The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-07-14 00:00:00

By Lord Denman,—He was five years in the hospital

Sophia Oxford.—l am widow of the prisoner's grandfather,
who died at Greenwich Hospital eleven years ago. We lived
together 35 years. He was always very unsettled in his
mind, particularly when he took liquor. I noticed a strange-
ness about him soon after we were married. The prisoner's
father was only 12 months old when the grandfather came to
the house and caused a great disturbance. He was taken to
the magistrates in consequence, and, with the assistance of a
waterman, the beadle of the parish, and some other men, a
strait-waistcoat was put upon him, and he was considered so
bad that it remained on him for a fortnight, and two men
were obliged to sit up with him. He got better in a couple
of months, and then came to see me. When he was at
Greenwich he was attended by Sir Richard Dobson for an
attack in his head, which I firmly believe affected his mind.
For a year previous to his death he behaved very steadily.
Cross-examined by the Solicitor-General.—My husband
was not tipsy when he broke the things, but he was dis-
pleased with my relations because they would not give him
a treat, as he considered that they ought to have paid him
that mark of respect.
Sophia Bartlett, examined by Mr. Bodkin.—l am daughter
of the last witness, and live in Gray's Inn-lane. I remember
a strait-waistcoat having been placed on my father when I
was twelve years old. Four men assisted, and they went up
stairs to the room where he was, and shut the door. After
that my father went to sea, and was then admitted to Green-
wich Hospital, where I saw him several times, and had con-
versations with hitsi. --' He was not altogether insane, but
very strange and eccentric in his mind. He used to say,
while keeping guard at the gate, that he was the Pope of
Rome and St. Paul, and then he would tell me that the Pope
had escaped from prison. I had a brother younger than
myself named Peter, who had a complaint in his head, which
caused it to be light at times, and on one occasion he was
placed in the Naval Asylum. My father, to the best of my
belief, never was of sound mind.
Cross-examined by Sir P. Pollock.—l am 26 years of age.
111 y father was at sea nearly all his life, but used to come
home at intervals. He was employed at Greenwich to keep
one of the gates. He represented himself as .St. Paul, not
St. Peter.

Sarah Kitchen, examined by Mr. S. Taylor.--I am 74
years old, and used to keep the Black Prince public-house
at Kennington-common. I am the widow of the prisoner's
maternal grandfather. I knew the father. of the prisoner
when a little boy at school, but never saw him after. I never
saw his grandfather but four times in my life.
Mrs. Hannah Oxford—l am the mother of the prisoner,
and married his father when we were each twenty years of
age. I was acquainted with him for about six weeks before
our marriage. He became acquainted with me at the Hope
and Anchor public-house at Birmingham, and I married him
against the consent of my friends. Both before and after I
was married to him he acted very strangely;' and previous to
our marriage he attempted to draw a razor across his throat,
and threatened to shoot himself with a double-barrelled pis-
tol, which he said was loaded with slugs. I promised to
marry him at the very time the Princess Charlotte was lying
dead ; but before the day appointed for the marriage I said I
would not be his wife in consequence of some inquiries made
respecting him, and he then pulled out a bundle of bank-
notes, threw them into the fire, and watched them until they
were consumed. He was in a great rage before he did it,
because I would not take the money to purchase some furni-
ture. Before we were marriel he was found in the street
with an open razor in his baud. He was crying, and seemed
in a very desponding state, and in that state he was taken
home by a watchman. After we were married he did not
mend in the least, and during my pregnancy af my second
child he used to make all sorts of faces and grimaces at me,
and when the child was born it used to distort its face in the
same way, and never showed any indication of sense or rea-
son. That child died when it was two years and nine months
old ; and while I was pregnant with the prisoner my husband
used to make the same grimaces. He was always tormenting
and annoying me. I never did anything to vex him, but, on
the contrary, was too kind and attentive to him. He was a
gold chaser by trade, and could earn twenty guine4s a week.
He bought a horse on one occasion, and used to lead it about
the parlour, When I was pregnant with the prisoner my
husband threw a quart pot at me, and hit me on the head. /
fell down from the effects of the bloW, and was insensible
some time. When we were living at Birmingham he stripped
the house of every article of furniture without any quarrel or

provocation between us, and then went directly to Dublin,
where he spent a sum of money which he took with him.
When he returned he pushed me from him, and refused to
take my hand. He always acted contrary to what he was
told to do. When I was in distress for money he used to
laugh, and had a sort of supernatural look with him. I
knew him to take laudanum twice, and on one of the occa-
sions he was very ill. He died on the ]oth of June, 1822. I
saw his father on that occasion, and he scolded me fur hay-
ing the body opened without getting anything for it. The
prisoner was born on the 9th of April, 1822. When he was

He continued this habit from three or foirr years of age up
to the present time. He would sometimes get into a violent
rage without any cause, and be would knock and destroy
anything he might have in his hand. The first day he brought
pistols home he pointed one of them at me, and on another
occasion he levelled a loaded gun at me. When a child he
burnt his face with gunpowder, and he was very fond of firing
off little cannons. After his fits of passion he would burst
out into fits of laughter, which appeared to be quite involun-
tary. My customers complained of his conduct, and I lost
my business entirely. At other times he was penitent.
When he was not under such excitement he was very re-
served, and would not speak, and used to be very angry with
me if I spoke to him. I went into the service of Mr. Prescott,
the banker, as confidential housekeeper, when I lost sight of
the prisoner for some time. After that I placed him under
the care of a person of the name of Salmon. I remained
with Mr. Prescott for a year and a half, and after that time
the prisoner appeared more calm and collected.
Mr. Baron Alderson—How long is that ago ?

Witness—About eight years ago.
Examination continued—The prisoner was in the habit of
going on to the roof of the house, and throwing things at
persons passing. He was once taken to the station-house
for getting up behind a carriage and alarming a lady.
Lord Denman—How long is that ago ?
Witness—About six years ago. .

The prisoner never, to my knowledge, belonged to any club I
or society. I left Loudon for Birmingham about four weeks
before this affair occurred. He had left his situation about a
week before that time. He received £2O per annum wages.
He also received a suit of mourning when his mistress died,
which enabled him to obtain the clothes lie now wears. Upon
one occasion he presented a pistol at me : I then asked him
why he spent his money so foolishly ? When he replied that
the pistol did not belong to him, it belonged to a young man
for whom he was taking care of it. A day or two before I
went to Birmingham the prisoner struck me a blow across
the face ; I called upon my landlady, who said that if she
struck her mother she should expect her hand to drop off.
Upon which the prisoner appeared ashamed, and became very
sullen. I know his handwriting ; the letter produced is his
writing. Cross-examined by the Solicitor-General—Told
Mrs. Paxman that the blow on my face was an accident. The
prisoner first: went to school when he was quite a boy. He
continued under my care till his father died; he was then 7
years old. He had been to school before that tilile. The
first school he went to was a Mr. Water's ; he then went to
a Mr. Robinson's, where he remained some months. He
then went to a third, where he also remained some months.
After I left Mr. Prescot's, the prisoner went to Mr. Salmon's
at Birmingham, where he remained twelve months. He after-
wards went to live with his aunt, where he acted as barman ;
his duty was to serve customers and receive money. He re-
ceived wages from his aunt. The witness then described the
several situations the prisoner lived in, but the low tone in
which she spoke prevented her being heard in the reporters'
box. When he lived at Mr. Salmon's, complaints were made
of the prisoner giving wrong change, breaking glasses, &c. It
is four years this summer since the prisoner first went to his
aunt's, and since that period he has always supported himself
by his situations. When I kept the coffee-shop the prisoner
annoyed the customers by crying out and bawling aloud. I
forget the name of the lady whose carriage he got up behind,
but she resided italic Walworth-road. Ido not know a per-
son of the name of Roades. The prisoner had been at home
about a vv;...ek when I went to Birmingham. When I left Lon-
don, I intended to return to West-place again. The prisoner
was then looking out for another situation. I told him to
look out for another place, but he said there was nothing stir-
ring, and he would wait till a good place offered itself rather
than answer advertisements.

Mary Sumner was then called by Mr. S. Taylor, when
Lord Denman said, he thought as there were several other

witnesses to be examined, it mould he better to adjourn at
once till to-morrow morning. It was impossible to conclude
that night. _

Alr:Taylorreplied that the examination of his witnesses

would ceriainly occupy some time further

Lord Denman said that as he was unwilling to interfere
with the examination of the prisoner's mother, but be thought
it would he better in the examination of the other witnesses,
rather to ask whether they had formed any opinion as to the
state of the prisoner's mind, and the grounds on which they
formed that opinion, than to lead them into the whole his-
tory of his life in order to elicit some circumstance which
might bear upon the case. He did not wish to interfere with
the defence, but he threw it ont as a hint for the consideration

of counsel.
The court then adjourned at a few minutes past eight, until
nine o'clock the next morning.

SECOND DAY

FRIDAY

Soon after nine o'clock this day the proceedings of the trial

were resumed

The jury, who had been taken to the London Coffee-house
during the night, being called over, the prisoner was placed
at the bar.

Mary Sumner examined by Mr. Taylor.—l reside in
Church-row, Houndsditch, and am a widow. I havelived in
Birmingham, and knew the father of the prisoner, and have
had opportunities of observing his conduct. I always thought
he was not right.in his mind. Once, at dinner-time, he threw
the meat and vegetables out of the window, and my family
all used to say to one anothur, that he must be out of his
mind. His acts were more like those of a madman than any
thing else. _ _ _ _

Charles Marklaw.—l live at Birmingham, and Mrs. Ox-
ford is my sister. I knew her late husband. On one occa-
sion he kissed both his children, and then went out of doors
and drank the contents of a bottle, which, by the smell, I
knew to be laudanum. I told him he was a fool for acting in
such a way. He was taken to his own house, and Dr. Birt
Davies was sent for. I always considered him in a mad
state.

Dr. Birt Davies examined by Mr. Bodkin.—l am a phy-
sician and a coroner for the county in which I reside. I at-
tended the husband of Mrs. Oxford at Birmingham on one
occasion when he had poisoned himself by taking laudanum.'
I believe I saw him twice or thrice in 1824. I directed the
usual remedies to be administered to him, and he recovered.
I cannot say whether he was in any danger when I first saw
him. I never saw him after that time. I had no opportunity
on the occasions I saw him of judging of his state of mind,
but I had heard of his strange conduct from others.
Mr. Bodkin.—Assuming the facts that have been deposed
to, do you think the prisoner sane or insane?
The court stated that the question was inadmissible. That
was a question the jury would have to answer.
Mr. Bodkin.—Do you think that a man firing two pistols
at her Majesty, and then admitting that he had done so, and
entering freely into conversation on the subject, could be in

his same mind ?
Witness.--•I think he must be mad.
Baron Alderson.—Without waking any other inquiry

man knowing the danger he would be in, and
making such an admission, I think that it would be a proof of
madness. If I found that a man had written such papers as
are now produced, just before he committed the act, it would
strengthen my opinion.
(The papers referred to were those found at the prisoner's

Witness

•
Cross-examined.—l don't recollect what remedies I pre-
scribed to the prisoner's father when he took the poison. The
circumstance is impressed on my mind from the fact that he
was a man of colour. I don't recollect how far he was over-
powered by the laudanum. I answered the questions put to
me by the prisoner's counsel as a medical man, and not as a
magistrate or a coroner. The circumstances hat were re-
ferred to showed a tendency to insanity.
By the court.—l derive that opinion from the circumstances
under which the crime was committed. It was done openly
—no attempt at escape or concealment--no caution—the party
delivered himself up immediately—the admission that there
were balls in the pistols=
Baron Alderson—l don't think that is admitted. That is
a question to be discussed.

Witness.—Also the absence of motive.
Lord Denman.—Really I don't think we ought to go into
this. It is a matter solely for the jury.
Baron Alderson.—A medical man's province is merely to
speak to medical facts, upon which he grounds his opinion.
Lord Denman.—As to the fact of the papers, there may
be a question whether they are genuine or not. They may
be merely papers made up for the purposes of a defence.
Mr. John Wright inn at present a serjeant of police,
of Brighton. I knew the prisoner's father. He was very
violent, and continually ill-used his wife. I don't think he

was right in his head half his time. I was articled to him,
and learnt the trade of gold-chasing.

Robert Snedd

I fo-rmerly resided at Birmingham,
.and I

_ .
also knew the father of the prisoner. both before and after
his marriage. I considered him to be in a very unsound
state of mind.

Clarinu Powell.—l formerly kept the King's Head at
Hounslow, and the prisoner was in my service for two
years, about two years ago. During that period he was under
my observation, and I considered he was not in a sound state
of mind.

Joseph Day

am a green-grocer, and in the year 1837

I was a corporal in the second battalion of grenadier guards,
and was quartered at Hounslow, and frequently went to the
house of the last witness. I had opportunities of seeing the
prisoner, and, in my o pinion, he was of unsound mind.
Mary Ann Formn.—l was a fellow-servant with the pri-
soner at the Shepherd and Flock public-house. I consider
the prisoner of unsound mind:
William Hazlewood.--I was barman at the Shepherd and

Flock with the prisoner, and I observed him frequently
laughing and crying. In my opinion he was of unsound
mind.

Mr. Thomas Pair.--The prisoner was in my serric

come from the place mentioned by the lasi witnesses. I
consider the prisoner of sound mind, • but subject to fits of
laughter, which at times appeared to be quite uncontrollable.

I never saw him cry.
Mr. Newman Robinson.—l am landlord of the Hog in the
Pound, and the prisoner lived with me from- the Ist cf April.
He was always laughing, and when I approached him he still
kept laughing. _ Some of my customers were offended by his

prOceeding in this way.
[At tbis stage of the prcceeding the prisoner began to
cry.]

John Tedman.—l am an inspector of police, and knew the
prisoner when he was at the Shepherd and Flock, and he was
under my observation for ]8 months, during which period I
frequented that house. I consider the prisoner to be of un-
sound mind.
Cross-examined.—He was trusted to draw the beer and
liquors, and receive the money, and wait upon the cus-
tomers.

By the Court.—l have frequently found him crying, and
when I asked him. what was the matter, he said "*Nothing,
it is all over now." He told me that no one had ill-used
him. I have found him laughing,' and when I asked him the
reason, he said the old women drank so much gin it would
make any body laugh. I heard his master once tell him to
bottle some stout, and ha put the funnel the wrong side up-
wards, and he said, when I questioned him, that it was a
jolly good cork. The beer ran all about the basket. I told
Mr. Minton, the master, that he was acting like an idiot, and
he had better send him away. He was occasionally very
violent, and at other times he was very quiet. About 18
months ago the prisoner wished to go to the House.ot Lords
to see the Queen, and he said he was determined to see her,
and he would see her one day or other. .
Susannah Phelps.—l am a married sister of the prisoner,
and he lived in the same house with me when this occur-
rence took place. I have observed something strange and
extraordinary in his conduct all along. I recollect his bring;
ing the pistols home, and he was continually pointing them
at me, and firing them off out of the window, and in the
yard. I never knew of anybody being hurt by these pistols.
He began tiring the pistols a day or two after he bought them.
When he came home, in the beginning of May, from the last
place, he had £5 for a quarter's salary. I did not ever see
the prisoner in company with any one except the lad Lenton,
and he never received any letters. It was my opinion, and
every one else's, that he was not of sound mind. He once
held the pistol to my head as I lay in bed.
Emily Chittenden.—l was housemaid when the prisoner
was at the Hog in the Pound. I observed that at times his
conduct was very strange and very eccentric. I recollect
that Mrs. Robinson, my mistress, fell down stars once, and
was very much frightened, and the prisoner laughed at her.
I have noticed him laugh at other times when there was
nothing to be laughed at. I never saw hint cry. I have not
heard him talk of himself in a strange manner, or say that

he was a king. I received a letter from the prisoner, ad-
dressed as follows :

" To a public-house, the Hog and Pound,
To Miss Chittenden, there to be found,
Please to convey with speedility ;
^Remember, my blade, the postage is paid."

—(a laugh).
Christopher Day and Richard Mc Donald gave similar
evidence as to the state of the prisoner's_ mind.

Dr. liotchkin, a member of the Society of Friends,
evidence upon his affirmation-1 have been a physician for
14 years, and have lectured Upon morbid anatomy, and have
written works upon the subject.
Mr. Sydney Taylor—Suppose a person committing a
crime, for which his life w0u4.1 be forfeited, without any
motive, and he.giving himself up and avowing himself the
author of the crime, do you think such a man would be sane
or insane ?

Witness—l think it would leave a very strong impression
that the party was insane, and my opinion would he streng-
thened if I was aware that other • members of the family had
been insane. Upon all the facts as stated I should say the
prisoner was insane, and such a form of insanity has been
recognised by medical authorities.
Cross-examined—l should say it was under the form
known as lesion de la volonli, lesion of the will. This means
more than a person having the control over his own actions.
It would suppose a morbid propensity—a disease of the will.
I should say it was connected with moral irregularity as the
result of disease. I don't think that I have ever had such a
case under my own observation. I think that committing a
crin-.e without a motive is an apparent indication of insanity.
Re-examined—The form of insanity I have referred to is
a well-recognised form.
Lord Denman, to the witness—Do you not think that any
person can form an opinion as to the conclusion to be drawn
from a person's actions, and the want of motive for commit-
ting a crime, as well as a medical man ?
Witness—l think not. A medical man would make more
careful examination.
Lord Denman—But supposing an equally careful examina-
tion, the result would have been the same?
By Baron Alderson—lt is very difficult to draw the line
between eccentricity and the commencement of insanity.
Dr. John Connolly—l am physician to the lunatic asylum
at Hanwell, and have had considerable experience in dis-
orders of the mind. I have seen and conversed with the
prisoner, and I am of opinion that lie is not of sound mind.
Dr. Chowne.—l am, physician to Charing-cross Hospital.
1 think that the commission of. a crime without motive,
under the circumstances detailed, is an indication of insanity.
It is a well-recoguised form of insanity under the name that
has been mentioned—lesion of the will. It is also called
moral insanity. I have seen the prisoner in Newgate, and
conversed with him, and from that conversation, and the
opportunity I had of observing him, J should say his mind
was essentially unsOund, and-combined a mixture of insanity
and imbecility. I think that involuntary laughing and cry-
ing is a proof of imbecility.
Dr. James Fernandez Clarke.—l am a surgeon to several
institutions, and have been in the habit of attending insane
persons. I have attended the prisoner's family, and have
known the prisoner for several years. I was present with
the other medical gentlemen, and my opinion is that the pri-
soner is imbecile and of unsound mind.
This was tile case for the defence.
The Solicitor-General said the jury would shortly have
to perform the most important part of their duty—to con-
sider 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 dvty, they could have consented to a verdict of insanity.
But in this case they were called on to decide upon a ques-
tion involving the most important interests. 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 could, consistently with their duty to
themselves and the country, they would find the charge was
not proved-7but 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
• themselve with their proper business, without looking to
other considerations—their 'duty only was to consider whether
the crime had been committed by the prisoner, and whether
he was answerable for his actions when he committed
.it.
Violence, irregularity of conduct=nay, insanity itself, might
exist without doing away with the responsibility of his con-
duct. The defence rested upon three points :—lst, Whether
the Queen was the object of attack ; 2d, whether the pistols
were loaded with ball ; 3d, the state of mind of the prisoner.
In considering the two first questions, the consideration of
insanity would not materially occur. The commission of
the fact was totally distinct frond the responsibility which
might result. It was admitted that premeditation and con-
trivance were not always symptoms 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 tin object of attack as the
Queen, whether to a sane ()ran 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 opportunity of shooting him on his return
from Woolwich ; the pistol was levelled at the carriage. He
inquired, as soon as his.cell-door was open, if the Queen was
hurt. His learned friends 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. It the prisoner
should be influenced by vanity, and a desire of making him-
self the general object of attention throughout the country,
estimable and important as the life of Prince Albert must be,
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 ability
and diligence, to present to the jury every object, and they
would have produced facts calculated to show that the pri-
soner had aimed at some other individual had such been in
their possession. With regard to the question of the pistols
being loaded with ball, he considered that the consideration
of insanity wduld rather lead to the conclusion that such
was the case than otherwise ; but there were other circum-
stances. The prisoner applied to Gray to purchase caps and
balls, who recommended him to the place to purchase balls.
He is fond of practisiug 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 td indicate an intention of
murder it would 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 posseAsion, the
case was different. What was the object of firing ? Destruc-
tion. Could any other be suggested ? One pistol was fired ;
and if his object had been to create alarm merely, why dis-
charge the second? But if his object were destruction, hay-
in; fired the first without effect he would fire the second ;
and that wss a circumstance for them to consider when they
came to consider whether the object was to produce death.
Would those circumstances leave any doubt that there were
balls? Tire question asked by the prisoner 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 said. they were loaded with ball. If incidental and
direct admission 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 one would be safe. If the pistols were loaded with-
out ball, the prisoner should show it. His expressions were
confirmatory of the conclusion fairly dedu6ble from the facts
of the case, that the pistols were loaded with ball. Sup-
posing 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 that they heard the whizzing,
what was there to lead to the conclusion that the pistols were
loaded with powder only ? There were two gentlemen who
stated their opinion that the marks upon the wall were the
marks of balls. Suppose they are mistaken, what then ? If
the jury had ever discharged guns or pistols, and attempted
to look for the balls, they would know the difficulty, even in
a limited space, of finding a ball. Considering the height of
the wall, a very slight. elevation of the muzzle of the pistol
would be sufficient to carry the ball over the wall. The
second pistol was fired up the road, and it was extremely
difficult, of course, to see what direction it took. Their duty
would be to weigh well the probabilities which would arise
from the conduct of the prisoner on other occasions, and the
extreme improbability that either from design or accident he
should omit to load his pistols with ball on this occasion.
With regard to the third point, he was traced from school
into three distinct services. They had had his employers'
evidence ; they had heard a great many witnesses. Suppose
the'prisoner's will was now in litigation, and this evidence
of insanity should be attempted to be interred against its
validity, what would be the effect of it? They had heard
quotations from text-writers—they would hear from the
court the rule of law they were to apply to the case ; but in
a civil case a very different rule of decision was required from
a criminal case. If he apprehended aright, the rule itself in
this case was not difficult ; its application was more so.
Lord Erskine had entered more at large into the question of
criminal responsibility than any other writer, and public
justice did not require that they should measure the prison-
er's responsibility by any other rule than that laid down by
Mr. Erskine in defending Hatfield. It was a safe and just
rule. Before lie reverted to the evidence, he would once more
call their attention tp it. The principles:were laid down very
shortly by Lord Lyndhurst in the case of the King v. Of-
fard. It was an indictment for murder, and Lord Lyndhurst
said that to acquit the prisoner it was necessary that the jury
should be of opinion that he did not know the consequence
of what he was doing ; that he was not aware that he was
acting against the laws of God and of man. Sir J. Jekyll
had said rightly in the Duchess of Kingston's case, the law
would not measure the capacity of a man's understanding
provided he be compos mends. Lord Hale said that partial
insanity, would not excuse a person from responsibility for
his criminal actions.—[The learned gentleman then read the
opinion of Lord Erskine, and quoted many other authorities
on the subject.] The question for them to decide would be,
whether the prisoner was in a situation to know right from
wrong—to know that the consequence of this act would be
the infliction of death, and that he would thereby subject him-
self to punishment. The Solicitor-General concluded by ex-
pressing his opinion that the verdict which the jury would
deliver would be satisfactory to their consciences aid the
country._

Lord Penman then commenced summing up, and stated
that the prisoner was charged with high treason; and the
other acts charged were, that he fired two pistols at her Ma-
jesty, loaded with bullets. The jury were to determine
whether he fired the pistols, and whether they were loaded
with bullets, and then to consider whether the prisoner was
insane. These questions were perfectly distinct. As to the
fact of the firing, that was too notorious to stand in need of
much comment; hut they were to dismiss from their minds
all they had. heard on the subject out of court, and attend
solely to the evidence. There could be no doubt but that the
prisoner was the person who fired the pistols ; but as the
case was most important he should go through the whole of
the evidence, and call their attention to the facts as he went
along. His lordship then commenced reading the evidence,
commenting upon it as he proceeded. He concluded by
stating that he left the case to the jury, satisfied that they
would take all possible pains to ascertain the truth; and, hav-
ing ascertained it, that they would pronounce such a verdict
as would give satisfaction to their own minds, and be an ex-
ample to future juries.
The jury retired at a quarter past five o'clock, and re-
turned into court at a quarter past six o'clock ; their names
were called over, and the prisoner was placed at the bar. He
did not appear at altdisturbed.
Mr. Clarke then asked whether the jury had agreed upon
their verdict?
Foreman—We find the prisoner, Edward Oxford, Guilty
of discharging two pistols at her Majesty, but whether they
were loaded with ball is not satisfactorily or sufficiently
proved, he being at the time in an unsound state of mind.
The verdict appeared to create a good deal of surprise in
the court.
Mr. Sydney Taylor submitted that the prisoner, upon this
verdict, was entitled to his acquittal.
The Attorney-General contended that the court ought to
ask the jury whether they
.intended by the verdict to say,