On 15th May 1800 James Hadfield attempted to
assassinate George III at Drury Lane Theatre by firing a pistol at him during
the playing of the national anthem (Appignanesi, 2008; Argent, 1978; Brooking,
Ritter & Thomas, 1992; Highmore, 1822; Ingram, 1991; Jay, 2003; Ray, 1838;
Shelford, 1833; Tuke, 1892). His shot missed. Hadfield then said to the king
"God bless your royal highness; I like you very well; you are a good
fellow” (Highmore, 1822). Hadfield was arrested and his statement at the time
was "It is not over yet – there is a great deal more and worse to be
done" (Argent, 1978). Later, however, he changed his story and maintained
that he had "not attempted to kill the King". Nevertheless, because
his intended victim had been the king, Hadfield was put on trial for treason
(Argent, 1978; Highmore, 1822; Ray, 1838; Shelford, 1833; Tuke, 1892). He was
defended by Thomas Erskine (Appignanesi, 2008; Argent, 1978; Ingram, 1991),
deemed to be the best lawyer in England at the time. Erskine succeeded in
convincing the judge and jury that Hadfield had only appeared to make an
attempt on the King’s life in an effort to get himself killed, in accordance
with his delusional belief that he must die at the hands of others (Highmore,
1822; Tuke, 1892a). This delusional belief and Hadfield’s apparent madness may
have been as a result of head injuries (Argent, 1978; Highmore, 1822; Jay,
2003; Shelford, 1833; Tuke, 1892) he sustained at the Battle of Tourcoing (a
battle in the French Revolutionary Wars) in 1794. Before being captured by the
French, he was struck eight times on the head with a sabre, the wounds being prominent
for the rest of his life. (When Hadfield
died in 1841 his post-mortem revealed extensive brain damage (Jay, 2003)).These
wounds had also resulted in his discharge from the army on the grounds of
madness (Argent, 1978; Highmore, 1822; Shelford, 1833). After returning to
England, he became involved in a millennialist movement (Jay, 2003; Shelford,
1833) and came to believe that the Second Coming of Jesus Christ would be
advanced if he himself were killed by the British government (Argent, 1978). He
therefore attempted the assassination of the King, which he hoped would bring
about his own judicial execution (Jay, 2003). Hadfield pleaded insanity but the
standard of the day for a successful plea was that the defendant must be
"lost to all sense … incapable of forming a judgement upon the
consequences of the act which he is about to do". Before 1800, if a defendant was
acquitted on the grounds of insanity, he was simply allowed to go free because
there was no law in place that allowed the government to detain him
(Brooking, Ritter & Thomas, 1992). If the judge presiding over the
case thought that it would be dangerous to release the defendant and wanted him
detained, a separate civil commitment hearing had to be held before the person
could be incarcerated. In some cases, the authorities were able to use the
Vagrancy Act of 1744 to confine criminals, but in the majority of cases the
defendants were sent home or put into the care of their family.
Hadfield's planning of the shooting appeared to contradict a
claim of insanity. Erskine chose to challenge the insanity test, instead
contending that delusion "unaccompanied by frenzy or raving madness [was]
the true character of insanity" (Argent, 1978; Highmore, 1822). Two surgeons and a physician testified that
the delusions were the consequence of his earlier head injuries (Argent, 1978).
The judge, Lloyd Kenyon, 1st Baron Kenyon, at this point halted the trial
declaring that the verdict "was clearly an acquittal" but "the
prisoner, for his own sake, and for the sake of society at large, must not be
discharged". However, according to the Vagrancy Acts of 1714 and 1744,
Hadfield could only be held until he had recovered his mind and the concern was
that he would be released in a period of lucidity and make another attempt on
the King’s life at a later date.
Just four days after the trial Hadfield had
started, the prosecution proposed “A Bill for Regulating Trials for High
Treason and Misprision of High Treason in certain cases, and for the Safe
Custody of Insane Persons Charged with Offenses” (Appignanesi, 2008; Argent,
1978; Jay, 2003). This bill included both of what was to become the two
separate pieces of legislation known as the Criminal Lunatics Act 1800 and
Treason Act 1800 (Argent, 1978). The terms of the Criminal Lunatics Act applied
to people charged with treason, murder, or felony (Fry, 1864; Highmore,
1822; Shelford, 1833) who were acquitted on the grounds of insanity or
who appeared to be insane when apprehended, brought in for arraignment, or
summoned for discharge due to a lack of prosecution (Jones, 2003). The
procedure for dealing with such people read: “If [the jury] shall find that
such person was insane at the time of the committing such offence, the court
before whom such trial shall be had, shall order such person to be kept in
strict custody, in such place and in such manner as to the court shall seem
fit, until His Majesty’s pleasure shall be known” (Fry, 1864; Williams, 1816).
In essence, the Criminal Lunatics Act required the detention of someone who had
committed a crime in a bout of insanity rather than leaving it to the
discretion of the judge and jury, even if such detention meant forever. It did
not say who was to be declared insane, nor where they should be kept if found
so, but subsequent case law determined that those found to be unfit for trial,
under the terms of the Act, whether because of deafness, mental defect or
madness, became legally “insane”, and from this time forward the term insanity
has held more of a legal definition than it has in medicine (Grubin, 1996;
Tighe, 2005). Argent (1978) makes a good argument that this Act was not merely
a law concerning the mad, but that it was rather a panic measure to combat
revolution, as had occurred in France just a few years before.
James Hadfield
Hadfield attempts to shoot George III
References:
Appignanesi, L. (2008). Mad,
bad and sad: a history of women and the mind doctors from 1800 to the present. London, England: Virago Press.
Argent, V. (1978). Counter-revolutionary panic and the
treatment of the insane 1800. Retrieved from http://studymore.org.uk/1800.htm
Brooking, J.I., Ritter S.A., & Thomas, B. (1992). A textbook of psychiatric and mental health nursing. Oxford,
England: Churchill Livingstone.
Fry, D.P. (1864). The
Lunacy Acts. London, England: Knight & Co.
Grubin, D. (1996). Fitness
to plead in England and Wales.
London, England: Psychology Press.
Highmore, A. (1822). A treatise on the law of idiocy and lunacy. Exeter,
NH; George Lamson.
Ingram, A. (1991). The madhouse of language: writing and
reading madness in the eighteenth century.
London, England: Routledge.
Jay, M. (2003). The air loom gang – the strange and true
story of James Tilly Matthews and his visionary
madness. London, England: Bantam Books.
Jones, K. (2003). Lunacy,
law and conscience, 1744-1845: International library of sociology. London, England:
Routledge.
Ray, I. (1838). A treatise on the medical jurisprudence of
insanity. Boston, MA: Charles C. Little & James Brown.
Shelford, L. (1833). A practical treatise on the law concerning
lunatics, idiots and persons of unsound mind.
London, England: Stevens & Sons.
Tighe, J.A. (2005). “What’s in a name?”: a brief foray into the
history of insanity in England and the United
States. Journal of the American Academy
of Psychiatry and the Law 33:252–8
Tuke, D.H. (1892). A dictionary of psychological medicine. Philadelphia,
PA: P. Blakiston Son & Co.
Williams, T.W. (1816). A compendious and comprehensive law
dictionary. London, England: Gale
& Fenner.
No comments:
Post a Comment