Report of the trial of Daniel M’Naughton at the Central Criminal Court, Old Bailey (on Friday, the 3rd, and Saturday, the 4th of March, 1843) for the wilful murder of Edward Drummond, Esq / by Richard M. Bousfield and Richard Merrett.

Date:
1843
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Report of the trial of Daniel M’Naughton at the Central Criminal Court, Old Bailey (on Friday, the 3rd, and Saturday, the 4th of March, 1843) for the wilful murder of Edward Drummond, Esq / by Richard M. Bousfield and Richard Merrett. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh. The original may be consulted at the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh.

    13/89 (page 3)
    used by the prisoner before he committed his crime, and his declarations afterwards, that it was not the life of Mr. Drummond that he sought. You will be satisfied that it was the life of Sir Robert Peel that he desired to take, and that it was his life that he believed he was destroying when he discharged the fatal pistol against the person of Mr. Drummond. Gentle- men, the nature of his crime is not altered by this circumstance, but it affords a reason for it. I need not tell you that he is guilty of murder, although he might have mistaken the person against whom he discharged the pistol. Of the guilt of the prisoner—of the fact of his having deprived Mr. Drummond of life—it is impossible I can suggest a doubt; it is impos- sible that any doubt can be suggested that the crime was committed, and that that crime was murder. But I cannot conceal from you, because I know, from applications which have been made to this Court, and the depo- sitions which have been made on behalf of the prisoner, that it is intended to rest the defence on the plea that he was insane at the time he committed the crime; and, gentlemen, it will be your painful duty—for painful it must be—to decide whether he was in that degree of insanity at the time he com- mitted that crime, which would render him not a responsible agent, and not answerable to the laws of his country for the offence of which he has been guilty. This defence is a difficult one at all times; for while, on the one hand, every one must be anxious that an unconscious being should not suffer, yet, on the other hand, the public safety requires that this defence should not be too readily listened to ; and, above all, the public safety requires that the atrocious nature of the act itself, and the circumstances under which it was committed, should not form any ingredient in that defence. There are few crimes that are committed, and above all, crimes of an atrocious nature like this, that are not committed by persons labouring under some morbid affection of the mind ; and it is difficult for well-regu- lated minds to understand the motives which lead to such offences in the absence of that morbid affection of the mind. I believe that the truth of this remark will be more especially proved when attacks are directed to persons holding high and important stations in the nation. If you look back upon the page of history, and consider the facts connected with the death of persons whose lives have been destroyed by the hands of assassins, you will be satisfied in one moment of the truth of that proposition. But we need not look far back; occurrences of our own times furnish us with sufficient instances for illustration. If you look at a neighbouring country, you will see there that persons in broad day, in the crowded streets of the metropolis of France, without any precaution for their own safety, without any attempt to escape, in the midst of the people, close to the armed guards of the King, have discharged their weapons at the person of the Sovereign of the country. What motive had they ? We know of none but that of an ill-regulated mind, worked upon by morbid political feeling. We have seen other instances in France, of parties, having laid plans to assist them selves in their escape, discharging infernal instruments in the streets of Paris, regardless of how many and what lives they destroyed, provided they could reach the person of the Sovereign. I refer to these things, gentlemen, to shew that the circumstances attendant upon the crime itself afford no grounds for holding that the parties committing it are not respon- se to the laws of their country. But I know that in this case the defence outlie part of the prisoner will not rest upon this, but that evidence will be offered to shew that the prisoner was not in a sane state of mind at the time n 2