Did you never ask him a single question when you have seen him walking backwards and forwards in the way you mention?—I don't remember I have.

Did you never hear him speak at such times to other persons?—Not whilst he continued in those attitudes.

I don't ask you whether he conversed the time that he was mute, but within a quarter or balf an hour?-I am not certain.

Your next ground for supposing him to be insane was, That he was accustomed to be transported into passions without any adequate cause, were those the words ?-Without any seeming cause.

Was not 66

adequate❞ the expression you used?—Yes.

I should be glad to know whether you deem every man that is transported with anger, without an adequate cause, to be a madman ?—I deem it as a sign of madness in him; but there were other causes.

I ask you a general question, and I do not expect a particular answer. Whether you deem a person that is transported with fury without reason, to be a madman ?—I think a person may be transported to fury without an adequate cause, that is no madman.

Then please to recollect some particular instance of this frantic passion, and state it. I really cannot command my memory so far. I have not seen my lord these two years, till the time of this unhappy confinement. Then I am to understand you, that you cannot recollect one particular instance; Am I or not?—I cannot recollect any at this time.

Then as to the suspicion of plots without any foundation; will you please to enumerate any of those?-He never himself would give any particular account of what he suspected, only that he did suspect that the family was in some combination against him; and when I have asked him, What it was that he meant? he would never give me a direct answer to that question.

Does that kind of behaviour, as you describe it, denote a man out of his senses? I thought so. I was so fully possessed of that opinion, that I declared to other people long ago, that I thought him a madman.

Please to inform their lordships, whether the unfortunate earl lived well or ill with his family?—Indeed, he did not live in friendship with his family.

Were there not disputes on both sides?—Yes, there were; his younger brothers and sisters were under the unhappy constraint of suing for their fortunes.

Then please to inform their lordships, whether, in truth, there was not a combination in the family against him? I do not mean a criminal one. I am very certain that was not what my lord alluded to.

If you are certain of that, you can inform their lordships what it was that he alluded to?-I will give a reason why I am certain it was not that; because it appeared to be some secret combination: that was a thing publicly known.

How did you recollect that the combination was secret?-By my lord's manner of expressing himself.

Can you recollect the phrase or the words he used?—I cannot.

In another part of your examination you was asked, whether the earl could distinguish between good and evil? You said he could not distinguish them properly. Was he at that time less able to distinguish properly between good and evil than any other man that is transported into a violent passion?-I never saw any man so transported.

Did he express himself in insensible words, so as that you could discover the state of his mind; and that it was that of a madman, and not a man in passion ?-I considered it as madness.

Can you recollect any expression, in any fit of passion that my lord was in, that might not as well have come from the mouth of any other passionate man?-Indeed I cannot.

You recollect an old adage, “Ira furor brevis est:" do you believe that his was such madness as is there poetically described?—I believe that it really proceeded from madness.

Have you ever seen him so transported upon any other occasion than that of anger? Have you seen any appearance of that kind when he was cool and calm?—I have seen him break into passions without any seeming cause.

You said you could not remember any instance, when the question was asked you; can you now?-I remember once being at a hunting seat at Quarendon in Leicestershire, as I chose to avoid the bottle, I went up stairs to the ladies; Lady Ferrers, at that time, lived with him; and, without any previous quarrel, my lord came up stairs into the room; and after standing for some time with his back to the fire, he broke out into the grossest abuse of me, insulting me, and swearing at me; and I cannot to this day or hour conceive any reason for it.

Had you never any dispute or quarrel with your brother?-Not at that time.

Might not you have had some quarrel a few days before?—No.
Are you confident of that?—I am confident.

Had he no suspicion at that time of you interesting yourself with respect to my Lady Ferrers ?—There was then no quarrel existing.

Had there never been a quarrel between my lord and my lady ?—I think not; it was soon after his marriage.

The other witness was one Elizabeth Williams, who was also thus examined by the Earl.

How long have you known Lord Ferrers ?-A great many years. Do you know of any distemper that Lord Ferrers is afflicted with, and what is it?—He never appeared like any other gentleman.

Wherein did he differ from any other people in general?-He always was a-musing and talking to himself. He spit in the looking-glass, tore the pictures, swearing he would break my bureau open, and would break all the glasses in my house, and would throttle me if I would not let him do it.

Had he any particular reason for this conduct?-None that I ever saw, but like a delirious man,

Did you keep a public-house?-Yes.

How near did you live to my lord?-My lord was at my house, and boarded with me.

Are you the wife of the witness Williams?—Yes.

Where did Lord Ferrers live, at the time he behaved in that odd manner you speak of ?—He had lodgings at Muswell-Hill.

How far did you live from him?-Two miles, to the best of my knowledge; he frequently used to come; I have made him coffee and sent up a dish, he always drank it out of the spout, which surprised me, that I thought him delirious.

How long ago is that?-I believe it is about twelve months ago, to the best of my knowledge.

Have you often seen Lord Ferrers behave in that manner?-I never saw him behave like any other gentleman in my life.

He

Was the coffee hot when he drank it out of the spout?-Hot. always went about the town like a madman, throttled me, and threw me down in the yard, one day when he took the horse away.

Did you think Lord Ferrers a madman?—I know he was by all

appearance.

Was he generally thought so by other people?-By all the whole

town.

A Lord. When he threatened to break open your bureau, and to use you ill if you did not let him do it, was he in liquor?-El. Williams. Sober as I am now.

A Lord. Did you ever, upon any occasion when he committed these outrages, observe that he had been drinking?-El. Williams. Never; he never drank in the morning but a little tea, or coffee, or some broth.

Earl Ferrers. Have you ever seen me commit any other acts of outrage besides those you have mentioned?-A great many more that

are worse.

Name them.-Swearing, cursing, and damning us; and wishing us all at hell, and himself at hell; and threatened to break the glasses; and talked to himself for hours together in bed.

Was he drunk or sober at those times ?-Very rarely; but he seemed more to be disturbed in his mind.

Mention the circumstance about my coming for the mare.-My lord came for the mare, it was at church-time, and brought his servants, and a hammer in his hand, and guns, with a tuck in his hand, and broke the stable door open by violence of arms, and knocked me down with his arm, and run the tuck into my husband, fetched the blood, I was obliged to have a surgeon to attend him; and took the mare away by force of arms; and if any body came to hinder him, he said he would blow their brains out. He always had pistols nobody knew of. I never saw any gentleman that came to my house before, that had those things about them. I used to like to take them out of his bed-chamber, but was afraid to touch them, for fear of what he should do to me himself, by seeing his mind so disturbed.

Were those outrages committed when he was drunk or sober?— Sober for the general; and when he took the mare away, as sober as he is now.

Earl of Hardwicke. Inform their lordships, whether, before my lord came in this manner to get the mare out of the stable, he had before sent any servant to demand the mare, and had been refused?—Williams. Yes, he had, the boy was gone to church. We always kept it under lock, because there was more of his lordship's horses; and nobody was go into the stable but his lordship's ostler.

to

At the conclusion of the evidence of insanity, the Earl put in a paper which was read by the clerk, and ran as follows :—

My lords; It is my misfortune to be accused of a crime of the most horrid nature. My defence is, in general, that I am Not Guilty: the fact of Homicide is proved against me by witnesses, who, for aught I can say, to the contrary, speak truly.

But if I know myself at this time, I can truly affirm, I was ever

incapable of it, knowingly: if I have done and said what has been alleged, I must have been deprived of my senses.

I have been driven to the miserable necessity of proving my own want of understanding; and am told, the law will not allow me the assistance of counsel in this case, in which, of all others, I should think it most wanted.

The more I stand in need of assistance, the greater reason I have to hope for it from your lordships.

Witnesses have been called to prove my insanity-to prove an unhappy disorder of mind, and which I am grieved to be under the necessity of exposing.

If they have not directly proved me so insane as not to know the difference between a moral and immoral action, they have at least proved that I was liable to be driven and hurried into that unhappy condition upon very slight occasions.

Your lordships will consider whether my passion, rage, madness (or whatever it may be called) was the effect of a weak or distempered mind, or whether it arose from my own wickedness, or inattention to my duty.

If I could have controuled my rage, I am answerable for the consequences of it. But if I could not, and if it was the mere effect of a distempered brain, I am not answerable for the consequences.

My lords, I mention these things as hints-I need not, indeed I cannot, enlarge upon this subject: your lordships will consider all circumstances, and I am sure you will do me justice.

If it be but a matter of doubt, your lordships will run the hazard of doing me injustice, if you find me guilty.

My lords, if my insanity had been of my own seeking, as the sudden effect of drunkenness, I should be without excuse. But it is proved, by witnesses for the crown, that I was not in liquor.

Mr. Kirkland, who drank and conversed with me, in order to betray me, (Mr. Attorney may commend his caution, but not his honesty,) represents me the most irrational of all madmen, at the time of my doing a deed which I reflect upon with the utmost abhorrence.

The Counsel for the Crown will put your lordships in mind of every circumstance against me; I must require of your lordships' justice, to recollect every circumstance on the other side.

My life is in your hands, and I have every thing to hope, as my conscience does not condemn me of the crime I stand accused of; for I had no preconceived malice; and was hurried into the perpetration of this fatal deed by the fury of a disordered imagination.

To think of this, my lords, is an affliction, which can be aggravated only by the necessity of making it my defence.

May God Almighty direct your judgments, and correct my own!

Earl Ferrers. My lords, I will mention one circumstance, which I did speak of yesterday; it was said, that I knew of a lease Johnson had, but it has never been proved; therefore, I imagine, that what I asserted, that I did not know of it, must be admitted as truth.

L. H. S. Earl Ferrers, Hath your lordship any thing further to offer? Earl Ferrers. No.

The Solicitor General, the Hon. Charles Yorke, afterwards Lord Chancellor, made a long and elaborate reply on the part of the Crown.

VOL. IV. NO. XV.

D

From it is here extracted the portion which bore upon the prisoner's defence of insanity.

Sol. Gen. "My lords, what is the evidence produced by the noble lord? In the first place, there is none which applies to the time of committing the fact. His sobriety is admitted, and drunkenness would not excuse; and even supposing it had appeared to your lordships, that the noble prisoner was sometimes, by fits and starts, under a degree of lunacy or temporary insanity; yet if he was of sound mind at that hour, he is a person within all the rules and distinctions which Lord Hale explains. But, my lords, in the next place, I must observe, that no general evidence has been offered, which proves his lunacy or insanity at any time; for his own witnesses fail in their endeavours to shew it. This appears from their manner of expressing themselves in their original examination; but still more in the answers, which they gave to the questions asked upon the cross-examination.

The two first witnesses called were, Mr. Benefold, and Mr. Goostrey. They describe the insanity of the noble lord at the bar to consist of flights. They say, that he would swear; would talk to himself; that he would use strange gestures; that he had friends, and suspected them; that he was of a positive temper, and difficult to be dissuaded from any opinion or resolution which he had once formed. But Mr. Bennefold, upon the cross-examination, admitted, that he never knew of any act of wildness done by his lordship, nor any physician sent for, to take care of him in that respect. He said, upon the whole, that he thought Lord Ferrers had better parts and understanding than ordinary men. Mr. Goostrey told your lordships, upon the cross-examination, that he had done business several years for Lord Ferrers; that he had advised and prepared deeds for his lordship to execute; that he had assisted in suffering a recovery to bar the entail of the estate; and admitted his sense and capacity in general, but inferred insanity from positiveness of temper and opinion. However, in answer to a question proposed by one of your lordships, he said, that he thought Lord Ferrers capable of distinguishing between moral and immoral actions.

Several other witnesses have been called to-day. I will first mention Mr. Clarges. He describes similar circumstances with Mr. Bennefold and Mr. Goostrey, from which he collects the insanity of the noble prisoner. He said, that he had observed great oddities in my lord, during his minority, but no defect of understanding. He could not specify particular instances; and added, that his lordship was jealous and suspicious: but the witness never saw him in such a situation, as not to be capable of distinguishing between good and evil, and not to know, that murder was a great crime.

My lords, this account of the state of the noble prisoner's mind is consistent, not only with a considerable degree of understanding, but with the highest degree of it. If the law were to receive such excuses, it would put a sword into the hand of every savage and licentious man, to disturb private life, and public order.

My lords, there was another witness of a different and a much lower sort than those whom I have named; I mean Elizabeth Williams. She was the only person who said, that the noble Earl was always mad. When she came to explain the instances from which she drew that conclusion, the principa! one insisted upon was ridiculous; the anger which he shewed against a servant, who had neglected to take care of a