Eleventh annual report of the trustees of the State Lunatic Hospital at Worcester. December, 1843.

  • State Lunatic Hospital at Worcester.
Date:
1844
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Eleventh annual report of the trustees of the State Lunatic Hospital at Worcester. December, 1843. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    46/110 (page 46)
    tardy in their operations. Hence estrangement of feeling and eccen¬ tricity of conduct. In the case of Hadfield, for whom Lord Erskine made the celebrated defence, which alone would have immortalized his name, right and wrong were entirely overlooked; he had a higher object than any such considerations as they appeared to others, or as they really were. It was necessary for the good of mankind that he should die, and he could not conscientiously take his own life. There was but one alter¬ native ; he must take the life of some one to so exasperate the public mind that he would certainly be executed. He knew that he was vio¬ lating the law of the country; he hoped that in the faithful execution of that law he should die and his grand scheme be consummated. He was not ignorant of the law, but, on the contrary, he hoped, in the due execution of the law, to see accomplished the great object for which he conceived he must give up his life. If the English law, as laid down by the fifteen judges, had been faithfully enforced, Hadfield would have been executed “ In answer to the first question,” say the judges, “ assuming that your lordship’s enquiries are confined to those persons who labor under such partial delusions only, and are not in other respects insane, we are of opinion that notwithstanding the party accused did the act complained of with a view, under the influence of insane delusion, of redressing or aveng¬ ing some supposed grievance or injury, or of producing some public benefit, he is nevertheless punishable, according to the nature of the crime committed, if he knew, at the time of committing such crime, that he was acting contrary to law, by which expression we understand your lordships to mean the law of the land.” Did not Hadfield know that he was acting contrary to the law of the land, when he shot at the king, with a full expectation that the execution of the law would con¬ summate his wishes and designs ? So Hathaway, when he struck Richards three blows, one in the name of the Father, one in the name of the Son, and one in the name of the Holy Ghost, would not have been deterred by any knowledge of the law or its consequences. He supposed that it was his duty to obey God rather than man ; he was acting by higher authority than that of any earthly tribunal,—it was a command from heaven. Hathaway was a monomaniac. So Elmer, when he received the command to kill the infant in the cradle, would not have been prevented by the fear of any human law, when lie had received commands from heaven to take the life of the child and to slay two others. Davis killed Edwards by command of General Washing-