ASSASSINATION AND INSANITY : 
GUITEAU’S CASE 
EXAMINED AND COMPARED WITH 
ANALOGOUS CASES 
FROM THE 
EARLIER TO THE PRESENT TIMES, 
BY WILLIAM R. SMITH. 
“ARK HIS WITS SAFE ? IS IIE NOT LIGHT OF BRAIN?” 
Washington, I). C., 1881 : 
WILLIAM Ii. SMITH, 
122 East Capitol Street, and 456 Louisiana Avenue. 
Size 10*2 pages. Price 50 cents per copy. Will be sent post paid to clubs 
and Publishers at W4 per dozen. ASSASSINATION AND INSANITY : 
GUITEAU’S CASE 
EXAMINED AND COMPARED WITH 
ANALOGOUS CASES 
FROM THE 
EARLIER TO THE PRESENT TIMES, 
BY WILLIAM R. SMITH. 
“ARE HIS WITS SAFE? IS HE NOT LIGHT OF BRAIN?” 
Washington, D. C., 1881: 
WILLIAM R. SMITH, 
122 East Capitol Street, and 456 Louisiana Avenue, COPYRIGHT BY WILLIAM R. SMITH, 1881 NOTE PRELIMINARY. 
This Essay, originally published in the Law-Central 
in numbers, is here presented in a connected form for 
the more convenient use of the reader. 
The cases herein reviewed, have been selected chiefly 
on account of their celebrated historical character or their 
judicial significance in analogy with Guiteau’s case. 
This Essay was written more with a view to enter- 
tain the reader than to instruct the Bar—nevertheless, 
the questions of law herein discussed and referred to 
are stated with candid accuracy, and with the authori- 
ties noted. 
The writer has not attempted to conceal the bias of 
his mind on the question of Guiteau’s insanity; but he 
is by no means to be understood to have written these 
papers in any excepting the public interests. 
William R. Smjto. 
Washington, D. 0,, November, 1881. CONTENTS: 
Page 
Assaults on George III 2 
Queen Victoria 2 
“ “ Our Presidents 3 
Guiteau’s Case Stated 5 
Oxford’s Case Reviewed 9 
Judge Denman’s Charge Examined 16 
Oxford in Bedlam 20 
Trial of Richard Lawrence for attempt to Assassinate General 
Jackson, 1836 22 
Speech of Francis S. Ivey 23 
Assassination of Caesar 41 
Brutus’ Insanity Discussed 42 
Hallucinations of Great Minds 45 
Assassination of the Duke of Buckingham 46 
Some Account of John Felton 46 
Felton and Guiteau Compared 51 
Some Phases of Guiteau’s Case 52 
The Method of Madness 59 
Systematic Design and Contrivance 60 
Assassination of Premier Perceval, 1811 61 
Some Account of John Bellingham 63 
Curious Parallelisms 64 
Assassination of Marat, 1793 65 
Charlotte Corday 65 
The Rosy Bath 68 
Charlotte and Judith Compared 76 
Judith and Holofemes 77 
The Romance of Robbery 79 
M’Naughten’s Case 84 
Assassination of Mr. Drummond, 1843 85 
The Quantum of Insanity 90 
Othello—a First-class Madman 91 
The People vs. W reden 94 
Questions of Evidence. 95 ASSASSINATION AND INSANITY. 
GUITEAU’S CASE EXAMINED. 
“Who is lie* He must be crazy—why should he wish to shoot 
me?” This is the reported language of the President—uttered 
voluntarily, in somewhat an emotional manner, as he lay upon 
his bed, sore and languishing of the wound from the assassin’s 
bullet: “i/e must be crazy!" 
The speeches of great men are sometimes oracles ; and this 
may be one. Doubtless this phrase escaped the president’s lips 
as the result of reflection; the mind had evolved the whole 
question, and such was the conclusion of the ratiocination :— 
“i/c must be crazy." The manly fortitude to bear the affliction 
is here no more conspicuous than the Christian resignation, and 
the heavenly inclination to palliate or to forgive. 
If such be the conclusion of the President’s mind, let no man 
be rash enough to condemn without examination. The question 
of Guiteau’s insanity is a great one, and must of necessity be 
thoroughly investigated according to the most rigid rules of 
Medical ,Jurisprudenee.* 
Once, when Queen Elizabeth was told that a plot had been 
formed to take away her life, she exclaimed with warm intre- 
pidity : “I will not believe of my people, what a mother would 
not believe of her children.” This exclamation, it seems to us, 
was more sagacious than sincere, for plots against royalty, and 
assassinations in high places, had not been uncommon in Eng- 
land ; but the remark was well shaped, and was calculated to 
fasten to the Queen the love of her subjects. 
In England, under the humane principle and golden rule of 
law, “that every man put upon his trial for a crime, no matter 
of what magnitude, is presumed to be innocent until the state 
removes this presumption by proof.” the courts are especially 
*The first number of this Essay was published before the death of 
the illustrious victim. generous in affording with commendable judicial alacrity the 
amplest means of defense, even to prisoners who have assaulted 
the sovereign. For this, the courts will assign counsel, and 
eminent counsel in proportion to the magnitude of the crime, 
the interests involved and the principles to be settled in the 
case. Hence we see such illustrious advocates as Erskine 
defending, with all his gigantic power, the poor wretch who shot 
at King George III, as referred to below. 
“On the 15th of May, 1800, James Hadfield fired a horse pis- 
tol, loaded with two slugs, at King George III, as his Majesty 
was entering his box at Drury Lane Theatre.” Hadfield was 
tried for high treason, defended by Erskine, and acquitted on 
the ground of insanity. 
We shall have occasion in this article to refer again to this 
speech of Erksine, which is said to have been in the very best 
style of English argumentative eloquence. Hadfield upon his 
acquittal was sent to Bedlam where be remained incarcerated 
until 1841, when he died a forty year's prisoner. 
Mr. Erskine contended in his speech in this case that “a mere 
murderous assault on the King’s person, not at all connected 
with his political character, seemed a ease to be ranged, and 
dealt with, like a similar attack on a private person.” This sug- 
gestion led to the enactment of two statutes on the subject, one 
of which provided “that if evidene lie given of the prisoner’s 
insanity at the time of the commission of the offense, and lie be 
acquitted, the jury shall be required to find specially whether 
he was insane at the time of the commission of the offense, and 
to declare whether they acquit on account of such insanity— 
and if they do, the court shall order the prisoner to be confined 
in strict and safe custody during his Majesty’s pleasure.” 
It is hardly necessary to say that Guiteau must be tried, in 
all respects, as if the assault had been committed on a private 
person; and this suggestion has been made chiefly to point to 
the palpable necessity of some legislation protective of the life 
and person of the President of the United States. 
Of the several murderous assaults made upon King George 
111, three of the assailants were tried and acquitted on the 
ground of insanity, viz:—Nicholson. Hadfield and Curtis. 
MURDEROUS ASSAULTS ON GEORGE III. 
MURDEROUS ASSAULTS ON QUEEN VICTORIA. 
In the decade of years, from 1840 to 1850, Queen Victoria 
was murderously assaulted five times! to wit: in June, 1840. 
by Edward Oxford, aged nineteen years; in May, 1842, by 
John Francis, aged twenty years; in July of the same year, by 
John W. Bean, aged seventeen years; in May, 1849, by Wil- 
liam Hamilton, and in June, 1850, by Robert Pate; the latter 
having severely stricken the Queen with a heavy cane. Now, if the amiable and gracious Queen of England, who was in the 
habit of going amongst her people without a body-guard, ex- 
cept the mere semblance of one in out-riders and postillions, 
thus trusting her safety to her subjects with the sweetest confi- 
dence, should be liable to such murderous assaults, it should 
not be a matter of great surprise, however horrible, that a 
President of the United States should be similarly exposed. 
Assaults on our Presidents. 
In our history we now remember only four assaults upon 
Presidents, to wit: Lieutenant Randolph's attack upon Presi- 
dent Jackson; Lawrence’s attempt to shoot the same President; 
the assassination of President Lincoln, and the recent assault 
upon our present illustrious Chief Magistrate. In reflecting 
upon these cases it should be remembered, not to the discredit 
of our people, that the bloody sacrifice of President Lincoln 
occurred about the close of a terrific war, when the eyes of men 
were familiar with the most sanguinary scenes. 
Guiteau’s Insanity. 
The question of Guiteau’s insanity, is one of the greatest 
national importance. It involves to a certain extent the in- 
tegrity of political parties, and the hitherto untarnished charac- 
ters of the purest men. Happily, the ungenerous surmises that 
pervaded the public mind at the time of the occurrence, visiting 
this terrific crime upon others than the assassin, have subsided. 
But the question also involves the integrity of the people of 
this great country, for it is still believed in certain quarters 
that Guiteau had accomplices, one or more. Guiteau has steadily 
denied this, and it must be admitted that there is a yielding 
inclination in all generous minds to believe him. 
Felton and Guiteau. 
Now, if this be mere stubbornness in the assassin, or if lie acted 
with a selfish view, to reap the whole "lory of his bloody achieve- 
ment, we have a strong parallel in his case and the case of Fel- 
ton, who assassinated the Duke of Buckingham in 1628. While 
in prison, he was approached by the Lord of Dorset, and 
threatened to be put to torture to induce him to confess and to 
name his accomplices. Felton answered : “My Lord, I do not 
believe that it is the King’s pleasure, for he is a just and gra- 
cious princ% and will not have his subject tortured against the 
law. I do affirm upon my salvation that my purpose was not 
known io any man living ; but if it be his majesty’s pleasure. 
I am ready to suffer whatever his majesty will have inflicted 
upon me. Yet, this I must tell you, by the way, that if I be put 
upon the rack, I will accuse you, my Lord of Dorset, andnone 
but yourself 
There is a sagacity here that out-wits Csesars Brutus, and a 4 
lofty intrepidity that makes us wonder how plots of assassina- 
tion and the noblest attributes of man’s nature can inhabit the 
same breast at the same time. And in these two cases, how 
great the contrast. Felton was hailed as a Brutus : “bon-fires 
blazed in the country to announce the fall of Buckingham.” In 
our case, universal sympathy for the President pervades the 
entire country, irrespective of party or the factions of parties, 
and unexampled unanimity of condemnation of the atrocious 
crime is displayed by the whole people, as energetically ex- 
pressed in the unmistakable language of statesmen and the 
representatives of States. 
But this question of Guiteau’s insanity also involves the 
vaunted stability of our government in the estimation of the 
outside world. It is not supposable by our people that a sane 
man would seek to destroy a President, without adequate per- 
sonal cause, and in the absence of a political conspiracy. The 
idea of a political conspiracy, encompassing the life of a great 
party leader for party purposes, must not be entertained in this 
country. The royal world abroad, whose peoples have their own 
assassins to contend “with, must not be furnished reason to con- 
clude, that, in America the assassin is moved by the same im- 
pulses which control the assassin under monarchical forms of 
government. This would be admitting that the President of 
the United States might become a tyrant, a fact, that the Con- 
stitution, in so carefully defining and limiting his power, ex- 
plicitly excludes. 
Again, this question of Guiteau’s insanity involves the peace 
and agitation, the cheerfulness and gloom, the content and terror, 
the courage and timidity of the President; if he be convinced 
that a sane man would seek his life—so peaceful and gentle 
a life as General Garfield’s has been—in the open day, on the 
streets of the capital city, as the desperate agent of a political 
party or faction, he would no longer be at liberty to regard him- 
self safe, or as permitted to walk the streets in open, friendly and 
confiding intercourse with his fellow-citizens, but rather qs a tar- 
get—a bulls-eyc for some insidious revolverand all really 
good men and wise statesmen would conclude, that, under such 
continuous terror, it would be better to plough with Cincin- 
natus than to die with Caesar. 
The question of insanity, as arising in criminal cases, is one 
of the most delicate that can command courts. The law and the 
rules governing are not satisfactorily settled. Judicial minds 
of equal learning and ability even now take different views of 
the same questions. Each particular case must be governed by 
its own surroundings—and the jury is sometimes more potent 
than the judge, as may be seen in many of the adjudged cases. 
We propose, in this paper, not to avow our own personal con- 
victions, for these cannot be reached in the absence of the sworn 5 
testimony, but to present to the reader some well authenticated 
cases which bear a striking similarity to Guiteau’s. 
Guiteatt’s case may be briefly stated tiies : 
It will be made up of— 
I. The act of shooting; the words used by him at the time, or 
when arrested; 
II. The preparation for escape, engaging a hack for a drive 
to the cemetery, near the jail, and what he said about this after- 
wards; 
III. His preparations for the assault, and herein of the pistol, 
&c., with his voluntary statements made afterwards, touching 
his intentions; 
IV. His letter to General Sherman; 
V. All written documents found upon him or traced to his 
possession, bearing on the question of the assault or developing 
his designs; 
VI. His motive, if any, and herein of the question of accom- 
plices, and his attitude as a party man; as an aspirant for place, 
and herein also of his hopes, expectations or disappointments, 
touching such aspirations; 
VII. His recent previous visits to the White House, and let- 
ter or letters to the President, or to any of the Departments; 
VIII. His mode of life, recently, previous to the assault; 
IX. His life-long career, in acts and facts stated by compe- 
tent and knowing witnesses, as touching the question of insanity; 
X. Ilis ancestry and family, touching the question of heredi- 
tary insanity; and herein also of his religion, the societies to 
which he belonged, the doctrines he preached or lectured upon, 
the sentiments expressed, with all his characteristics and habits, 
as showing or repelling the presence of delusions. 
The public is already in possession of most of the items that 
may be embraced in the above statement of this case, and we 
will not encumber this article with a repetition of them, especially 
as some of the facts may be materially changed when they as- 
sume the shape of sworn testimony. 
The following rather extraordinary “statement” of Guiteau’s 
case, has found its way to the public, having been furnished, it 
is said, by the United States Attorney for the District of Colum- 
bia. It is of great significance; as it may be the real case, in 
all its hideous aspects. But if the jury should get legitimate 
possession of it, it will tend to establish the fact, that Guiteau 
teas insane, not only at the time of the assault but through all 
these Ilamletic manoeuverings. Many of the facts contained in 
this statement of the United States District Attorney, however, 
could have been obtained only from Guiteau himself; and a 
material question is here presented: Flow are these facts to be 
brought before the jury? 6 
But before we attempt that question let us examine carefully 
Col. Corkhill’s statement, which is given below: 
Col. Corkhill’s statement of Guiteau’s c ase. 
“Guiteau came to Washington city on Sunday evening, March 
6, 1881, and stopped at the Ebbitt House, remaining only one 
day. He then secured a room in another part of the city, and 
has boarded and roomed at various places, the full details of 
which I have. On Wednesday. May 18, 1881, the assassin de- 
termined to murder the President. He had neither money nor 
pistol at the time. About the lastof May he went into O’Meara’s 
store, corner Fifteenth and F streets, in this city, and examined 
some pistols, asking for the largest calibre. He was shown two 
similar in calibre and only different in the price. On Wednes- 
day, June 8, lie purchased the pistol which he used, for which he 
paid ten dollars, he having in the meantime borrowed fifteen 
dollars of a gentleman in this city on the plea that he wanted to 
his board bill. On the same evening, about seven o'clock, 
he took the pistol and went to the foot of Seventeenth street and 
practiced firing at a board, firing ten shots. He then returned 
to his boarding place and wiped the pistol dry and wrapped it 
in his coat and waited his opportunity. 
“On Sunday morning, June 12, he was sitting in Lafayette 
Park, and saw the President leave for the Christian church, on 
Vermont avenue, and he at once returned to his room, obtained 
his pistol, put it in his hip pocket and followed the President to 
church. He entered the church, but found he could not kill him 
there without danger of killing some one else. He noticed that 
the President sat near a window. After church he made an ex- 
amination of the window and found he could reach it without 
any trouble, and that from this point he could shoot the Presi- 
dent through the head without killing any one else. The fol- 
lowing Wednesday he went to the church, examined the location 
and the window and became satisfied he could accomplish his 
purpose, and he determined therefore to make the attempt at the 
church the following Sunday. 
“lie learned from the papers that the President would leave 
the city on Saturday, the 18th of Julie, with Mrs. Garfield, for 
Long Branch. He therefore determined to meet him at the 
depot. He left his boarding place about five o’clock Saturday 
morning, June 18, and went down to the river, at the foot of 
Seventeenth street, and fired five shots to practice his aim, and 
be certain his pistol was in good order. He then went to the 
depot and was in the ladies’ waiting room of the depot with the 
pistol ready when the President’s party entered. He says Mrs. 
Garfield looked so weak and frail that he had not the heart to 
shoot the President in her presence, and, as he knew he would 
THE FIRST ATTEMPT AT TJIE DEPOT. 7 
have another opportunity, he left the depot. lie had previously 
engaged a carriage to take him to the jail. On Wednesday 
evening the President and his son, and I think United States 
Marshal Henry, went out for a ride. The assassin took his 
pistol and followed them, and watched them for some time in 
hopes the carriage would stop, but no opportunity was given. 
On Friday evening, July 1, he was sitting on the seat in the 
park opposite the White House, when he saw the President come 
out alone. He followed him down the avenue to Fifteenth street, 
and then kept on the opposite side of the street up Fifteenth 
until the President entered the residence of Secretary Blaine, 
lie watched at the corner of Mr. Morton’s late residence, corner 
of Fifteenth and II streets, for some time, and then, as he was 
afraid he would attract attention, he went into the alley in the 
rear of Mr. Morton’s residence, examined his pistol and waited. 
The President and Secretary Blaine came out together and he 
followed them over to the gate of the White House, but could 
get no opportunity to use his weapon. On the morning of 
Saturday, July 2, he breakfasted at the Riggs House about 
seven o’clock. He then walked up into the park and sat there 
for an hour. He then took a one-horse avenue car and rode to 
Sixth street, got out, and went into the depot and loitered around 
there, had his shoes blacked, engaged a hackman for two dollars 
to take him to the jail, went into the water closet and took his 
pistol out of his hip pocket and unwrapped the paper from around 
it, which he had put there for the purpose of preventing the 
perspiration from the body dampening the powder, examined 
the pistol carefully, tried the trigger, and then returned and 
took a seat in the ladies’ waiting room, and as soon as the 
President entered advanced behind him and fired two shots. 
These facts, I think, can be relied upon as accurate, and I give 
them to the public to contradict certain false rumors in connec- 
tion with the most atrocious of atrocious crimes.” 
We do not intend to enter elaborately on the cpiestion of con- 
fessions, but to state a few well recognized rulings. 
“If a confession is improperly obtained, it is a ground for ex- 
cluding evidence of the confession.'’ Rex. vs. Jenkins, R. & R. 
C. C. 492. 
Nobody blames Colonel Corkhill for feeling and expressing, 
as a citizen, the greatest abhorrence of this crime; and all gen- 
erous minds must properly appreciate his deep anxiety, as a 
prosecuting officer, to probe this matter to the bottom, and to 
elicit the facts of the case. But many persons think, with no 
feelings of unkindness, that he has in his anxiety overstepped 
the proprieties of his official position, both in his manner of get- 
ting the facts and in giving them publicity. There is an ap- 
pearance of precipitancy—an ostentatious parade of the whole 
matter, which is painful to most legal minds. 
The court will take it for granted that Guiteau well knew in 8 
all his conversations with Colonel Corkhill, that Col. Cork hill 
was the United States Attorney of the District of Columbia, and 
the person who was probably to conduct the prosecution against 
him. The peculiar attitude of the parties conversing, one of 
them being in authority, will at once bring up the cjuestion as 
to whether or not the confessions of Guiteau were voluntary. 
Whether made in hope or fear they are liable to be excluded. In 
this connection the court will take in all surrounding circumstan- 
ces, and as a matter of fact, will be bound to learn during the inves- 
tigation that on one occasion Colonel Corkhill proposed to Gui- 
teau, in answer to a remark of Guiteau, as to wanting more 
elbow-room at the jail, “that he would bring his private carriage 
and give him an airing or a ride.” If the court should find 
from the facts submitted, that the confessions or statements of 
Guiteau, as made to Colonel Corkhill, were either extorted or 
beguiled, not necessarily by threats or promises in so many 
words, but by the peculiar attitude of the parties, the evidence 
of the confessions ought to be excluded. Col. Corkhill would 
find his position extremely delicate, being the prosecuting offi- 
cer of the Government, and at the same time a witness for the 
prosecution, as to facts elicited in these conversations; unless 
indeed it should appear that the United States Atiorney had a 
third party present to hear the conversations and confessions. 
Without further comment on this branch of the case, and tak- 
ing it for granted that Colonel Corkhill’s statement presents the 
real case as far as it goes, if the same should be legally made 
at the trial; let us pause a moment, l>3r way of digression, par- 
donable we hope by the curious and indulgent reader, and con- 
template 
“Mysterious” indeed “are the wa}rs of Providence;” but little 
less mysterious are the ways of men; whether in fiction or real- 
ity, it is all the same, for “life is made up of dreams.”* 
Guiteau in the role of IIamlet. 
If Hamlet was mad, “ there was method in his madness:’ so 
said old Polonius, and no man was better able to give the 
phrase an epigramatie shape. Full of his intention to kill the 
king, the royal Dane goes about continuously brooding over the 
ponderous idea of murder, lie sees the usurper under various 
circumstances, in various situations, meanwhile the one idea of 
murder ever uppermost in his mind; with resolution most ir- 
resolute, he pauses and cogitates : 
“Now whether it be 
Beastly oblivion, or some craven scruple 
Of thinking too precisely on the event, 
I do not know— 
Why yet I live to say ‘this thing's to do.’ ’’ 
* One of the President’s emotional utterances on liis sick bed. 9 
And so musing and muttering, he stumbles on the king while 
o o7 r? 
the latter was kneeling at prayer, and thus characteristically 
quibbles himself into a sickly sentimentalist: 
‘‘Now I might do it pat; now he is praying, 
And now I'll do't. And so he goes to heaven; 
And so am I revenged. That would be scann’d 
A villain kills my father, and for that, 
I ‘his sole son, do this same villian send 
To heaven! * * * * no— % 
Up sword; and know thou a more horrid hent.v 
So we have Guiteau following the President from place to 
place; first to the Christian Church, which he entered, and then 
found that he could not kill the President there without danger 
of killing “some one else.” On June 18, he went to the depot 
and waited, with pistol ready, for the President’s traveling par- 
ty. The party enters the very presence of our Hamlet. Here 
he again falters, for the reason that “Mrs. Garfield looked so 
weak and frail that he had not the heart to shoot the President 
in her presence." This is amiable villainy, and heightens our 
amazement at the final consummation. 
It seems from the case as made by Colonel Corkhill, that Gui- 
teau was Jive times in the pursuit and presence of his victim, 
with murderous intent, including the assault on the fatal 2nd 
of July. 
The case below, Oxford’s, is in very many important features 
almost identical with Guiteau’s, and hence it will be examined 
with more than ordinary curiosity. 
This case is reported in 1st. Townshend's Modern State trials. 
page 113. 
The judges who presided at the trial were—Lord Denman, 
Baron Alderson, and Justice Maule. The counsel for the crown 
were—the Attorney and Solicitor Generals, (Sir John Campbell 
and Sir Thomas Wilde,) Sir Frederick Pollock, the present Mr. 
Justice Wightman, Mr. Adolphus, and Air. Gurney; those for 
the prisoner were the late Mr. Sydney Taylor and Mr. Bodkin. 
the Crown’s case against Oxford, 1840. 
“The prisoner was seized instantly after having discharged 
two pistols, as the Queen aud the Prince-consort were driving 
up Constitution Hill, in a low open carriage. He had been 
observed, for some time before the approach of the royal car- 
riage, walking backwards and forwards with his arms folded 
under his breast. As the carriage approached, he turned round, 
nodded, drew a pistol from his breast, and discharged it at the 
carriage, when it was nearly opposite to him. As it advanced, 
after looking round to see if he were observed, he took out a 
second pistol, directed it across the other to her Majesty, who, 
seeing it, stooped down; and he fired a second time—very de- 10 
liberately—at only about six or seven yards’ distance. The 
witnesses spoke of hearing distinctly a sharp whizzing sound 
“close past their own ears.” 'Fite prisoner, on seeing the per- 
son who had snatched from him the pistols mistaken for the 
person who had fired, said, “It was me—I did it. I give myself 
up—I will go quietly.” At the police-office he said, “Is the 
Queen hurt?” Some one observed, “I wonder whether there 
was any ball in the pistol?” on which the prisoner said, “If the 
ball had come in#contaet with your head, if it were between the 
carriage, you would have known it.” The witness who spoke to 
these words appears, however, to have somewhat hesitated when 
pressed in cross-examination; but he finally adhered to his 
statement that the prisoner declared there were balls in the pis- 
tols. A few days previously he had purchased the pistols for 
two sovereigns, about fifty percussion caps, a powder flask, 
which, with a bullet mould and five bullets fitting the pistols, 
were found at his lodgings. He had also been practicing firing 
at a target, and, on purchasing the pistols, particularly asked 
how far they could carry. The Earl of Uxbridge deposed that, 
when he saw Oxford in his cell, he asked, “Is the Queen hurt?” 
on which Lord Uxbridge said, “How dare you ask such a ques- 
tion?” Oxford then stated that “he had been shooting a great 
deal lately—he was a very good shot with a pistol, but a better 
shot with a rifle.” “You have now fulfilled your engagement,” 
said the Earl. “No,’J replied Oxford, “I have not.” “You have, 
sir,” rejoined Lord Uxbridge, “as far as the attempt goes.” To 
that he was silent. The most rigid search was made to discover 
any bullets; but in vain. Two witnesses, gentlemen of rank, 
and Avell acquainted with the use of firearms, spoke confidently 
to having seen bullet-marks on the wall, in the direction in 
which Oxford had fired; but the Attorney-general expressed his 
opinion that the evidence was entitled to no weight, as probably 
mistaken; declaring himself, however, positive that there must 
have been balls in the pistols, but that the pistols had been 
elevated so high that the balls went over the garden-wall. One 
of the witnesses said to the other, immediately after seizing 
Oxford, “Look out—I dare say he has some friends to which 
he replied, “You are right—I have.” At his lodgings were 
found some curious papers, in Oxford’s handwriting, purporting 
to be the rules of a secret club or society called Young England; 
the first of which was, “that every member shall be provided 
with a brace of pistols, a sword, a rifle, and a dagger—the two 
latter to be kept at the committee-room.” A list of members- 
factitives’ [sic] names were given. “Marks of distinction: 
Council, a large white cockade ; President; a black bow; Gene- 
ral, three red bows ; Captain, two red bows; Lieutenant, one 
red bow.” There were also found in Oxford’s trunk a sword 
and scabbard, and a black crape cap with two red bows—one of 
the “rules” requiring every member to be armed with a brace of 11 
loaded pistols, and to be provided with a black crape cap to 
cover his face, with his marks of distinction outside. Three 
letters were also found in his pocket-book, addressed to him- 
self at three different residences, purporting to be signed by 
“A. W. Smith, secretary,” and to contain statements of what 
had taken place, or was to take place, at the secret meetings of 
the society. They were all headed “Young England,” and 
dated respectively “18th May, 1839,” 14th November, 1839,” 
and “3d April, 1840.” Oxford said he had intended to destroy 
these papers in the morning, before he went out, but had for- 
gotten it. All these papers—the “rules” and letters—were 
sworn by Oxford’s mother to be in his own handwriting.” 
Such is the Crown’s case against Oxford; to which may be 
added the following statement made and signed by him when 
examined before the Privy Council: 
“A great many witnesses against me. Some say I shot with 
my left, others with my right. They vary as to the distance. 
After I had fired the first pistol, Prince Albert got up, as if he 
would jump out of the coach, and sat down again, as if he 
thought better of it. Then I fired the second pistol. This is 
all I shall say at present.” 
(Signed) “Edward Oxford.” 
Oxford’s Defense. 
“Amongst other things, in the defense of the prisoner, Mr. 
Taylor undertook to prove the insanity of Oxford’s grand- 
father, his father, and himself. The proof broke down as far 
as concerned the grandfather, a sailor in the navy; for it was 
clear that his alleged violent eccentricities had been exhibited 
when he was under the influence of liquor. The insanity of 
Oxford’s father was sought to be established by his widow, the 
mother of the prisoner. 
“He forced her to marry him, she said, by furious threats of 
self-destruction if she did not: he burnt a great roll of bank- 
notes to ashes in her piesence, because she had refused, or 
hesitated, to become his wife. He used to terrify her, during 
her pregnancies, by hideous grimaces, and apish tricks and 
gesticulations: the results being that her second child was 
born, and within three years’ time died, an idiot. Her husband 
pursued the same course during her pregnancy with the prisoner, 
and presented a gun at her head. The prisoner had always 
been a headstrong, wayward, mischievous, eccentric youth— 
subject to fits of involuntary laughing and crying. He was 
absurdly vain, boastful, and ambitious; and wished his mother 
to send him to sea, where he would have nothing to do but walk 
about the deck, give orders, and by-and-by become Admiral 
Sir Edward Oxford !” 
“The prisoner’s whole life had been traced—in evidence— 
while he was at school, and in three distinct services; and he 12 
had never been confined, or in any way treated as mad. IIis 
sister spoke to his going out on the day of the outrage, and de- 
tailed a conversation evincing no symptoms of wandering. lie 
used to have books fiom the library—“The Black Pirate,” 
“Oliver Twist,” and “Jack Sheppard.” On leaving home that 
day, about three o’clock in the afternoon, he told his sister that 
he was going to the Shooting Gallery to buy some linen for her 
to make him some shirts, and to bring home some tea from a 
particular shop in the Strand. A nursery-maid, to whom he had 
written a ludicrously-addressed letter a few weeks before, said, 
“I considered him in a sound state of mind, but sometimes very 
eccentric,” 
Examination of the Doctors, as experts. 
If the reader will recall the facts of Guiteau’s conduct at the 
shooting of the President, including the words afterwards used, 
his curiosity may be somewhat intensified at discovering how 
perfectly the first question to the first doctor covers Guiteau’s 
case; and he may, also, be somewhat startled at the doctor’s 
response. 
First Doctor.— Question by the prisoner's counsel and the 
Court—“Supposing a person, in the middle of the day, without 
any suggestive motive, to fire a loaded pistol at her Majesty, 
passing along the road in her carriage ; to remain on the spot; 
to declare he was the person who did it; to take pains to have 
that known ; and afterwards to enter freely into discussion, and 
answer any questions put to him on the subject, would you, from 
those facts alone, judge a person to be insane ?” 
Answer.—“I should.” 
The Court—“You mean to say, upon your oath, that if you 
heard these facts stated, you should conclude that the person 
was mad?” 
The Doctor.—“I do.’’ 
The Court.—“Without making any other inquiry t” 
The Doctor.—“Yes ! ... If, as a physician, I was employ- 
ed to ascertain whether a person in whom I found these facts 
was sane or insane, I should undoubtedly give my opinion that 
he was insane.” 
The Court.—“As a physician, you think every crime, plain- 
ly committed, to be committed bv a madman ?” 
The Doctor.—“Nothing of the kind; but a crime committed 
under all the circumstances of the hypothesis !” 
Second Doctor.—lie is asked the same question which had 
been proposed to the first Doctor, with the addition of “heredi- 
tary insanity being in the family” of the person concerned. 
Answer.—“I should consider these circumstances of strong 
suspicion; but other facts should be sought before one could be 
warranted in giving a positive opinion.” 
Question by the Prisoner's Counsel.—“Are there instances on 13 
record of persons becoming suddenly insane, whose conduct has 
been previously only eccentric ?” 
Answer.—“Certainly. Supposing, in addition, that there was 
previous delusion, iny opinion woidd be that he is unsound. 
Such a form of insanity exists, and is recognized.” 
Question by the Counsel for the Crown.—“What form of in- 
sanity do you call it ?” 
Answer.—“Lesion of tbe will—insanity connected with the 
development of the will. "It means more than a loss of control 
over the conduct—morbid propensity. Moral irregularity is tbe 
result of that disease. Committing a crime without any appar- 
ent motive is an indication of insanity !” 
Question by the Court.—“I)o you conceive that this is really 
a medical question at all, which has been put to you?” 
Answer.—"I do; I think medical men have more means of 
forming an opinion on that subject than other persons.” 
Question.—“Why could not any person form an opinion from 
the circumstances which have been referred to, whether a person 
was saue or insane ?” 
Answer.—“Because it seems to require a careful comparison 
of particular cases, more likely to be looked to by medical men, 
who are especially experienced in cases of unsoundness of 
mind,” 
Third Doctor.—“I have eight hundred and fifty patients 
under my care in a lunatic asylum. I have seen and conversed 
with the prisoner. In my opinion he is of unsound mind. I 
never saw him in private more than once, and that for perhaps 
half-an-hour, the day before yesterday; and I have been in court 
the whole of yesterday and this morning. These are the notes 
of my interview with him: —‘A deficient understanding ; shape 
of the anterior part of the head, that which is generally seen 
when there has been some disease of the brain in early life. 
An occasional appearance of acuteness, but a total inability to 
reason. Singular insensibility as regards the affections. Ap- 
parent incapacity to comprehend moral obligations—to distin- 
guish right from wrong. Absolute insensibility to the heinous- 
ness of his offence, and the peril of his situation. Total indiffer- 
ence to the issue of the trial; acquittal will give him no particu- 
lar pleasure, and he seems unable to comprehend the alternative 
of his condemnation and execution : his offence, like that of 
other imbeciles who set fire to buildings, &c., without motive, 
except a vague pleasure in mischief. Appears unable to con- 
ceive anything of future responsibility.” 
Question by the Court.—“Did you try to ascertain whether he 
was acting a part with you, orjiot?” 
Answer.—“I tried to ascertain it as well as I possibly could. 
My judgment is formed on all the circumstances together.” 
Fourth Doctor.—To the same general question put to first 
and second doctors— 14 
Answer.—“An exceedingly strong indication of unsoundness 
of mind. A propensity to commit acts without an apparent or 
adequate motive, under such circumstances, is recognized as a 
p irticular species of insanity, called lesion of the will: it has 
been called moral insanity.” 
Question.—“From the conversation you have had with the 
prisoner, and your opportunity of observing him, what do you 
think of his state of mind?” 
Answer.—“Essentially unsound: there seems a mixture of 
insanity with imbecility. Laughing and crying are proofs of 
imbecility—assisting me to form my opinion When I 
saw him, I could not persuade him that there had been balls in 
the pistols—he insisted that there were none. 11/? was indiffer- 
ent about his mother when her name was mentione . His man- 
ner was very peculiar: entirely without acute feeling or acute 
consciousnsss—lively, brisk, smart—perfectly natural—not as 
if he were acting, or making the least pretence. The interview 
lasted about three-quarters of an hour.” 
Last Doctor.—“A practicing surgeon for bet veen three or 
four years. Had attended the prisoner’s family.” 
Question.—“What is your opinion as to his state of mind?” 
Answer.—“Decidedly that of imbecility—more imbecility 
than anything; he is decidedly, in my judgment, of unsound 
mind. His mother has often told me there was something ex- 
ceedingly peculiar about him, and asked me what 1 thought. 
The chief thing that struck me was his involuntary laughing : 
he did not seem to have that sufficient control over the emotions 
which we find in sane individuals. In Newgate, he had great 
insensibility to all impressions sought to be made on him. His 
mother once rebuked him for some want of civility to me ; on 
which he jumped up in a fury, at the moment alarming me, and 
saying, ‘he would stick her.’ I think that was his expression.” 
Questioned by the Counsel for the Crown.—“I never pre- 
scribed for the prisoner, nor recommended any course of treat- 
ment, conduct, or diet whatever. I never gave, nor was asked 
for any advice. I concluded the disease was mental—one of 
these weak minds which, under little excitement, might become 
overthrown.” 
The reader will observe that the testimony of these five doc- 
tors seemed to be all on the prisoner’s side. They were alike 
incorrigible, irrepressible, dogmatical and subdueing. They 
throttled the Crown lawyers, bewildered the judges and swept 
the jury along with them. 
We make few special comments now on this testimony of the 
doctors. In that given by them in this case, there is a tone of 
positiveness and professional arrogance which we do not ad- 
mire. Neither have we any special respect for the testimony of 
experts generally on any subject. In fact expert testimon}" is 15 
falling nearly into contempt, both with judges and juries, mainly 
owing to the confidence and self-assured wisdom which some 
of these wise-acres put on when they take the witness-stand. 
That judges and juries should look somewhat squintingly at 
their extravagant assertions, is indicative of a happy tendency 
in our courts towards reform in the matter of expert testimony; 
nevertheless there are questions, mysterious to the unlearned 
mind, upon which the opinions of really learned physicians are 
absolutely necessary to the proper knowledge and understand- 
ing of the case, and without which darkness unutterable would 
prevail. And this question of insanity is one upon which the 
courts are bound to have the aid of learned and practical phj'si- 
cians. 
Guiteau has been photographed; he will probably have to be 
phrenologized. Oxford’s head, as has been seen above, and its 
peculiar formation, entered materially into his defense. Let 
the phrenological experts whet up their implements. 
Sir Thomas Wylde, who replied for the Crown, made some 
striking remarks, but he could not dislodge the doctors. Said he: 
“What would be the condition of society—exposed as we are 
to such attacks, and the infliction of death by such means—if, 
with the evidence of previous preparation of the means; the use 
of balls and pistols; inquiries as to the effect of their discharge, 
and whether the party was hurt, coupled with admission, inci- 
dental and direct, of the fact that balls were in the pistols : 
what would be the state of society, if evidence like this left an 
assassin the chance of escape merely because the balls could 
not be found?” 
“If excentric acts were proof of insanity, many persons who 
were wrenching knockers off doors, knocking down watchmen, 
and committing similar freaks, were laying up a large stock of 
excuses for the commission of crimes!'1' 
“The trick of laughing suddenly without cause, was'so com- 
mon, that if this were token of imbecility the lunatic asylum 
would overflow with gigglers !” 
“The prisoner had all along displayed a morbid desire to be 
talked about; and the letters and documents produced had been 
written with that feeling and object, A criminal should not be 
permitted to write out for himself a certificate of lunacy !” 
“Was his making no attempt to escape, a proof of an unsound 
mind? If he had made such an attempt, it would have been a 
great proof of madness ! He was surrounded on all sides by 
the multitude. He took such a reasonable view of his situation, 
as to see that he had no chance of escape, and gave himself up 
quietly !” 
“The prisoner had been allowed the unrestrained use of fire- 
arms and powder, and was well acquainted with their fatal ef- 
fects on human life. Would his mother have trusted a madman 16 
with them? and left her mad son in the same house with her 
daughter*” 
“The medical men went to Newgate pre-disjoosed and pre- 
determined to see a madman.” 
“Suppose the prisoner unfeeling, violent, indifferent to his 
own fate, and prefering notoriety to any other consideration : 
what evidence did that supply of his being in a state of moral 
irresponsibility?—that moral irresponsibility which secured the 
very existence of society.” 
The Judge’s charge. 
The testimony being closed, Lord Denman, amongst other 
things, said to the jury : 
“If you think the prisoner was, at the time, laboring under 
any delusion which prevented him from judging of the effects 
of the act he had committed, you cannot find him guilty, lie 
might, perhaps, have been laboring under a delusion affecting 
every part of his conduct, and not directed to one object alone : 
if that were so at the time of his firing, he could not be held 
accountable for it. But if, though laboring under a delusion, 
he fired the loaded pistols at the Queen, knowing the possible 
result—though forced to the act by his morbid love of notoriety, 
he is responsible, and liable to punishment.” 
“There may be cases of insanity, in which medical evidence 
as to physical symptoms is of the utmost consequence. But as 
to moral insanity, I, for my own part, cannot admit that medi- 
cal men have at all more means of forming an opinion, in such 
a case, than are "possessed by gentlemen accustomed to the af- 
fairs of life, and bringing to the subject a wide experience.” 
“The mere fact of the prisoner’s going into the park, and 
raising his hand against the Queen, is not to be taken as a 
proof of insanity—particularly if we suppose that he is naturally 
reckless of consequences. It is a mark, doubtless, of a mind 
devoid of right judgment and of right feeling; but it would be 
a most dangerous maxim, that the mere enormity of a crime 
should secure the prisoner’s acquittal, by being taken to es- 
tablish his insanity. Acts of wanton and dangerous mischief 
are often committed by persons who suppose that they have an 
adequate motive; but they are sometimes done by those who 
have no adequate motive, and on whom they can confer no ad- 
vantage. A man may be charged with slaying his father, his 
child, or his innocent wife, to whom he is bound to afford pro- 
tection and kindness; and it is most extravagant to say that 
this man cannot be found guilt}', because of the enormity of his 
crime!” 
This charge though given by a great judge is very unsatis- 
factory, and by no means a sound exposition of the law. It is 
just such a charge as authorizes juries to bring in surprising 17 
verdicts. The whole charge taken together was intended to 
convict the prisoner; but the jury would not see it in that light. 
They were out but a short time and brought in a verdict of 
“Guilty, he being at the time insane." 
Lord Denman.—“Do you acquit the prisoner, on the ground 
of insanity ?’ 
Foreman of the Jury.—“Yes, my Lord; that is our intention.” 
Lord Denman.—“Then the verdict will stand thus: ‘Not 
Guilty, on the ground of insanity.’ The prisoner will be con- 
fined in strict custody, as a matter of course.” 
So ended this remarkable case. 
There is one feature alone in the testimony in tips ease which 
convinces our mind that Oxford was properly acquitted. It 
involves a mysterious physiological question. If is the state- 
ment made by Oxford's mother, of the conduct of his father 
during her pregnancies. 
We do not see, in the meagre report of the learned advocate's 
speech in Oxford’s defense, any special reference to this circum- 
stance, but it is a circumstance that a common-sense juror could 
not ignore in making up his judgment. 
That a child in venire sa mere may be made a monster by out- 
side occurrences is an admitted fact. That the mother of 
Oxford was a woman of such peculiar nervous temperament 
as to be affected thus, during pregnancy, by outside occur- 
rences. is evident from the fact, that ‘-her second child died in 
three years time, an idiot”—the result of the father’s “terrify- 
ing her during pregnancy with hideous grimaces and apish 
tricks and gesticulations.” Who shall assume to himself the 
wisdom to say. what effect the ■•pointing of the gun by the father 
at the mother's head during her pregnancy with the prisoner." 
had on the mind and temper of the embryo child l this child, 
nineteen years afterwards, as in the case proved, presenting and 
firing a pistol at the Queen ! Thus assuming towards the 
Queen the almost identical attitude the father had occupied tow- 
ards the mother l 
When Lord Denman said, in the closing sentence of the first 
paragraph of the foregoing charge to the jury—“But if, though 
laboring under a delusion, lie fired the loaded pistol at the Queen, 
knowing the probable result, though forced to the act by his 
morbid love of notoriety, lie is responsible and liable to be pun- 
ished,his lordship made a mistake in applying the wrong test, 
and violated a well recognized rule of evidence, to wit: “ In 
eases in which the defense is insane impulse or insane delusion, 
the right and wrong test cannot be properly made.” 1. Wharf. 
Cr. L. 30. 
The true rule is this:—The capacity to distinguish between 
“right and wrong” should be considered in connection with the 
power of the will to choose the, right from thewrqng. 18 
But judges and juries are not apt to agree on the law of insan- 
ity as so charged. It is not easy to convince an enlightened 
jury that a man, because he is very crazy, does not therefore 
know the difference between right and, wrong. The most con- 
tinued and helpless—the most incurable inmates of our asylums, 
hide and deny the wrongs they do. To bite and kick suddenly, 
and then instantly to look demurely and solemnly innocent, is 
a characteristic of insanity—the common sport of the bedlamites; 
in fact, cunning, deceit, equivocation and lying, are the ruling 
traits of the insane. 
These, it is true, may exist in the same person at the same 
time with their opposite traits of openness, boldness, candor 
and truth, each bearing sway for a moment in its turn; but there 
can be no stability of purpose without a well poised intellect. 
Stubbornness of ivill may prevail for a time with an insane per- 
son, but it is apt to be transient, and may be suddenly changed 
to wavering imbecility. It is the absence of the power to con- 
trol oneself, the inability to resist an emotion and to light 
against temptations; it is the lightness of the disjointed mind— 
as a feather in a storm is at the mercy of the gales—this it is that 
constitutes the legitimate defense of insanity; and whoever lias 
passed from an ague into the inevitable fever, and felt his head 
growing into the dimensions of a balloon, will know' from his 
own experience what is meant by the lightness of the disjointed 
mind. 
In Iladlield’s case—“He was under a delusion that it was his 
duty to offer himsell'as a sacrifice for his fellow-citizens, and that 
his shortest way of so doing was to kill t he King, which he knew 
to be morally wrong. Lord Kenyon, on these facts being made 
out, advised a withdrawal of the prosecution.*’ t whart. Cr. L. 2d. 
[See also Hillman's case, 1 whart. Cr. L. dO.] 
Hillman's ease will also throw light upon another of Lord Den- 
man's observations as uttered in this charge, to wit: “A man 
may be charged with slaying his father, his child or his innocent 
wife, to whom he is bound to afford protection and kindness— 
and it would be most extravagant to say that this man cannot 
be found guilty because of the enormity of the crime." Such 
language is calculated to mislead a jury. Although the enor- 
mity of the crime is not sufficient of itself to establish irresponsi- 
bility, nevertheless it is a circumstance to be weighed by the 
jury, especially as connected with the question of motive; for the 
committing of a crime without any apparent motive, is an indi- 
cation of insanity. In Hillman’s case [above referred to] will it. 
be contended that the enormity of the crime, killing his father, 
should not have entered materially into the considerations of the 
jury. So in the case of the deluded father, Greensmitb, [ 187d 
H and 11. lead. Cr. C.] who killed his four children, his mind at 
the time being oppressed with the gloomy apprehension that his 
children would be turned out upon the streets as beggars / lie 19 
first killed two of them; then went out upon the streets, and con- 
cluded upon reflection that he had as tvell he hung for filling 
all of them as for killing two, he returned and killed the other 
two! In such a case, the enormity of the crime alone should 
bring any jury to a pause : the enormity of the crime considered 
with the utter inadequacy of the motive, could leave no reason- 
able doubt of the absolute presence of insanity in the prisoner 
at the time. 
The writer remembers the case of a negro, in 1828, in Pickens 
county, Alabama, who killed his three children, alleging as a 
reason that slavery was too heavy to bear; that he wished to save 
them from the impending curse. If this was the Romanism of 
a Virginias, it existed in one who had never heard the name. 
This was insanity, and such as should have established irre- 
sponsibility. This man was convicted and executed. If the test 
of insanity was made at the trial, it must have been most feebly 
done. 
The books are full of cases which show the existence, at the 
occurrence, of the capacity to distinguish between right and 
wrong, coupled with the incapacity to choose the right from .the 
wrong—the establishment of this latter with some prevailing 
delusion authorizing an acquittal. 
Lord Denman made another mistake in this charge—a. de- 
liberate invasion of the province of the jury—by attempting to dis- 
parage the testimony of the experts on a material question in 
the case. “I, for my own part,” said his lordship, “cannot ad- 
mit that medical men have at all more means of forming an 
opinion in such a case, (a case of moral insanity) than are pos- 
sessed by gentlemen accustomed to the affairs of life, and bring- 
ing to the subject a wide experience.” Now, doe3 not moral in- 
sanity often develope by reason of physical disorganization i Is 
there a more delicate question in the whole range of medical 
jurisprudence, or one demanding more scientific skill, than the 
power to detect the existence of moral insanity ? As mind is 
composed of both brain and body, so insanity comes of some de- 
fect or deficiency in one or both. 
Tiie moonshine conspiracy. 
At first it was vehemently asserted that Oxford had accom- 
plices; * that he was the tool of a conspiracy. The papers found 
*If the Government should he able to show tiiat Guiteau had accom- 
plices, it would have considerable weight against his plea of insanity. 
A very eminent writer on Medical Jurisprudence, Mr. Taylor, says:-— 
“The homicidal monomaniac has no accomplices." (p. 792.) Again, 
“it is a fact, so far in faror of homicidal insanity, that the insane never 
have accomplices in the acts which they perpetrate.*’ If this be true, 
even as a generality, (and the facts of this case repel the supposition 
that he had an accomplice.) Guiteau’s defence will open, to say the 
least of it, gracefully ; and up to this time there is no trace of an 
accomplice, and all the facts made public so far seem to show the 
contrary. 20 
in his possession showing something like a League of “Young 
England,” was the source of infinite conjecture, and gave ground 
for the supposition of the existence of a formidable association 
for evil purposes. But nothing could be made of it. All the 
papers were in the handwriting of Oxford—even such of them 
as were signed by the secretary. This phase of the case was 
treated by Oxford's counsel as “all moonshine,” and so it turned 
out to lie. It was, in fact, one of the strongest features in the 
case tending to show insanity. 
Oxford in Bedlam 
Upon his acquittal by the jury, Oxford was sent to Bedlam, 
where he may possibly yet be. lie was there in 1850—ten years 
after his trial, and was the object of much curiosity. He had 
been closely watched there, with a view of detection ; and pub- 
lic opinion, at the end of the ten years, remained divided upon 
the question of his insanity. 
A correspondent of Blackwood thus details an interview with 
Oxford, in 1850: 
“Oxford was in another part of’the building, standing alone, 
at the extremity of a long corridor, gazing through a heavily- 
grated window, towards the new House of Parliament. He is 
fond of attracting the notice of anybody ; and conversed about 
himself and his offense in the most calm and rational manner 
conceivable. He has lost much of his hair—a circumstance 
which he appeared somewhat to regret—for the front of his head 
is bald ; but he looks no older than his real age, thirty. He is 
mortally weary of his confinement, and says he has been terribly 
punished for “his foolish act.” “Foolish /” we exclaimed—“is 
that all you can say of your attempt to shoot her Majesty?” 
He smiled, and said, “Oh, sir, I never attempted to shoot her; 
I never thought of such a thing. 1 aimed at the carriage-panels 
only,” “Then why did you put balls in your pistols ?” “I never 
did,” he replied quickly. “I never dreamed of such a thing. 
There were no balls.” “Oh. then you have not heard of the 
discovery that has just been made—eh?” “Discovery—what ?” 
“The bullets.5’ “Oh, there have been more found than ever I 
used at least; for I assure you I never used any!” “What 
made you do what you did ?” “Oh, I was a fool; it was just to 
get myself talked about, and kick up a dust. A good horse- 
whipping is ichat 1 wantedhe added, with a faint sigh. These 
were his very words. “Should you have done it, if you had 
thought of coining here t' “No, indeed 1 should not; it has 
been a severe punishment! 
“He has taught himself French, Italian and German, of which 
he has a fair knowledge. He also used to draw a little, and 
began to write a novel; but it proved a sorry affair, and, being 
discouraged, he threw it up. 21 
“I never expected to be condemned for high treason .Some 
gentleman—I forgot who he was—said I should be transported 
for fourteen years. I thought that was the worst they could do 
to me ; for I knew l had never meant to do any harm, nor tried 
to do it.” “Yes; but the judge and jury thought very differ- 
ently.” “Oh, I was very fairly tried ; but I never expected to 
be brought in mad. I was quite surprised at that, for I knew I 
was not mad, and I wondered how they were going to prove it.” 
“He admits that he committed a very great oifense in having 
done anything to alarm the Queen, and attributes it entirely to a 
mischievous and foolish love of notoriety. He said, “I thought 
it would set everybody to talking and wondering; but never 
dreamed of what would have come of it—least of all that I was 
to be shut up all my life in this place.” “That list of conspira- 
tors, and letters from them, that were found in your lodgings— 
were they not real?” “Oh, no,” he replied, with rather an 
anxious smile, “all mere sham—only nonsense! There was 
never anything of the sort!” “Then, why did you do it ?” “It 
was only the folly of a boy; I wasn’t nineteen then—it was 
very silly no doubt.” “And their swords and dresses, and so 
forth—eh?” “Entirely nonsense ! It was a very absurd joke. 
I did not think it would come out so serious. I did not ap- 
preciate the consequences, or I never would have done it.” 
In the case of Lawrence, who attempted to shoot General 
Jackson in 1836, will be found some features not unlike some 
in Guiteau’s case. He, too, was seen loiterimg about the Pres- 
ident’s house before the attack; and he expressed also the opin- 
ion that if he could get rid of Jackson his successor would do 
him justice. We give the report of Lawrence’s case in full, as 
we found it in Niles’ Register, 1836, p. 119 vol. 48. TRIAL OF RICHARD LAWRENCE, 
FOR AN ATTEMPT TO ASSASSINATE THE PRESIDENT OF THE 
PNITED STATES, ANDREW JAC KSON, 1836. 
Present—Hon. .Judges Crunch, Morsell and Thurston. 
Counsel—On behalf of the United States, Francis S. Key. 
For the prisoner, William L. Brent and James F. Brent. 
The court opened soon after 9 o’clock, a. in., and the 
prisoner, Richard Lawrence, was brought into court, in the cus- 
tody of the deputy marshal, Mr. Woodward. Lawrence was 
dressed in a gray coat; it appeared to 11s to be of the descrip- 
tion of what they call a shooting coat; black cravat and vest; 
and brown pantaloons. 11 is appearance was that of a man per- 
fectly at his ease, and collected; but there is an appearance 
about his eyes, certainly indicative of mania; and an evident 
assumption of kingly dignity in his demeanor and the expres- 
sion of his countenance. He took his seat, however, very 
quietly by the side of his counsel, and conversed smilingly, 
with them. 
The witnesses have been called into court. 
Mr. Key rose to address some observations to the bench; 
when Lawrence started up from his chair, under evident excite- 
ment of mind, and said he wished to know whether it was 
correct to bring him there, or not? He claimed the crown of 
Great Britain, he said, and also that of the United States; and 
he wished to know if they could bring him there? 
Judge Crunch desired him to take his seat; and let his coun- 
sel manage his case for him. 
Lawrence complied ; but still apparently continued the sub- 
ject, in conversation with his counsel. 
Mr. W. L. Brent inquired of the court, whether, as this was 
simply the case of a misdemeanor, the presence of the pris- 
oner, considering his state of mind, might not be dispensed 
with. 
Lawrence again rose, and addressed the court. He wished 
to know, if, having, as he had, the sword— 
He was again stopped ; and 
Mr. Brent stated his belief, that it would be impossible for 
the trial to proceed, if the prisoner remained in court. The 
course which it must take, the defence which it was intended 
to set up, could not fail still further to excite him. He would, 
indeed, rather he should remain if it were possible. 
The court thought if necessary that the prisoner should 
remain. 23 
Mr. Brent said he had done all he could to quiet the pris- 
oner’s feelings ; but had not been able to present any course of 
which he would make choice. 
Judge Morsell said, it was always customary for the prisoner 
to be in court, in cases like the present. To permit him to de- 
part would be altogether a novel proceeding; he should like 
the trial to proceed in the ordinary way. 
The panel was then called ; on which 
Lawrence observed, that they had called the jury, that, he 
wished to know if this was correct; lie certainly was king. 
Judge Cranch—You must sit down and be quiet, Mr. Law- 
rence, until called on to answer. 
The prisoner sat down ; but not until he had reiterated the 
assertion, that he was king of Great Britain, and likewise of 
this country; and that he was protected by the law in his 
claim. 
The following jury was then sworn; many of the whole panel 
having been challenged on various grounds; chiefly of having 
formed and expressed opinions upon the ease— 
Mr. H. L. Cross, 
William Orme, 
John B. Ferguson, 
William Eaton, 
Benjamin Scwall, 
Paul Stevens, 
INIr. Charles Butler, 
John Mount, 
Samuel Wilson, 
Edward A. Roche, 
Noble Herttell, 
Jeremiah Orme. 
FRANCIS F. KEY’S SPEECH: 
The witnesses present for the prosecution having been sworn— 
Mr. F. S. Key rose and opened the case, somewhat to the following 
effect: The prisoner before tiie jury was charged with an offence 
which was, at least in tins part of the world, of very rare occurrence; 
which rendered it the more necessary that he should give a statement 
as to the nature of (he evidence which he should produce; and, 
further, because many rumors wide of truth, as usually happened in 
such cases, had gone abroad. The prisoner was charged with an 
assault, with intent to kill and murder ; and the object of that assault 
was the chief magistrate of the country. There were two counts in 
the indictment. One charging the assault, with intent to kill, &c., 
the other stating more, particularly the manner, instruments, &e. It 
was an offence, which was, by our laws, a mere misdemeanor, and 
punishable by tine and imprisonment. The station, or office, of the 
object of this crime, was to be left entirely out of the question ; and 
it was to be considered in the same light as though committed on the 
most humble individual in the country. The framers of our consti- 
tution had not thought it necessary to surround the chief magistrate 
with any additional protection than those laws, which were deemed 
sufficient for the citizen holding the most obscure station. The love 
of order and of justice had heretofore been found, and, he hoped, 
would continue to be found, sufficient for the purpose. They were 
not to look on the extraordinary and providential delivery of the 
President from the danger of the prisoner’s act; but, free from any 
anxiety,, to judge, of the c;ise itccording to the evidence which would 
be offered* It would be found that, on a public occasion, the President, 
and heads of the departments, Mere retiring from the hall of repre- 
sentatives, from the funeral ceremonies, which had taken place in 
consequence of the death of one of the members of the House. Of 
course, there was a large concourse of persons present. Amongst 
them was the prisoner; armed with two pistols, perfectly well 
loaded ; who planted himself in a situation the best adapted for the 
accomplishment of the object he had in view. He placed himself at 
the entrance of a door, through which he knew the President Mould 
pass; having the pistols concealed under his coat. The percussion 
cap exploded, but did not communicate with the powder in the tube. 
He immediately dropt that pistol, having been seized by several 
individuals, but not so as to prevent him from directing a second 
pistol at the President, which he snapped with like, success. The 
friends of the President, Avitli a forbearance highly commendable, 
placed no further violence, than to give him into the hands of the 
officer, M’here he had been ever since. When brought before the 
chief justice, no man could have acted m ith more calmness or intelli- 
gence. He M as now before that honorable court for trial. The sole 
defence Avhicli can be set up, and which it is to be presumed will be 
set up, is, that the prisoner is of unsound mind, and therefore 
incapable of being actuated by a malicious motive. 
It might turn out that the prisoner Mas insane, and he (Mr. K ) 
believed the community in general would be glad to hear that such 
an excuse existed ; but at the same time it Mas due to the interests 
and safety of society that it should be shown by clear evidence that 
he was not a reasonable being, and, therefore, dispunishable. It was 
for this reason necessary that he should state M'hat the laM- M as as to 
the nature of the evidence necessary to prove such an irresponsible 
state; and that he should do so by referring to grave adjudications 
on this subject. There were various states of insanity. There Mere 
many Mho were totally insane; Avhose reason was altogether gone; 
either by reason of some accident, or from inherent incapacity. Such 
persons should, of course, be confined, to keep them from doing 
mischief. In such a case the person is totally insane; no ray of mental 
light illumining his brain; he is so at all times, and upon all subjects. 
No one, however, would contend for a moment that the prisoner 
belonged to this class. He (Mr. K.) admitted there were states of 
madness Mhich fell far short of this: cases of partial insanity; in 
which the individual was at times perfectly sane; had what is termed 
his lucid intervals. The inquiry, then, arises, Mhether the person 
Mqis in a state of insanity, or, M hether it M as during a lucid interval 
that he committed the crime, if the prisoner is to be considered as 
belonging to this second class, then the question Mould be, in M'hat 
state of mind nas the prisoner when he committed this assault? If 
in the state of lunacy, then he M as dispunishable; but if done during 
a lucid interval, then lie ivas not to be excused, and must be punish- 
ed, inasmuch as it is an act done by a man in possession of his 
reason. This distinction was clear. But this Mas not all. There 
Mas an infinite variety of feelings bound up in the form of lunacy; 
there wras another description of partial derangement. There M as a 
state of lunacy in M hich the person affected was only insane as to 
one particular subject; being as capable of reasoning on all others 
as any other person; and these were the cases of the greatest 
difficulty. If it appears that a man is a lunatic, and, further, that he. 
is partially so only; if it appears that he is only so as to particular 
subjects, then another subject of inquiry arises; and the rule in this 
subject is equally plain. What is the nature of the act Mhich the 
person has committed ? Does it appear that it is connecteil with— 25 
that is the offspring of that delusion under which he suffers? Does it 
spring from various causes, or from the excitement of other causes? 
Or is it by a cause exciting this particular state of mind? In the 
present case, the prisoner has commit ted an assault, certainly with a 
murderous intent, if under a state of total insanity, they were then 
to examine into the character of the delusion under which the 
prisoner was laboring; to ascertain the connection between the act 
committed and that delusion ; and to see whether it was a delusion, 
and delusion alone, which had induced the act. He (Mr. K.) thought 
there might be evidence to show that the man was actually under a 
delusion as to a particular subject. They would then have to com 
pare this with the evidence on the other side, and see how far the 
crime could he considered as connected with that delusion. No man 
could have shown more intelligence, more caution and prudence 
throughout the proceedings against him; and, further, they would 
lind, from the evidence to he produced on the part of the United 
States, an avowal of objects totally unconnected with the apparent 
subject of his delusion, lie did not say this to influence the minds 
of the jury; he only wished to use those means which would be 
adopted by the counsel on the part of the prisoner. 
A remarkable trial, which occurred not many years ago in 
England, seemed to have settled the law in such cases. [Mr. K. 
referred to the case of Iladtield, for shooting at George III.] It 
would be found in vol. .‘17 of Howell’s State Trials. The passage 
he should read from, commenced at page 1 .‘tl4. He was perfectly 
willing that the law, as then laid down by the counsel of the 
prisoner, the eminent Erskine, should be adopted in the present case. 
The counsel for the prisoner, he was willing, should have the aid of 
the arguments used, and used too, successfully, by that great man, 
in the case of Iladtield. lie asked for the adoption of no other rule 
of law on the present occasion. He read a few passages from the 
trial alluded to. [Mr. K. then read an extract from the argument of 
Mr. Erskine, in which lie admitted that it was not enough to show a 
delusion to exist in the mind of the perpetrator of a crime to render 
him dispunishable; but that it must be further shown, that there was 
a connection between the delusion and the act committed. Mr. K. 
further mentioned the case of Edward Arnold, for shooting Lord 
Onslaw; in which a like doctrine was laid down, and which case was 
referred to and the principle generally admitted by Erskine, when 
pleading the cause of Iladtield.| Mr. K. proceeded : It was not every 
lunatic, even, who was to be held unaccountable. There was a general 
impression, that such was the case; but it was not so: there were 
lunatics that were accountable at particular times. If, then,the jury 
should be of opinion, that the prisoner was, at the time of commit- 
ting the act, under a delusion ; that that delusion originated the act; 
he was, certainly, not guilty; and lie (Mr. K.) believed that the com- 
munity would rejoice if it should he found that such was the case; 
but if it appeared that he was a man of violent temper and-capricious 
humors; that the act did not spring from delusion, but from other 
causes ; then they could not acquit him from the consequences of his 
crime. He should lay before them, not only the evidence as to the 
manner of the a t ; his appearance and behavior before the judge ; 
but also the instruments; which they could see were as well calcu- 
lated to accomplish the purpose designed,-and as well prepared for 
if, as they could have been by any man of intelligence, By the 
withdrawal of the charge of one of these pistols before the judge, on 
the occasion of his first examination, it was shown that if consisted 
of a ball well fitted to the piece, and powder of very fine quality. 
The other was examined on the succeeding day. and was tired off 
4 without any alteration of its charge. The powder was distinctly 
seen in the tribe; and it was repeatedly tired off after this. This, 
then, was sufficient to show that there was no defect in the instru- 
ments or their loading ; and also the deadly intent of the prisoner, 
which was so happily frustrated by Providential interference, lie 
knew that all these acts might be done even by a man of unsound 
mind; but. still, there were circumstances to be considered in this 
case ; in which the guilt or innocence of the prisoner must depend on 
the issue whether he is property to be considered as having been 
an accountable human agent at the time he commTtted the crime. 
Mr. K. concluded his remarks by saying that it was unnecessary to 
read the indictment, inasmuch a< it was nothing more than a common 
law indictment. 
Mr. Secretary Woodbury was then sworn and examined. 
By Mr. Key—On the occasion of the funeral ceremony which 
l ook place in the hall of representatives, in consequence of the 
death of one of its members. (Warren R. Davis), * attended, 
with the President and other officers of the government; had 
listened to the funeral service in the hall; left it; the President 
being on my right arm, had passed through the rotunda, and 
through the eastern door where he came rather to a halt, (being 
in the rear), in consequence of the delay occasioned bv the 
gentlemen who had preceded us getting into the coaches. We 
had perhaps passed some two or Ihree steps on to the portico, 
when 1 heard a noise like the discharge of a pistol; was to the 
left; looked round directly, and there saw a person, about six 
or eight feet, a little obliquely to the left, (might not be exact 
as to distance), who was just in the act of lowering his hand, 
when my eye caught him. I! was the prisoner at the bar ; saw 
him distinctly when 1 turned, and saw the pistol in his hand; 
presumed he was the person who had fired ; it was directed 
right towards tha President; at first 1 doubted whether it was 
* The editor recalls with some feeling of enthusiasm the pleasant mem- 
ory of Warren E. Davis, of South Carolina. With high political 
abilities he joined an extensive literature; and with the waywardness 
of the children of song, be displayed an excellence of culture which 
made him the delight of an intellectual circle of which he was the 
congenial centre. The verse below is recited, from memory only. 
The song contains two stanzas, and was addressed to some very 
happy lady who flitted for a season in Washington society without 
perhaps being conscious that she had attracted the notice of an in- 
spired intelligence. There are three lines in the stanza quoted of 
which Byron or Shelley might have been proud. 
TO A LADY. 
“Thou art gone, O, lovely stranger, 
After few brief days’ sojourn; 
Leaving one lone heart in danger. 
Long to feel and long to mourn. 
l)o not say—too short the seuson. 
For a Southron's heart to glow— 
In the weapon see the reason-- 
Lightning kindles with the blow. 27 
not myself who was aimed at; but saw that it was towards the 
President, who was on my right; turned to the President to see 
if he was injured ; seeing he was not, turned to look for the 
prisoner ; he was then in the act of raising his hand again ; bad 
something in it: presumed it was a pistol; was not certain it 
was the same or another; thought probably it might be a 
double barrel pistol ; gave a pull from the President’s arm, and 
sprung towards the prisoner; seized him by the collar, and at 
that moment the second explosion took place; thought so from 
the noise ; other persons had previously got hold of him ; which 
appeared to have put him rather out of his first position; they 
continued to pull him, with some violence, in a somewhat 
opposite direction. Seeing he was secured, and that there was 
reason to believe that he had no other weapon, I let go my hold, 
and turned to see what was the state of the President after the 
second discharge, as I thought it. The prisoner was dragged 
forward towards the front of the piazza ; saw no more of him 
until I saw him here an hour after; saw the President in the 
crowd, and went home with him; afterwards went to several 
magistrate’s offices to see what had become of the prisoner ; not 
finding him, came to this room, where he had been brought for 
examination. It was suggested that Mr. Burd, a member, had 
possession of the pistols. That gentleman shortly after arrived, 
bringing with him two pistols, which were produced ; should 
recognize if I saw them again, by their general appearance. 
An inquiry was made if they were loaded ; Mr. Burd or Lieu- 
tenant Gedney hereupon tried them, I believe with a pencil 
case; it went down but a little way ; an anxiety was expressed 
on the part of the court to know what was the nature of the 
charge in the pistol, and an instrument was produced ; presume 
it had a screw at the end, and a ball was drawn out; the ball 
was examined ; and the next question was what was below the 
ball; it was found to be gunpowder; which was poured out, and 
also examined. 
Mr. Secretary Dickerson examined. 
By Mr. Key—Was a little in the rear of the President; at 
the door of the colonnade there was a halt, which brought me 
up nearly to his side ; had advanced, I think, about two steps 
from the door, when I heard the discharge of a pocket pistol; 
have certainly heard such pistols discharged without making a 
louder report; it being in the colonnade might have increased 
the sound ; I turned my eye, and saw some man had laid hold 
of an individual; I was to the left of the President; saw Lieu- 
tenant Gedney, and supposed he was trying to get the man 
down, but could not see the man ; it was some seconds before 
the prisoner could get at his second pistol; and when he did, 
from his altered position, he had to throw his arm over to get 
aim at the President; certain it was aimed at hiin ; was very 
near; saw the prisoner distinctly; saw the size of the pifitql, 28 
but could not say whether it -was brass or steel; it appeared 
that it must have struck the President had a discharge taken 
place; in a second from this time the prisoner was crushed to 
the floor, but was soon raised again ; Mr. Gil let, a member from 
New York State, a very strong man, had hold of him, as also 
had Lieutenant Gedney; 1 looked at the prisoner, and kept my 
eye on him, so as to be certain of his identity; about the instant 
the second explosion took place the President had lifted his 
stick to strike the prisoner, but made no blow, being prevented 
by his friends. 
By Mr. W. L. Brent—The President was about three feet 
from me, on the right; no one was between us ; did not see the 
first explosion, but heard it; saw the second; do not know if 
both were from the same pistol; think the second was not so 
loud as the first explosion; was a great crowd coming out at 
the door ; did not hear Lawrence say it was at the President he 
directed the pistol; but formed that opinion from what I saw. 
Lieutenant Gedney examined. 
By Mr. Key—At the time of the assault was entering the 
door of the eastern portico; going into the rotunda, I observed 
the President with Mr. Woodbury; they had advanced two or 
three steps from the door; observed some movement in the 
crowd; turned my eye, and saw the man with a pistol; I seized 
him by the shoulder, and got him down ; he dropped the pistol; 
there were two; Mr. Burd had the pistols; some five or six per- 
sons seized the prisoner, and then I lost sight of him ; examined 
the pistols, with Mr. Bind; did so with a pencil case; both 
were loaded; saw nothing further, till I saw the prisoner in 
court; 1 took one pistol, Mr. Burd the other; examined them 
both directly; saw but the first discharge; the pistol wras 
apparently aimed at the Prcsieent. 
By Mr. W. L. Brent—Was at about the distance of eight feet 
from Lawrence, and at about an equal distance from the Presi- 
dent, on the left; was directly between Lawrence and the Pres- 
ident ; was a great crowd at the door. 
By a juror—Had hold of him at the time he snapped the 
second' pistol. 
Mr. Secretary Dickerson re-examined by Mr. Brent—The 
President spoke angrily at those who prevented him from get- 
ting at Lawrence; said, “let me alone! let me alone!” Becol- 
lect hearing him also say, “he knew Avlierc this came from!” 
Understood he did say more. 
Mr. Hunter (the marshal) examined. 
By Mr. Key—Seized the prisoner; had been m attendance in 
the Supreme Court; perceived a crowd ; pushed through it, and 
took the prisoner, without knowing what lie had done ; this was 
a few moments after lie had been disarmed, brought him down 
before Judge Crunch ; was present on his examination; am 29 
quite sure the pistols now in court are the same; they were 
marked at the time. 
[Mr. Kurd’s evidence, which had been taken before Judge 
Cranch, by consent of the prisoner’s counsel, to allow Mr. K. 
to return home, was now given by the honorable judge]. 
Judge Cranch—Mr. Kurd, on the day of the examination of 
Lawrence, produced a pair of pistols in court; 1 believe these 
to be the same ; they were marked on the breech; he was asked 
if they were in the same condition as when taken from Law- 
rence, and he said yes; both were loaded. 
Mr. Hunter continued: These were the same pistols; saw 
the bullet extracted by a ramrod; believe by Mr. Blair. [The 
ball and powder were produced]. There was a patch on the 
ball; the pistol was charged in the usual way; there were other 
percussion caps, balls, &e. found in the prisoner’s trunk; also 
in his pocket; saw the powder in the other pistol; took one of 
the caps found on Lawrence, and tired that pistol; the ball 
passed through one plank, and nearly buried itself in the 
second, some yards beyond. 
By a juror—No priming wire was used on the occasion; 
tried several times with the other pistol, and was surprised that 
it did not go off; but found the reason to be that there was 
nothing in it; the powder and ball having both fallen out. 
By M. Brent—When Lawrence was conveyed from the capi- 
tol, in the hack, he appeared perfectly collected; said his reason 
for the act was, that the President had killed his father; that 
his influence was so great that lie had got everyone to persecute 
his father, so that he died poor. 
Lieutenant Gedney re-examined by Mr. Brent—Was of opin- 
ion that the cap did not explode the second time. 
Mr. Hunter further examined by Mr. Key—Both pistols were 
without caps; but a portion of the cap always remains on the 
hammer; the pistols were in possession of Judge Cranch for a 
short time; but since then have been in my possession. 
Judge Cranch examined by Mr. Key—The prisoner on the 
occasion of his first examination did not seem to attend very 
particularly to the evidence given; his manners were cool; but 
he seemed indifferent; do not recollect the prisoner’s remark 
as to proof being necessary as to his identity, after the exami- 
nation of the first witness; believe he was asked if he wished 
to put out any question, after the examination of each witness; 
he did not appear absent in mind, but rather regardless of what 
w'as going on; on one occasion did say, “I cannot contradict 
what the gentleman has said.” 
The foregoing evidence having been gone through on t he part 
of the prosecution, 
Mr. W. L. Brent asked permission for the prisoner to leave 
the court. It was painful to all that he should remain ; partie- 30 
ularly so to himself, sis his counsel; and the law did not require 
his presence. 
Lawrence then rose and addressed himself wildly to the 
judges ; what he had done to Jackson, was on account of money 
which he owed him : he had come there for that purpose; he 
considered all in that court as under him ; the United States 
bank had owed him money ever since 1802, and he wanted hie 
money; he must have his revenue from that bank. You are 
under me, gentlemen. [Mr. Woodward, the deputy marshal, 
endeavoring to prevail on him to resume his seat, lie turned 
round, indignantly, and said, “Mr. Woodward '. mind your own 
business, or I shall treat you with severity !’’] It is for me, 
gentlemen, to pass upon you, and not you upon me. 
Mr. Brent again appealed to the feelings of the court to spare 
itself, and the jury, this painful exhibition, by permitting Law- 
rence to depart in custody of the marshal, Why should the 
prisoner be detained on this anymore than on other similar 
occasions. He felt, for his own part, that he could not do jus- 
tice to the cause of the prisoner if lie sat beside him ; the very 
fact, that lie should take a course in the defence of the prisoner 
with which he was displeased, would prevent it. He hoped the 
honorable counsel for the prosecution would permit Lawrence 
to leave the court. 
Mr. Key said, he hoped it was not understood that he object- 
ed to that course; he was neutral on the subject; lie had him- 
self no power to grant him leave to depart. 
The court was of the opinion that Lawrence should remain 
until proven to be insane, lie would, however be permitted to 
withdraw, if it were his own wish to do so. 
[The unfortunate maniac again started up, and denied the 
ppwer of the court to try him; he was his own man. he said, 
and would have his revenue. 
Mr. Brent endeavored, and successfully, to soothe Lawrence, 
by telling him lie should have his rights. “Ay, but when?” 
'To-day, replied his counsel; and he sat down contentedly, on 
this assurance.] 
Mr. Brent said he thought it quite unnecessary after the able 
exposition of the law of the case, which had been given by the 
counsel for the United States, to trouble the court or jury with 
any further remarks on that subject; he subscribed fully to the 
principles laid down by that learned gentleman ; all that re- 
mained was to prove that the mind of this unfortunate man was 
in a state of morbid delusion, lie would proceed to call wit- 
nesses for this purpose. 
Mr. Kcdfern sworn. 
Examined by Mr. Brent.—Have known Lawrence for sixteen 
years; I married his sister; lirst observed a change in him in 
1833 ; in the fall of 1832 he left Washington with an intention, 
afe he said, of going to England; he left in November, and re* turned again in December, assigning as a reason that the 
weather was too cold ; in the spring of the next year, he started 
again to go to New York or Philadelphia; he certainly got no 
farther than Philadelphia ; on his return this time, he said the 
people would not let him go ; that this government opposed his 
going; that I and others had prevented him; that he should 
not be able to go until lie got a ship and captain of his own; 
that when he got to Philadelphia, he found all the papers so full 
about him, that he was obliged to come back. After this he re- 
mained in my house six months, but did nothing; said he had 
no occasion; that he lived on his people; it was very well for 
men such as me to work, but he had no need ; that he had large 
claims on this government, which were now before Congress; 
and he used to attend Congress regularly ; he left my house in 
January, 1834, but, previous to this, had got quarrelsome with 
his sister; said the colored girl laughed at him, and that he 
would kill her; he said that other people also laughed at him; 
he struck all his sisters on several occasions, and once took up 
a four pound weight to throw at my wife ; I have seen him pass 
since this time, but never have spoken to him since 1833; he 
would go about the house without speaking for days together ; 
but would talk and laugh to himself continually in his own 
chamber; it was the general impression of the neighbors that he 
was insane from the beginning of 1833; his father died on 
Capitol Hill—I think about the year 1821 or 1822. 
Mr. Brent inquired of the witness if Lewrence held two 
estates in England? [On asking Lawrence the names of his 
estates, he replied very gravely, “Tregear and Kinnany!” and 
they were attached to the crown of England. The witness of 
course answered in the negative]. 
Mr. liedfern further stated his belief that Lawrence was in- 
sane not merel}r on one subject, but he was sulfering under 
general derangement. 
By Mr. Key—On the occasion when Lawrence struck my 
wife, I took him before Squire Waters; he told the magistrate 
he had no power over him to commit him; do not recollect if 1 
represented him as a madman; he has done very little work 
since 1833; never knew him to drink. 
By Mr. Brent.—The prisoner is a painter by trade; used to 
amuse himself by drawing landscapes, sometimes till 10 or 11 
o’clock at night. 
Samuel Drury examined. 
By Mr. Brent.—Have known the prisoner 25 years; for the 
last year have observed a change in his conduct; he would talk 
to himself continually in his shop; he would sometimes say, 
“d—n him, he does not know his enemy; I will put a 
erect a gallows-” he conceived himself to be King Richard the 
third of England; and likewise king of this country; this was 
about the latter end of last December, or beginning of J anuary; 32 
after that, I heard him say, “d—n General Jackson! who’s 
General Jackson?” On one occasion a black boy called to 
collect a bill, and Lawrence said he would call and pay it; but, 
as soon as the boy had left, lie said, “d—n him ! he don’t know 
who he’s dunning!” He would stand at the door for hours, 
wrapt in thought, and even when I passed him took no notice 
of me; he was continually talking to himself; and would now 
and then burst out in fits of laughter; I noticed no particular 
change in dress—he was always fond of dress—but I did in his 
conduct and appearance; I have often said he was a crazy man, 
and have heard others say so; have heard the boys call him 
King Bichard; on the morning of his attack on the President 
he came to the shop at the usual time, and wrent to a place where 
1 could see him through a partition; he was sitting on a chest 
with a book in his hand, laughing; 1 heard soon after the lid of 
the chest fall, and heard him say, “I’ll be d—d if I don’t do it;” 
he then came out; left the shop, and locked the door. 
By tlie court.—Do not know what book lie was reading; it 
was a very small one. 
John H. Drury examined. 
By Mr. Brent.—Am the son of the last witness; know the 
prisoner; he appeared to be always by himself, and wrapt in 
thought; always seemed melancholy; would stand at the door 
in his cloak in the coldest weather; always thought him a 
crazy man. 
By Mr. Key.—Never had any conversation with him. 
Mr. Handley examined. 
By Mr. Brent.—Have known Lawrence for twelve or fourteen 
years; when he was a boy lie was apprenticed to Mr. Howard, a 
painter in this city; Mr. 11. left Washington, and Lawrence 
then went as an apprentice to Mr. Clark, at Georgetown; knew, 
however, but little of him until 1828, when I was engaged as a 
plasterer at the National Hotel; was well pleased with him; he 
was working then as a painter; he was remarkably steady, and 
got into business for himself; was always reserved; had no 
acquaintances; was never seen in a tavern; never known to 
drink; in the fall of 1833, he left Washington for New York, 
with the intention, so he said, of embarking there for England; 
where he was going to improve himself in landscape paint- 
ing; he returned, however, in a few weeks, and said the 
reason he did not go was that the weather wras so cold. 1 
noticed a great change in his manner from this time; he was 
evidently under some strange impression; after this he hired a 
horse frequently to ride to the Capitol, he wanted to purchase 
one; but was persuaded it would be better to hire one; lie 
bought a saddle and bridle, however; he became, also, very fond 
of dress; would change his dress three or four times a day; 
there was not a boot-maker who could fit him, and he would 
stand at the door for hours and speak to no one; he did no work 33 
all that summer, nor during the winter; early in 1834 I was 
standing in front of Mr. Redfern’s store, when Mrs. R. came 
out and complained to her husband of Lawrence’s conduct, say- 
ing she could put up with it no longer; Mr. R. said nothing; she 
went in and Lawrence took her by the shoulders, and either 
pushed or knocked her down; while she was down he snatched 
a four pound weight from off the counter; either myself or Mr. 
Redfern then seized him; he said he would not go to the jail; 
that the magistrates had no power to commit him; he said he 
would go if Mr. R. would go. The officer, however, told him 
he would have a fine room, well furnished, where Mr. Watkins 
used to be ; he was pleased, and said he could have his paint- 
ings there, and be very comfortable. 
Saw him standing at his siiop door ubont the lirst of June 
last; I was at that time engaged at Gadsby’s buildings; his 
sister applied to me to endeavor to get him employment; she 
was under the impression that he was deranged, but thought if 
he got employment it might settle Ins mind. 1 thought so too, 
and endeavored to get him work; he came over to me one day 
and commenced talking about work; advised him to go to work; 
think he said no one would employ him ; told him Mr. Gadsby 
had been well pleased with his work before; but advised him to 
goto Mr. Purdy, who was now working for Mr. Gadsby; he 
appeared not to like to take day’s work; but T told him it was 
not likely Mr. Gadsby would discharge Purdy to give him the 
job: he agreed to work; but on the morning he was to come I 
met him, and he said it was too late, as he could only make 
three-quarters of a day; he went to work, however, and con- 
tinued to work for Mr. Purdy for two or three weeks; he then 
told Mr. P. he could not work for the same price as other men, 
and left him; 1 saw him at work again for Mr, P. in November; 
thought he was deranged from his conduct; and so expressed 
myself to persons in the neighborhood. 
By Mr. Key.—Had not considered him as deranged on all 
subjects; knew that he laid claim to this and the English gov- 
ernment. 
Ur, Clark examined. 
By Mr. Brent.—It was more than eight years since the pris- 
oner lived with me; lived with me three years; was then a re- 
markably line boy; rather an exception to the general order of 
boys; reserved in his manner; but industrious, and of good 
moral habits; have seen tlie young man repeatedly of late; 
thought there was a strange difference in his appearance and 
manners during the last eighteen months; he was always neat 
and cleanly; but had of late been much given to dre3s; had worn 
mustachios, too; had thought his mind had undergone some 
change; his countenance, too, which used to be florid, hai of 34 
late appeared pallid, as it did now; and there was an altered 
appearauce about the eye; had occasion to have him at my 
office last year, on some business in which he had no concern; 
remarked that he was frequently absent while 1 was t alking to 
him about it; and though now and then his mind seemed to 
catch the correct notion, yet at other times he betrayed a want 
of comprehension, and that as to subjects with which he had 
ought to have been better acquainted than myself; frequently 
observed him stopping at the corner of streets, and gazing round 
and I noticed these things with regret, for I had been very fond 
of the youth; last time 1 saw him was the day previous to his 
attack on the President; 1 was riding into Georgetown about 2 
o’clock; noticed the peculiarity of Lawrence's gait and general 
appearance; when he got opposite the gate leading to the Presi- 
dent's house, he stopped; stood gazing there; after riding some 
way 1 turned in my saddle, and saw him, still standing there; 
had considered him insane for the last eighteen months; appear- 
ed not to understand even subjects connected with the business 
in which he had been engaged with me. 
By Mr. Ivey.—Did not state any opinion as to his insanity on the 
day of his examination, because I was not asked; never had any con- 
versation with him on the subject of his delusion. 
Mr. Handley, the witness formerly examined, corrected a mistake 
In the testimony he bad given—it was in the spring of 1834, that 
Lawrence went to board with Mr. Cnvillier at the navy yard. 
James Freyer examined 
By Mr. Brent.—Lawrence boarded at my house for eight weeks; 
when I spoke to him about money, he would say that he should have 
millions shortly; that Congress owed him a large sum; and that he 
had to attend there, on the subject, to get it; that lie had also large 
estates in England, and was related to the crown; on other subjects 
he would talk at one time very rationally, and at others equally irra- 
tionally; one afternoon he threatened to blow Mrs. Freyer’s head off, 
or to cut her throat; then told him he must quit; this was sometime 
in July; did not consider him sane or safe, from the time he left my 
house; in October I was going by his shop, and said, seeing him 
there, “Lawrence, how do you do?’* 11 is answer was, “Go to h ! 
what’s that to you?” Told him 1 had a due bill of his and must have 
my money; “you aiean to warrant me for it, I suppose?” he re- 
marked; told him I did not know whether I should or not; 
“If you do,” said he, “I will put a ball through your head.” 
Mr .Cnvillier examined. 
By Mr. Brent—Have known Lawrence for four and a half ; 
have noticed an alteration in his conduct for eighteen months past; 
Mrs. Redfern requested him to leave, but he would not; my wife is 
sister to Lawrence; I endeavored to persuade him to leave but could 
not; the reason lie assigned for refusing to leave was that they had a 
book in which he had found out, that a large fortune had been left 
him in England, said he had no deeds or papers; saw the book 
afterwards, it was an old book, entitled Entick's British Empire, 
printed in 1774; had remonstrated with him on bis foolish notion; 
and told him his best fortune was in his lingers, and that if he did 
not leave Mr. R. would put him in jail; he said they could not, and 
that no person yet knew who he was; that was the first time I dis- 
covered him to be insane; since then he has boarded with me; used 35 
to attend Congress every day; would not work when urged by his 
sister, but replied, uOh, you are a fool, you know as well as F, what 
my claim is!” he left my house, and we saw no more of him until 
last October; he then agreed with me to paint my house, but did not; 
one Sunday he came just before dinner, but would not stay to dine; 
said he was w anted instantly, and was going to take a passage to 
Alexandria; lie went the following day to Baltimore; heard no more 
of him till November. It is the opinion of his friends that he has 
been deranged for the last IS months on particular subjects. 
By Mr. Key—Considered him a * deranged as to particular sub- 
jects only, can talk rationally on others. 
Thomas Smith examined. 
By Mr. Brent.—Have known Lawrence for years; previous to De- 
cember, 1832, was a prudent, sober, industrious young man, but re- 
served in his manners; on returning from New York, came to pur- 
chase a horse of mine; I persuaded him to hire one instead, and he 
did so; but said I had not a saddle good enough, and bought one for 
himself; he hired the horse four or live times a week; in the winter 
os 1833 lie became extravagant in dress; had had two suits sent home 
in one day; said none would lit; and that the tailors had combined to 
spoil his clothes; it was in the spring of 1833 I first remarked a 
change in him; he became violent, and immoral in his habits; had 
frequent difficulties with his sisters on that account; he now lured 
two horses, one w ith a side saddle; was frequently riding about with 
a female; discovered her to be a woman of loose character. Mrs. 
Kedfern then insisted he should leave the house, which he refused to 
do. 
Bv Mr. Key.—Might not perhaps be deranged on all subjects; 
could not say how far his derangement extended; should think 
he had lost all sense of right or wrong; judged so from his altered 
habits; believe he would as soon have shot his sister as the Presi- 
dent. 
Mr. Laskey examined. 
By Mr. Brent—Have known Lawrence 20 years; his father was my 
uncle; was himself deranged, and eonliued in a room frequently, in 
England; and Lawrence’s aunt died deranged in the District. 
Mr. P urcly examined. 
By Mr. Brent.—Lawrence had been in his employ, as stated by 
Mr. Handley: had always thought his conduct curious; was always 
talking to himself; frequently broke out in tits of laughter; never 
associated with any one. 
Gillespie examined. 
Worked with Lawrence for Mr. Purdy; had to work on a scaffold 
with him near the long bridge; his conduct was so strange that I w as 
afraid to work with him, and complained to Mr. Purdy on the sub- 
ject; thought Lawrence was mad. 
Dr. Magruder examined. 
By Mr. Brent.—Attended Lawrence a year ago for a local disease; 
he talked so incoherently that l was satisfied that he was deranged; 
no man in his senses would have given such reasons as he did; might 
have been able to judge right and wrong; but should not have liked 
to trust his judgment to any amount in either matter. 
By Mr. Key.—Considered Lawrence at that time mad on all sub- 
jects; but did not try him 
Dr. Hall examined. 
By Mr. Brent.—Had listened to the evidence in this case. 
Mr. Brent.—The law says that the existence of reason is necessary 
to constitute punishable crime; its deprivation renders the individual 
dispunishable. What do you call reason ? 36 
Dr. Hall—It is in the popular consideration of the term, the attri- 
bute of a sound mind; and supposes the faculty of comparing and 
judging. Insanity, on the other hand, is habitually and palpably, in 
thought and act to judge erroneously and absurdly. Such is the dis- 
tinction of the two states; though I confess myself unable to give a 
strict definition of the term; in the idiot the faculties are alt ogether 
defective; in madness they act erroneously: should not call Law- 
rence an idiot; partial insanity is Avlicre the erroneous action is con- 
lined to a particular topic or topics; the judgment remaining unim- 
paired as to others; total insanity is Avhere the erroneous judgment 
extends to all subjects; lunacy is a term used to express one of the 
many forms of insanity; a person may be entirely insane, yet not so 
as to a knowledge of the cause of his insanity; lie might knoAV that 
it arose from a physical injury for instance; 1 have visited Lawrence 
twice; consider him laboring under a morbid delusion on a particular 
subject, and Avhicli has so deeply affected the mind, that its effects 
have extended nearly to all subjects; he can talk rationally Avhilst 
you can keep him from one subject; but is very apt to run into that 
from any and every subject; should distrust his judgment 
on any point Avhatever, for the reason that he ahvays manages to 
connect the subject of delusion Avith other subjects; from Avhat 1 have 
seen I believe his attack on the President Avas so connected, and that 
therefore he Avas not capable of judging right from wrong as to that 
act; believe it, if so, to have been an act of insanity; cannot, of 
course, tell Avhat might have been his temper at that time; insane 
persons may, even in the paroxysms of the complaint, talk rational- 
ly; do not see any thing in the physical appearance of the 
prisoner decisive as to the state of his mind, or the cause of that 
state. 
T saw him last Monday. In tlie lirst place asked his name; he said 
Richard Lawrence; lie said it was the family name, and descended 
from the crown of England; my object was to induce him to con- 
verse on subjects not connected with the subject of his delusion; he 
voluntarily stated his supposed descent; 1 asked him as to his educa- 
tion; he said he was not sent to school in England; but, that after 
he came here, his father put him with a painter; which he thought 
very strange, because, as he Avas heir to the crown, he thought he 
ought to have been sent to school to tit him for his station. He then 
Avent on and talked so incoherently that I cannot repeat his conver- 
sation, about Rome and Holland, and this country; he said the gov- 
ernment of all of them properly belonged to him; he said, as to his 
attempt on the President, that he had no personal hostility toward* 
him; bid that he stood in his way; opposed his just claims; and there- 
fore he was de'ermined, to destroy him: he thought he had a party in this 
country who would espouse his rouse, and that as soon as the President 
was removed, his successor would, yire him his rights; he spoke also in 
a like incoherent manner about the bank. Mental derangement can 
not ahvays be detected by an examination of the forehead; in mania, 
men sometimes reason powerfully and coolly; but more generally 
rave incoherently; in some cases they Avill reason acutely, but gen- 
erally erroneously; believe, from the conversation of LaAvrcnce, his 
state is that of morbid delusion; and the only question is—is it gen- 
uine or pretended'? I believe it is not feigned. Both conversations I 
had with him Avere of a somcAVhat similar character. He relies upon 
Mr. Brent’s power to get him out of jail, and procure him his 
rights. 
By Mr. Brent.—In lunacy the state of the patient varies; and his 
present may be very different from his state of three or four weeks 
ago, 37 
By Mr. Brent—Should call Lawrence a lunatic 
By Mr. Key—Should distrust the judgment of the prisoner on any 
subject; madness may be spontaneous, and its cause inscrutable; 
there are exciting causes in most, but not in all cases. 
Dr. Bohrer examined 
By Mr. Brent—Lawrence talked rationally until the subject of the 
occurrence at the Capitol was touched upon; and then immediately, 
incoherently, as to the state of the country; told me his mother was 
pious; l asked him if she taught him the ten commandments; then, 
particularly, as to the sixth; found him perfectly unconscious of any 
moral or religious responsibility. [Dr. B. here related a conversa- 
tion, which was precisely like that with the other physician •]• 
Dr. Lovell examined. 
By Mr. Brent.—Visited Lawrence in jail: in doing so. had two ob- 
jects—tirst to ascertain the nature of the delusion; and secondly to 
see in what manner it was connected with the President. With a 
view to the former purpose, made inquiries as to his family; he an- 
swered these questions in part correctly; said they had large estates 
in England; said they belonged to him and his brother; but they 
had been defrauded out of them; he said they came to him through 
the family of Fry, and they were attached to the crown of England. 
I then put other questions to him, in order to see how this delusion 
was connected with the President; he ran on for some time in an in- 
coherent strain, as to his right to the crown of England—friars—the 
church of Koine—Holland—and this country; he said this country 
belonged to England; that the people here were rebels; asked him 
how it belonged to England, and he said, that the English came here 
and got the land by driving off the Indians; and therefore it was 
theirs; that he was heir to the crown of England, it belonged to him; 
but that Jackson was leagued with Lord Wellington to keep him out 
of his rights; that it was for this reason he had refused him money 
to go to England; asked him if he was not aware that the act he had 
committed was wrong; he said no, not if Jackson had interfered 
with him. 
Dr. Worthington examined. 
By Mr. Brent—Visited Lawrence on Wednesday last for the 
first time; did not remember to have seen him before; but, he said, 
he knew me, and had seen me in Georgetown; said he had been there 
with Dr. Clark, as a painter; he was consistent in this conversation; 
his language was such as men would ordinarily have used; lie then 
went on, in answer to further questions, to state, that he went on to 
New York; that he had made money here, and spent it in that city; 
that he had been to the President for money; said he had demanded 
of him a check on the bank of the United States. In reply to my 
question, as to what claim he had on the President, he said the 
President was the head of tin; nation; that he had the bank, and the 
bank belonged to him; and if he did not give him his money, he or 
the President must fall; he said he was the heir—the term lie used 
was the correct heir—to the crown of England; that the land was his; 
he then went on and talked the most incoherently about Rome, and 
Holland, and Catholics; could not, I found, bring him to one point 
for some time; he said, that the tirst time he called on the President 
he had pistols in his pocket, and would have shot him; the second 
time he had not pistols with him; lie had not informed the President 
of this; did wo' Ull any one what he meant to do; but had talked so 
1< u 1, frequently, that he was sure some one must have heard; he had 
done so intentionally—had done so before Mr. Drury; his object, so he 
said, was, so that they might let the President know; the reason, he 
said, why the pistols did not go off was that they were badly loaded; said he put in the powder and the ball himself; my impression dur- 
ing the conversation was that I was talkin'? with an insane, person— 
insane in one particular; hut which insanity had so impaired his 
reason on other subjects that it was impossible to say how far it ex- 
tended; detected nothing decisive in his physical appearance, hut 
formed my judgment from his conversation; believed his insanity 
was not feigned; and am of opinion that a physician knowing pre- 
viously the real or pretended subject of insanity could easily detect 
the one from the, other, I had this knowledge as to Lawrence; be- 
lieve that as to every act connected in any way with the subject of 
his delusion he is incapable of distinguishing betwixt right and 
wrong; have formed an opinion that his derangement is more gen- 
eral from the collateral proof of the testimony which has been given 
to-day. 
By Mr. Key—Was perfectly sane in his conversation till he touched 
on the topic of money. 
By Mr. Brent—There are two divisions of mania; one in which 
the patient is dejected and melancholy; this is not the kind of which 
Lawrence is afflicted; his would appear to be of that character which 
is called, in Dr. Rush's classification natroni-nun— where the notions 
of the patient are of an elevated character; one of the si/mpt'an* of 
mania is an insensibility to cold; was struck when I heard the jailer 
mention this as being the rase with Lawrence; it is a characteristic 
symptom of mania. 
Dr. Ilall re-examined. 
By Mr. Brent.—It was a symptom characteristic of general mania. 
Dr. Causin examined. 
By Mr. Key—Attended Lawrence soon after hi t commitment, 
in company with Dr. Sewall; the statement published, was made 
out the same evening. The motive assigned by Lawrence for 
the act he bad committed, was, that he had blamed Jackson for 
the loss of money which mechanics, and he among the rest, had 
sustained through him. My Impression now is. that, unless he 
has been practicing deception, he is under the influence of 
false imagination; he said, he was heir to the crown of Eng- 
land; that his object in calling on the President was twofold; 
that lie wanted to get money; and, with that money, to go to 
England; he demanded a certain sum. 1 think one thousand 
dollars. As to the particulars of their conversation, 1 would 
refer to our published document; inasmuch, as it was made out 
the same evening; thought his hallucination extended to two 
subjects only; his right to the crown, of Great Britain, and the 
blame attachable to General Jackson, in keeping him out of 
money to go there. Is believed by the best writers on the sub- 
ject, that the most proper course which can be pursued in de- 
tecting madness, is to touch on the particular point of derange- 
ment, which will then produce a visible excitement. They have 
laid it down, that the mind possesses an internal and an exter- 
nal sense; and that if you touch upon an affected point of the 
one, it must produce an action in the other, thereby causing 
that excitement which I have alluded to ; which has been want- 
ing, as I have observed, until this morning, in the prisoner; 
he has been invariably calm and unexcited. It is stated by the 39 
best writers on monomania, that the subjects of disorder reason 
correctly from false premises; in the absence of any evidence 
of tlfis, in the circumstances attending the act committed by 
Lawrence, I should say, there was no doubt lie was laboring 
under a false imagination. 
Dr. Sewall examined. 
By Mr. Brent—By the term hallucination, used in the first 
publication, meant insanity; the state of an unsound mind; do 
not think the prisoner feigns; but think, that if he had done so, 
it might easily be detected ; think his disorder has been com- 
ing on for these eighteen months; there is a strong family pre- 
disposition to madness, according to the evidence of one of the 
witnesses; this would be quite sufficient to account for the 
state ofthe prisoner, without any other cause, mental or physical. 
By Mr. Key—Believe a physician would decide him to be in- 
sane from his very appearance, his attitude, his manner, his 
aspect; think any discriminating man would judge him to be 
so, from these outward appearances; do not think insanity 
could be feigned as easily as drunkenness, which latter would 
be in a great degree a mere physical deception; believe the 
state of the prisoner’s mind is indicated Ivy the general ex- 
pression of his countenance ; but particularly of his eye; there 
is in it that particular appearance, which a medical man can at 
once perceive, although he may not be able well to describe it. 
Mr. Ball, the prison keeper, testified to Lawrence’s insen- 
sibility to external cold, (which had been stated by one of 
the medical witnesses to be a symptom of monomania); he 
would let his fire go out on the coldest day, and sit in his shirt 
sleeves. 
Mr. Brent said he would not trouble the jury with any re- 
marks; but leave them to decide on the evidence they had heard. 
The Court handed to the jury the verdict given in the case of 
Hadfield. 
They then retired, and in about five minutes returned the 
following verdict: “We find him not guilty, he having been 
under thc’inttuenceot insanity at the time he committed the act.” 
The Court then ordered that Lawrence should be remanded, 
and be made as comfortable, and treated as well as his situa- 
tion would permit, until some further provision could be made 
to prevent him doing further mischief. 
Note. This trial and acquittal of Lawrence is of groat significance 
as it recognizes the principles enunciated in England in the 
Hadfield case. The law of insanity, as so adopted in our courts 
nearly fifty years ago, has since that time assumed even more 
liberal features of construction; and while the public may 
growl occasionally over the acquittal of a criminal on the ground 
of insanity, nevertheless it is a mark of the advance of Christian 
civilization, that the courts lean with enlightened commisera- 40 
tion towards those unfortunate persons whose acts, though 
apparent crimes, are really the results of the greatest, the. heavi- 
est calamity that can befall a man—a disjointed mind. 
In the proceedings of this trial, as they appear above report- 
ed, there was no forensic conflict between the eminent counsel on 
any legal question. Nothing could exceed the graceful and the 
temperate manner in which Mr. Key presented the cause to the 
jury. Instead of using expressions of that overweening de- 
sire for a conviction—which too often characterize the etforts 
of prosecuting officers—he made no effort to conceal the pre- 
vailing sentiment in his mind—that a judicial ascertainment of 
insanity would do more to vindicate the national honor, and 
appease the demand of justice, than any punishment which 
could be inflicted upon the prisoner;—this prevailing sentiment 
was indicated in the fact, that in the course of his brief speech, 
Mr. Key twice referred to the thought—that he believed the 
public ivould be gratified to know that the prisoner was insane. 
Of course there was great excitement in Washington City 
upon the commission of this offence. The opinion at first pre- 
vailed that there was some political significance in the assault— 
that it was a planned assailment—prompted by the desire of the 
opposite party to get the President out of the way for political 
purposes. General Jackson was at first of this opinion—for 
we are told that when he raised his cane to strike his assailant 
and was prevented—he exclaimed, ‘-Let me alone! let me 
alone; T know where this comes from.” This is very like Old 
Hickory. Whether he ever expressed a ditl'erent opinion we 
have not enquired; but with him first impressions were not 
easily removed. But so far as the public was concerned the 
evidence of the prisoner’s insanity was so satisfactory—not to 
say overwhelming—that the excitement died away, and Law- 
rence was housed in an asylum. 
In this trial, as above reported, there appears a conspicuous 
disregard of some of the simplest rules of evidence, and per- 
sons, not experts, were allowed to express their opinions on 
the question of the prisoner’s insanity; but the intelligence of 
the physicians was equally conspicuous ; and the symptoms of 
insanity will be found herein given and defined as far as they 
go with accurate and learned precision. 
On the question of feigning insanity, on the part of the pris- 
oner, there was one of the learned experts who was unwilling to 
say that Lawrence was not feigning—Dr. Cousin—but he was 
equally emphatic in refusing to say that he was feigning. 
Now, from Lawrence’s conduct at the trial, if disconnected 
with the facts and his acts previously, showing unmistakable 
insanity—the court and jury might well have suspected him of 
feigning; for just such obstreperous antics might have been 
played with equal success by a perfectly sane man, on such an 
occasion. ASSASSINATION AND INSANITY. 
NUMBER If. 
Guiteau’s Case Examined. 
The King-killer is a very common historical character. The 
self-constituted destroyers of tyrants start up in every age. Some 
of these have been worshipped as demi-deities : the Greeks had 
an hymn to Harmodius and Aristogiton which placed those he- 
roes in the ever-green islands of the blessed. 
It is to be observed, too, that in ancient as well as in modern 
times, these bloody exploits were generally perpetrated in the 
name of liberty : overweening patriotism, upon occasion, con- 
vulsed itself into glorified martyrdom, and oppressed freedom 
ever found a ready avenger in the red right arm of some medi- 
tative Brutus. 
Assassination of Caesar. 
Of the royal assassinations that have startled mankind, that 
of Ctesar was the most convulsive. Then it was that “Caesar 
did bestride this world like a colossus.” Cfosar was then the 
central figure of humanity—the cynosure of all eyes ; his name 
and his fame were familiar to all the nations of the earth; to the 
civilized he was the admiration, to the barbarian he wasa sphinx 
and a terror. His assassins, too, were of the most noted—some 
the most illustrious of the Roman citizens. With a wonderful 
simulation of patriotism he had just put aside—three times the 
crown which the people offered him in the market place, and 
the city was pouring out shouts of gratulation at the self de- 
nial of this illustrious hero; all these things combined to 
make this event the most stupendous one of its kind in the an- 
nals of history. 
How much insanity, if any, entered into this assassination ? 
If we remember the rule referred to in a note on page 19 of the 
first number of this journal, that “the insane never have accom- 
plices in the acts they perpetrate,” then the conclusion seems 
reasonable that there was no insanity here. Rut this is a neg- 
ative proposition—not conclusive. In the face of this rule we 42 
propose to deal with Brutus alone, and to lift him out of the cat- 
egory of accomplices, by showing that he, himself, had been the 
object of a conspiracy : it required a conspiracy to drag Brutus 
into the conspiracy. Now, if Brutus was dragged into the con- 
spiracy to kill Caesar, under a delusion, as we expect to show, 
we may without violating the rule above referred to visit him 
with insanity. 
The conspiracy against Brutus, concocted by Cassius, was in- 
tended to impress upon Brutus the idea that the people of Borne 
looked upon him as the chief guardian and the protector of the 
liberties of Rome, and that. Gsesar was beating down those liber- 
ties, and that he was in duty bound to prevent this. For the pur- 
poses of this conspiracy against Brutus, Cassius plies him—both 
by speech and by letters and notes dropped opportunely in 
Brutus’ way, and thrown in at his windows. Cassius suc- 
ceeds in firing up the patriotism of Brutus, and we see and hear 
the latter thus uttering his perplexities : 
“Since Cassius first did whet me against Caesar, 
I have not slept. 
Between the acting of a dreadful thing 
And the first motion, all the interim is 
Like a phantasma, or a hideous dream: 
The Genius and the mortal instruments 
Are then in council; and the state of man, 
Like to a little kingdom, suffers then 
The nature of an insurrection.” 
There is no single speech in Shakespeare which has so pecu- 
liar an etfect upon the mind, in the reading of it, as this. It is 
quite impossible to repeat those lines without feeling a sort of 
dizzy whirling of the head. Let any man try it ?—It seems that 
the brain totters in attempting to grasp the vast conception, as 
the thought grows and expands into a sort of confused circle. 
It is the agitation of a great mind in the very act of being un- 
hinged. 
Shakespeare intended in this speech to give a glimpse of a 
mind overloaded with sickly broodings and struggling to give 
shape to some dimly developed idea out of a mass of incoheren- 
cies. “The state of man, like to a little kingdom, suiters then 
the nature of an insurrection." The word slate here means, 
mind—the condition of the mind ; it is in the act of upheaval— 
in danger of being overthrown. The cause, too, of this deplor- 
able mental agitation is apparent: “Since Cassius did so whet 
me against Cresar, I have not slept!” this inability to sleep is 
one of the symptoms of insanity. 
In this condition of mind, while Brutus is lost in speculative 
abstraction, he is vigilantly and continuously assailed by Cas- 
sius. The following passages will serve to illustrate the plot 
against Brutus. 43 
“I will this night. 
In several hands, in at bis windows throw. 
As if they came from several citizens, 
Writings all tending to the great opinion 
That Home holds of his name; w herein obscurely 
Caesar’s ambition shall be glanced at: 
And after this let Caesar seat him sure; 
For we will shake him, or worse days endure.” 
Again, more in detail, the plot proceeds: 
‘ O Cassius, if you could 
But win the noble Brutus to our party— 
Cas. Be you content: good Cinna. take this paper. 
And look you lay it in the praetor s chair 
Where Brutus may but find it: and throw this 
In at his window ; set this up with wax 
Upon old Brutus' statue: all this done, 
Repair to Pompey’s porch, where you shall find us. 
Is Decius Brutus and Trebonius there? 
Cm. All but Metellus Cimber; and he’s gone 
To seek you at your house.' Well, I will hie, 
And so bestow these papers as you bade me. 
'.as. That done, repair to Pompey’s theatre. 
[Exit Cinn».] 
Come, Casca, you and 1 will yet ere day 
See Brutus at his house: three parts of him 
Is ours already, and the man entire 
Upon the next encounter yields him ours. 
Casca. O, lie sits high in all the people’s hearts: 
And that which would appear offence in us. 
His countenance, like richest alchemy 
Will change to virtue and to worthiness. 
Cas. Him and his worth and our great need of him 
You have right well conceited. Let us go, 
For it is after midnight; and ere day 
We will awake him and be sure of him.” 
Thus we see Brutus the dupe of a superior mind ; he goes in- 
to the conspiracy upon a stratagem. Similar plots had been 
concocted to a certain extent, with a view to bring Cicero into 
this conspiracy, but the great orator was equal to the occasion 
and escaped the insidious toils. Brutus was weak in vanity. 
There is a species of insanity called Astromania: a striving 
toward the stars. This it was that afflicted Brutus, and this, it 
may be, afflicts Guiteau. 
Sbakespear clearly develops this overweening vanity of Bru- 
tus. After the event he puts Brutus forward and makes him 
assume the whole responsibility and claim the whole glory. 
In the celebrated speech of Brutus over the dead body ofCae 
sar, we have the constant recurrence of the inevitable ego. 
Brutus is the conspicuous figure here—-Caesar is subordinate, 
and Cassius is absolutely ignored : 44 
‘ Not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved R' me more. Had you 
rather Caesar were livi g and die all slaves, than that Caesar were 
dead, to live all free men ? As Caesar loved me, I weep for him; as 
he was fortunate, I rejoice at it; as he was valiant, I honor him; 
but as he was ambitious, I slew him. There are tears for his love; joy 
for hisfortm e; honor for his valor; and death for Ids ambition. Who 
is here so base that would be a bondman? If any, speak ; for him 
have I offended. Who is here so vile that will not love his country ? 
If any, speak; for him have I offended. I pause for a reply.’ 
There are reasons besides which authorize us to visit insanity 
upon Brutus. He consents to murder the man he loves, with- 
out personal cause. His motive is exclusively political. 
Again : If Brutus belonged to the old line, he had the hered- 
itary taint of insanity. Junius Brutus was insane. 
Again : After the assassination, it is an historical fact that 
Brutus asserted that he saw and conversed with a ghost—that 
this ghost said something like “we will meet at Phillipi.” This 
ghost story of Brutus must be weighed in the scale that tests 
his sanity. No man of this day can doubt that this ghost was 
a delusion, a phantom of the brain—the monster of a disjointed 
intellect. 
Again : Brutus commits suicide; this is no less an indication 
of insanity simply for being a Roman fashion. 
The rule as to the elfect of hallucinations on (lie mind is— 
that as long as the hallucination is recognized as such by the 
person—it is so far of little significance ; but if it is believed 
in as a reality, it is then an indication of insanity ; and in pro- 
portion as this belief is lixed. it grows into absolute insanity. 
Now, it is evident from the history as well as the poetry of the 
story of Brutus, that this terrific apparition jostled the nerves 
of the noble Roman, followed him as a portentous shadow 
through the great light at Phillipi, and appalled him into a de- 
feat,. 
While the writer admits his implicit belief in the theory that 
Brutus was an insane man when he struck down his bosom 
friend with an assassin’s dagger—and rose 
“ Refulgent from the stroke of Caesar's fate ; ” 
nevertheless, there is an opposite theoiy—as evinced to a cer- 
tain extent, in the peculiar mental organization of some of the 
greatest men of which history has any knowledge. 
The object of the writer of these papers must not be mis- 
taken — as it is not intended to be disguised—it is not to make 
a defense for Guiteau—but to ventilate the subject in the broad- 
est sense; and therefore he feels at liberty—as in duty bound for 
the entertainment of his readers—to give a glance at both sides 
of the argument on this much absorbing and interesting ques- 
tion. No man is entitled to be called a good lawyer, or to be 
considered a master of the art of advocacy, unless he be able to 
make a good side of either on any disputed question. This 45 
proposition is the result of the infinite variety of cases; of the 
facts composing cases: and of the shapes of logical syllogisms 
as directed, propounded and enforced by forensic ingenuity. 
Socrates had his daunon. a mysterious apparition, a phantom 
of the brain, which controlled, to a certain extent, all the actions 
of the life of this great philosopher. 
The Hallucinations of Great Minds. 
Mahomet had his cave and his angel—an Arabian Egeria—- 
from whom he received, as he asserted, divine revelation; as did 
the old Roman king N'uma, before him. It will not do to visit 
insanity upon the man who brought about so prodigious a rev- 
olution. and whose system of religion has survived the test 
of thirteen centuries. His was a fanaticism, unrestrained by fear, 
and supported by an intrepidity sublime. Ib* was too great to 
Vie called a knave: too diminutive to be accepted as ft pro- 
phet, (with us) but he was a man. the like of whom this world 
seldom secs. 
St. Dunstan declares that he had had a personal conflict with 
the devil, and that he had vanquished his ignipotent foe bv 
pinching his nose with the fire tongs ! St. Dunstan was a 
strong-minded man. 
Martin Luther insisted that the devil visited him in his study 
and in his bed ! he saw him with the bodily eye, and heard him 
with the bodily ear. 
Sir Matthew Hale believed in the existence of witches and 
witchcraft. It would seem marvelous that so great a judge 
should have labored under so shameful a delusion, but for the 
fact that such was the common belief of the age, and was so re- 
cognized by the laws of the land. 
Napoleon Bonaparte made war. won victories, dismembered 
empires and scattered crowns under his implicit belief in the 
happy influence of the .star of his destiny! On one occasion, it is 
said, that one of his generals entered his tent, and saw the Em- 
peror standing in an attitude of dignified, not to say imperial, 
abstraction—with his face turned towards the heavens. The 
officer with difficulty attracted attention The Emperor with- 
out changing his attitude, but pointing upward still in his ab- 
sorbed manner exclaimed : “Look there! do you not see her! 
how bright and brilliant She is ! She is before you ! She promi- 
ses victory ! She has never abandoned me! I have seen Heron 
every great occasion ! She tells me to go on ! and She is al- 
ways the sign of good fortune !” 
Dr. Ray a distinguished writer on medical jurisprudence p. 
166. remarks, having noted some of the foregoing inci- 
dents, “ these hallucinations are quite consistent with sound- 
ness of mind. They indicate not insanity, but casual and tem- 
porary conditions of the brain, prevalant modes of belief, super- 
stition, credulity and love of the marvelous.” 46 
The assassination of Caesar had not the effect of setting 
an example to be speedily followed; on the contrary, under 
Augustus, the peaceful Goddess of Literature prevailed for a con- 
siderable time. Assassination did not grow into a prevailing 
epidemic until towards the end of t.lie first century ; when in 
the space of fifty years, there may be reckoned as many 
Imperial assassinations. If, grew into fashion, and the story of 
the times is one continuous and slippery stepping from the cot- 
tage, or the ranks to the throne and from the throne to the 
grave. The Scythian peasant and the Arabian robber, in turn 
passed through the sanguinary ordeal. 
But the King-killers did not always aim their daggers at im- 
perial hearts; sometimes the minister of state is selected as the 
victim. Pa ssing rapidly over the history of ages, we come to times 
with which we are more intimately and nearly connected. 
The Romans passed into England ; Some imperial assassin- 
ations occurred there, of which wc make no particular note. But 
next to Caesar’s we take as the most stupendous event of modern 
times the 
Assassination of the Di ke of Buckingham. 
Georoe Villiers, Duke of Buckingham, was the favorite of 
James the First and the Premier of Charles the First. He was 
not an Imperial but an imperious man. ft was in times of 
great political turbulence in England when he met his fate. 
The King and the Parliament were at war; and Charles was 
walking blindly and with rapid strides into the toils of the re- 
publicans. Cromwell and his party were hot yet above the hor- 
izon. 
Buckingham had become so unpopular that lie was consid- 
ered dangerous to the state. He was utterly disregardful of 
public opinion, and took no pains either to acquire popularity 
or to appease the clamours of his foes. When warned by some 
of bis friends to wear a coat of mail to protect himself from as- 
sassins, he replied : “There is no need; there are no more Ro- 
man spirits left.” Personal dangers did not appal him. Slan- 
ders did not affect him. Yet the day of his destiny was at hand— 
and his fate took its shape in the person of a forgotten, morbid 
and disappointed man. 
Some Account of John Felton. 
“He was the youngest son of an ancient family, in somewhat 
narrow circumstances; had been a lieutenant in a regiment of 
foot, in the expedition against Rhe He was a man of great 
reserve ; had risen from the ranks and was silent and gloomy. 
In person he was diminutive, with a meagre form, and a face 
rendered almost ghastly from the expression of that deep, hab- 
itual And apparently causeless melancholy, to which we have 47 
given the term morbid.” He seems to have carried into the camp, 
habits and characteristics more natural to the cloister. 
“He bought for ten-pence in a cutler’s shop on Tower Hill, a 
knife—that instrument, the blow of which paralyzed England— 
and sewed the sheath into the lining of his pocket, so that he 
could at any time draw out the knife with one hand—his other 
being maimed and powerless. Being thus provided lie watched 
in gloom and privacy (for he was very poor) the opportunity 
over which he brooded.” * * * "He set off for 
Portsmouth, and partly on horse-back and partly on foot, ac- 
complished that journey. At a few miles from Portsmouth he 
was seen sharpening the fatal knife on a stone ; he arrived at 
that city with the determination that should his scheme of as- 
sassination fail for want of opportunity, he would enlist as a 
volunteer in order to accomplish it eventually” * * * 
“On entering the town, where the ghastly murderer stood unob- 
served amongst the crowd, there was too numerous a train about 
the Duke for Felton to reach him. Fearful of observation, he 
kept himself indoors one morning after his arrival, but on the 
next day repaired to the house where Buckingham was staying. 
The Duke was at breakfast, and little attention was paid by the 
number of visitors, to the diminutive being who was watching 
with his dark purpose amongst the unconsious crowd * * 
When Buckingham came out from breakfast, it is very probable 
that he scarcely observed a small figure, which he may not have 
recognized, which was lifting up as he passed on, the hangings 
between the room and the ante-chamber—this was Felton. 
Buckingham, on his way, stopped an instant to speak to Sir 
Thomas Fryer, one of his colonels—who was a short man—so 
that in order to hear his reply, the Duke bent down his head 
somewhat. Fryer then drew back, and at that moment Felton 
striking across the colonel’s arm, stabbed Buckingham a little 
above the heart! The knife was left in the body; the Duke by 
a sudden effort drew it out and exclaimed, “the villain has kill- 
ed me!” pursued the assassin out of the parlor into the hall, 
when he sunk down, and falling under the table expired! In 
the confusion—after Felton had withdrawn, a hat into which a 
paper was sewn was found near the door; it was eargerly exam- 
ined and some writing on the paper read with avidity, and these 
words were deciphered : 
Felton’s Preparation and the Act. 
Tiie Paper found sewn in Felton’s Hat. 
“That man is cowardly, base and deserves neither the name 
of gentlemen nor soldier, who will not sacrifice his life for the 
honor of his God and safety of his Prince and country ; let no 
man commend me for doing it, but rather dis-commend them- 48 
selves ;*for if God had not taken away our hearts for our sins, 
he could not have gone so long unpunished. 
John Felton. 
Midst the confusion consequent upon such an event, and 
while the crowd were enquiring for the owner of the hat, a man 
without a hat wan seen walking with perfect composure up and 
down before the, door! "Here,” cried one of the crowd, “is the 
man who killed the Duke”—upon which Felton calmly said :— 
“[am he, let no person suffer that is innocent.” 
Then the populace rushed upon him with drawn swords, to 
which Felton otfered no resistance * * he was, how- 
ever rescued from the mob—a circumstance which was thought 
very fortunate. 
The defense of insanity was not made in Felton’s case. In 
fact, the English criminal judicial procedure of that day, had 
not admitted the plea of insanity excepting in cases of absolute 
idiocy or raving madness. It was nearlv two centuries later 
that, under the plastic hand of Erskine, this humane plea acquir- 
ed shape, force and respectability. 
Nevertheless, we may enquire with profit into this very event- 
ful case—for there are here many circumstances in perfect par- 
allel with some of those in Guiteau’s case. 
Had Felton a Motive? 
“To this day, indeed, there has been found no adequate mo- 
tive for the deed which Felton long contemplated in the depths 
of a soul that never gave utterance to its joys or sorrows, and 
exchanged no sympathies with others,” * * * The 
origin of this dark deed however, has been referred to a dis- 
appointment in Felton’s military career. This he subsequently 
denied by saying that the Duke had always treated him with re- 
spect. Whilst at Rhe, Felton’s captain having died, he applied 
naturally to Buckingham for promotion, but the company was 
given to another lieutenant, a man of great bravery—ami Fel- 
ton himself acknowledged the justice of the preference.” 
In this circumstance at least, we have room for a reasonable 
conjecture, that something in the nature of rancor might have 
grown up in Felton’s mind. Again we are told : 
"In his native county there was a certain knight whom the 
Duke had lately favored—and between tiiis individual and Fel- 
ton, there had been ancient quarrels not yet healed.” This ex 
planation seems to have been rejected : and we are to look more 
to Felton’s own acts and expressions for the real solution than to 
any other source. 
"Three hours before his execution Felton alleged that the book 
written by Dr. Egglesham. King James’ Scottish physician, in 
which the Duke was portrayed as one of the loulest monsters 49 
upon earth, unfit to live in a Christian court or even within the 
pale of humanity, had a great effect upon his mind, in inciting 
him into what he deemed an act of heroic virtue. The fact in- 
deed it is plain, was that his religious convictions had an all- 
powerful influence on his judgment which was warped by the 
gloomy bigotry which casts a shadow over the noblest and most 
encouraging hopes of the Christian. The tenor of this unhappy 
man’s life had been marked by seriousness and religious observ- 
ances—but it was the religion which condemned all who dif- 
fered ; the religion not of love, but of self-righteousness and 
hatred. 
In the political turbulence that prevailed at this time—“the 
commons drew up a Remonstrance addressed to the King in or- 
der that the too great power of Buckingham might be diminish- 
ed.” This and other subjects agitated in and out of Parlia- 
ment, aroused Felton. * * * “He stated indeed, 
that the idea of assassination, which he had repelled by stern 
efforts of conscience, was revived when he read the remonstrance” 
* * * “all this tended to strengthen Felton in 
the conviction that the Duke was a traitor and oppressor whom 
any patriot would do well to assassinate.” 
“He read works which maintained the lawfulness of ridding 
the nation of an oppressor; and the voice of conscience was 
heard no more. A false heroism was thenceforth the specter 
that lured him onward. The writers of the day swayed his mind. 
Never was there a more prominent exemplification of the re- 
sponsibility of a writer, than this man’s crime.” * * * 
Felton’s Penitence. 
“On stating to him (in the tower,) that he had no mercy on 
the Duke, the King had so much compassion on his soul as to 
give directions to send Divines to draw him to a feeling of 
horror of his sin, he fell upon his knees with humble acknowl- 
edgements of so good a grace to him. Throughout he con- 
fessed his offence to be a fearful and crying sin, attributed it 
upon his soul, to the Remonstrance. He denied that any crea- 
ture knew of his resolution but himself, and requested that he 
might do some public penance before his death, in sackcloth, 
with ashes on his head and in ropes.” 
Thus we see that all the pretended romance of this degraded 
character subsides, and the most abject phase of poor humanity, 
in the shape of remorse, takes the place of ideal heroism. 
Buckingham’s was a political assassination. It is not nec- 
essary to inquire minutely as to what party Felton belonged. 
He professed to have done the deed to save his Prince and his 
country—and it is perhaps well to consider that the idea pre- 
vailed that the Minister had such power and influence over 
King Charles as to lead the King into the great errors he was 
committing—and hence, loyalty might have entered into Felton’s motive to a certain extent. That he was a fanatic in 
religion as well as politics, is well known—and he was also 
the victim of religious bigotry. 
Buckingham’s Power. 
The history of the times informs us that “During Bucking- 
ham’s presence in Court he reigned there as the King’s abso- 
lute and single minister. Every act of the Government passed 
by or through his will. The King was little seen or heard of 
in state affairs. He seldom ever attending a sitting of the 
Privy Council except to carry out some object of his favorite." 
Let us here pause a moment over some of the more minute 
incidents of this stupendous event. 
“Buckingham had completed his thirty-sixth year—that pe- 
riod which has been marked by a great writer as the departure 
of youth.”—[Student.] 
His Superstition. 
Although reckless of dangers his mind was evidently, at this 
time, under a. cloud. “It was the age of omens and other super- 
stitions,” “ and supernatural warnings were not wanting to 
heighten the effects of the tragedy.” “The day before he was 
assassinated, the Duke being ill, Charles the First visited him 
while in bed. At the parting,*Buckingham embraced the King 
in a very unusual and passionate manner; and he also showed 
great emotion on taking leave of Lord Holland, as if Kis soul 
had divined he should see them no more.” 
The Pageantry. 
King Charles’ first office was to honor the remains of his illus- 
trious minister. “The process of embalming the body was 
then deemed indispensable. The Duke’s body was therefore 
submitted to that, [1628] happily now, disused operation.” * * 
“ The corpse was then conveyed to York House where all that 
could be viewed of that once noble form was exhibited under- 
neath a hearse. Eventually it was entombed under a splendid 
monument in Westminster Abbey. 
Effect of the Duke’s Death on the Multitude. 
“The King took the Duke’s death very heavily, keeping his 
chamber that day: but the base multitude in the town drank 
Felton's health, and these were infinitely more cheerful than 
those of better degree.” * * 
Note.—The following incident is recorded by Mrs. Thomas in her 
life of Buckingham, [Vol. Ill, p. 118.] It will be certainly not with- 51 
In order that the reader may work out the analogies between 
Felton and Guiteau, to his own satisfaction, we select and 
print some of the items that it is supposed will assume the 
shape of testimony in Guiteau’s case. 
Felton, we are told, was a man of “melancholic, sad and of 
few words,”—“he labored under debts and disappointments.” 
He was a solitaire, utterly selfish and abandoned to gloomy 
cogitations. He was a religious fanatic. To what extent 
Guiteau fills this bill, the reader must form his own opinion. 
The following letter may be read in comparison with the 
paper found in Felton’s hat. It was taken from the prisoner’s 
pocket at police headquarters : 
“July 2, 1881. 
“ To the White House : 
“The President’s tragic death was a sad necessity, but it will 
unite the Republican party and save the Republic. Life is a 
flimsy dream, and it matters little when one goes. A human 
life is of small value. During the war thousands of brave boys 
went down without a tear. I presume the President was a 
Christian, and that he would be happier in Paradise than here. 
It will be no worse for Mrs. Garfield, dear soul, to part with 
her husband this way than by natural death. He is liable to go 
at any time. He had no ill-will toward the President. His 
death was a political necessity. I am a lawyer, a theologian, 
and a politician. / am a stalwart of the stalwarts. I was with 
General Grant and the rest of our men in New York during 
the canvass. I have some papers for the press which I shall 
leave with Byron Andrews and his co-journalists, at 1420 New 
York avenue, where all the reporters can see them. I am go- 
ing to jail. Charles Guiteau.” 
Guiteau’s Letter to General Sherman. 
To General Sherman : 
I have just shot the President. I shot him several times, as 
out interest to those who sympathize with the fall, and who are par- 
tial to the memory of this unfortunate King. In this scene the 
emotions and the dignity of the King are all subordinate to the holier 
proprieties of religion: 
“ He was at prayers when Sir John Hippesley come suddenly into 
the chamber where service was that day performed, and whispered 
the news to his majesty. Charles did not permit a single feature of 
his face to express other astonishment or distress! and when a deep 
pause ensued, the appalled chaplain thinking to spare His Majesty 
the distress of remaining during the service, the King calmly ordered 
him to proceed with the service, and until after they were concluded 
preserved the same undisturbed demeanor. * * * No sooner was 
the service over when he suddenly departed to his chamber and 
throwing himself on his bed, gave full vent to passionate grief and 
weeping.” 52 
I wished him to go as easily as possible. His death was a po- 
litical necessity. I am a lawyer, theologian, and politician. / 
am a Stalwart of the Stalwarts. I was with General Grant 
and the rest of our men in New York during the canvass. 
I am going to jail. Please order out your troops, and take 
posession of the jail at once. Very Respectfully, 
Charles Guiteau. 
Upon the two foregoing papers and the facts therewith con- 
nected, the ingenious mind may build its own theories. There 
is scarcely a word in either of these remarkable documents, 
which is not in the highest degree suggestive. But we fovbear 
to elaborate the argument, and will not here ent er into the more 
minute details 
From facts and circumstances which have transpired since 
the occurrence, it is evident that Guiteau’s assertion, as re- 
peated above in the two letters, to wit: that he “was with Gen- 
eral Grant and the rest of our men,” etc. etc., was a grotesque 
fabrication of his own—conveying with ib as it did, the idea 
that he was on terms of social and political fellowship, and was 
regarded by them as an important personage. 
It turns out, in fact, that he was an unwelcome hanger on— 
an obtruder, and an impudent pretender; and as one suspected 
of co operating with the democrats, and of political double deal- 
ing generally. But, as this assertion is the more fradulent so it 
is the more significant; it is an indication of an inordinate 
self-esteem, and it developes the brain as on a bender, so to 
speak—an imagination on stilts. This is aslromania, to the 
existence of which we may trace Guiteau's aspirations for the 
French and Austrian missions, as well as his attempts at great 
social and matrimonial alliances, and his habit to try to attract 
public attention and to gather audiences to listen to his lectures. 
Guiteau at a Washington Boarding House. 
“He appeared to have a cat-like tread, said one of the board- 
ers, and walked so easily that he was always up alongside of 
persons before they knew it. Mrs. Lockwood states that lie 
acted strangely at times, and about the middle of the month, 
when she presented her bill, he could not pay it. He afterward 
left the house and sent Mrs. L. a note stating that he was ex- 
pecting a $6,000 position, and would soon pay his bill. Mrs. 
L. showed this note to General Logan, who said the man was 
crazy. A short while after this occurrence he met Mrs. Ricks- 
ford, of Mrs. Lockwood’s boarding-house, on the street and re- 
quested her not to say anything about the bill he owed, as it 
would hurt him in his etforts to secure a position. 
“Mrs. Lockwood said that Guiteau was a great bother to 
General Logan, so persistent was he in his etforts to secure that 
gentleman’s influence in his behalf. 53 
“He told one of the boarders at Mrs. Lockwood’s that he ex- 
pected to be appointed minister to France, but did not desire it 
to be known.” 
The instantaneous conclusions of great minds, deeply conver- 
sant, by observation and experience, with the affairs of men, ac- 
customed to study the emotions and to detect the secret sources 
of action, especially in the strategics of politicians—the instan- 
taneous conclusions of such minds are always of great signifi- 
cance; and hence we are disposed to pause a moment over the 
item above noted, that General Logan, when he read Guiteau’s 
note to Mrs. Lockwood, exclaimed : “the man is crazy.” Here 
the ponderous mind jumps at once to the inevitable conclusion : 
upon this state of facts, the man is crazy. Such was the utter- 
ance of this distinguished senator. It should not be without 
great weight. 
In this connection we cannot forget the emphatic expression 
of Mr. Secretary Blaine—of the same import, a day or two after 
the shooting; uttered without hesitation, and prompted much 
by generous indignation at the idea that this atrocity should be 
visited on any one excepting the solitary perpretrator—the man 
was crazy. 
A GLiMrs of Hereditary Insanity. 
A National Republican reporter learned from Mr. J. O. P. 
Burnside the following particulars : 
“I knew him when he was a baby in his mother’s arms. 11 is 
father, L. W. Guiteau, was an old resident and respected citi- 
zen of Freeport, 111., where he has held many offices of trust, 
borne years ago he became deranged on the subject of perfec- 
tion, and lectured extensively through the North and West on 
that subject. lie married a very beautiful woman, with whom 
and theyounger children he joined the Oneida community. He 
afterward returned to Freeport, where, from 1864 up to last 
September, the time of his death, he served as Cashier of the 
Second National Bank. 
“Charles Julius Guiteau, who to-day is in jail for the murder 
of the President, was an odd boy ; he appears to have been the 
only one of the children tainted with, h is father's eccentricities. 
When the family left i he Oneida community Charles, then fif- 
teen or sixteen years old, was left behind. He afterward went 
to Chicago, where he studied law, being cared for and supplied 
with money by his father. 
“After completing his studies Guiteau went to Europe, where 
he traveled for several yesas, imbibing socialistic and other ec- 
centric doctrines. 
“A few years ago he returned to this country and lectured on 
the second advent of Christ. He published a pamphlet on the 
subject, in which the egotism of the man was plainly shown. He spoke of himself as a messenger of God to announce his 
coming. His Lecture in Lincoln Hall two years ago on this 
subject was a failure. 
“From what I knew of the boy, his education in the Oneida 
community, and his utterances on religion, I was not at all sur- 
prised at his committing this act.” 
Guiteau’s Motive as Derived from an Interview avith 
George Scoville, his Brother-in-law. 
The reporter called on Mr. Scoville, and, in reply to a ques- 
tion, he said : “Yes, I had a long talk with Guiteau this after- 
noon. I questioned him as to his motive for his awful deed, 
and what he expected to accomplish by it. I have known Gui- 
teau for about thirty years ; he lived in my family for some 
time. I know his bent of mind and all about him, and this 
knowledge leads me to believe that the man is insane. Direc- 
tor of the Mint Burchard, who is a Freeport man. knows Gui- 
teau, and the same thing about him. His peculiar charac- 
teristic is religious insanity.” 
Reporter—What was your purpose in seeing him to-day? 
Scoville—I wanted to ascertain, I suppose as well, as every 
other member of the community does, if he had any accompli- 
ces. I was satisfied before 1 saw him, however, that he had not. 
He is so intensely egotistical that he would not work under any 
one, or allow any one fo dictate or to control him. Imperious- 
ness is a, distinct trait of his character. 
Reporter—Had he asked any of your family for money re- 
cently ? 
Scoville—He has not for some years. The last money he 
got was from his sister, my wife, three years ago. 
Reporter—Did lie dwell particularly upon the revelation that 
he had to kill the President? 
Scoville—Yes. He told me that lie began to think of it from 
the next morning after he he had thought of it in bed. He 
said that he then tried to get at t he pulse of the American peo- 
ple on the subject. He cut out a number of newspaper slips 
bearing on the subject of the split in the Republican party, and 
these, with a written statement of his own. hd sent to Attorney- 
General MaeVeagh. lie complains bitterly that these have 
been withheld from the people, and said to me t hat he was sat- 
isfied if the American people could get hold of his reasons for 
killing the President and understand them thoroughly his ac- 
tion would be applauded in less than thirty days. I asked him 
if he did not apprehend serious results to himself from his mad 
act. He replied that he had not given himself a moment’s 
thought in the matter. Said he : “I did not attempt to kill the 
President on account of any malice or ill-feeling that I had to- 
ward him. 1 did it for the good of the country, and the «alva« 55 
tion of the country, which was at stake, just as I would have 
shot a rebel during the late war.” I replied that the people 
did not so regard his action, and I said : “Suppose you are put 
on trial and convicted of murder?” “Oh!” said he, “in that 
case the Stalwarts will look out for me and take care of me. I 
am one ofthem.” 
Reporter—Me evidently thinks himself a man of considerable 
importance ? 
Scoville—Yes ; he has a high idea of his own importance. If 
at any time General Grant or General Arthur, or any other 
high official, had over shaken hands with him he would immedi- 
ately have felt himself to be their equal and deported himself 
accordingly. lie said to me that he did not know but that 
MacVeagh had some feeling against him, and therefore had 
refused to print his communication because he had favored 
Emory A. Storrs for Attorney-General. 
Reporter—Has Guiteau been in the habit of carrying a pistol 
—of going armed ? 
Scoville—He told me he never handled or shot a revolver 
before purchasing this one. After he had got it he went down 
to the river bank and practiced with it; that when he fired it off 
it made such a loud report that he did not practice any more. 
I then asked him if he supposed that when he fired at the Pres- 
ident his shots were fatal. He answered yes, that he thought 
he had killed him or he would not have quit firing. 
Reporter—Did he come here with any money ? 
Scoville—No. Occasionally he made a little money in solict- 
ing life insurance, but generally he would borrow money from 
entire strangers. Such a thing as an obligation to pay a debt 
never weighed on his mind. When he was asked why he did 
not pay his debts, he would reply : “I gave him my note, and 
that settled it.” 
Reporter—Do you think he is really insane ? 
Scoville—Yes. At the bottom of all his strange behavior 
he has a deep vein of religious fervor. He has been insane on 
religious subjects for fifteen years. At one time he proposed 
to start a religious paper, which was to be a revelation to the 
religious world. He got out the prospectus, and that was the 
end of the scheme. 
Reporter—Did you ever know him to be violent in his man- 
ner toward people—ever know him to harm any one ? 
Scoville—He was always inoffensive, except in one instance, 
when he raised an axe on his sister, my wife, three years ago. 
We then had a consultation about putting him in the asylum, 
but gave up the idea, as that was the only instance of his vio- 
lence known.” 
Guiteau's Application for the Austrian Mission. 
We are told that when the late President read Guiteau’s ap- 
plication for the Austrian Mission, he muttered something like: 56 
“audacity;” if the word was not accompanied with some empha- 
tic epithet, it must be put down to the President’s forbearance. 
But this word was perhaps the right one—under the circum- 
stances. 
It will not do to say that Guiteau’s application for the Aus- 
trian Mission is evidence of insanity. If such aspirations from 
such quarters should be considered evidence of insanity, then 
half a million of American slang-whangers would be liable at 
once to be assigned to Bedlam—for there is hardly a village in 
the Union that does not contain a number of persons—who in 
their own estimation, are quite equal to such a position, and 
would smilingly accept such a place as the of political 
service and recognized merit. 
But there is one other piece of evidence in this line, that adds 
greatly to the significance of the application for the Austrian 
Mission, and that is fopnd in the following statement: 
Gtjiteau’s Idiosyncracies. 
Mr. Francis Wayland Smith, of the Oneida community, gives 
the following interesting statement regarding Guiteau’s conduct 
when a member of that community : 
“He was extremely erratic* and his egotism was so great that 
it was really a phase of insanity. 11 is mind was disordered con- 
tinually with hobbies of all sorts and descriptions; for instance, 
when here he was a member of our debating society. In his 
style of debate he was original always, or tried to be. When his 
turn came to speak he would rise and say, ‘As the honorable 
gentleman has brought nothing worthy of rebuttal he has noth- 
ing to rebut.’ Another characteristic was this : In directing 
packages he would write ‘C. 0. I).,’ and then ‘On delivery’ right 
after the letters. Once in a lecture lie prepared for our evening 
exercises lie had written in these words in the manuscript: ‘If 
the audience will now excuse me I will take off my coat.’ He 
used to work now and then in our trap factory ; he marked the 
goods for shipping in large, beautiful letters. One of his many 
idiosyncracies was to mark a large card with this inscription : 
CHARLES J. QUITEAU, 
Premier of England, 
WILL DELIVER A LECTURE IN 
ST. JAMES’ HALL, LONDON 
“This he kept fastened to the wall before him. lie imagined 
himself some great dignitary or other all the time. Fame and 
wealthy stations tilled his thoughts by day and night.” 
Here we have clearly developed the intellectual tendency 
towards over-self estimation very many and long years ago. it 
is fair to presume that he was then quite competent in his own 
estimation, to be premier of England ! and this or some other 
great position has become, in the course of time, really a part 
of his intellectual organization. A Letter from Guiteau’s Father, 1873. 
The following is an extract from a letter dated March 30, 
1873, from the father of the assassin to John W. Guiteau, his 
brother, in Boston, in which he refers to Charles as follows: “I 
have been ready to believe him capable of almost any folly, stu- 
pidity or rascality. The one possible excuse that 1 cau render 
for him is that he is insane. Indeed, if I was called as witness 
upon the stand I am inclined to think I should testify lie is ab- 
insane, and is hardly responsible for his acts. My own 
impression is that unless something shall stop him in his folly 
and mad career he will become hopelessly insane and a fit sub- 
ject for the lunatic asylum. Before I finally gave him up 1 had 
exhausted all my powers of reason and persuasion, as well as 
other resources, in endeavoring to control his actions and 
thoughts, but without avail. I found him deceitful and he could 
not be depended upon in anything ; stubborn, wilful, conceited, 
and at all times outrageously wicked, apparently possessed of 
the devil, I saw him once or twice when it seemed to me he 
was willing to do almost anything wicked he should take a fan- 
cy to. You will remember perhaps at the last conversation we 
had about him I told you to keep clear of him and not have any- 
thing to do with him. Should anybody ask about him now I 
should be compelled to say to them that 1 thought he was in- 
sane, or at least a monomaniac, and should there leave it and 
say no more about him. His insanity is of such a character that 
he is as likely to become a sly cunning desperado as anything. 
Could I see him I might possible make another and vigorous ef- 
fort to change the whole channel of his thoughts and feelings. 
If I could not do that I should have no hope whatever of being 
able to do him any good. 1 made up my mind long ago never 
to give him another dollar in money until 1 should be convinced 
he was thoroughly humbled and radically changed. I am some- 
times afraid he would steal, rob or do anything before his ego- 
tism and self-conceit shall be knocked out of him, and perhaps 
eveu all that will not do it. So you see, I regard his case as 
hopeless, or nearly so, and of course, know no other way but to 
dismiss him entirely from my mind and leave him in the hands 
of his Maker, with a very faint hope that he can be changed 
either in this world or the next.” 
There is no rule of evidence by which this letter could reach 
the jury in Guiteau’s trial; nevertheless we do not think it out 
of place here. The reader can give it whatever credence he 
pleases. There is a blank despair about it which excludes the 
idea that it is any thing else than a frank and gloomy express- 
ion of the father’s opinions. 
Guiteau’s Motive, stated by himself to the People. 
The following is said to be the substance of one of the papers 58 
left by Guiteau at the news stand just before the shooting, as 
substituted by him to Mr. Scoville : 
Washington, June 16, 1881. 
To the American People : 
“I conceived the idea of removing the President about four 
weeks ago. I conceived the idea myself and kept it to myself. 
Not a soul in the universe knew of my purpose to remove the 
President. It was my own conception and execution. I read 
the papers carefully for and against the administration, and grad- 
ually the conviction settled on me that the President’s removal 
was a political necessity, because he proved a traitor to the men 
who made him, and thereby imperiled the Republic. At the 
last presidential election the Republicans carried every North- 
ern State. To-day, owing to the misconduct of the President 
and his Secretary of State, they could hardly carry one. They 
certainly could not carry New York, which is the pivotal State. 
Ingratitude is the basest of crimes. That the President, under 
the manipulations of his Secretary of State, has been guilty 
of the basest ingratitude to the stalwarts admits of no denial. 
The express purpose of the President has been to crush Gener- 
al Grant and Senator Conkling, and thereby prepare the wav 
for his re-nomination in 1884. In the President’s madness he 
has wrecked the once grand old Republican party, and for this 
he dies. The men that saved the Republic must govern it and 
not the men who sought its life. 1 have no ill-will towards the 
President. This is not murder, it is a political necessity. It 
will make my friend Arthur President, and save the Republic. 
Grant during the war sacrificed thousands of lives to save the 
Republic. I have sacrificed only one. I shot the President as 
I would a rebel if I saw him pulling down the American Hag. 1 
leave my justification to God and the American people. 
CHARLES GUITEAU.” 
Two days after he made the following addition to his letter: 
Washington, D. C., June 18, 1881 
“I intended to remove the President this morning, and went 
to the Baltimore depot, but he came into the depot with Mrs. 
Garfield leaning on his arm, and I concluded to remove him 
when he was alone. It will be no worse for Mrs. Garfield, dear 
soul, to part from her husband in this way than by natural death. 
He is liable to go at any time, anyway. 
CHARLES GUITEAU.” 
Another postscript read as follows : 
Washington, 1). C., June 20, 1881. 
“The President’s nomination was an act of God. The Presi- 
dent’s election was an act of God. The President’s removal is 
an act of God. I’ am clear in my purpose to remove the Presi- 
dent. Two objects will be accomplished : It will unite the 
Republican party and save the Republic, and it will create a 
great demand for my book, “The Truth.” This book was writ- 59 
ten to save souls and not for money, and the Lord wants to 
save souls by circulating the book. 
CHARLES GUITEAU.” 
The Method of Madness. 
That never-to-be-f'orgotten phrase, used by the wise old Pol- 
onius in reference to Hamlet, "There’s method in his madness.” 
is a most insidious expression as it is usually applied, carrying 
with it. as it does, the suggestion of simulation : in other words, 
it means : that madness is feigned. 
Amongst the circumstances and papers, written and printed, 
which will probably go before the jury in Guiteau’s case—em- 
bracing his plot and preparation, and more especially the pa- 
per last above quoted as of June 16, there will be abundant 
material affording to the acute advocate a boundless field for 
ingenious and learned exposition. We take occasion here to 
make an effort to disabuse the public mind of the vulgar idea, 
(too prevalent for fair investigation excepting amongst judicial 
minds) that the forming of ingenious plots, stratagems and de- 
signs for the perpetration of crime, is such evidence of a sound 
mind as to rebut the existence of insanity. We have the scien- 
tific opinions of the most learned and experienced writers on 
the subject of medical jurisprudence, to the contrary of this : as 
well as a number of well authenticated judicial ascertainments ; 
amongst which latter is the case of Billman, (a Pennsylvania 
case) already referred to. 
Authorities agree, that a man may be insane on one subject 
alone, and be very rational on all others. A man insane on one 
subject, may write and speak sensibly—even eloquently on oth- 
er subjects. It is said of an eminent physician, now in one of 
our insane hospitals—a man well and most kindly known in 
this community—that he converses rationally on all other sub- 
jects, but insists that he is the American Minister to En- 
gland! This is a case of astromania; an irrepressible self-exal- 
tation: “sic iter ad. astra.'' 
Dr. Ray in his most excellent Book on Medical Jurisprudence 
has many valuable observations amongst which we find and 
quote as follows : 
“In no school of logic, in no assembly of the just, can we lis- 
ten to closer or shrewder argumentations, to warmer exhorta- 
tions to duty, to more glowing descriptions of the beauty of 
virtue, or more indignant denunciations of evil doing, than in 
the hospitals and asylums for the insane. And yet many of 
these very people may make no secret of entertaining notions 
utterly subversive of all moral propriety, and perhaps are only 
waiting a favorable opportunity to execute some project of 
violence. The purest minds cannot express greater horror and 
loathing of various crimes, than madmen often do, and from 
precisely the same causes. Their abstract conceptions of crime. 60 
not being perverted by the influence of disease, presents its 
hideous outlines as strongly defined as they ever were in the 
healthiest condition ; and the disapprobation they express at the 
sight, arises from sincere and honest convictions. The partic- 
ular criminal act, however, becomes divorced, in their minds, 
from its relations to crime in the abstract; and, being regarded 
only in connection with some favorite object, which it may help 
to obtain, and which they see no reason to refrain from pursuing, 
is viewed, in fact, as of a highly laudable and meritorious nature. 
Herein, then, consists their insanity; not in preferring vice to 
virtue, in applauding crime and deriding justice, but in being 
unable to discern essential identity oj nature, between a partic- 
ular crime and all other crimes, whereby they are led to approve 
wh at, in general terms, they have already condemned.” Ray, 
28'.), § 17.' 
Systematic Design and Contrivance. 
Another test proposed, and upon which considerable reliance 
has at times been placed, is the design or contrivance manifest- 
ed in the commission of the act. 
Hillman (1 What. Cr. L. 31) invented and hung at his cell 
window, a noose, which caught his jailer and came near strang- 
ling him. He afterwards killed the same jailer. He killed his 
father, was tried and acquitted—through an alibi which, as be 
stated afterwards, he had plotted beforehand most effectually. 
In the ease of Arnold, great stress was laid on the fact of his 
having purchased shot of a much larger size than he usually did 
when he went out to shoot, with the design, then formed, of 
committing the murder he afterwards attempted. 
In the case of Bellingham, the Attorney General declared, 
that “even if insanity in all his other acts had been manifest, 
yet the systematic correctness with which the prisoner contrived 
the murder, showed that lie possessed a mind at the time, capa- 
ble of distinguishing right from wrong.” The sufficiency of 
this as a test, can be best settled by referring to the opinions of 
those who have a practical acquaintance with the insane. Dean 
Med. J. 541, 
“What,” says l)r. Ray, page 37. § 21, “must be thought of 
the attainments of those learned authorities in the study of mad- 
ness, who see in the power of systematic design a disproof of 
the existence of insanity, when, from the humblest menial in 
the service of a lunatic asylum, they might have heard of the 
ingenuity of contrivance, and adroitness of execution, that pre- 
eminently characterize the plans of the insane?” 
“This power of systematic design is, when analyzed, nothing 
but the sentiment of cunning developing itself by means of in- 
tellectual combinations. The sentiment itself is a primitive pow- 
er or faculty of the mind, and is of a low order, in fact, a mere 
animal instinct, being found in the brute creation. It is one 61 
of those powers that are generally found especially active among 
the insane. Very extraordinary incidents are given, in works 
on insanity, going to show the very great extent to which this 
faculty has developed itself among that unfortunate class of in- 
dividuals. See Ray, 39-40, § 21. 
May we not assume that it is, indeed, the mind inventive that 
is the most liable to be dethroned ? We read of a mad French 
General who invented a gun which was adopted by the army: 
and we hear of men in pursuit of the perpetual motion striking 
out most valuable inventions. The search after the philoso- 
pher's stone has crazed its thousands, but it has still had its 
valuable uses. 
Some of the sentences in Guiteau’s writings and letters above 
printed, are compact, good English; but in the hands of an ex- 
pert in language and words and English composition, the whole 
will be apt to fall under the term—incoherent. The question 
will be, throughout all these papers—or through any one taken 
separately as a whole—is there not a vein of mental disease ap- 
parent and unmistakable? 
Leaving the reader to draw his own inferences and conclu- 
sions from the foregoing papers, to which others may be added 
hereafter, we pass over nearly two centuries of English history 
from the death of Buckingham; and in 1811, in London, we find 
ourselves face to face with another territie scene of the same 
bloody and appalling character, quite equal in atrocity and hor- 
ror, and as wide-spread of public consternation. 
Assassination of Perceval, Premier of England, 1811. 
This is t aken from Jorden’s gallery of distinguished persons, 
as given by an eye witness : 
“On Monday, the 11th of May, 1811. Mr. Perceval fell by the 
hand of an assassin, in the lobby of the House of Commons. I 
had aseended the stair which leads to the folding door of the 
lobby, and was about to push it open for myself, when, turning 
partly round. I saw the Premier mounting the steps immediate- 
ly behind me. I bowed to him, and was saluted in return with 
that benevolent smile which 1 was so instantly destined to see 
effaced forever; for, as I held back the door on the right to allow 
the precedence of entering, the mortal bullet was sped by the 
villain, who had (as was afterwards proved) long stationed him- 
self on the spot to watch for his victim, and commit this unholy 
murder. It was an extraordinary fact, (and I leave it to be ex- 
plained on any system of moral or physical sensation,) that 
though so near Mr. Perceval at this moment that I could have 
touched him, and if the ball passed through him it must have 
struck me, yet I did not hear the report of the pistol, but only 
saw a wreath of smoke mount from the place. In the first cou- 62 
fusion, indeed, no one of the many individuals present precise- 
ly knew what had really happened, and it was the fall of the 
martyr of assassination only, thal developed the nature of the 
atrocious deed. On receiving the wound, the unfortunate gen- 
tleman fell almost back towards his left, against the angle form- 
ed by the door and the wall, exclaiming very faintly, ‘O God! 
or O my God!' the last words he ever uttered : for immediately, 
as if moved by an innate impulse to seek for safety in the House, 
lie made an effort to rush forward, but merely staggered a few 
paces, and dropped down on the spot, in the midst of the four 
pillars. 
“This was the dreadful work of not more than lifteen seconds, 
and, during the same period, (having first run forward to ren- 
der any assistance to Mr. Perceval, in which I was anticipated 
by the instant interposition of the parties I have just mentioned,) 
my attention was directed to the assassin by a gentleman point- 
ing out Bellingham, and exclaiming, ‘That is the murderer !’ 
He had, with apparent calmness, retired from the fatal spot and 
was sitting down upon the bench on the hither side of the fire- 
place, when I arrested him by th - collar. This was no act of 
which to be vain, for he neither offered resistance, nor seemed 
for a time to regard what was passing about him. His breast 
was stripped open, and a second pistol (loaded.) and other things 
were taken from his person. Of these, the manuscript copy of 
his Petition of Grievances in Russia, and the want of redress 
for which led to his insane revenge, is in my possession. I also 
possess a common-looking, but powerful opera-glass, found upon 
him. with which he had, on several preceding nights. made him- 
self Acquainted with Mr. Perceval's personal appearance, from 
the gallery of the House of Commons. Bellingham, with his 
breast exposed, and now extremely perturbed, was in a state of 
great excitation when General Gascoyne appeared, and recog- 
nized him as a man he knew, from having seen him at Liver- 
pool. No words, indeed, can picture his frightful agitation: 
large drops of agonizing sweat ran down his pallid face, (I am 
not exaggerating in this description of extreme human emotion, 
when I declare, that the former resembled rain-drops on a win- 
dow in a heavy storm, and that the latter was of the cadaverous 
hue of the tomb;) and, from the bottom of his chest to his gorge 
rose and fell a spasmodic action, as if a body as large as the 
hand were choking him with every breath. Never, on earth. I 
believe, was seen a more terrible example of over-wrought suf- 
fering : yet in language he was perfectly cool and collected. 
Some one came from the Speaker’s room, and said, ‘Mr. Perce- 
val is dead ! Villain, how could you destroy so good a 'man, 
and make a iamily of ten or twelve children orphans?’ To 
which he feelingly replied : “I am sorry for it.’ ” 
The annexed is a copy of the concluding prayer of Belling- 
ham’s petition—taken from his person ; “As your Petitioner presumes it would be only right for hitn 
to be renumerated his losses and receive a compensation for 
his personal sufferings, as may be just and proper. 
And your Petitioner, &c. 
(Signed) John Bellingham. 
London, 21 Jan. 1812. 
“Upon this document it is remarkable to observe, that the date 
is 1812—whether a mistake, or an indication of insanity, it is 
difficult to imagine.” 
Some account of Bellingham. 
Bellingham (1 Col. on lunacy,) was tried for the murder of 
Honorable Spencer Percival, in 1811. He appears to have la- 
bored under many insane delusions. The principal of these 
were that his own private grievances were national wrongs; that 
his country’s diplomatic agents abroad neglected to hear his 
complaints and assist him in his troubles; that his losses should 
be made good by the government; that the government would 
not interfere with his affairs ; and lie determined, by assassina- 
ting its head, to bring his affairs before the country, supposing 
then he would have an opportunity of making a public state- 
ment of his grievances and of obtaining a triumph over the at- 
torney-general. These were all delusions, and under their in- 
fluence he shot the Prime Minister, Spencer Percival. 
Bellingham’s trial was a judicial atrocity. Within seven 
days, including the day of the shooting, he was tried, convicted, 
executed—and his body laid on the dessecting table ! The pub- 
lic consternation in thestree+s, took the shape of judicial feroci- 
ty in the court house. The cry of revenge arose above the 
quieter admonitions of patience and justice. 
“Bellingham’s counsel,” we are told, “fortified by strong affi- 
davits of the prisoner’s insanity, and that witnesses knowing 
the facts could be brought from Liverpool and elsewhere, ap- 
plied in vain for a postponement of the trial. The attorney- 
general of that day barbarously, and even offensively, opposing 
the application which was, consequently at once, overruled.” 
In consequence of the hurly-burly manner of the trial of this 
case, it is not considered as of much significance in law. Appar- 
ently, it swept away the rulings in the iladfield case, (1800) but 
not permanently. The universal feeling and sentiment of the 
bar in reference to Bellingham's trial, is one of disgust—that 
of the Bench is one of regret and humiliation. 
Much has been written by the medical authors on the subject 
of Bellingham’s insanity, with the general conclusion that he was 
not criminally responsible at the time : and hence the almost un- 
divided feeling of condemnation of the precipitancy of his trial 
and conviction and of the ferocious manner of his execution. 64 
Of the five notorious characters of whom we have been writ- 
ing—Felton, Bellingham, Oxford, Lawrence and Guiteau, not 
the least curious fact is, that not one of them made the slightest 
effort to escape: on the contrary they absolutely courted or pre- 
pared for an arrest. Let us see : 
When Felton, after he killed the Duke, was seen walking up 
and down before the house without a hat—some one exclaimed : 
“Here is the man who killed the Duke !” Felton calmly said : 
“/ am he; let no man suffer that is innocent.” 
Bellingham, after shooting Mr. Perceval, “willi apparent calm- 
ness, retired from the fatal spot, and was sitting down on a 
bench on the hither side of the fire-place—he neither offered re- 
sistance, nor seemed for a time to regard what was passing 
around him.’’ 
When Oxford, after he shot at the Queen, saw another arrest- 
ed by mistake, he hastily said : “it 'is me. I did it—I will go 
quietly.” 
When Guiteau was taken in charge, he said : “He quiet, my 
friends, be quiet—/ want to go to jail.” He had written his in- 
tention of going to jail, both to General Sherman and to the 
People—before he shot the President; this, with the fact of his 
hiring the hackman to take him to the jail, is proof that he did 
not intend to escape. 
Between Felton and Guiteau the striking resemblance is that 
they both claim heroic virtue: The one acted to save his prince 
and countr y as he asserted ; the other to re-unite his party and 
thereby to save the Republic. One of them broke down in pris- 
on, thus giving the lie to his ideal heroism, and confessing his 
deed as a great sin—as a mistake ; while the other adheres to 
his belief that the people will in the end justify him, and that 
his act was the act of God. 
Between Lawrence and Bellingham the striking resem- 
blance is that each made war on the heads of the Government— 
each having certain fancied grievances which it was the duty of 
the Government to redress, and that the Government refused 
the redress. 
Between Guiteau and Lawrence there is one striking resem- 
blance : irrepressible self-exaltation. The one thought himself 
entitled to the crown of England ; the other, to be a Plenipoten- 
tiary abroad. and at last to be President. But in the midst of 
this gloomy group Guiteau stands solitary and alone, in the gen- 
eral viciousness of his life-long career, and his utter insensibil- 
ity to the common decencies and proprieties of life. 
Oxford was comparatively a child. He is remembered more 
in sorrow than in anger, for he contended ever after his acquit- 
tal, and during his confinement in Bedlam that there were no 
bullets in his pistol, and that he fired at the panels of the queen’s 
carriage, just to be talked about. 
Curious Parallelisms. ASSASSINATION AND INSANITY* NO. Ill 
Guiteau’s Case Examined 
ASSASSINATION OF MARAT, 1793. 
The sad story of Charlotte Corday will never be forgotten. 
Her case shows that the king-killek is sometimes found in a 
woman. Jael and Judith are undying names, and the head of 
Holofernes displayed by the "hand of a woman, the most delicate 
and beautiful, appears even more ghastly than if exhibited by the 
hands of a brutal soldier. 
There is no question that Charlotte Corday was laboring un- 
der just that sort of delusion which the law now admits to be 
sufficient to establish irresponsibility in a case of killing. That 
one of her sex, especially one so gentle and delicate, should take 
upon herself the performance of so terrific an exploit, of itself is 
an indication of insanity, such an act being so out of the way of 
a woman’s ordinary sphere. The coolness of her act and the 
determined character of her every step towards the consumma- 
tion of her deliberately conceived design, is no rebuttal to the 
presence of insanity. Her real motive may never have ap- 
peared ; the secret may have died with her; history may en- 
quire in vain for an adequate cause, and conjecture may keep 
forever on the lookout to find the prompter of her dark design ; 
but the fact that she took away a tyrant from his high place of 
bloody potency, has given her name and figure a prominent 
place among the immortals—a sister to Harmodius, and a twin 
with Judith. 
Charlotte’s fate was a sad one; her beauty had much persua- 
sive power on her judges, but within four brief days, she killed— 
was tried (oh ! mockery of courts) and executed ! 
France had no ear for a plea—no time for deliberation. The 
voice of the mob was never so potent as in that day and in that 
country. It is, indeed, strange to reflect that the French philosophers 
had just then developed a moral tendency towards the shaping 
that very plea, of insanity, which England, through Krskiue, 
brought to perfection within seven years after Charlotte Cor- 
day’s execution ! This judicial amelioration took its start in 
France—but France was then herself intellectually out of joint, 
and was bent ou what might be called a great national craze. 
Charlotte Corday was a native of Normandy, and was the 
grand-daughter ot Pierre Cornielle, the great tragic poet; she 
had the blood of genius in her veins; and her mind glowed with 
the high wrought images of the most romantic writers of France; 
she had an extensive acquaintance with the ancient classics, 
with a passion for such authors as Rosseau, Ragnal, and 
Plutarch. She is thus described by Lamartine : 
“This young girl was then 24 years old. Her grave, serene, 
and collected beauty, although brilliant, seemed to have re- 
ceived a tone from this austere habitation and retired life. 
There was in her something of an apparition. Her hair seemed 
black when it was gathered in a mass round her head, or di- 
vided in two waves over her forehead. It seemed tinged with 
gold at the extremity of the tresses—as the ear appears darker 
and more brilliant than the wheat-stalk, as it stands in the sun. 
Her eyes, large and reaching to the temples, were of a color 
changing like the water of the sea, which borrows its tint from 
the shadows of day ; blue when thoughtful, black when animated. 
Long lashes, darker than her hair, gave depth and distance to 
her look. Her nose, united to the forehead by an almost imper- 
ceptible curve, was slightly raised towards the middle. Her 
lips were, with the utmost precision, portrayed by her Grecian 
mouth, the expression of which alternated equally, in a manner 
impossible to catch, between tenderness and severity, being 
capable of breathing the language either of love or of patriotism. 
Her chin, slightly raised, divided in two by a deep indentation, 
gave to the lower portion of her face an expression of masculine 
resolution, which contrasted with the feminine graces around it. 
Her cheeks were fresh with youth and the oval firmness of 
health. She blushed or turned pale with ease. Her skin was 
of a healthy mottled whiteness. Her broad chest, rather thin, 
presented a sculptural bust scarcely undulated by the round- 
ness of her sex, Her arms were strong and muscular, her hands 
long, her lingers taper. Her costume, comformable with the 
mediocrity of her fortune, was of sober simplicity.” 
Lamartine thus hints at the formation of her resolution, and 
the hidden motive of the dark design ; this, of course, is all con- 
jecture, but it is the conjecture of a great mind and worthy of 
attention: 67 
“But, although her imagination was roused, her soul lost 
nothing of its purity, nor her girlhood of its chasity. Feeling 
the necessity of love, inspired by and recognizing the first 
symptoms of love, her reserve, her dependence, and her poverty 
ever restrained the avowal of her sentiments. Her heart-strings 
might break, but she would*vioIently uproot the first impression 
which it had received. Her love, crushed alike by the power of 
her will and fate, changed, not its nature, but its ideal. It be- 
came transformed into a vague and sublime devotion to a dream 
of public happiness. Her heart was too large to contain nothing 
more than her own felicity. She would have it contain the 
felicity of an entire people. The lire with which she would 
have burned for one man, consumed her for her country. She 
concentrated these ideas more and more within herself, ever 
questioning what service she could render to humanity. The 
thirst for self-sacrifice had become her madness, her love, or her 
virtue. This sacrifice, bloody though it might be, she was re- 
solved to accomplish. She had reached that state of mind 
which is the suicide of happiness, not for the sake of glory or 
ambition, like Madame Roland, but for the sake of liberty and 
humanity, like Judith or Epicharis. Nothing was wanting but 
the opportunity—she watched for it—and thought she had 
seized it.’’ * * * * * . * 
charlotte’s preparations. 
“She sought out a cutler's shop under the galleries, went in, 
and chose a dagger with an ebony handle, for which she paid 
three francs. She hid it beneath her fichu, and slowly returned 
to the garden. She rested for a moment on one of the stone 
benches, and leaned against the arcade. There, although 
plunged in the deepest thought, she allowed herself to be amused 
by the children that were playing about; some of them even 
came and leaned on her lap. She had a last woman's smile for 
those young faces and those games. Her indecision oppressed 
her—not the act itself for which she was armed, but regarding 
the manner in which it should be done. She wanted to make of 
this murder a solemn immolation that should strike terror into 
the souls of the imitators of the tyrant. Her first thought was 
to accost Marat, and sacrifice him in the Champ-de-Mars, during 
the grand ceremony of the federation, which was to take place 
on the 14th July, in commemoration of re-conquered liberty. 
The adjournment of this solemnity until the triumph of the re- 
public over the Vendeans and the insurgents, took from her the 
theatre and the victim. Her second thought was to strike 
Marat at the head of the Mountain, in the midst of the Conven- 
tion, beneath the gaze of his worshippers and accomplices. *** 
She returned to her room, wrote a note to Marat, which she 
left at the door of “the Friend of the People 68 
“I haA'e arrived from Caen,” said she. “Your love for the 
country makes me presume that you will hear with pleasure the 
unhappy events of this part of the republic. I shall present 
myself at your house about one o’clock; have the goodness to 
receive me and grant me a moment’s interview. I will put you 
in a way to render a great service t<* France.’’ 
Charlotte, reckoning on the effect of this note, was at Marat’s 
door at the time she had named; but she could not gain access 
to him. She then 1< ft with the portress a second note, more 
pressing, more insidious than the first. She made a call not, 
only on the patriotism, but on the pity of the “Friend of the 
people,” and laid a trap for him in the generosity which she 
supposed him to have. “I wrote to you this morning. Marat,” 
said she, “have you received my letter? I cannot believe it, 
since I am refused admission at your door. I hope that to- 
morrow you will grant me an interview. I repeat. I come from 
Caen; I can reveal to you the most important secrets for the 
salvation of the republic. Besides, I am persecuted for the 
cause of liberty. I am unhappy. It is sufficient that I am so 
to have a claim to your patriotism.” 
“Without awaiting an answer, Charlotte left her room at 
seven o’clock in the evening, dressed with more care than usual, 
to seduce by a more decent appearance the eyes of t hose who 
watched over Marat. Her white dress was covered on the 
shoulders by a silk fichu, which, veiling her chest, was folded 
under the breast at the waist, and was tied behind her. Her 
hair was enclosed in a Norman ooiffe, of which the falling lace 
touched her cheeks. A broad green ribbon fastened the coiffe 
on her temples. Her hair, escaping from it at the back, allowed 
a few curls to fall upon her neck. No paleness, no wandering 
look, no emotion of voice, revealed that she carried death. It 
was under such seductive attractions that she again knocked at 
Marat's door.” 
TUB ROSY BATH. 
Charlotte met with many difficulties in reaching Marat. She 
was stopped on the steps several times; but she resolutely 
pushed forward : when near the place where the tyrant was sup- 
posed to be, the wordy altercation between her and the woman 
who attempted to turn her back, grew so loud as to attract the 
ear of Marat, who supposing from the strange female voice that 
it was that of the woman from whom he had received the note 
asking an interview, he at once commanded that she be allowed 
to enter. The grotesque scene of which she is made to form a 
conspicuous part is thus described by Lamartine. 69 
“This room was but feebly lighted. Marat was in his bath. 
In this forced repose of the body, he did not allow his mind to 
rest. A rough plank, resting on the bath, was covered with 
papers, open letters, and pages commenced. He held in his 
right hand the pen that the arrival of the stranger had suspended 
over the page. This sheet of paper was a letter to the Conven- 
tion to ask for the sentence and proscription of the last Bour- 
bons tolerated in France. By the side of the bath, on a heavy 
billet of oak, like a log placed end-ways, stood a leaden ink- 
stand of the coarsest make: impure sources from whence had 
issued, during three years, so many acts of madness, so many 
denunciations, so much blood. Marat, covered in his bath with 
a dirty sheet stained with ink, had nothing out of the water but 
his head and shoulders, the upper part of his bust, and his 
right arm. There was nothing in this man to soften the eye of 
a woman, or make her hesitate to strike the blow. His greasy 
hair tied round with a dirty handkerchief, his receding fore- 
head, insolent eyes, high cheek-bones, large grinning mouth, 
hairy chest, skinny arms, and livid skin : such was Marat.” 
This is the picture of Marat; “The friend of the French 
people !” His hideous aspect in the bath is almost equal to 
his ferocious countenance in history. That the young girl should 
only have turned away in terrified disgust at the beastly dis- 
closure is to be attributed only to the stern character of her 
resolution. Surely the scenery of this meeting with its terrific 
consummation is without a parallel in the history of events. * 
While Charlotte was seeking an interview with this potent per. 
sonage, she might, in her mind’s eye, have forecast the appear- 
ance of the brute, and the place where she might find him; most 
probably, his person, in her fervid imagination, was identified 
with the silken drapery of some gorgeously decorated courtly 
chamber, majestically leaning on a luxurious couch or reeling 
in a red-cushioned cabinet chair—mayhap—in an official robe 
de chambre, with ink on his fingers, and pen in his hand : such 
a picture would have been a natural one to the innocent mind 
of a peasant girl whose knowledge of great characters had been 
derived exclusively from books. But here we have this con- 
trolling citizen—more potent for evil than any king—“in a dirty 
sheet stained with ink; his greasy hair tied round with a dirty 
handkerchief,” &c., &c. 
* The classical reader could hardly fail to recall the slaughter 
of Agamemnon in the bath, as we find it recorded in the fabul- 
ous histories of the olden times. 70 
“Chaklotte avoided looking at him for fear of betraying the 
horror of her soul at his aspect. Standing, her eyes cast down, 
her hands dropped to her side, near the bath, she waits until 
Marat shall interrogate her on the situation of Normandy. She 
replies briefly, giving her answers the sense and color most tit 
to flatter the supposed dispositions of the demagogue. He asks 
her the names of the deputies who are sheltered in Caen; she 
dictates their names, he takes notes, and when he has done he 
exclaims in the accents of a man sure of his vengeance, “That’s 
well! before eight days they shall all go to the guillotine !” 
“At these words, as if the soul of Charlotte had waited for a 
last vjllany to give herself the will to strike the blow, she draws 
the knife from her bosom, and plunges it. with supernatural 
force, to the hilt into the heart of Marat. Charlotte withdraws 
the knife with the same movement from the body of the victim, 
and lets it drop at her feet. “ To me! my dear! to me!” 
shrieked Marat, and expired under the blow.” 
To a person acquainted with the history of the turbulent 
times in France, in the latter decades of the 18th century, see- 
ing that the flow of blood was in a continuous slush, and that 
the guillotine had been so long and so relentlessly chopping off 
the heads of citizens, in huge numbers, that even that mon- 
ster of a machine had lost many of its wonted terrors—to such 
a person, an assassination in Paris in 1793, might not appear 
to be a greatly sensational affair; nevertheless it is true, that the 
assassination of Marat was a stupendous event, even in Paris, 
as it struck terror, in a stream of lire, into the hearts of the 
Robespierres and Dan tons, and the other—more than thirty— 
Tyrants, who had been or were just then holding carnivals of 
blood in devoted France. 
We arc told, that on the occasion of the execution of Char, 
lotto Corday, Robespierre, Danton, Camille, Desmoulins had 
placed themselves on her passage to get a glimpse of her. All 
those who bad a presentiment of assassination were curious to 
study the expression of a fanaticism that might threaten them 
to-morrow. She resembled celestial justice, satisfied and trans- 
figured. She seemed to be looking every now and then for a 
look of intelligence, among those millions of up-turned faces, 
on which her eye might rest. 
“After the terrific scene at the bath: Charlotte was led into 
Marat’s drawing-room to be interrogated. Guillard wrote her 
answers: she gave them calmly, lucidly, rcflectedly, in a firm. 71 
sonorous voice, in which one felt the accent of a proud satisfac- 
tion for the act she had committed. She dictated her confes- 
sions as praises. The administrators of the police department 
assisted at this interrogatory. They had sent to inform the 
council of the commune, the comite of public safety, and the 
comite of general security. The report of the death of the 
Friend of the people had spread with the rapidity of an electric 
commotion, by men who ran frantically from street to street. 
All Paris appeared stupifted at this attempt. It seemed that 
the republic had trembled, or that unknown events must happen 
from the murder of Marat. 
“She was searched, but, at this time, they fouudin her pockets 
only the key of her trunk, her silver thimble, a ball of thread, 
instruments of needlework—so recently side by side with the 
dagger of Brutus—200 francs in assignats and in cash, a 
watch made by a watchmaker of Caen, and her passport. Under 
her fichu she still carried the sheath of the knife with which she 
had stabbed Marat. 
“Do you recognize this knife?” asked one. 
“Yes.” 
“What made you commit this crime t” 
“I saw,” replied she, “civil war ready to rend France; per- 
suaded that Marat was the principal cause of the perils and 
calamities of the country, I made the sacrifice of my life against 
his to save the country.” 
“Name the persons who advised you to commit this horrible 
deed, which you could not have conceived of yourself.” 
“iVo person knew my design. I deceived my aunt with whom 
I lived, as to the object of my journey. Few persons frequented 
the house of my relative, and no one ever even suspected my 
thought.” 
“Did you not leave the town of Caen with the determination 
to assassinate Marat ?” 
“1 only left there for that purpose.” 
“Where did you procure the weapon?” “What persons have 
you seen in Paris?” “What have you done since Thursday, 
when you arrived ?” To these questions she, responded, with 
literal sincerity, all the circumstances already known of her 
residence in Paris, and of her actions. 
“Did you not try to escape after the murder f' 
*T should have fled by the door if no one had opposed it.” 
“Are you a girl, and have you never loved a man ?” 
“Never.” 
‘•Charlotte Corday was consigned to a dungeon, guarded at 
sight, even during the night, by two gensd’armes. She vainly 
exclaimed against this profanation of her sex. The comite of 
public security hurried her judgment and execution. She could 
hear from her wretched bed the public criers, hawking the tale 72 
of the murder about the streets, and the howling crowd wishing 
a thousand deaths to the assassin. Charlotte did not take this 
voice of the people for the sentence of posterity.” 
A GLTMPSE OF AMBITION. 
“Through the horror that she inspired, she forsaw an apotheo- 
sis. Thinking thus, she wrote to the comite of the general se- 
curity. “Since I have a few moments to live, may I hope, 
citizens, that you will have my portrait painted ? I should like 
to leave this souvenir of myself to my friends. Besides, as 
the likenesses of good citizens are esteemed, so curiosity some- 
times makes one seek those of great criminals to perpetuate the 
horror of their crime. If you grant my request, I beg you will 
send me a miniature painter to-morrow. I hear continually the 
cries in the street of the arrest of Fauchet, my accomplice. I 
never him but from my window two years ago. I neither 
like nor esteem him. He is the last man to whom I should have 
voluntarily confided my project. If this declaration can be of 
use to him, I hereby certify the truth of it.’’ 
Charlotte woidd not recognize herself as an assassin. On 
one occasion, when the idea was suggested, by a question from 
one of her inquisitors, she recoiled indignantly at the insinua- 
tion: 
“The accuser reproached her with striking the blow down- 
wards, so that it should be more sure, telling her that, no doubt, 
she must be well practised in crime. At this supposition, which 
upset all her ideas, by assimilating her with murderers b}r pro- 
fession, she exclaimed, in a voice of shame, “Oh ! the monster, 
he takes me for an assassin.” 
There is something here resembling Guiteau’s persistence in 
using his elected phrase,—“ To remove the President.” It is a 
little thing, but the fact and the coincidence are worth noting. 
Charlotte knew that it was against the laws of God and man 
to kill a human being; but she had educated herself into the 
belief, that to kill a tyrant was quite a different thing : it was a 
glory—a token and a promise of immotality. She knew that 
Marat was the bloodiest of tyrants; and her delusion was that, 
to destroy one tyrant for the good of hundreds of thousands of 
citizens, or to avert a threatened civil war, was her allotted duty 
and heavenly assigned task, to which she bent all her energies with 
the most enthusiastic intrepidity. 73 
It must be noted here that she had no accomplice: and in 
this particular feature of her case, she stands side by' side with 
Felton. Bellingham, Oxford, Lawrence, and Guiteau. 
There is another similarity of situation which must not be 
overlooked : she made no effort to escape, but left abundant 
evidence of the fact that she voluntarily offered herself as a 
sacrifice. She disdained the idea that she had an accomplice, 
or that any human being had been permitted to participate in 
her design or to aid in the achievement. On the contrary, it is 
quite clear that she coveted, singly and alone, the historic 
renown which might accompany the bloodly exploit. And 
herein we have more than a glimpse of seltihuess : and see clearly 
that she had in her e3re the temple of fame, a niche in which 
she felt sure she would occupy forever! It will be seen, be- 
sides requesting her portrait to be painted, that, while they' 
were interrogating her, and the jury were taking down her an. 
swers, she perceived among the audience a painter who was 
taking her portrait. Without interrupting herself, she turned, 
complacently' smiling, towards the artist, so that he might take 
her features the easier. She thought of immortality. She already 
posed herself before the future. 
charlotte’s last utterances before her trial. 
“Pardon! O men! this name of Marat dishonors your species: 
he was a ferocious beast that would have devoured France by 
the lire of civil war. Thank Heaven he was not born a French- 
man. * * * At my first interrogatory, Chabot looked like a 
madman. Legendre chose to say he had seen me in the morn- 
ing at his house; 1 who never dreamt of the man. I do not 
think him capable of being a tyrant to his country, and I do not 
pretend to punish all. I believe they have printed the last 
words of Marat. I much doubt if he uttered any. But these 
are the last he said to me. After receiving the names of you 
all, and those of the administrators of the department of Calva- 
dos, who are at Eareux, he said to me, to console me, ‘that in a 
few days he would have them all guillotined in Paris,’ those last 
words decided his fate. I own w'hat quite decided me was the 
courage with which our volunteers enrolled themselves, on Sun- 
day, the 7th of July. You remember that I promised to make 
Petion regret the suspicion that he manifested on m3'senti- 
ments. I considered that so in an 3' brave people marching to 
have the head of one man, whom they' would have missed, or 
have dragged with him in his downfall many' good citizens, that 
he was not worthy' of so much honor, and that a womau’s hand 
2 74 
was enough. 1 own that I used perfidious trickery to induce 
him to receive me. I reckoned, when I started, on sacrificing 
him at the head of the mountain, but lie no longer went to the 
Convention. People are such good citizens in Paris that they 
cannot conceive how a useless woman, whose longest life is good 
for nothing, can, in cold blood, sacrifice herself for her country ! 
As I really was in cold blood when I came out of Marat’s house 
to be conducted to the Abbaye, I suffered from the cries of a 
few women : but he who would save his country does not calcu- 
late the cost. May peace be at once established—that is what 
1 desire. I have enjoyed delightful peace these two days past: 
the happiness of my country makes mine. There is no kind of 
devotion from which one does not draw more enjoyment than it 
costs to reconcile oneself to it. A lively imagination and a 
sensitive heart promise a stormy life. 1 beg of those that may 
regret me to consider this and rejoice. 
“Among the moderns, few patriots know how to immolate 
themselves for their country. Almost all is egotism. What a 
sad people to form a republic !” 
“I must have a counsellor; it is the rule. I have taken mine 
from the mountain. / think of asking either Robespierre or 
Chabot. * * To-morrow at eight I am to be judged ; probably, 
at noon I shall have lived. I do not knowhow my last moments 
will be spent; it is the end that crowns the work. I do not 
neid to affect insensibility, for up to the present moment 1 have 
not the least Jear of death. 1 never esteemed life other than 
by the usefullness to which it might be put. Marat will not go 
to the Patheon.” 
We have had, before, the hideous picture of Marat, at the 
minute of his assassination in the bath. Let us now take a 
view of him in the historical sense. 
WIIAT HISTORY SAYS OF THIS MONSTER, 
“Jean Paul Marat was born near Neufehatel. He studied 
medicine at Paris; but, although, not deficient in intelligence 
and quickness, he wanted the application and perseverance 
requisite for the regular study of his profession, and he became 
an empiric. At the first symptoms of the revolution, in 1789, 
he showed himself a furious demagogue, addressing himself to 
the passions of the Paris populace, and preaching open insur- 
rection and massacre, lie was one of the members of the club 
of the Cordeliers, founded by Danton in 1790. He then became 
editor of a journal, entitled “ L’Ami du People,” which was 
hawked about the streets, and became a favorite with the lower 75 
orders. In this periodical he urged the poor to rise against the 
rich, the private soldiers against their officers, and the nation at 
large against the King. In 1792, he became a member of the 
first committee of public safety, and as such, sent circulars all 
over France to recommend the massacre of the so-called aristo- 
crats. He said in his paper that France would never be happy 
unless 270,000 heads were struck off by the guillotine; and he 
actually published long lists of individuals whom he denounced 
as proper objects of public vengeance; yet, this man was re- 
turned by the department of Paris to the National Convention. 
In the convention, Marat was the declared enemy of the 
Gerondins; he attacked them in April, 1793, but Robespierre, 
who was more cautious, checked him then; things were not yet’ 
ripe for their proscription. Marat was even impeached, and 
underwent a mock trial before his friends of the revolutionary 
tribunal, but was acquitted, and re-entered the convention in 
triumph. He saw the downfall of the Girondins, but did not 
long survive 1116111.” 
Marat was proclaimed by the Jacobins as a martyr of liberty, 
and his body was interred with great honor in the Pantheon, 
the former church of St. Genevieve, from which it was removed 
after the reign of terror. Marat has been called a madman, 
but there was method in his madness; he was one of those de- 
praved men whom revolutionary convulsions throw up to the 
surface of society. 
“In 1793, he formed a triumvirate with Danton and Robes- 
pierre, passed a law for “the arrest of suspicious persons,” 
which caused the imprisonment of no less than 400.000 innocent 
persons. At the time of his death, he was too ill to leave his 
house, and would probably have lived only a few days longer, 
naturally. 
“He was vain, egotistic, fanatical; and, strange to say, in the 
height of his almost unlimited power, he lived in abject poverty. 
Charlotte’s trial was brief. She maintained her intrepidity to 
the last. The only intimation of insanity made was in the brief 
speech of her advocate—which is in these words : 
“The accused,” said he, “confesses the crime ; she owns that 
she long premeditated it; she confesses the most crushing cir- 
cumstances. Citizens, this is the sum of her defence : This im- 
perturbable calm and complete self-abnegation, which reveals 76 
no remorse in the presence of death; this calm and self-abnega 
tioji, sublime under its aspect, are not in nature. they cannot be 
explained other than by the excitement of political fanaticism, 
which has placed the dagger in her hand. It is for you to judge 
what weight such unalterable fanaticism should have in the scale 
of justice. I appeal to your consciences.” 
The jury sentenced her unanimously to the pain of death. She 
heard the sentence without turning pale. 
“The president having asked her if she had anything to sav 
against the nature of her punishment, she disdained to reply; 
then approaching her advocate, she said to him in a sweet pene- 
trating voice,—“You have defended me as 1 wished to be de- 
fended, I thank you; I owe you a proof of my gratitude and my 
esteem, it shall be worthy of you. These gentlemen,” pointing 
to her judges, “have just declared my property confiscated; I 
owe something at the prison, and leave you t his debt to liquidate 
for me.” 
Charlotte had never seen Marat. She could not possibly have 
had any personal malice against him. She knew him as a con- 
trolling citizen, supreme in his power to dictate the duties of the 
guillotine. She was informed of his daily contributions of 
French heads to the National Slaughter House. She heard her 
countrymen called to arms; saw the youths of the neighborhood 
mustering into the volunteer service ! She partook of the en- 
thusiasm of the hour : And as she beheld thousands of men march- 
ing off in military array, her soul reaching upwards to the high 
places of heroic achievement, she resolved to show those men 
what one woman could do. and so she buckled on her armor. 
A young German Republican, who happened to be present at 
her trial, was so inspired with admiration at her intrepidity that 
in the very height of his enthusiasm, he exclaimed : 
“GREATER THAN BRUTUS.” 
Alas ! what a poor compliment for such heroism! Fray, 
wherein was Brutus great ? Brutus is to be pitied for his broken 
intellect. If he was a sane man, when he stabbed Caesar, he 
was no less despicable than Guiteau; for Ciesar was in no sense 
a tyrant; he was the pride of Rome, the paragon of men—the 
glory of the world. 
CHARLOTTE AND JUDITH. 
The only histone character worthy to stand side by side with 77 
Charlotte Corday. is Judith. Arrayed in the grandeur of her 
purple robes, she rises from her antique sepulchre and claims 
immortal kinship with the maid of Normandy. Lo! the widow 
and the maid—lo ! the maid and the widow. 
Here is a picture fit for the contemplation of American wom- 
en. Should any tyrant on this continent ever so abuse the pow- 
er of the American people as did Marat that of the people of 
France, let us fervently hope that another celestial apparition 
in the shape of an immaculate woman, may here be found to rid 
the world of the monster. 
JUDITH AND HOLOFERNES. 
Holofernes invaded Bethulia, committing all manner of rava- 
ges—even to cutting otf supplies of water. The leaders were 
driven to despair, and had resolved within five days to give way 
to the tyrant. 
Judith was a widow of goodly countenance, and very beauti- 
ful to behold, and there were none that gave her an ill word. 
“Now when she heard the evil words of the people against the 
governor, that they fainted for lack of water; for Judith had 
heard all the words that Ozias had spoken unto them, and that 
he had sworn to deliver the city unto the Assyrians after five 
days. Then she sent her waiting woman, that had the govern- 
ment of all things that she had, to call Ozias and C'babris and 
Charmis, the ancients of the city. And they came unto her, 
and she said unto them. Hear me now, 0 ye governors of the in- 
habitants of Bethulia ; Hear me, and I will do a thing which 
will go throughout all generations to the children of our nation. 
Ye shall stand this night in the gate, and I will go forth with 
n\y waiting woman : and within the days that you have promis- 
ed to deliver the city to our enemies the Lord will visit Israel 
by my hand. But inquire not ye of mine act: for I will not 
declare it unto you, till the things be finished that I do.” 
Judith passed out of the gate, and with such arts as only 
women can successfully use, she deceived the tyrant’s officers, 
and found admittance to his tent. She told Holofernes that 
God had sent her (that she had fled from her people) to work 
things with him, whereat all the world should be astonished. 
THE CATASTROFIIE. 
“Now when Judi th came in and sat down, Holofernes’ heart 78 
was ravished with her, and his mind was moved, and he desired 
greatly her company; for he waited a time to deceive her. from 
the day that he had seen her. Then said Holofernes unto her, 
Drink now, and be merry with us. So Judith said, I will drink 
now. my lord, because my life is magnified in me this day more 
than all the days since I was born. Then she took and ate and 
drank before him what her maid had prepared. And Holofern- 
es took great delight in her, and drank much more wine than 
he had drank at any time in one day since he was born. 
And Judith was left alone in the tent, and Holofernes lying 
along upon his bed; for he was filled with wine. Now Judith 
had commanded her maid to stand without her bed-chamber, 
and to wait for her corning forth, as she did daily ; for she said 
she would go forth to her prayers. Then she came to the pillar 
of the bed which was at Holofernes’ head, and took down his 
fauehion from thence, approached to his bed, and took hold of 
the hair of his head, and said, strengthen me, () Lord of Israel, 
this dav. And she smote him twice upon his neck with all her 
might and she took away his head from him. And tumbled his 
body down from the bed, and pulled down the canopy from the 
pillars, and anon after she went forth, and gave Holofernes’ head 
to her maid. And she put it in her bag of meat; so they were 
twain together according to their custom unto prayer ; and when 
they passed the camp, they compassed the valley, and went up 
the mountain to Betlmlia, and came to the gates thereof. Then 
said Judith afar off to the watchmen at the gate, open, open, 
now the gate; God, even our God, is with us, to show his power 
yet in Jerusalem, and his forces against the enemy, as he hath 
even done this day. Now when t he men of her city heard her 
voice, they made haste to go down to the gate of their city, and 
they called the elders of the city. And they ran all together 
both small and great, for it, was strange unto them that the was 
come ;so they opened the gate and received them, and made a 
fire for a light, and stood round about them. Then she said to 
them with a loud voice, Praise, praise God, praise God, I 
for he hath not taken away his mercy from the house of Isreal 
but hath destroyed our enimies by mine hands this night. So 
she took the head out of the bag, and shewed it and said unto 
them. Behold the head of Holofernes, the chief captain of the 
army of Assur, and behold the canopy, wherein de did lie in his 
drunkeness; and the Lord hath smitten him by the hand of a 
woman. As the Lord livith who hath kept me in my way that 
I went, my countenance hath deceived him to his destruction. 
and yet hath he not committed sin upon me, to defile and shame 
me. Then all the people were wonderfully astonished, and 
bowed themselves and worshipped God, and said with one ac- 
cord, blessed be thou, O our God which hast this day brought 
to nought the enemies of thy people.” 79 
There was no insanity in Judith’s case. It was sagacity 
inspired. That was an age when men and women were per- 
mitted to act on the admitted assumption of high incentives 
from the Almighty; for we are not allowed to suppose that 
Abraham was insane when he prepared, in the most solemn 
manner, to sacrifice and to slay his son. But Judith was 
honored by her countrymen as no other woman ever was hon- 
ored—before or after. 
TIIE ROMANCE OF ROBBERY. 
In order to give the reader a little relief, and to exhibit the 
insane patient in a milder aspect, we turn a moment from these 
terrific scenes of slaughter, to the ordinary and humble walks 
of life, where the mysterious operations of the human mind are 
disclosed in smaller things, but no le. s distinctly on that ac- 
count. The law in small and great crimes is vitalized by the 
same principles, and the same quantum of insanity that will ex- 
cuse a robber will excuse a homicide. 
There can be no murder without malice, no robbery without 
felonious intent, and there can be no felonious intent without 
mental capacity to conceive and generate that intent. This is 
the humanity of the law ; for 
“Who can minister to a mind diseased ?” 
The case below is a mysterious one, and one that should per- 
suade generosity to the utmost tenderness in making up its 
judgment touching the errors of frail humanity, for who knows 
precisely in what respect he himself may be deficient or might 
become so by the accidents of life? We take this case from Par- 
ker’s Reports of Criminal Cases, N. Y., 1st vol. p. 43. 
THE PEOPLE V. SPRAGUE. 
Sarah Watson testified that about eight o’clock in the morn- 
ing of the 18th of August, she was walking along Pearl street, 
in the city of Brooklyn, and hearing some person behind her, 
looked round and saw the prisoner, who immediately seized her, 
threw her down, and took a shoe from one of her feet, and ran 
away. She testified that at the time, she had a gold chain upon 80 
her person, but that it could not be seen by the prisoner. She 
also stated that there was a man near by, who was unknown to 
her, but who hallooed at the prisoner, and gave chase to him, 
but that the prisoner outran him and escaped. It was admitted 
by the prisoner’s counsel, that the shoe of Miss Watson was 
found in the prisoner’s overcoat pocket, about ten o’clock of 
the same day, at the printing office of the Long Island Star. It 
was proved that the prisoner was a printer by trade, and was 
then employed as a journeyman in the office of the Star; that 
he came to the office upon that morning at his usual'time, hung 
up his overcoat and went to his work as he had done before. 
One of the proprietors of the Star, hearing of the circumstances 
of the outrage upon Miss Watson, and her description of its 
perpetrator, suspected the prisoner, and demanded of him the 
shoe he had taken from the foot of a young lady that morning. 
The prisoner replied, “It’s in my overcoat pocket.” The shoe 
was taken from the pocket of the prisoner’s overcoat, and after- 
wards identified by Miss Watson as the one taken from her in 
the street. The prisoner made no attempt at concealment or 
explanation. 
The counsel lor the prisoner admitted that if the prisoner was 
sane, he was guilty for the crime for which lie was on trial. The 
prisoner’s counsel called the 
Rev. Isaac N- Sprague, lather of the prisoner, a highly respec- 
table congregational minister, who testified that the prisoner’s 
age was twenty-live years ; that he had generally resided in the 
family of the witness, but had spent a year with a brother at 
Hartford, Connecticut, where he went about four years before ; 
that since his return from Hartford the prisoner had lived with 
the witness; that the prisoner was married in the year 1847, and 
was with his wife living at the house of the witness at the time 
of the assault upon Miss Watson; that the prisoner had, at dif- 
ferent times, received wounds and bruises upon the head ; that 
when quite young he was struck with a hoe near the crown of 
the head, producing an open wound, which after some time, 
closed and healed up; that when about twelve years old, the 
prisoner fell from a cherry tree striking upon his head. That 
witness, with his family, moved to Hartford in 1837 or 1838, 
and soon after the prisoner fell from the balcony of a second 
story, and was brought home insensible ; that no immediate 
efifect seemed to be produced upon the prisoner’s mind by this 
accident, but that soon after his conduct became strange. He 
testified that his (witness’s) mother had been insane for eight 
years, and some part of the time in an insane hospital ; that a 
brother of his mother became insane and hung himself; that two 
sisters of his mother were occasionally insane. He stated that 
he and his wife, had always known the mind of the prisoner to 
be not as strong as the minds of their other children; that after 
the fall from the balcony the prisoner was more carefully watch- 81 
ed and kept in, and some painful indications were developed in 
the prisoner—as at times a remarkable prominence of the eye, 
and a dulness, which appeared to increase, and a physician was 
consulted. An etfort was made to educate the prisoner for col- 
lege, but found that could not be done. About this time a shoe 
of some female member would be missing, and when found 
would frequently be wet and crumpled up; that a girl, named 
Almira Godfrey, who was living in witness’s family at the time, 
was at first suspected, but at length one of her shoes were miss- 
ing, and when found was also wet and crumpled like the others. 
The family then suspected Charley, (prisoner,) and soon found 
it was he who took away the shoes. When a shoe was missing 
it would be found sometimes under his pillow, sometime between 
the straw and feather bed, sometimes in his trunk, and some- 
times in his pocket, generally with clothes wound round the shoe 
as if to couceal it. That the prisoner, before his fall from the 
balcony, had been truthful, and of a trank and open demeanor, 
and willing to acknowledge the truth, though to his disadvan- 
tage. After it was found he took the shoes, whenever one was 
missed, and I spoke about it, he would hang his head and say 
he did not know, but the shoe would be found somewhere se- 
creted. On some occasions, when a shoe had been missed, and 
found under his pillow, his mother would say to him, “Charley, 
another shoe gone;” to which he would reply, “I'm sure I did’nt 
do it,;” his mother would say, “I found it under your pillow;” 
then he would admit it. He seemed not to have a memory of 
the fact. I punished him for taking shoes, but I soon thought 
I could recognize the features of insanity in his conduct. Pains 
were taken to keep shoes out of his way, and they were put in 
drawers, and he would take them out of the drawers in the 
night. At times the prisoner had fulness of eyes, a vacancy of 
the eye was frequently apparent. Many witnesses gave corrob- 
orative testimony. 
Charles 11. Nichols, M. 1)., testified that lie was twenty-nine 
years of age; that from May, 1847-, to March, 1849, he was at 
the State Insane Asylum at Utica, and in April, 1849, came to 
the asylum at llloomingdale, of which he had had the charge 
since. That while he was at Utica there were about eight hun- 
dred patients in the asylum, and about one hundred and fifty at 
Bloomingdale. This witness testified that from the testimony 
in the case, lie was clearly of the opinion that the prisoner was 
laboring under derangement of mind; that the act charged ap- 
peared to him to lie an insane act; that it was not uncommon 
for monomaniacs to secrete, and to endeavor to escape ; that 
cases of strict monomania were very rare, but do exist, and in 
such cases all conduct not alfected by the peculiar delusion, 
may be perfectly rational. The cases of insane impulse are 
more frequent than those of monomania, acts done under insane 82 
impulse are more likely to be remembered than those done un- 
der the influence of monomania. 
Theodore L. Maeon, M. 1)., testified that insanity is the genus, 
monomania species, and that the impulsive characteristic may 
be common to both general and partial insanity. lie was of 
the opinion that the prisoner was partially insane, and that the 
act for which he was on trial, was done from an insane im- 
pulse. 
The evidence being closed, the case was submitted under the 
charge of the court. 
The Presiding Judge charged the jury, that there was no 
question made, that the prisoner had done the act alleged in the 
indictment, and that the only question for them to decide was 
whether the prisoner at the time of the act done, was a respon- 
sible moral agent. That if at the time lie did the act the pris- 
oner was of sound mind, and capable of judging between right 
and wrong, then he was guilty of the crime charged upon him, 
but if he was of unsound mind, and acting under an impulse 
which at the time overthrew or obscured his knowledge, or ca- 
pacity to judge of right and wrong, then he was not capable of 
committing a crime, and must be pronounced not guilty. That 
it seemed quite unnecessary to go into any consideration of the 
question of general insanity, as the whole defence had been put 
upon the ground that the prisoner was partially insane, and that 
the peculiarity of his insanity consisted in what appeared to the 
sane mind an objectless desire to possess himself of the shoes 
of females, and to hide and spoil them. That insanity, as a 
defence, was an affirmative matter; and in order to be allowed, 
must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. If they were sat- 
isfied beyond reasonable doubt that the prisoner did the act 
charged in the indictment under an insane impulse, being at 
the time incapable of knowing right from wrong, it would be 
their duty to return a verdict of not guilty; but il they were not 
satisfied with the prisoner’s insanity, it would lie their duty to 
find a verdict of guilty. 
After a short absence, the jury returned with a verdict of not 
guilty. 
Now, in this case, the evidence would have been quite sufli- 
cient excluding all that was said about hereditary insanity ; that, 
of course, could do no harm, and had its use is giving to the 
mind of the jury a gentle inclination towards the prisoner; but 
what juror could have hesitated—even if all the testimony ex- 
cepting the curious circumstance of the repeated abstraction and 
concealment of women's shoes, and this accompanied with gene- 
ral good character—had been excluded i That part of the testi- 83 
mony alone established kleptomania, specific, which would 
have been sufficient to acquit. This is one of the clearest cases 
that can be found in the books going to show the quantum of 
mental alienation or disease of mind required to establish irre- 
sponsibility : and the principle illustrated here is applicable to 
the highest crime. 
There was a time when courts and juries would give no heed 
to such circumstances as these. On the contrary, insanity, even 
well developed, was considered an additional reason for hasten- 
ing the fate of a man-slayer : Hang him—and hang him quick, 
or else he may kill somebody else ! This was the rule. But 
happily, the softened civilization of our age, planting itself upon 
the frailties of humanity, has recognized the enlightened princi- 
ple, that a man with a mind diseased to a certain extent is not 
capable of conceiving murderous malice, or of forming felonious 
intentions ; and that, therefore, in such cases, some other mode 
of preventing mischief should be devised than death. 
In England, especially in regard to assaults upon the sover- 
eign, and in some of our States as to all cases of homicide 
the law prevails, by statute, that if a man be acquitted of mur- 
der on the ground of insanity, he shall be imprisoned in an asy- 
lum for life—or for a term of years, as the circumstances may 
warrant: so that practically an acquittal for murder on the 
ground of insanity amounts to nothing more nor less than a 
commutation of the death penalty to that of imprisonment for 
life. See the cases of Oxford already referred to, and Mo- 
Naughten’s, the one cited below. But it is said, that in this local- 
ity there is no such statute, and that, therefore, an acquittal would 
amount to a discharge. This is a fact which, while it 
may be set down as a misfortune to the community, 
should not be allowed to check the tendency of the age towards 
punative amelioration—for itis now admitted, on all hands, that 
an insane man ought not to be put to death for an act committed 
while his mind was unhinged; and this defect in the law for the 
want of a statute, should not be visited upon the unfortunate— 
but let the legislatures make diligent haste to provide an ade- 
quate law for the future. MoNAUGIlTEN CASE. 
Returning to the assassination of Premiers, we approach an- 
other of those melancholy eases, in the trial of Daniel M'Naugh- 
ten, who shot Mr. Drummond in 1843; the assassin having 
mistaken Mr. Drummond for Sir Rob't Peel then Prime Minis- 
ter of England. The case is reported in l Townsend’s Modern 
State Trial p. 336. 
This is a case of the darkest significance. It illustrates the 
insiduous growth of suspicion in the human intellect, and how 
surely that dark spirit may usurp and overthrow the mind in 
which it may find an habitual domicile. There is a feature in 
Guiteau’s case tending to show that his mind was the habitation 
of this gloomy spirit, suspicion : We refer to the statement made 
by Guiteau to Mr. Scovilie: that Secretary MacVeagh, was inimi- 
cal to him, because he, Guiteau, had fa cored Emory Storrs for 
Attorney-General in Garfield’s Cabinet. To our mind there is a 
glimmering of insanity here. Here we see again that prevail- 
ing astromanin which leads him to believe that he is a man of 
such commanding influence and importance that his private 
wishes publicly expressed in regard to public affairs enter ma- 
terially into the calculations and considerations of the Powers 
that be ! Why should he suppose that MacVeagh had ever heard 
of his wishes? In the heat of a disordered imagination he 
rushes precipitantly to the conclusion—Mac Veagh is my enemy 
because I preferred Emory Storrs to him for Attorney-General! 
Is there not something more here than the mere absurdity of a 
crank! Who is so much a master of the mysterious operations 
of the human mind, as to say, that from this absurd, but signifi- 
cant reflection, might not have grown, by degrees, his frantic de- 
termination to remove the President, and so, perhaps, to change 
the Cabinet ? 
THE TRIAL OF DANIEL MCNAUGHTEN 
Took place in 1843 before the late Chief Justice Tendal, 
Mr. Justice Williams and Mr. Justice Coleridge. The prosecu- 
tion was conducted by the late William Follett.. then Solicitor 
General, and the prisoner was defended by Mr. Cockburn, Q. C. 85 
THE CROWN’S CASE AGAINST M’NAUGHTEN. 
“Mr. Drummond, the private secretary of the late Sir Robert 
Peel, then prime-minister, was returning alone to his residence 
in Dowling street, having just quitted Drummond’s banking- 
house at Charing Cross, when a man (Daniel M'Naughten) came 
close behind him, and deliberately shot him in the back with a 
pistol which he had been seen to take from his left breast. While 
Mr. Drummond staggered away, and the man who shot him was 
seen quickly, but deliberately, taking another pistol from his 
right breast with his left hand, cocking it, and then transferring 
it to his right hand, he was tripped up by a police officer. 
M‘Naughten strove to use his right arm against the officer, but 
was overpowered, the pistols taken from him, and lie was led to 
the station house. As he went, he said, '"He shall not break my 
peace of mind any longerOn being searched, a banker’s re- 
ceipt for £745, two five pound notes, and four sovereigns, and 
ten copper percussion caps fitting the nipples of the pistols 
which he had discharged, were found on his person; while bul- 
lets exactly fitting the barrels were found at his lodgings The 
unfortunate gentleman who had been thus assassinated, had 
borne a strong personal resemblance to the late Sir Robert Peel; 
and it was beyond all doubt that it had been Sir Robert Peel 
whom M'Naughten thought he had shot, and had intended to 
shoot. When asked if he knew whom lie had shot, he replied, 
“It is Sir Robert Peel, is it not?” and on being reminded that 
what he said might be given in evidence, he replied quickly, 
“But you wont use this against me ?” lie had before said that, 
when brought before the magistrate, he would “give a reason, a 
short one,” for what he had done; and that he was an object of 
persecution by the Tories—that they followed him from place 
to place with their persecution lie had been a man of rigor- 
ously temperate habits ; and no one with whom he lodged or as- 
sociated, entertained suspicion that his mind was in any way 
affected—though he appeared peculiarly reserved, and even sul- 
len. During the previous fortnight he had been observed loi- 
tering so suspiciously in the neighborhood of Sir Robert Peel’s 
private and official residences as to challenge inquiry. In the 
month of November previously, he had remarked to a compan- 
ion, on being shown Sir Robert Peel's house in Whitehall, 
“D n him ! Sink him !” or words to that effect. 
The following two documents in his handwriting, dated in 
the May and July preceding the murder, are very remarkable, 
as indicating great caution, shrewdness, and thrift on the part 
of the writer. The first was addressed to the Manager of the 
Glasgow Bank, and is as follows :— 
“Glasgow, 2M May, 1842. 
‘‘Sir,—I hereby intimate to you, that I will require the money, 86 
ten days from this date, which I deposited in the London Joint- 
Stock Bank through you. The account is for ,£745. The ac- 
count is dated August 28th 1841, but is not numbered ! As it 
would put me to some inconvenience to give personal intima- 
tion and then remain in London until the eleven days’ notice 
agreed upon has expired, 1 trust this will be considered suffi- 
cient. 
‘‘Yours, &e., 
“Daniel M’Natghten.” 
‘‘In July—he purchased the fatal pistols of a gunsmith near 
Glasgow, giving him very precise directions as to their make: 
and on the 19th of July replied to the following advertisement 
which appeared in the Spectator newspaper of the 16th of Ju- 
ly 
Optional Partnership.—Any gentleman having £1000 may 
invest them, on the most advantageous terms, in a very genteel 
business in London, attended with no risk, with the option, 
within a given period, of becoming a partner, and of ultimately 
succeeding to the whole business. In the mean time, security 
and liberal interest will be given for the money. Apply by 
letter toll. B., Air. Hilton’s, Bookseller, Penton Street, Penton- 
ville.” 
Mc‘Naughten's answer: 
“Glassqow, 19th July. 1842. 
“Sir,—My attention has been attracted to your advertisement 
in the Spectator newspaper, and as I am unemployed at present, 
and very anxious to obtain some, I have been induced to write 
requesting you to state some particulars regarding the nature 
of the business in which you are engaged. If immediate em- 
ployment can be given or otherwise, what sort of security will 
lie given for the money, and how much interest? I may men- 
tion that I have been engaged in business on my own account 
for a few years, am under thirty years of age, and of very active 
and sober habits. 
“The capital which I possess has been acquired by the most 
vigilant industry, but, unfortunately, does not amount to the 
exact sum specified in your advertisement. If nothing less will 
do, I will be sorry for it, but cannot help it; if otherwise, have 
the goodness to write to me at your earli st convenience, and 
address, I). M. N., Clyde Street, Anderton’s front land, top 
flat.” 
These documents, and other facts in the same direction, show 
conclusively that M‘Naughten was a man of thrift, and well 
capable of taking care of his money, and conducting his busb 87 
ness attairs with shrewdness and economy. He was of good 
character and temperate habits. 
He went to London during the same month ; appears to have 
gone for about a fortnight to France, returning to Glasgow; lie 
went a second time to London in September, and resided there, 
in the lodgings which he had formerly occupied, down to the 
day on which he shot Mr. Drummond. His landlady described 
his habits, and stated that “she never thought him unsettled in 
his mind;” and, on the very morning of the fatal day, “did not 
observe anything about his manner.” Such was the tenor of 
all the evidence ottered for the prosecution—some of it stretch- 
ing back to the years 1840, 1841, when he attended anatomical 
lectures in Glasgow. 
The following statement lie made and signed, when examin- 
ed at Bow street: 
“The Tories of my native city have compelled me to do this. 
They follow and persecute me wherever 1 go, and have entirely 
destroyed my piece of mind. They followed me into France, 
into Scotland, and all over England : in fact they follow me 
wherever I go. 1 cannot get no rest for them day or night. I 
cannot sleep at night, in consequence of the course they pursue 
towards me. 1 believe they have driven me into a consumption. 
I am sure 1 shall never be the man I formerly was. 1 used to 
have good health and strength, but I have not now. They have 
accused me of crimes of which 1 am not guilty; they do every- 
thing in their power to harass and persecute me; in fact, they 
wish to murder me. It can be proved by evidence. That’s all 
I have to say.” 
M‘NAUGIITEN IN COURT 
When called upon, in the usual manner, to say whether he 
was guilty or not guilty, he remained silent, with his eyes di- 
rected steadily towards the bench. Being authoritatively requir- 
ed to answer, he said, after some hesitation, “ I was driven to 
desperation by persecution.” On being told that he must an- 
swer, “guilty,” or “not guilty,” he replied that he was guilty of 
firing. On this Lord Abinger interposed, “By that, do you mean 
to say that you are not guilty of the remainder of the charge— 
that is, of intending to murder Mr. Drummond ?’ The prison- 
er at once said, “Yes;” on which Lord Abinger ordered a plea 
of not guilty to be recorded. 88 
m‘naugiiten’s defense. 
Ten witnesses were called for the purpose of establishing the 
fact that the prisoner had, for some eighteen months previously 
appeared to labor, and had continually represented himself as 
laboring under a persuasion that he was the victim of some such 
indefinite, mysterious, and incessant persecution as he spoke of 
in his statement at Bow street. The only mention of Sir Rob- 
ert Reel’s name was by a former fellow-lodger of the prisoner’s, 
who told him, in duly 1842, that he had heard Sir Robert Reel 
speak in the House of Commons; preferred his speaking to that 
of Lord John Russell and Mr. O’Connell; and said, “he thought 
Sir R. Reel had arrived at what Lord Byron said of him—that 
‘he would be something great in the state ’ ” Mr. Cockburn 
asked the witness, “Did you ever, on that or any other occasion, 
hear him speak at all disrespectfully of Sir Robert Reel?” 
Answer.—“Certainly not.” One of his landlords got rid of 
him as a lodger, “for one reason, in consequence of the infidel 
doctrines he maintained, and the books of such a character 
which he was in the habit of reading.” One witness who had 
succeeded him in his business, remonstrated with him, towards 
the end of 1842, about his notions as to being persecuted, tell- 
ing him it was all imagination, that there were no such people as 
he supposed. He said that “if he could once set his eyes on 
them, they should not be long in the land of the living,” and 
became shortly afterwards very much excited. Sometimes he 
said he was “haunted by a parcels of devils following him;” his 
landlady, seeing the brace of pistols which he had in September, 
just before his return to London, said : “What, in the name of 
God, are you doing with pistols there? He said, ‘he was going 
to shoot birds with them.’ I never saw the pistols after that.” 
He told the Commission of Rolice that the “persecution 
proceeded from the priests of the Catholic chapel in Clyde 
street, who were assisted by a parcel of Jesuits.” In August 
1842, he told the same witness that “the police, the Jesuits, 
the Catholic priests and Tories, were all leagued against him. 
DOCTORS AS EXPERTS. 
One of the physicians attested his conviction, from an inter- 
view witii the prisoner shortly before his trial, “as a matter of 
certainty, that M‘Naughten was not responsible for his acts!” 
“Each physician and surgeon as he stepped into the witness-box 
seemed anxious to surpass his predecessor in the tone of decis- 
ion and certainty. One of the doctors had asserted, under cross 
examination by Sir William Eollet, “his positive conviction that 
he could ascertain the nicest shade of insanity, that the shad- 
owy trace of eccentricity, dissolving into madness, could be 
palpably distinguished !” The last doctor : “I have not the 89 
slightest hesitation in saying that the prisoner is insane, and 
that he committed the offence in question whilst afflicted with a 
delusion under which he appears to have been laboring for a 
considerable length of time !” 
THE BULL-DOZED JUDGES. 
Chief Justice Tindal here interposed, to ask Sir Wm. Follett, 
whether he was prepared with evidence on the part of the Crown 
to combat that of the medical witnesses,— 
“Because, if you have not,” said the Chief Justice, “we think 
we are under the necessity of stopping the case. Is there any 
medical evidence on the other side t” 
Sir William Follett.—“No, my Lord.” 
Chief Justice Tindal.—“We feel the evidence, especially that 
of the last two medical gentlemen who have been examined, 
and who are strangers to both sides, and only observers of the 
case, to be very strong, and sufficient to induce my learned 
brothers and myself to stop the case. 
The Chief-Justice then briefly addressed the jury, offering to 
go through the whole evidence, if the jury deemed it necessary, 
which he “thought to be almost unnecessary;” adding— 
“ I am in your hands; but if, in balancing the evidence in 
your minds, you think that the prisoner was, at the time of com- 
mitting the act, capable of distinguishing between right and 
wrong, then he was a responsible agent, and liable to all the 
penalties which the law enforces. If not so—and if, in your 
judgment, the subject appear involved in very great difficulty— 
then you will probably not take upon yourselves to find the 
prisoner guilty. If that is your opinion, then you will acquit the 
prisoner. If you think you ought to hear the evidence more 
fully, in that case I will state it to you, and leave the case in 
your hands. Probably, however, sufficient has now been laid 
before you, and you will say whether you want any further in- 
formation.” 
Foreman of the Jury.—"We require no more, my Lord.” 
Chief-Justice Tindal.—“If you find the prisoner not guilty, 
say on the ground of insanity; in which case proper care will 
be taken of him.” 
Foreman.—“We find the prisoner not guilty, on the gronnd 
of insanity.” 
Such was the verdict in this remarkable case. It should be 
observed, that the judges that presided were of the most en- 
lightened on the English Bench, and the advocates prosecuting 
and defending were of the most accomplished of the English 
Bar. The case stands in the books as a leading one; though 90 
> ... 
the verdict astounded the public; and the conduct of the judges 
was seriously censured. There is, in our opinion, great judicial 
beauty, propriety and dignity displayed in the whole proceed- 
ings : this lies in the patience of the judges and their enlightened 
liberality—their perfect freedom from and elevation above the 
influences of the outside world. 
If M‘Naugliten had been tried as Bellingham was—during the 
fever of excitement, and the clamors of the mob. he too, would 
have found a slaughter pen in the purple purlieus of the tem- 
ple of justice. But happily it was otherwise ordered. 
Juries, like doctors, sometimes hide their crimes in the grave; 
innocence, as well as a good constitution, is often prematurely 
buried; but in the case of the jury in McNaughten’s trial, the 
truth and correctness of their verdict were vindicated by time. 
M’Naughten, like Oxford, upon being acquitted, was sent to 
Bedlam, where he was often visited and interviewed. We are 
told that, whenever approached on the subject of the killing of 
Drummond, he would invariably draw himself off, and say— 
“upon that subject, I have long since resolved to say nothing; 
and it is quite useless to try to get, an expression from me.” 
But all accounts concur in the general conclusion, that the long 
incarcerated prisoner was in a state of mental decay utterly 
hopeless. Thus, Bedlam vindicates a verdict which the public 
condemned. 
THE QUANTUM OF INSANITY 
Necessary to establish irresponsibility, will be one of the 
chief questions in Guitean’s trial; ami in t his view, M'Naught- 
en’s case will be a leading one, in the investigation, and one of 
the greatest significance. It, may be seen, by the judicial mind, 
that the quantum of insanity here is the smallest of any re- 
ported case of acquittal. There is not a particle of testimony 
touching insanity outside of the single delusion, built upon the 
suspicion that lie was pursued by enemies who tormented him; 
and who sought to ruin him in business, and had driven him 
into consumption :—we think, therefore, that this question is 
worthy of especial inquiry, as suggested in the paragraphs 
below : 91 
THE DELETERIOUS INFLUENCE OF SUSPICION ON THE MIND. 
The reader will observe that this is a case where suspicion 
took complete possession of the mind. By the term suspicion, 
we mean the habitual inclination to suppose of one’s self t hat he 
is of such importance and consequence that every little knot of 
persons or coterie seen talking and looking around, is thinking 
and talking of him. This unhappy disposition prevails in all 
circles of society, to the torment of friends, and to the apprehen- 
sion of families. It may not reach the point of insanity, but i,. 
is a fearful and insidious foe to the intellect—and if not checked, 
will grow into deplorable mental alienation. 
The overwhelming power of suspicion on the human mind is 
strikingly illustrated in the character and conduct of Othello: 
the death of Desdimona was the fearful result of suspicion, en- 
gendered by a few dark hints, and the loss of a handkerchief. 
Shakespeare made Hamlet simulate madness by design. But 
Shakespeare had no thought of insanity when he drew Othello, 
He made a first-class madman out of Othello without design. 
He unhinged the mind in the most natural way by allowing the 
daemon, suspicion, to take possession of it. through the emotions 
of a most delicate sensitiveness touching the affections ; and 
thus, lie upset or perverted the faculties of reason. 
This inquiry is a curious one—let us pursue it a moment by 
the magic lantern of Shakespeare. Before suspicions of the 
chasity of Desdimona began to be engendered in Othello’s mind, 
he was a splendid specimen of an exalted character. Ilis fond- 
ness and passion for his peerless wife was of itself an evidence 
of his noble nature. But suddenly we see this nobleness sub- 
side, while the man is sinking into degradation. His de- 
meanor is so changed that men begin with amazement to enquire: 
“Is this the noble Moor whom our full Senate 
Call all in all sufficient? Is this the nature 
Whom passion could not shake; whose solid virtue 
The shot of accident, nor dart of chance, 
Could neither graze nor pierce ? 
Are his wits safe ? Is he not light of brain ?” 
Well, indeed, might this significant inquiry be made : 
Are his wits safe ? Is he not light of brain?". 92 
The theater-goers will readily comprehend the situation; 
they have seen, over and again on the stage, the overwhelming 
effects of this daemon, suspicion, on the demented Moor, as he 
parades furiously around, gnawing his lips and foaming at the 
mouth ; utterly bereft of his manhood, and frantically falling 
into feminine hysterics—a mere creature of fits and epilepsies. 
And so Othello, as did M‘Naughten under similar influences, 
most unnaturally bend his ideas towards revenge—which cul- 
minated in murder. 
But Shakespeare, as we have said, had no idea of insanity in 
drawing this character. He exhibits the tortured heart com- 
batting with this daemon, suspicion. He makes Othello speak 
speeches of the greatest sagacity, and utter the most methodical 
sentiments, philosophical and conclusive, in the sense of per- 
fect apothems. lie keeps the mind up to the highest point of 
reflective acuteness, but in the acts of the man he discloses a 
perverted intelligence. 
It may be arraining Shakespeare, before the critical world 
to suggest that he made Othello talk like a Ood and act like a 
devil: but it is not the less true that such is the fact. The 
only satisfactory solution of this seeming inconsistency is found 
in the legal conclusion, upon which the prevailing doctrine of 
irresponsibility is built: that a man may be able to comprehend 
the right from the wrong, and at the same time, by reason of 
some prevailing delusions, not be able to resist the overpowering 
impulse to do the wrong. To this we may be permitted to add 
the paganish reflection : that “whom the gods intend to destroy 
they first make mad.” 
In proportion as this deplorable entertainment of suspicion 
disorders the mind and degrades the character, so its absence 
exalts humanity. When Alexander the Great had been plied 
with hints tending to arouse him to the suspicion that his phy- 
sician, Philip, was preparing a deadly potion for him. he quietly 
waited the visit of his physician; and when Philip handed him 
the dose, Alexander, lifting it to his lips, said : “Philip, they 
accuse you of a design to poison your King! thus I believe 
them,”—and so drank off the dose ! Lo ! the contrast between 
Othello and Alexander! This victory over himself was greater 
than the one at Arbela over the Persians. 
It will be seen that in MvNaughten's as in Oxford’s case, the 93 
testimony of the experts turned the scale. Chief Justice Tin- 
dal and his associates were struck all of a heap ! 
This abrupt conclusion of the trial deprived the country of a 
fuller enjoyment of the forensic treat which they had a right to 
expect from the eminent ability of the two champions, Follett 
and Cockburn. 
The Solicitor General could not conceal his ebagrine when he 
was thus peremptorily checked by the Bench. When asked, 
by the court, if the Crown had any medical testimony to rebut 
that which had been ottered by the defence, he replied—“No:” 
but it was well known to his vigilant adversary, that the gov- 
ernment had employed two eminent physicians to examine the 
condition of the prisoner’s mind, and that these two witnesses 
were at the time, sitting at the bar, ready to be called, but not 
called. This, of course, was conclusive that they could but 
agree with the conclusions already reached and announced by 
the experts who had testified for the defense. 
The verdict in M‘Naughten’s case led the Parliament to pro- 
pound to the English judges a series of questions touching the 
various phases of the defense of insanity. This brought out a 
series of judicial answers which have assumed the shape of au- 
thority to a certain extent, and upon which our text writers have 
commented. But the conclusions are not yet well settled. 
Much is expected from the learned Court which is to be charged 
with the trial of Guiteau. If the learning displayed in that trial 
should be commensurate with the magnitude of the case, we may 
have happy results in the ascertainment of great principles for 
future guidance in such cases. 
Opportunely, we have a late case from California touching 
two material questions of evidence, each of which are still debat- 
able. This case is of such aptness in the pending inquiry, as 
to induce us to give it a plaee here in full. 
The ruling here, touching the opinion of persons not experts 
in insanity cases, was followed without question in Lawrence’s 
case,—See that case ante, No, 1 p. 24, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA. 
THE PEOPLE V. WKEDEN, 1881. 
Insanity witness not an expert may state opinion from conver- 
sation had.—Upon the question of insanity a witness though 
not an expert, who details a conversation between himself and 
defendant, may also, in connection therewith, state his opinion, 
belief, or impression as to the state of the mind of defendant as 
it seemed or appeared to him at the time of the conversation. 
Hut a witness is not permitted to testify to an impression which 
might have been produced by what lie had heard a person other 
than defendant say. 
Proo f of insanity by preponderating testimony is su fficient— 
Insanity, in order to constitute a defense in a criminal action, 
need not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt; it may be estab- 
lished by mere preponderating evidence. 
Reasonable doubt, clean/ established.—The words “clearly es- 
tablished by satisfactory proof” are equivalent to the express- 
ion “established by satisfaetory proof beyond a reasonable 
doubt.” 
Statement, of insane person.—It is error to refuse an instruc- 
tion : “If at the time of the making of the alleged statements 
the jury were satisfied that the defendant was insane, they should 
disregard them entirely, no matter what caused the insanity.— 
Ohio Law Journal. 
Appeal from Superior Court, Stanislaus Co 
SlIARPSTEIN, J., 
The appellant was tried on a eharge of murder and convicted 
of manslaughter. The transcript is quite voluminous, and the 
number of exceptions unusually large. We shall confine our 
attention to the exceptions which we think were well taken. 
Insanity was very much relied upon as a defense, and the 
court seems to have labored under the impression that a witness 
who was not an expert should not be permitted to state his 
opinion upon the question of the insanity of the accused. One 
Williams, a witness for the defense, testified that he had known 
the accused intimately for the period of twelve years, and that 
he saw him in the forenoon of the day on which it. is alleged 
that the homicide was committed. lie described quite fully 
the appearance of the accused, and detailed a conversation which 
he had with him at that time. The witness was then asked this 
question : “ From his appearance, his actions, his condition, 
and conversation, what was the state of his mind ?” The court 
sustained an objection to this question on the ground that the 95 
witness was not competent to answer it, no foundation having 
been laid. We think that the exception to this ruling must be 
sustained. As was said by this court in People vs. Sanford, 43 
Cal. 29 : “We understand the rule on this point to be that a 
witness, even though not an expert, who details a conversation 
between himself and another may also, in connection therewith, 
state his opinion, belief, or impression as to the state of the 
mind of such person as it seemed or appeared to the witness at 
the time of the conversation.” And that accords with our con- 
struction of sub-division 10 of section 1870 of the Code of Civil 
Procedure. 
The following question was put by the District Attorney to 
a witness for the prosecution : Then taking your knowledge 
of his having been drinking, and what you had heard, and his 
appearance and conduct at the time, the impression made on 
your mind was simply that he was a drunken man.” The coun- 
sel for the accused objected to the question on the grounds that 
it was hypothetical and improper. The objection was overrul- 
ed, and the witness answered : “‘1 concluded that he was drunk 
—crazy drunk.” The objection should have been sustained. 
The witness should not have been permitted to testify to an im- 
pression which might have been produced by what he had heard 
any other person than the accused say. 
Some of the instructions of the court to the jury were clearly 
contradictory. In one they were told that if they entertained a 
“reasonable doubt of the sanity of the person he must be ac- 
quitted,” and in another that it was not sufficient that they 
“should merely entertain a reasonable doubt as to his sanity,’’ 
and in a third that insanity “is not proved by raising a doubt 
whether it exists or not.” It is quite clear that some or all of 
these instructions must be erroneous. One of these instructions 
reads as follows : “1 charge you that where insanity is relied 
upon as a defense, the burden of proof is on the defendant, and 
the proof must be such in amount that if the single issue of san- 
ity or insanity of the defendant should be submitted to the jury 
in a civil case, they would find that he was insane; or in other 
words that insanity must be clearly established by satisfactory 
proof; it is not sutfeient that you should entertain a reasonable 
doubt as to his sanity, but the proof must be satisfactory, and 
the fact of insanity clearly established.” In the late case (Peo- 
ple vs. Wilson, 49 Cal. 13) it was held to be well settled, in this 
State, that insanity, in order to constitute a defense in a crimi- 
nal action, need not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, but 
that it might be established “by mere preponderating evidence.” 
Is not the expression “clearly established by satisfactory proof’’ 
the full equivalent of “established by satisfactory proof beyond 
a reasonable doubt?” How can a fact be said to be clearly es- 
tablished so long as there is a reasonable doubt whether it has 
been established at all ? 96 
There can be no “reasonable doubt” of a fact after it has been 
clearly established by satisfactory proof. “Clearly” according 
to Webster’s definition of it, means “in a clear manner; without 
obscurity; without obstruction; without entanglement or confu- 
sion; without uncertainty,” etc. And that is doubtless the sense 
in which it is popularly understood. The definition of “a rea- 
sonable doubt” given by C. J. Shaw, which has been generally 
approved by the courts, is as follows : “It is that state of the 
case which, after the entire comparison and consideration of all 
the evidence, leaves the minds of the jurors in that, condition 
that they cannot sav they feel an abiding conviction to a moral 
certainty of the truth of the charge ; * * * a certainty that 
convinces and directs the understanding, and satisfies the rea- 
son and judgment of those who are bound lo act conscientious- 
ly upon it.” (Com. v. Webster, 5 Cush. 320.) A juror would 
have no excuse for saying that he did not “feel an abiding con- 
viction to a moral certainty” of the truth of a fact which had 
been “clearly established by satisfactory proof.” Such proof, 
if any could, would convince and direct the understanding, and 
satisfy the reason and judgment of a conscientious juror. 
Under the instruction given, it was the duty of the juror to 
require that the defense of insanity should at least be proved 
beyond a reasonable doubt. This was error. 
Home of the witnesses for the prosecution were permitted, 
against the objection of the appellant to testify to what he said 
at or about the time of his arrest, llis counsel seems to think 
that what the witnesses testified to his then having said, amoun- 
ted to an admission or confession which should have been ex- 
cluded on the ground that it was made under inducements. We 
have examined the testimony upon this point with some care, 
and are unable to find that there is any evidence of his having 
said anything which can be construed to be an admission or 
confession, as those words are defined in People vs. Parton, 49 
Cal. 632. But we think that the court erred in refusing to give 
an instruction requested by the accused, that “if, at the time of 
the alleged statements,” the jury were “satisfied that the de- 
fendant was insane,” they “should disregard them entirely, no 
matter what caused the insanity.” 
It is quite obvious that the utterances ol‘an insane man ought 
not to be treated as evidence against himself even. And while 
the witnesses did not testify to his having said anything that 
would amount to an admission of guilt, it might in connection 
with other evidence, have a tendency to prove him guilty. 
Judgment and order reversed, the cause remanded for a new 
trial. CONTENTS: 
Page 
Assaults on George III 2 
“ Queen Victoria 2 
“ Our Presidents 3 
Guiteau’s Case Stated 5 
Oxford's Case Reviewed 0 
Judge Denman’s Charge Examined 10 
Oxford in Bedlam 20 
Trial of Richard Lawrence for attempt to Assassinate General 
Jackson, 1830 22 
Speech of Francis S. Key 23 
Assassination of Caesar 41 
Brutus’ Insanity Discussed 42 
Hallucinations of Great Minds 45 
Assassination of the Dnke of Buckingham 40 
Some Account of John Felton 40 
Felton and Guiteau Compared 51 
Some Phases of Guiteau’s Case 52 
The Method of Madness 59 
Systematic Design and Contrivance 00 
Assassination of Premier Perceval, 1811 01 
Some Account of John Bellingham 03 
Curious Parallelisms 04 
Assassination of Marat, 1793 05 
Charlotte Corday 05 
The Rosy Bath 08 
Charlotte and Judith Compared 70 
Judith and Holofernes 77 
The Romance of Robbery 79 
M‘Naughten's Case 84 
Assassination of Mr. Drummond, 1843 85 
The Quantum of Insanity 90 
Othello—a First-class Madman 91 
The People vs. Wreden 94 
Questions of Evidence. 95