306 ANNUAL REGISTER, 1812. 



sian government to Lord Leveson 

 Gower, by whom it was neglected. 

 He returned to England, where he 

 followed his mercantile pursuits, 

 and found persons ready to avail 

 themselves of his ability and expe- 

 rience. It, however, entered into 

 his head that this government was 

 bound to take cognizance of his 

 fase, and remunerate him for his 

 losses in Russia ; he therefore ap- 

 plied to the ministers, who, after 

 examination, finding that his claims 

 had no foundation in justice, paid 

 no further attention to them. He 

 then drew up a petition to parlia- 

 ment, and applied to Mr. Perceval 

 in order to obtain his countenance 

 to it. This Mr. Perceyal refused, 

 and from that moment the desire of 

 revenge seems to have got posses- 

 sion of his heart. The Attorney- 

 general then gave a brief account 

 of the circumstances of the mur- 

 der, which, he said, they would 

 have in detail from the xvitnesses ; 

 and the fact being out of doubt, he 

 proceeded to consider the question 

 of insanity. Here, said he, is a 

 tnan who has always had the ma- 

 nagement of his own concerns, of 

 tvhich no attempt has been made 

 from any part of his family to de- 

 prive him. He has passed through 

 life without tlie least blemisii on 

 his understanding ; with what co- 

 lour therefore can it be now pre- 

 tended that he is not an account- 

 able being ? They who make the 

 affidavits are unable to deny that 

 he conducted his own affairs, and 

 those of others. If it could be 

 proved that he laboured under an 

 absence of mind at the time he 

 committed the act, nothing could 

 lie against him ; but it was a new 

 argument, that the extraordinary 

 wickedness of the act shonld be 



the very reason why the perpetra- 

 tor should not be answerablefor it« 

 He then put the supposition, that 

 just at the time the prisoner was 

 about to inflict the fatal blow, 

 some pro\adential interposition 

 should have prevented its effect, 

 and that on the same morning he 

 should have made his will, and 

 that its validity had afterwards 

 been disputed in a court of justice 

 on the ground of insanity : would 

 any court allow the legality of such 

 a plea ? would not the general ha- 

 bit of his mind and rationality of 

 his actions outweigh any consider- 

 ation of insanity attached to this 

 single act? The question is sim- 

 ply this — whether a person like the 

 prisoner at the bar be at the time 

 of the commission of his act capa- 

 ble of distinguishing between right 

 and wrong .^ If he be capable, the 

 law renders him criminally respon- 

 sible for it. Even where the law 

 has taken from a man the admi- 

 nistration of his affairs, he may still 

 have the power of judging be- 

 tween right and wrong in criminal 

 cases, and therefore be responsible 

 for criminal acts. The learned 

 gentleman, to prove this point, 

 went into a detail of the cases of 

 Arnold condemned for the murder 

 of Lord Onslow, and Lord Ferrers 

 for that of his steward ; and applied 

 them to the present, as affording 

 a plea of defence which did not 

 exist in this case ; wherefore, if the 

 jury thought with him, they must 

 find a verdict of guilty. 



The witnesses were then called ; 

 but as the circumstances of the fact 

 have been related in our Chronicle, 

 and were undisputed, we shall not 

 here repeat them. 



The evidence for the crown be- 

 ing closed, the prisoner was Called 



upon 



