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

RAILWAY COMMUNICATION.

the bar,

The fourth report of the select committee on railway com-
munication has been printed by order of the House of Com-
mons. They had taken under consideration a number of
petitions suggesting the expediency of altering the present
system of taxing railway passengers, paying particular atten-
tion to see whether it at all compromised the accommodation,
which such a mode of conveyance ought to afford to the la-
bouring classes. Referring to the revenue derived from the
duty on railway passengers in 1840, which was £72,716, they
found that of this sum £53,000 was received from the Grand
Junction, the Great Western, the Liverpool and Manches-
ter, the London and Birmingham, and the London and
Southampton ; so that the railways in the north of England
and in Scotland, which derive their income from the poorer
classes, who consequently suffer most from the present taxa-
tion, contribute to the revenue in a very small degree. The
act 2 and 3 William IV., c. 120, which fixes the present rate
of duty, states that " the proprietor, or company of proprie-
tors, of every railway along which any passenger shall be
conveyed for hire, shall pay for all such passengers at the
rate of one-halfpenny per mile for every four passengers so
conveyed ;" that is to say, every passenger is taxed one-
eighth of a penny per mile, whatever be h►s fare ; and the
committee, taking into consideration the difference of the
fares paid by different classes of passengers, find they are
taxed by this system most unequally. In some instances it
is found that a first-class passenger is taxed only 3iper cent.
ou his fare, while a third-class passenger is taxed 12, and
even 15 per cent. This inequality operating as a discourage-
ment to the labouring and poorer classes, who would natu-
rally compose the greater part of the third .class passengers,
is the more hard, as the railroads have, in many instances,
destroyed the communication by means of waggons, which,
although very slow, had the advantage of being a cheap ac-
commodation to the poor man. On many lines of railway
the pressure of the tax is now felt for the first time, as in
former years the lords of the treasury exercised a power
which they possessed, and allowed in some cases an annual
composition instead of the tax—an indulgence which is
now no longer granted. From the evidence of the chairman
of the Leeds and Selby Railway, the commissioners had
learned that in the year 1836 that company had raised their
fares to such an extent that they diminished indeed the
number of passengers, but the increase of fare was enough
to augment their profits by £l3OO. The taxation per head
per mile offering no security against a proceeding of this
kind, but even encouraging such an act, taxation being dimi-
nished with decrease of passengers, notwithstanding increase
of profit, another objection appeared to the present system,
which according to the commissioners, tended to render the
interests of the railway companies and of the public (parti-
cularly the poorer classes) opposed to each other. The com-
missioners, therefore, are decidedly of opinion that the pre-
sent system should be altered, and examined two suggestions
by which this would be effected. One suggestion is, to sub-
stitute for the present tax a per centage on the gross receipts
derived from passengers, it being calculated that five per
cent. would produce about the same amount of revenue as is
raised under the present system. The other suggestion,
which the committee regard as more favourable to the public
interests, is to establish a gradual scale of taxation, by which
the amount of tax would be regulated by the amount of fare,
and act as a check on undue increase of the latter. A scale
was proposed to illustrate this plan. Many railway compa-
nies are limited by statute to a maximum charge of 3/d. per
mile for a passenger. The proposition was to allow a duty of
10 per cent. on all fares exceeding 70 per cent. of the maximum
allowed by the act, a duty of five per cent. on all fares be-
tween 40 and 70 per cent., and a duty of 2/ on all fares below
40 per cent. This scale the committee consider too high, but
they approve of the principle; and recommend, that when no
maximum has been fixed by parliament, 3d. per mile should
be considered as such for the purposes of taxation, while for
fares exceeding 70 per cent. of the maximum, they fix 71 per
cent. as the duty. The rates of 4to 21 per cent. they leave
the same as in the scale proposed. They recommend that
facilities be afforded for the rapid conveyance of troops from
one part of the country to another, in cases of emergency, on
payment of a " reasonable sum" for railway conveyance.
The new method of conveying intelligence by means of elec-
tricity is incidentally mentioned, from the circumstance that
experiments have been made on the Great Western. From
the readiness of communication which this method affords,
the committee conceive it may be inconvenient to leave the
exclusive possession of it in private hands, suggesting that
government should be furnished with similar means, and ex-
pressing a belief that no railway company will object, on fair
terms, to giving facilities to government for electrical com-
munication.

•
WINDOW TAX.—The most intense dissatisfaction prevails
every where in consequence of this tax, as it is levied by
various re-surveys, and the litigious manner in which the
charges are made ; even the glass doors which open in the
middle are counted as two windows.
SHARP PR ACTICE.—A grazier came lately to Nottingham
by the railway from Derby, for the purpose of attending Len-
ton fair. Whilst he was in the carriage a stranger accosted
stranger,
whothe veexrpyrepsl
expressed
histo whichdesire
tIo
hini with great civility, and after chatting about a variety of
topics,“ elicited from him that he was going to Leuton fair.
hriespli
newed tall:-
quaintance there. Ananimated conversation ensued, which
.
was kept up with greataaraccogmoinpagn;
vivacity by
the stranger visitor to
Lenton, until the
at the Nottingham sta-
tion. The parties having
alighted,the mysterious but plea-
sant stranger suddenly exclaimed,
"
In-
tention ; I shall not visit the fair;" I have altered my
and very politely bid the
grazier good morning. The latter
Lenton, but having occasion to feel pinrtreded on his way to
had put away his money, he discovered pocketulat he in which he
three £lO notes; and immediately suspecting th. a was minus
polite and insinuating fellow-traveller had picked his his very
ocket
he hurried back to the station-house, where he learned '
his companion had returned by the following train to that
Derby.
After a short consultation he consented to be strapped to an
• which was to be despatched to Derby instantly,
engine, and
in the incredibly short space of SEVEN MINUTES AND A.
H ALF, overtook the train just before it reached the station-
house at the above place ; the grazier pointed out his friend,
who was seized, and the stolen money found upon him.—
null Times.

TRIAL OF EDWARD OXFORD FOR HIGH
TREASON.
CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT—THURSDAY.
This morning having been fixed by the judges at the last
session of the Central Criminal Court for the trial of Edward
Oxford, charged with the offence of high treason, the Old
Court at nine o'clock was open for the admission of such of
the public as had procured tickets from the Sheriffs. The
arrangements made by the Under Sheriffs were precisely !.he

sainels on the occasion of the recent trial of -Courvoisier,
and were excellent. Not the slightest confusion prevailed,

and the Court was soon filled in ;very part by a highly re-

spectable auditory. . .
_ The Court then directed Edward Oxford to be placed at

The prisoner came forward with a light step, and with the
same smile on his countenance which he exhibited when ar-
raigned last sessions. He looked carelessly round the court
and up to the galleries, and having made a survey of the
assembly leaned upon the front of the dock on his elbow, and
commenced playing with the flowers strewed before him. All
eyes were naturally directed towards him, but he did not
shrink from the gaze, but retained his position with the
greatest possible composure. The jury having taken their
pieces precisely at ten o'clock, the Sheriffs, Under Sheriffs,
and other civic officers ushered into court Lord Denman,
Mr. Baron Alderson, Mr. Justice Patteson, and the Re-
corder.

The counsel for the prosecution were the Attorney Gene
ral, the Solicitor General, Mr. Frederick Pollock, Mr
Adolphus, Mr. Gurney, and Mr. Wightman; for the pri

,
saner, Mr. Sydney Tailor arid Mr. Bodkin.
The prisoner having pleaded not guilty,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL opened the case. After ex-
plaining the general nature of the law, he said he was inform-
ed that two questions would be submitted for the considera-
tion of thejury. The first, he continued, is whether supposing
the prisoner to be accountable for his actions, he is guilty of
the offence laid to his charge ? and the second question will
be, whether at the same time he committed the act he was
accountable for his actions? The burden of the proof on
the first issue rests entirely on the prosecution. The pri-
soner is still to be presumed to be innocent, and unless I
shall be able to lay before you clear and satisfactory evidence
to establish his guilt, it will be your duty to acquit him. But
upon the first question the evidence I am instructed to lay
before you (and I see no reason to disbelieve the witnesses)
deprives me of the power to suggest any doubt that possibly
can arise in your minds. It is, however, for you to hear
that evidence, and to determine upon its weight. The pri-
soner at the bar is, you perceive, a young man, about 18 or
19 years of age, although, from his appearance, you would
hardly suppose he had reached that age. He was born in
Birmingham ; he came when young to London ; and went to
school somewhere in Lambeth, and had since been •in the
service.of various publicans in the capacity of barman. He
was not, as has been suggested and stated, a potboy, but a
barman, a person engaged in superintending the business of
the different publicans who employed him. And when I talk
of what has been stated out of court, I must NTry re-

spectfully beg of you to discard from your recollections
all that you have heard or read, and be guided entirely
by all the evidence which will be laid before you. He
first served in the capacity of barman to his aunt, who
kept a public-house at Hounslow ; he then served somewhere
in the city. Another place he had held was at a public-house
in Oxford-street. He had left that service about ten days
before this transaction, and went into lodgings, at No. 6,
West-place, West-square, Lambeth, where he resided up to
the time this ofience was committed. It would appear that
he had deliberately formed a plan to make a direct attempt
on the life of the Sovereign. On the 4th of May, in the
present year, it will be proved, while he was living at the
lodgings I have mentioned, he bought a pair of pistols from
a person of the name of Hayes, residing in Blackfriars-
road, for £2. He bought at the same time a powder-flask.
It will also appear that he practised shooting at a shooting-
gallery in Leicester-square—at a shooting-gallery in the
Strand—and at a shooting-gallery at the west end of the
town. On Wednesday, the 3d of June, the week before the
day named in the indictment, he went to the shop of a per-
son of the name of Grey, with whom he had been at school,
and who lives in. Bridge-road, Lambeth, and bought from
him half a hundred copper caps to use in firing pistols. He
asked Grey at the same time where he could buy some bul-
lets. He was told where bullets were to be had, and he said
that he had himself some gunpowder. On the evening of
Tuesday, the 9th of June, he had a pistol with him, which he
said was loaded, and when asked what he meant to do with it,
he refused to tell, but said he had been firing at a target. We
now come to Wednesday, the 10th of June. Gentlemen, you
are probably aware of the custom of her Majesty Queen Vic-
toria, since her union with Prince Albert, frequently to take
an airing in the afternoon or evening in the parks, without a
military escort, and strictly in the manner of private life. It
will appear that on this Wednesday, about four o'clock, the
prisoner went into the park, and saw Prince Albert returning
from Woolwich, and going into Buckingham Palace. The
prisoner went up Constitution Hill, and there remained,
awaiting the approach of the Queen. At about six o'clock the
Queen, accompanied by Prince Albert, left the Palace in a low
open carriage with four horses and two outriders, who went
before, with no other attendants. Her Majesty was seated
on the left side of the carriage, and Prince Albert on the right.
The carriage drove up Constitution Hill, and about 120 yards
up the hill was the prisoner, Edward Oxford, walking back-
wards and forwards, whith his hands under the lapells of
his coat. He was on the right hand side of the road.
When the carriage approached he turned round, nodded. then
drew a pistol from his breast, and when the carriage was
nearly opposite he discharged the pistol. The ball whizzed
past to the opposite side of the road, and in all probability
her Majesty was unconscious at that moment of any at-
tempt having been made upon her life. He then looked back
to see if anybody was standing near him, and drew another
pistol and aimed it at her Majesty. It would seem that the
Queen saw him aiming at her, for she stooped down, and
again the providence of God preserved her. The Queen im-
mediately drove on to the residence of her august parent.
There were a considerable number of persons on the
left side of the road, and among them a man
of the name of Lowe, who rushed across and im-
mediately seized Oxford and took the pistols from him.
Lowe was for the moment believed to be the offender, but the
prisoner
said, "It was I that shot at her." He was accord-
, ingly taken into custody, and conveyed to the station-house.
There he voluntarily put the question, " Is the Queen hurt ? "
and on being told she was not, he was asked if there were
not bullets in the pistols, and lie admitted that there were.
His lodgings were then searched, and in his room was found
a box he had admitted to be his, containing a sword scab-
bard, two pistol bags, a bullet mould, a black crape, a razor,
a powder flask, three ounces of gunpowder, five bullets, and
fourteen percussion caps. There were also found a pocket-
book containing papers which I must read to you. (The
learned gentleman then read the documents purporting tc
relate to a society called Young England, but as these docu-
ments have been all'eady before the public, it is unnecessary
to repeat them.) Under these circumstances, and still sup-
posing the prisoner to be accountable for his actions, it will
be for you to say whether you have any doubt of his guilt.
Though the balls have not been found, I do not think there
can be on the evidence any doubt that the pistols were
loaded with ball. I now come to the second question—
nameW, whether the prisoner was in such a state of mind
at the time he discharged the pistols as to be account-
able for his actions? I will at once admit that if it can
be shown that at any time he could not distinguish be-
tween right and wrong, that he laboured under some de-
lusion, that he was insensible to the consequences of the
act he was committing, he was not, according to the law
of England, an accountable agent, and therefore it will be
your duty to acquit on that ground. In former times, under
a statute of Henry VIII., the plea of insanity could not
avail against a charge of high treason ; but the law has been
altered, and it lies on the party making that plea to make it
out clearly and satisfactorily. He must show that not only
on former occasions there had, been strangeness and eccen-
tricity of manners, but that at the time the offence was com-
mitted the individual charged was not in such a state of mind
as to be an accountable agent. To establish exemption
from a criminal charge there must be a greater, degree of
aberration of mind proved than would be necessary in a
civil proceeding to set aside a contract. The learned gen-
tleman here quoted the dicta of Lord Coke and Sir Matthew
Hale, and also a principle laid down in " Harrison's Prin-
ciples of the Criminal Law of Scotland," in support of his
proposition. He cited also the cases of Arnold, tried for
shooting Lord Onslow, of Lord Ferrers, for shooting his
steward, and of Bowler, tried before Mr. Justice Le Blanc
(in all of which cases insanity had been the plea), to show
the strict proof required of insanity at the moment the act
charged was committed. He also went at length through
Mr. (afterwards Lord) Erskine's defence of Hatfield in 1800,
and Lord Kenyon's judgment in that case. He next pro-
ceeded to contend that there was no grounds for contending
that the prisoner was at the time of perpetrating the deed in
a state of mind to exempt him from the force and punish-
ment of the law.
The following witnesses were then called :
Samuel Perks examined by the Solicitor-General.—On
the 10th of June I was in the park on Constitution Hill. I
saw her Majesty leave the Palace • she was in an open car-
riage, and was accompanied by Prince Albert. After the
carriage drew near to me I saw the prisoner Oxford. He was
on the right side of the road ; I was exactly opposite to him,
a few yards off; he was walking with his arms folded, in ad-
vance of the carriage. The prisoner gave a nod towards the
carriage when it had advanced within 10 or 12 yards towards
him. I then saw him pull a pistol from under his coat with
his right hand. When the prisoner discharged the pistol he
was only five or six yards from the carriage. I was within a
foot of it. After the pistol was fired I heard a whizzing noise
in the air. I was then at the back of the carriage. As soon
as Oxford fired his pistol he turned his head round as if to
see whether any one was near him. He then drew another
pistol from his breast, I think with his right hand, and fired
a second time. He took a deliberate aim at her Majesty.
When he fired the second shot the carriage was three or
four yards in advance of the prisoner.
Dord Denman.—ln which hand did the prisoner hold the
pistol the second time he fired ?
Witness.—ln the left hand, my lord. When the secone
pistol was fired three or four persons ran towards the pri-
soner, and a man named Andrew Lowe was seized by mis-
take. Lowe had got hold of the prisoner, and took the pis-
tols from him. Lowe was the person who it was first sup-
posed had fired the pistols. A person named Clayton said
toi.Lowe, " You confounded rascal, what have you been
doing ?" On whiCh the prisoner said, "It was not him ;it
was me who fired the pistol." Clayton and I then gave the
prisoner into the hands of the police.
Cross-examined by Mr. Sydney Taylor.—The pathway on
Constitution-hill is about level with the road. It may be a
few inches higher.
By Lord Denman.—Her Majesty sat on the left hand side
of the carriage, Prince Albert on the right. The Prince was
consequently the nearest to Oxford. The back part of the
carriage was about half-way up her Majesty's back.
Joshua Lowe and Albert Lowe corroborated this witness.
Elizabeth Stokeley exanained by Mr. Wightman.—l am
housekeeper to Lord Bexle. I was on Constitution-hill on
Wednesday, the 10th of June. I was next the wall. I saw
the prisoner present the pistol and fire at her Majesty. I
was nearer the prisoner when he fired the second time. I
saw him change his hand, and immediately present a second
pistol, and fire towards her Majesty. . The Queen and Prince
Albert rather crouched, or stooped down. The Prince ap-
peared to me to press her Majesty down after the first pistol
was fired. I heard a whizzing noise in the air after the dis-
charge of the pistols. When the second pistol was fired I
was close to the carriage. The prisoner then dropped his
arms by his side and stood upright ; he was soon surrounded
by several persons.
soquaßruee.kinlgwhaasmonr,alace.lwosWilliam Clayton, examined by the Attoeney-General.—l
am a cabinet-maker, residing in Princes-street, Leicester-
drndeensdasyid,ethoeflOothe
f June. I was about 200 yards from the marble entrance
road. I Constitution-hillon otnheWgea
heard. a pistol fired ; at that time I was about 25
yards from the carriage. I saw two young men near the
railings, when a female said, " The is the who did • "
lat first thought it was Alb re man it.
ert Lowe whom I seized and
said, " You confounded rascal, how
dare you shoot at our
Queen." The prisoner heard what I
" I did it ; I will give myself said, and he replied,
up, and lgo quietly."then
seized the prisoner ;he was given • into custody. I was very
roughly handled myself, and taken into custody. I was
taken to the station-house and searched. I afterwards
saw
the prisoner there. I asked fora draught of cold water
then asked me if the Queen was hurt. I said, " What did
you put in the barrels ?" He replied, "To that I have an-
swered a dozen questions that have been asked me by a dozen
persons, and I shall answer no more. I examined the
pistols at the station-house and marked them. The pistols
were never out of my sight from the time I took them from
the prisoner until after I had marked them. Albert Lowe
and his uncle had both hold of the pistol when I first seized
it. It was the prisoner said, "I am the man who did it!'
The pistol now produced is the same.
By Mr, Baron Alderson.—lt was about 15 or 16 yards

from the carriage when I seized the prisoner and Lowe. The
carriage immediately drew up after the second pistol was
fired. I should say the second pistol was fired full Bor 10
yards from the carriage.
Charles Brown, examined by Mr. Gurney.—l am a police-
man. On the 10th of June I was on duty at Buckingham
Palace. I took hold of the prisoner's collar, when he said,
" I did it ; don't use violence ; I will go quietly." The pri-
soner was then taken to the station-house. On arriving op-
posite Wellington Barracks some one said, " Was there any
ball in the pistols ?" Prisoner replied, "If it had come into
contact with your.-head you would have known it." On
searching the prisoner a piece of wadding was found, which
he said he put over the cap of the lock, as he did not want
the pistol to go off so as to hurt himself. I remember some
persons coming to the station-house ; they asked the prisoner
if there were any balls in the pistols ; he replied that there
was.

Cross-examined by Mr. S. Taylor.—l will swear positively
that the prisoner said the pistols were loaded with balls. I
assisted a serjeant of police and three or four men in search-
ing the spot where the pistols had been fired, in order, if pos-
sible, to find the balls. No ball was found.
Charles Smith examined by the Solicitor-General.—l am
a policeman, and assisted in taking the prisoner Oxford to
the station-house. On the way, some one asked if the pis-
tols were loaded with balls. The prisoner replied, " If you
had come in contact with them, you would have known there
were balls in them."
Cross-examined.-1 am sure these were the words used by
the prisoner.
William Smith, another policeman, gave similar testimony.
Frederick Barry, examined by Mr. Adolphus.—l am in the
employ of Mr. Hayes. He has two shops, one in Blackfriars-
road, and one in Farringdon-street. I remember the rumour
of the Queen being fired at, I remember seeing the prisoner
as my master's shop in Blackfriars-road about three weeks
or a month since. He bargained for a pair of pistols and a
powder-flask. The pistols now producedare the same as my
master generally sells, and they have his private mark upon
them. I asked the prisoner two guineas for the pistols. He
asked me how far they would carry. I told him about 20 or•
30 yards. He then said if I would taked two sovereigns for
them he would have them. I said if you won't give more
I must take it. He then bought them, and also a powder -
flask, for which he gave 2s. The prisoner had two bags with
the pistols. I had not seen the prisoner before the time he
purchased the pistols. I then talked to him for about ten.
minutes. lam confident he is the same person. I saw him
again three days after the Queen was shot at.
By Mr. Bodkin.—lt was about one o'clock in the day when
the prisoner bought the pistols. No one besides him and
myself was in the shop at the time.
John Gray said, his father kept a shop in Bridge-road,
South Lambeth. The Monday or Tuesday before the Queen
was shot at the prisoner bought half a hundred percussion
caps at his shop.
Sir H. Wheatley said, the prisoner, when in custody, asked
him if the Queen was hurt.
The Earl of Uxbridge' said, the prisoner put a similar
question to him, and added, ;that he had been practising
shooting lately.
Samuel Taylor proved, that about a week before the Queen
was fired at the prisoner showed him a loaded pistol.
The. Hon. John Augustus Murray, and the Hon. William
Owen Stanley, said they had seen the mark on the wall in
the park. and that it appeared to have been produced by a
pistol bullet.
At this period of the trial-the jury retired for refreshment.
After an absence of half an hour the trial was resumed.
John Win. Leaton, a butcher's son, proved that the week
before the attempt on the Queen's life he had been with the
prisoner to a shooting gallery, where he showed him a pair of
pistols. Witness thought those now produced were the same.
Mrs. Stammers said, the prisoner lodged with her six or '
seven weeks before the Queen was fired at. She recollected
the police taking his box away.
Inspector Hughes proved the contents of the box to be a
sword, a black crape cap, a bullet-mould, and four papers,
also some percussion caps. The bullet that was cast in that
mould fitted the pistols. There were some loose bullets in
the box ; they would roll easily into the pistol, for they were
smaller than the barrel of the pistol. I took the box and con-
tents to the station-house, and showed them to the prisoner;
he said they were his, and that he had attempted to destroy
the papers in the morning; the papers were folded up in a
sheet of foolscap► paper. (The prisoner here laughed, and
took a few notes.)
The Clerk of the Court read the rules and regulations
found in the prisoner's box, which have already appeared.
The paper was headed " Young England," and signed " A
W. Smith, Secretary."
During the reading the document the prisoner laughed re-
peatedly.
The other documents were read, which occasioned nearly
all present to laugh, including the Bench.
The Hon. Fox Maule, examined by the Attorney-General.
—I am the Under Secretary of State, and was present when
the prisoner was examined before the Privy Council. After
he had been examined, the Secretary of State informed the
priSoner that he was at liberty to state what he thought pro-
per, but that it would be taken down and made use of against
him. The prisoner then made a voluntary confession, which
he signed. (The confession was here read.)
Cross-examined by Mr. Bodkin.—There were other per-
sons examined by the Secretary of State besides those who
have been called by the government. I have seen the pri-
soner twice in Newgate. Ido not recollect asking him any

questions.
Mr. Bodkin.—l don't know whether it will be improper to
ask you, Mr. Maule, whether the government has made any
inquiries as to the existence of the society called " Young
England ? "
Lord Denman.—That can have nothing to do with the case.
The Attorney-General.—This is the case for the prosecu-
tion.
Mr. Sydney Taylor then addressed the court for the
prisoner, and said he should be able to establish his in-
sanity beyond all doubt. The learned gentleman made
some remarks upon the nature of hereditary insanity,
which very often developed itself between the ages of 14 and
18 ; insanity in those cases generally developed itself on a
sudden, and there could be no doubt that this dreadful
development took place in the case of the prisoner at the
very time he fired. He should be able to show that the
prisoner's family, were mad : his grandfather died in a
lunatic asylum—his father generally laboured under the
same dreadful calamity ; and be was of opinion that
the disease had descended to the prisoner at the bar, who
had committed the act for which he was arraigned in a
paroxysm of insanity ; and if they held him responsible for
that act they would realise the words of a celebrated physi-
cian, " That man's vengeance followed God's visitations."
He (Mr. Taylor) was satisfied that her Majesty entertained
the same opinion, for on the following day she entertained a
dinner party • indeed he felt satisfied that her Majesty enter-
tained a similar opinion to that which actuated one of her il-
lustrious predecessors—Queen Elizabeth, who, on being told
that a plot had been formed against her life, said she would
not believe it, for she would not entertain an opinion of
her subjects which was degrading to the feelings of a mo-
ther towards her children. He trusted that what he had so
inadequately advanced on behalf of the prisoner would be
taken into their consideration, and that they would show
that the prisoner deserved more of their pity, as well as that
of the court and her Majesty, than of punishment.
Mr. Taylor then sat down, having addressed the jury for
two hours and three-quarters.
The learned counsel then, at six o'clock, proceeded to call
witnesses for the defence.
Sandiman Kent examined by Mr. Bodkin.—l reside at
Kentish-town, and am a carpenter. I was acquainted with
the prisoner's grandfather, who was a sailor. I knew him for
several years, and had him under my observation until he
died, about eight or nine years ago. His mind I considered
was unsound during the early part of his life, but he grew
better towards its close. In the year 1799 he was raving
mad, and I assisted to confine him with cords. It required
the united strength of three persons to keep him down. He
was subsequently taken before a magistrate, who sent him to
Petworth Bridewell, where he remained for about a fort-
night, when he was discharged under a promise that he would
go to London. On another occasion he ran after me with a
spit, and I have known him to smash almost everything in
the house. He knocked down two clocks one day, and was
subject to strange and sudden fits of insanity. He would
jump and dance about, and appear like a man quite beside
himself. He was admitted into Greenwich Hospital, and
was placed in the Queen's ward.
Cross-examined by the Attorney-General.—He was mar-
ried to my sister, but did not live very happily with his wife.
He was generally very bad after drinking. He was sent to
Petworth Bridewell for breaking some things. At Green-
wich Hospital he walked about like the rest of the pen-
sioners.
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 him. 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 F. Pollock.—l am 26 years of age.
My 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.—l 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 married be was found in the street
with an open razor in his hand. 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 of 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 guineas 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. I
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 lie was very ill. He died on the 10th of June, 1822. I
saw his father on that occasion, and he scolded me for hav-
ing the body opened without getting anything for it. The
prisoner was born on the 9th of April, 1822. When he was
seven years of age he used to burst out crying for no cause.
He continued this habit from three or four years of age up
to the present time. He would sometimes get into a violent
rage without any cause, and he 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 lie 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 riot 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
or society. I left London 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 he 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 time. 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 in the Walworth-road. Ido notknow a per-
son of the name of Roades. The prisoner had been at home
about a week 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 would be better to adjourn at
once till to-morrow morning. It was impossible to conclude
that night.
Mr. Taylor replied that the examination of his witnesses
would certainly occupy some time further.
Lord Denman said that as he was unwilling to interfere
with the examination of the prisoner's mother, but he 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 out 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
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. _ .

,-FRIDAY

Mary Sumner examined by Mr. Taylor.—l reside in
Church-row, Houndsditch, and am a widow. I have lived 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 laudanuin. 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.—•l think he must be mad.
Baron Alderson.—Without making any other inquiry ?

Witness.—A 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
lodgings.)
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 that 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.-1 am 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.—l formerly 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..
Clarina 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.—l am a green-grocer, and in the year 187
_ _

I was a corpo-ral 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 tht pri-
soner at the Shepherd and Flock public-house. I consider
the prisoner of unsound mind.
William Hazlewood.—l 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 Parr.—The prisoner was in my service; had
come from the place mentioned by the last 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.-1 am landlord of the Hog in the
Pound, and the prisoner lived with me from the Ist of 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 this 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 18 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-u,sed

him. I have found him laughing, and whenfasiced 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 he 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 of Lords
to see the Queen, and he said he was determined to see her,

and he.would see'her one dayoroiher..----
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 firing 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 him 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. Hotchkin, a member of the Society of Friends, gave
evidence upon his affirmation—l have been a physician for
14 years, and have lectured upon morbid anatomy, aad have

written works upon the subject.
Mr. Sydney Taylor—Suppose a person committing a
crime, for which his life would 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-1 think it would leave a very strong impression
that the party was insane, and my opinion would be 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 volonte, 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
crime 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—I 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 he 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-recognised form of insanity under the name that
has been mentioned—lesion of the will. It is also called
moral insanity. I hive seen the prisoner in Newgate, and
conversed with him, and from that conversation, and the
opportunity I had of observing him, I 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 tun 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 the 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—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
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 :-Ist, 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 from 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 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 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, it' 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. If 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 would 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 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 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 possession, 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, hav-
ing 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 ? The 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 deducible 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 nail 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 inferred 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 he reverted to the evidence, he would once more
call their attention to it. Thg principles were laid down very
shortly by Lord Lyndhurst i the case of the King v. Of-
fard. It was an indictment or 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 raw
would not measure the capacity of a man's understanding
provided he be compos mendis. 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 and 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; but 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. lie 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 all disturbed.
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,

that they acquitted the prisoner on the ground of his being
insane?

After some lengthened discussion,
Lord Denman said it would be better that the jury should
retire and reconsider their verdict.

They accordingly again retired, and were absent about an
hour, when they again entered the court, finding a verdict
that the prisoner was GUILTY, BEING AT THE TIME INSANI.
Baron ALDERSON.—That is, you say that he is not guilty,
on account of his being insane at the time the offence was
committed ?

Foreman.—That is what we mean, my lord

The :iltiorney-General then moved the court to order that
Edward Oxford should be put in some place of safe custody
until her Majesty's pleasure was known respecting him.
Lord Denman.—The order wiil be made as a matter of
course.

The prisoner was then removed from the bar, and the
court adjourned.