address: He said "Gentlemen, the prisoner stands charged with the crime
of high treason, the greatest crime known to the law, and he stands
charged with that offence in its most aggravated form; he is charged
with having made a direct attempt on the life of the sovereign.
Gentlemen, that crime, according to the law of this country, and,
indeed, of all countries in which monarchy is the form of government,
must be considered as very heinous. By an act passed in the twenty-fifth
year of the reign of King Edward III., by which the law of high treason
in this country was defined, it is enacted, that if any one shall
imagine and compass the death of the sovereign, and be guilty of an
overt act to show the intention of such a crime, he shall be guilty of
high treason. The offence is imagining and compassing the death of the
sovereign, and that is to be proved by some overt act. It is upon this
act, which has constituted the great safety for the liberties of England
ever since it passed, that the prisoner is now indicted. The mode of
conducting the trial is regulated by an act passed in the 40th year of
the reign of King George III., the effect of which is this, that where
in a trial for high treason the overt act to be proved shall be a direct
attempt on the life of the sovereign, the trial shall be conducted in
the same manner as in cases of murder. The object of this act was to
give to the life of the sovereign the same protection as is afforded to
the meanest subject of the land, because, before this statute, it was
necessary, on an indictment for high treason, even where the life of the
sovereign was attempted, or where that life had fallen a sacrifice to
the wicked attempt, to prove the overt act by the testimony of two
witnesses; and there were a number of forms required, which are most
salutary and proper when the charge bears a political aspect, where the
treason under consideration is allied to a rebellious conspiracy, where
the circumstances to be considered may constitute constructive treason,
or where the case presents a supposed difficulty in bringing the charge
home to the prisoner, but which, when the overt act is an attempt
directly at the life of the sovereign, the law, in its wisdom, has not
deemed necessary. Gentlemen, the party now accused will have an ample
opportunity for his defence; on his own application his trial was
postponed, and he is now defended by my two learned friends opposite, of
great ability and experience, and my learned friend, Mr. Sidney Taylor,
will have an opportunity of addressing you, and of bringing forward all
that can be urged in his favour. From the affidavit which was made in
support of the application to the learned judge (Lord Chief Justice
Tindal), we are informed that two questions will be submitted to your
consideration. The first is, whether, supposing the prisoner to be
accountable for his actions, he is guilty of the offence laid to his
charge; and the second will be whether, at the time he committed the
act, he was accountable for his actions. Now, gentlemen, the burden of
the first issue is entirely upon the prosecution. The prisoner is still
presumed to be innocent, and, unless clear and satisfactory evidence be
produced to establish his guilt, it will be your duty to acquit him; but
if, upon the evidence which I am instructed to lay before you, you
should see no reason to disbelieve the witnesses, I cannot anticipate
that any reasonable doubt can arise. The prisoner at the bar is, as you
perceive, a young man, about eighteen or nineteen years of age, although
you would hardly suppose that he was so old. He was born, as I
understand, at Birmingham. He came when very young to London, and was
sent to school at Lambeth. He afterwards served in many public-houses,
in the capacity of what is called a barman. He first went, as I
understand, to superintend the arrangement of the business of the bar
at a public-house in Houndsditch, and then at one in High-street,
Marylebone. He was next at another public-house, in Oxford-street. It
seems that he left that service about the end of April. He then went
into lodgings at No. 6, West-place, West-square, Lambeth, and that
lodging he made his home till the period when this offence was
committed. Gentlemen, it would appear that he had formed and matured a
plan to make an attempt on the life of the sovereign. On the 4th of May,
in the present year, when he was at his lodgings, he bought a pair of
pistols from a person named Hayes, living in Blackfriars-road, for the
sum of 2_l._ He bought at the same time a powder-flask. It will appear
by the evidence that he practised shooting in shooting-galleries. He was
at a shooting-gallery in Leicester-square, at a gallery in the Strand,
and at another at the west end of the town. On Wednesday, the 3rd of
June, a week before the day laid in the indictment, he went into the
shop of a person named Gray, with whom he had been at school, in
Bridge-road, Lambeth, and bought half a hundred copper caps to be used
for firing. He asked Gray at the same time where he could buy some
bullets, and three-penny worth of gunpowder. He was told where the
bullets could be had, and Gray sold him some gunpowder. On the evening
of the 9th of June he showed a loaded pistol; and when asked what he
meant to do with it, he refused to tell, but said that he had been
firing at a target. I now come, gentlemen, to the day in question, the
10th of June. You are probably aware that it is the custom of Her
Majesty, Queen Victoria, since she has been united with Prince Albert,
frequently to take an airing in the afternoon or evening in the Parks
without any military escort, and with the simplicity of private life.
This custom was well known to all her loyal subjects, and indeed to the
whole community. It will appear that on this day, Wednesday, about four
o'clock, the prisoner went into the Park. He saw Prince Albert returning
from Woolwich, and going to the palace. The prisoner then went to
Constitution-hill, and there remained expecting the appearance of the
Queen. About six o'clock, the Queen, accompanied by her royal consort,
left the palace in a low open carriage, drawn by four horses, and with
two outriders, who went before, but with no other attendants. Her
Majesty was seated on the left side of the carriage, and Prince Albert
on the right. The carriage was driven up Constitution-hill. About one
hundred and twenty yards from the Palace--that is, about one-third of
the distance between the Palace and the Triumphal Arch there was the
prisoner, Edward Oxford, watching their progress. He walked backwards
and forwards, with his arms under the lapels of his coat. He was on the
right-hand side, near the iron railings which divide Constitution-hill
from the Green Park. When he saw the carriage, he turned round towards
it; he drew a pistol from his breast, and then, as the carriage went on,
discharged it. The providence of God averted the blow from her Majesty.
The ball was heard to whiz by on the opposite side. In all probability
her Majesty was quite unconscious at that moment that any attempt had
been made upon her life. The carriage proceeded. The prisoner then
looked back to see if any one was near to perceive him; he drew another
pistol from his breast, whether with his right hand or his left is
uncertain, and aimed at her Majesty. It would appear that her Majesty
saw him fire, because she stooped down. Again the providence of God
interfered. The prisoner fired, the ball was heard to whiz on the
[Illustration: _Oxford shooting at the Queen._
P. 587.]
other side--her Majesty escaped. The Queen immediately drove on, to
allay the alarms which might be caused by news brought to her august
parent with respect to an event so momentous. There was a considerable
number of persons on the side of the Park between the road and the
gardens of Buckingham Palace. Curiosity and loyalty had led many persons
to that spot, in the expectation of her Majesty showing herself to her
subjects. There was a man named Lowe, whom I shall call as a witness,
who immediately rushed across, seized Oxford, and took the pistols from
him. That person at first was believed to be the offender by the parties
around, who said, 'You confounded rascal, how dare you shoot at our
Queen?' On which Oxford said, 'It was I.' He was immediately taken into
custody, and taken to the station-house, where he voluntarily put the
question, 'Is the Queen hurt?' and on being told the Queen was not hurt,
he was asked whether there were not bullets in the pistols, and he
admitted at once that there were bullets. When he had been secured, and
when it had been ascertained that his lodgings were, as he said, in
West-place, West-square, a policeman was immediately despatched to
search them. The prisoner occupied a room on the first pair back. The
door of the room was open. The policemen found a box which undoubtedly
belonged to the prisoner. That box was locked; but I shall show that he
had in his pocket a key that fitted it, and that he acknowledged that it
was his box, as were also the contents. The box was opened, and in it
were found the following articles:--A sword and scabbard, two
pistol-bags, some black crape, a powder-flask, three ounces of powder, a
bullet-mould, five leaden bullets, and some percussion caps marked, and
which had been bought by the prisoner from Gray, his schoolfellow. There
was also found a pocket-book containing some papers. The box and its
contents were brought to the station-house and shown to the prisoner,
who stated that the papers belonged to him and that he meant to have
destroyed them in the morning before he went out. These papers I will
now read. The first bears no date: it is headed 'Young England;' and the
rules and regulations are eleven in number. The learned gentleman then
read the following paper:--
"'YOUNG ENGLAND.
RULES AND REGULATIONS.
"'1. 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.
"'2. That every member must, on entering, take the oath of
allegiance to be true to the cause he has joined.
"'3. That every member must, on entering the house, give a signal
to the sentry.
"'4. That every officer shall have a factitious name. His right
name and address to be kept with the secretary.
"'5. That every member shall, when he is ordered to meet, be armed
with a brace of pistols (loaded) and a sword to repel any attack;
and also be provided with a black crape cap, to cover his face
with--his marks of distinction outside.
"'6. That whenever any member wishes to introduce any new member,
he must give satisfactory accounts of him to their superiors, and
from thence to the counsel.
"'7. Any member who can procure an hundred men shall be promoted to
the rank of captain.
"'8. Any member holding communications with any country agents must
instantly forward the intelligence to the secretary.
"'9. That whenever any member is ordered down the country or
abroad, he must take various disguises with him (as the labourer,
the mechanic, and the gentleman), all of which he can obtain at the
committee-room.
"'10. That any member wishing to absent himself for more than one
month must obtain leave from the commander-in-chief.
"'11. That no member will be allowed to speak during any debate,
nor allowed to ask more than two questions.
"'All the printed rules to be kept at the committee-room.
"'LIST OF PRINCIPAL MEMBERS.
'FACTITIOUS NAMES.
President--Gowrie
Justinian
Aloman
Coloman
Kenneth
Godfrey
Council--Hanibal
Ernest
Augustin
Ethelred
Ferdinand
Nicholas
Gregory
Generals--Frederic
Augustus
Othoe
Anthony
Captains--Oxonian
Mildon
Louis
Amadeus
Lieutenants--Hercules
Neptune
Mars
Albert.
'MARKS OF DISTINCTION.
'_Counsel_--A large white cockade. _President_--A black bow.
_General_--Three red bows. _Captain_--Two red bows.
_Lieutenant_--One red bow.
"'A. W. SMITH, Secretary.'
"There were in the same pocket-book three letters, purporting to be
orders addressed by the same secretary, Smith, to Oxford: the first was
as follows:--
"'Young England, May 16, 1839.
"'SIR--Our commander-in-chief was very glad to find that you
answered his questions in such a straight-forward manner; you will
be wanted to attend on the 21st of this month, as we expect one of
the country agents in town on business of importance. Be sure and
attend.
"'A. W. SMITH, Secretary.
"'P.S. You must not take any notice to the boy, nor ask him any
questions.'
"Addressed--'Mr. Oxford, at Mr. Minton's, High-street, Marylebone.
"The next letter ran thus:--
"'Young England, Nov. 14, 1839.
"SIR--I am very glad to hear that you improve so much in your
speeches. Your speech the last time you were here was beautiful.
There was another one introduced last night by Lieutenant Mars, a
fine, tall, gentlemanly-looking fellow, and it is said that he is a
military officer, but his name has not yet transpired. Soon after
he was introduced, we were alarmed by a violent knocking at the
door; in an instant our faces were covered, we cocked our pistols,
and with drawn swords stood waiting to receive the enemy. While one
stood over the fire with the papers, another stood with lighted
torch to fire the house. We then sent the old woman to open the
door, and it proved to be some little boys who knocked at the door
and ran away.
"'A. W. SMITH, Secretary.
"'You must attend on Wednesday next.'
"Addressed--'Mr. Oxford, at Mr. Farr's, Hat and Feathers,
Goswell-street.'
"The last was in the following terms:--
"'Young England, April 3, 1840.
"'SIR--You are requested to attend to-night, as there is an
extraordinary meeting to be holden, in consequence of having
received some communications of an important nature from Hanover.
You must attend, and if your master will not give you leave, you
must come in defiance of him.
"'A. W. SMITH, Secretary.'
"Addressed--'Mr. Oxford, at Mr. Robinson's, Hog-in-the-Pound,
Oxford-street.'"
"Under these circumstances, gentlemen, if the prisoner is accountable
for his acts, will you say whether there is any reasonable doubt of his
guilt? I should tell you that the balls, after a strict search has been
made, have not been found; but I think that no one can entertain any
serious doubt that the pistols were loaded with balls. I understand
there were marks on the wall, which were examined immediately
afterwards, and which some conceive must have been made by the balls
from the pistols. I shall lay this evidence before you, but I
acknowledge to you freely my own conviction that much weight is not to
be attached to it. To my own mind it seems more probable that the balls
went over the wall. I shall show that Oxford was not skilful in the use
of pistols; and it is probable, in the confusion and flurry under which
he must have laboured at such a moment, that the pistols were directed
unsteadily, and that the balls went over the wall. Can there, however,
be a doubt that the pistols were loaded? He buys bullets, he had them at
his lodgings, there was also a mould in which to cast bullets in his
box: he had been firing at a target; he had been practising at a
shooting-gallery; and at the time, whatever he may have said since,
after asking whether the queen was hurt, he voluntarily declared that
the pistols were loaded. Under these circumstances, it appears to me
that if the prisoner was at the time accountable for his actions, there
can be no doubt of his guilt. But it is for you to hear the evidence
that shall be given, and you are the judges of the fact. I now come to
the second question, Whether the prisoner was accountable for his
actions at the time when the offence was committed? And I will at once
admit, under the law of England, that if he was then of unsound mind--if
he was incapable of judging between right and wrong--if he was labouring
under any delusion or insanity, so as not to be sensible of his crime,
or conscious of the act which he committed--if at the time when that act
was committed he was afflicted with insanity, he will be entitled to be
acquitted on that ground. In former times, it was said that there was
some doubt upon the law, and some difficulty of acquittal on the ground
of insanity. There was, as their lordships will recollect, an act passed
in the time of Henry VIII., raising some doubt upon this point, when
there was an attempt against the life of the sovereign. Happily,
however, that act has been repealed, and now we have both reason and
justice on the side of the law of the land. But it lies upon a party
setting up such a plea to make it out clearly and satisfactorily. It
must be shown on his behalf, not merely that he was at times guilty of
strangeness of conduct, or of extravagant acts--not merely that violence
had been done by him, or offences committed--but it must be shown that
at the particular time when the offence charged was committed, he was
not an accountable being; that he was then labouring under some
delusion, that he could not distinguish right from wrong, and that he
was unconscious of committing any offence. Such, I apprehend, is clearly
the law of the land, as it will be expounded to you by my Lord Denman
and his learned brethren; and as this law is expounded to you by them, I
have no doubt you will consider yourselves bound. It would be most
dangerous to admit the plea of insanity, merely when it is shown that
the prisoner labours occasionally under a degree of excitement, and that
at former times he has been guilty of violence, if at the time when the
crime is committed the party was not actually labouring under a
delusion, but was aware of the object he had in view, and its
consequences. I may mention for your information, that by the law of
England, if exemption be claimed from a criminal charge on the plea of
insanity, there is a greater necessity that mental aberration should be
proved, than in civil transactions in which it is sought to annul a
contract or to take away the management of a man's affairs. In criminal
matters it must be proved that the insanity is existing at the time of
the crime, and that it is connected with the crime committed. In civil
matters it is enough to show that the party is of unsound mind, although
it is not connected with the particular transaction." The learned
Attorney-general having then referred to a great number of cases in
support of the proposition which he had laid down, proceeded to say,--"I
will now implore you, gentlemen, to consider whether, upon the evidence
which will be produced, you are bound to say that the prisoner was
insane at the time this crime was committed. I say most unaffectedly,
that I should rejoice if such had been the case. I feel that I only
speak the sentiments of all present at the time when he was guilty of
this most atrocious attempt, when I say so. The crime, though levelled
against any person of rank inferior to that of her majesty--putting out
of the question the allegiance we owe to the head of the state, and the
lamentable consequences which must have followed had this attack been
successful--is of the deepest possible dye, and I say, that it would be
a great relief to all who have respect for our common nature, if it be
shown that the person who was capable of such an act was unconscious of
what he was doing. But I have a duty to discharge to the crown and to
the public, and I must say, that, so far as I have yet learned, there is
no reason to believe that the prisoner at the time he committed this
crime was in a state of mind which takes away his criminal
responsibility for the deed. We do not find that, previously to this
occurrence, he was ever treated by his friends as a maniac; but, on the
contrary, he was placed in situations of trust and confidence, where he
was called upon to perform duties of some difficulty, which he went
through to the satisfaction of his employers, and as a reasonable being
would. He is not an idiot, but, on the contrary, his proceedings
throughout the whole course of his life show him to be a person of
singular acuteness. I will refer to what passed when the prisoner was
before the Privy Council. The witnesses were examined; the prisoner had
an opportunity, which he exercised, of cross-examining them; and, at the
conclusion of the evidence, he was asked whether he wished to say
anything or not. He was told that he was at liberty to give any
explanation or not, as he pleased; and he was informed, that anything he
said would be taken down, and read against him another day. On that
occasion these were the words which he voluntarily uttered:--'A great
many witnesses against me; some say that I shot with my left, others
with my right. They vary as to the distance. After I fired the first
pistol, Prince Albert got up, as if he would jump out of the carriage,
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.' He was asked whether
he would sign the statement? He said that he had no objection, and he
signed it 'Edward Oxford.' This, gentlemen, may be material in two
points of view--first, because at this time he did not say that there
were no balls in the pistols; he made no allegation of that kind, but to
the contrary; and, next, that he was then fully sensible of the act he
had committed. Upon these facts, gentlemen, it is for you to say
whether, at the time this act was committed, the prisoner was
accountable for his actions. You will, I am satisfied, come to a right
conclusion upon the evidence; you will consider all the facts that are
proved; but, at the same time, you will consider that you have a great
duty to perform; that duty you will perform with caution and with
conscientiousness; you will, from the evidence, come to your decision,
and of that decision the country will have no reason to complain."