absence of remorse for his crime. He appeared full of trouble and anxiety about the dismantling of his house and the sale of his library, and said he should have no place to go back to. He also said, "Here's a man who can write Latin which the Bishop of Winchester would commend shut up in a place like this."

Cross-examined-I had known the prisoner intimately during the period I have mentioned, and I used to visit his school, and we had frequent conversations on matters of business. I had three interviews with him altogether. He was certainly aware that he should be tried for the murder, but he expected to be acquitted. I went to see him a second time in consequence of a letter I received from the prisoner. I have lost the letter I refer to. The prisoner was in a large cell, with stone walls, and two other prisoners were in the same cell with him. The three principal points that I noticed were his forgetting he had sent for me, the horrible inquest, and about the Latin.

Mr. R. J. Hull examined-I am a grocer at Brixton, and one of my sons was in the prisoner's school. I saw the prisoner at Christmas, 1870, and I noticed a very great difference in his manner. He seemed quite depressed and "lost." He did not seem to know what he was speaking about.

Dr. Maudsley-I am an M.D. of the University of London, and have paid great attention to the disease of insanity, and I have lectured upon that subject. I was also medical superintendent at the Lunatic Asylum at Manchester. At the instance of the prisoner's solicitor I have visited the prisoner for the purpose of ascertaining the state of his mind. The first time I saw him was on the 27th of November last, about a month after the melancholy event. I was with him more than an hour, and at the end of that interview I formed the opinion that he was of unsound mind. I believe that he had been suffering from melancholia, and the symptoms I observed in him were such as would follow an attack of that disease. I knew his age was between sixty and seventy, and an attack of melancholia at that age would have greater effect than on a younger person. I heard Dr. Shepherd's evidence, and I agree with him in the main in his opinion regarding the disease of melancholia, but in some particulars I differ from him. A person suffering from melancholia would be subject to bursts of mad violence, and while those outbursts continued his reason is quite in abeyance, and he is unconscious, or nearly so, of what he is doing, and his mind is decidedly deranged. After such an attack the mind sometimes recovers in a comparatively short time-perhaps within an hour -and immediately before the attack a patient might appear comparatively calm and rational, and his conversation might be perfectly coherent. I have seen several cases of this description. It is a disease undoubtedly, accompanied by dangerous predispositions, but more suicidal than homicidal. An attempt to commit suicide would undoubtedly strengthen my opinion that a patient was of unsound mind. A madman very frequently exhibits very extreme violence when he resorts to any act of that description. If a man had never previously exhibited any indications of violence, that would be an ingredient in forming my opinion whether he was sane or not. Persons who are suffering from melancholy madness are frequently well aware of their suicidal or other tendencies. I know of one case where a patient told his keeper he would destroy himself if he was not watched, and he did eventually destroy himself. He was one of my patients. The case of Charles Lamb and his sister is also a case in point. Miss Lamb while suffering from this

disease killed her father. Craft and design also frequently occur in patients so afflicted, in order to endeavour to conceal any act of violence that they had committed. In its early stage melancholia is extreme depression, and nothing more. Whether this depression was founded upon reasonable grounds or not should be taken into consideration. When I conversed with the prisoner he was certainly aware that he had done a wrong act-in fact, that he had committed a crime. The prisoner told me that his wife was of rather a hasty temper, and that she had said something to him which aggravated him, and he had struck her on the head with a pistol. I asked him where he got the pistol from, and he replied that he had inherited it from his grandfather. He said that during their life he and his wife had had other quarrels of the same kind. He did not say whether he had the pistol in his hand at the time he struck her, or whether he fetched it from anywhere. I told him of the probable consequences of his crime, and he did not seem to be at all affected.

Dr. Blandford examined-I have also paid great attention to the subject of insanity, and have lectured upon the subject at St. George's Hospital. I am also medical superintendent at two private lunatic asylums, one for gentlemen and the other for ladies. I agree with Dr. Maudsley that there is a well-defined and understood form of mania known as melancholia. Melancholia is also more common in aged than in young persons, and any sudden shock is likely to bring it on, and it is always accompanied by a suicidal tendency, and sometimes by a homicidal one. The first symptom of melancholia is an alteration in the general habits of the patient, accompanied by extreme depression. The alteration would consist in the general bearing and demeanour of the individual, and restlessness and sleeplessness always accompany all forms of insanity. If morphia did not have the effect of producing sleep, I should consider it a very serious ingredient in the case. Indifference and callousness after the commission of an act of violence I should consider an indication of insanity, and they frequently accompany that condition. I saw the prisoner after he had been committed to Newgate, and I am decidedly of opinion that he was of unsound mind, and I am also of opinion that the facts spoken to as regards the prisoner's conduct on certain occasions are indicative of his being under the influence of a particular form of insanity.

Mr. Justice Byles-What is the treatment for melancholia ?

Dr. Blandford-Quiet treatment, good food, retirement, and the prevention of any disturbing occurrence.

Mr. Justice Byles-Would the sudden cessation of a man's employment tend to have any effect upon such a patient?

Dr. Blandford-Undoubtedly it would have a most important effect, as interfering with the regular habits of a man's life.

Dr. Joseph Rogers, examined by Mr. Serjeant Parry-I have had a great deal of experience in cases of insanity, and have had five interviews with the prisoner, and I believe him to be of unsound mind.

Cross-examined by Mr. Poland-I believe that the prisoner was suffering from that form of insanity known as melancholia. I went to see the prisoner at the request of his solicitor. Melancholia is a very different thing indeed to low spirits.

Mr. Poland-Has the prisoner any delusions?

Dr. Rogers-None whatever.

Cross-examination continued-I placed the prisoner in a strong light, and his countenance assumed a dazed expression. His conversation was not irrational, but he seemed to be perfectly indifferent to what was going on about him. While I was talking to him he suddenly jumped up and brushed something off his trousers, and then shook himself. (A laugh.) I talked to the prisoner about the crime, and he said that he had some words with his wife, and they quarrelled, and then he did "the deed."

Mr. Poland-Did he say where he got the pistol from?

Dr. Rogers-He did not.

Cross-examination continued-The prisoner told me while he was in Horsemonger-lane Gaol that he had attempted to commit suicide in that prison; and I asked him how he, a clergyman, could dare to rush into the presence of his Maker, and he replied, in a frivolous manner, Oh, there is no prohibition in the Bible against suicide."

66

Did you say anything to him about ordering the box?-Yes.

What did he say ?—He shrugged his shoulders and said it was not for the purpose assumed.

Was he aware that he was to be defended on the ground of insanity?—The Crown physicians who visited him in Newgate I believe made him aware of the object of their visit.

This closed the case for the defence.

Mr. Serjeant Parry then proceeded to exercise the right of summing up the evidence for the defence. He said it was one of the misfortunes of the prisoner that he and his wife should have lived in such a state of seclusion, and it rendered it impossible for him to call many witnesses to speak upon the subject; but he submitted that the evidence of the few witnesses he had been able to call fully bore out the suggestion that previously to this act of fury the prisoner had exhibited symptoms of insanity. As to the statement of the prisoner that he had frequently quarrelled with his wife before, there was nothing to show that this was not a delusion on the part of the prisoner, and, so far as she was able to do so, the fact was negatived by the servant girl, who had lived with the prisoner for three years, and who stated positively that during this period nothing of the sort took place. Mr. Serjeant Parry then proceeded to refer to the evidence of the medical gentlemen, and he argued that after the evidence that had been given by the eminent men who had been examined, there could not be any reasonable doubt that at the time this dreadful deed was committed the prisoner was not in such a state of mind as to be responsible for his actions. One life had already been sacrificed, and the question now was whether the jury were bound to declare such a verdict as would inevitably lead to the destruction of another. He said he did not believe that they would return such a verdict, and that they would not, after the evidence of the eminent scientific gentlemen who had been examined, consign the unhappy old man at the bar to an ignominious death. The learned serjeant concluded a brief but very able résumé of the evidence that had been adduced on behalf of the prisoner, and he concluded by expressing his opinion that at the time this deed was committed the prisoner was in such a state of mind as not to be able, in the words of the law, to distinguish the difference between right and wrong, and he asked the jury upon that ground to say that he was not guilty.

Mr. Denman then proceeded to reply on behalf of the Crown upon the whole

case. He said it was his duty to finish this serious and important case so far as counsel were concerned, and he did not intend to occupy any great portion of their time. He then went on to say that the defence of the prisoner rested upon the ground of insanity, and the law upon that question had been clearly and distinctly laid down by the learned judges, and the safety of them all depended upon the law being carried out with strictness and integrity. His learned friend had said that the prisoner was a most unlikely man to have committed such an act if he had been of sound mind; but they must not forget that the same observation might have been made in a great many cases where a most deliberate and brutal murder had been clearly proved to have been committed. If he understood the defence that had been set up for the prisoner, it was that, owing to some sudden calamity, the prisoner's mind had been overturned, and that this dreadful act was committed by him while in a state of insanity, resulting from his condition. He could only say that if such a defence were admitted to prevail, the safety of human life would be very much diminished, and he urged the jury to pause before they allowed their province to be invaded by the suggestions and opinions of medical men who were called to establish a particular state of things on behalf of a prisoner. He should not attempt to deny that there was such a disease as melancholia, and that this disease took its rise from depression, but he really could not understand how it was possible for a man to be perfectly sane immediately before the commission of some dreadful deed, and be in the same condition immediately afterwards, and yet during the interval should be in such a condition of mind as not to be responsible for his actions. The jury would again not forget that it was clearly proved that the prisoner was a most intelligent man, a man of business, and that all his affairs seemed to have been conducted in a most business-like and formal manner. Two days after the murder had been committed he appeared to have sent a most businesslike letter to his landlady, enclosing a cheque for the amount of the previous quarter's rent, and he seemed to have taken extraordinary means to conceal the crime that he had committed.

The learned judge, in summing up, said it might be regarded as quite clear that the prisoner committed the murder, and that there was no provocation used which would reduce the crime to one of manslaughter; and really the only question for the jury was this: Whether the prisoner at the time he committed this act was legally responsible for it? Whether he did know what he was doing, and that what he was doing was wrong? In order to obtain an answer to the question, it was necessary to look at the past life of the prisoner. His lordship then proceeded to refer to the evidence.

The jury retired to consider their verdict at five minutes past five o'clock, and after an absence of one hour and a half, returned into court with a verdict of "Guilty," strongly recommending the prisoner to the mercy and clemency of the Crown on account of his advanced age and previous good character.

When asked whether he had anything to say why sentence should not be passed upon him,

The prisoner said: I only wish to say that the defence which has been maintained in my favour was a just and honest one.

The prisoner's sentence was afterwards remitted on the ground of insanity.

II.

THE BRIGHTON POISONING CASE.

Ar the Central Criminal Court, on the 15th of January, Christiana Edmunds was arraigned before Mr. Baron Martin, charged with the wilful murder of Sidney Albert Barker. Mr. Serjeant Ballantine and Mr. Straight were counsel for the prosecution; and Mr. Serjeant Parry, Mr. Worsley, and Mr. Poland were counsel for the defence.

The prisoner having pleaded Not Guilty,

Mr. Serjeant Ballantine, in addressing the jury, observed that the prisoner at the bar was a person in easy circumstances. She was at the time of these transactions residing at Brighton, and had resided there for some time, and as far as I know with perfect respectability in her surroundings. It appears she had formed an acquaintance with a Dr. and Mrs. Beard, an acquaintance which was originally formed in consequence of Dr. Beard's having been called in to attend the prisoner in his professional character. That acquaintance seems to have ripened into an intimacy scarcely consistent with the strict relations that ought to exist between a medical adviser and one of his female patients. There can be no doubt that the lady herself entertained the strongest feelings towards Dr. Beard, and expressed them in very strong language, which indicated on her part a considerable amount of affection towards him. Dr. Beard was a married man, and the prisoner was not only attended by him in his professional capacity, but seems to have been on visiting terms with him. There were a great number of letters between the parties. Whether it is necessary that these letters should be read I am not at present prepared to say, but they are in court, and if there is a desire expressed that they should be read, in order to further the ends of justice, I, on the part of the prosecution, will make no objection. This being the state of things in 1870 and towards the close of that year, the prisoner appears to have been on one occasion, in the month of December, at the house of Dr. Beard, and she gave a chocolate cream to Mrs. Beard, who, upon receiving it, put it into her mouth and sucked a portion of it, but, finding it exceedingly disagreeable, and having an unusual taste, she spat it out, and received no real injury, though there was no doubt something deleterious in the cream. It is to be borne in mind that up to this time no poison of any kind or description had been traced to the prisoner, but on this occurrence taking place Dr. Beard charged the prisoner with having attempted to poison his wife. You will have, before the conclusion of this case, to consider the gravity of this occurrence, and how far it affects the extraordinary conduct of the prisoner. It is supposed by those whom I represent that this accusation having been launched against the prisoner, and finding, as she did find, that Dr. Beard and his wife shrank from further communication with her, the prisoner, with a view to divert suspicion from herself, and to defend herself from this charge which had been made against her, determined to pursue a course by which there might be cast upon another person the blame that was attributed to her. With this object she pursued a course of conduct so extraordinary as to be totally unparalleled in the records of any criminal court of justice. Mr. Serjeant Ballantine then went over the several portions of the evidence which had appeared on former occasions, calling attention to the