The Sun. — 1850-07-11 (London, England)

ATTORNEY-GENERAL replied, reminding the jury that if they were of opinion that the prisoner was incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong, he would be subjected to imprisonment for life, while, if ,hey found otherwise, the punishment would he of a more minor chat actor. Now, it was said that as there was nu motive for this act, it must have resulted from madto.ss ; but if he was not mistaken, from the earliest ages ,1 which they had any history or account, persons in. elevated situations had been the subjects of attack and insult at the hands of parties who were anxious Lu obtain a morbid notoriety. It was this very knowledge, backei by experience of similar occurrence s in modern times, which induced the Legis'ature pass the Act under which this prisoner was arraign.. d, Ind b. fore the jury could acquit him of the offence with ehtch be was charged they must b:. satisfied be) and the possibility of doubt that bis mind had been so impaired that he could not distinguish between ight and wrong. This was no new doctrine. It was a rule laid down by no less a judge th.n Lord dale himself, and if the jury would just consider for one inoment they would see that the maintenance of this rule was for the interest of the public. Some short wh le ,go. however, the rule of law in deciding sanity or in,ii‘ity in cases of this nature was settled by the judges upon questions propounded by the House of Lords oi,,ing out of the doubts which had been created by Al‘Naughten's case. It was then laid down that if a party was sensible of doing injury at the time of his committing an unlawful act he was liable to le! punished for it, and the immediate question for the jury now to decide was this—did the prisoner know and feel that he ;vas doing wrong when he struck the Queen? if he did, ;hen they must convict him accordingly, but if, on the other hand, they did not think heiknew what he was ebout, they must acquit him on the ground of insanity. ~Nell, then, was the eviuence they had to day incensistent with the existence of a state of mind capable Of discriminating between right and wrong ? Certain ly it established that the prisoner was an extraordinary and eccentric man—it did nut prove that he was so mad as to .'make him an eeesponsible agent. The past conduct of the prisoner must convince everybody that he knew he was doing wrong. Fer instance, immediately atter ho was taken into custody, he was so far alive to his own interest, :hat he warned the witnesses to think before they spoke, e bile he observed the blow could not have been a hard one, clearly showing that ho knew what he was a',out :lad laboured under no mental delusion or disease u hich should excuse him !rem the consequences of the act. Mr. Baran ALDERSON, in summing up the case, told the jury that there could be no doubt as to the fact that the prisoner struck her Majesty with some degree of violence, and therefore the whole question to be &Tided 'iled upon the state of mind he was in at the time the act was ieo thhi his sound tdsohooneoe was.d o f sensesuo day,stoooodmind a and when washe for him committed to he offence. Now had the evidence proved that? The jury elitist take this as the law, that before they could acquit a prisoner on the grourd of insanity, they must be satisfied that the prioner's insanity induced the. colt tnittal of the offence he was charged w.:s a delusion to suppose that intaty r:6ecleths:ar:ll; rendered a man dispunishable for an utile% fel ate; before that state of things could exist it muq bay shown. that the disease of the mind under which the pHs ,ner lehoured rem ere d him incapable of judging between fight and wrong, or whether at the time he was betrayed int., the act he knew that the tint was a wrong and un• lawful act f.r him to do. Now, did the evidence d fee the a fferice ;Accord wi.h tkose prinat one period tie prisoner appeared t„ particular delusion, hut though lusion mint fool! beol a very eo thiellee, ilac'l.l:l#2thr.(Tirret:i.'tiguYer a his unfortunate g, nt.tema!, fer it was no more a defence e murder were s crtahsoeyet thanwitebswinOtrild have been a defence to an 801011 had he sedaced his neighbour's wife at the ,