,
which, although it could not excuse, in some degree
mitigates the crime. The punishment of trans-
portation was most suitable, for every care will be
taken of the unfortunate man, who will be kept in
that seclusion and under that control which he so
much requires. The effect of the verdict will be very
important; fur not only will it deter persons of
weak mind from venturing on similar outrages, and
afford full protection to our beloved QUEEN, but it
will constitute an important precedent in all cases in
which insanity may be set up as a defence on trivial
or insufficient grounds.