Nineteenth-Century "Criminal Lunatics"
​
On the advent of the nineteenth century, public concerns grew for the use of the insanity plea in criminal trials. As criminal trials opened to the public, newspapers took an interest in the events unfolding in British courtrooms and devoted pages to its coverage. With the increased attention by the media and society, a need for legal classifications and guidelines emerged. Historians agree that the first official use of the term "criminal lunatic" in the Criminal Lunatic Act of 1800. This Act enforced the legal indefinite detainment of those found insane at trial. This severe action was in response to the trial of James Hadfield, an actor, in 1800. In 1800, Hadfield attempted to assassinate King George III at the Theatre Royal in Drury Lane. He was unsuccessful in his attempt to shoot the King and was tried for high treason. In his trial, Hadfield's lawyer, Thomas Erskine, submitted a plea of insanity and successfully proved that Hadfield was laboring under the delusion that the King was part of a conspiracy to murder him. According to British law, a successful plea of insanity meant that the defendant was not criminally responsible and released into the care of their family.
Charles Williams (1797-1850), A Ward of Chancery, & a Commission of Lunacy Superseded, March 16, 1807. Etching with hand coloring. Image Source: Princeton University
Lord Kenyon, 1st Baron Kenyon, presided over the trial and believed that acceptance of Hadfield's plea of insanity would be dangerous for society. In response, Parliament passed the 1800 Act which codified a system to deal with the new subcategory of criminals. The next legal change to insanity occurred in 1843, once again in response to a widely publicized trial. Daniel M'Naghten (sometimes spelled McNaughten) attempted to kill Robert Peel, Prime Minister of Britain, and successfully killed his private secretary, Edward Drummond. Similarly, to Hadfield, M'Naghten believed Peel, and his government was conspiring to murder him. M'Naghten was tried at the Central Criminal Court in London and plead insane with the support of many prominent alienists. Historians recognize the M'Naghten trial as the catalyst for the development of a legal standard for identifying insanity in criminal trials. M'Naghten was found not guilty on the grounds of insanity.
Portrait of Daniel M'Naghten, Illustrated London News, 1843. Image Source: Wellcome Library
In response to the M'Naghten trial, Parliament created the legal requirements for accepting a plea of insanity known as the "M'Naghten Rules." The Rules required proof that the individual was laboring under "a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as to not know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong." The M'Naghten trial and the subsequent codification of the insanity plea evoked strong responses from the public. The Rules ultimately removed any criminal guilty from the prisoner if their insanity could be proven. In response to the trial, The Standard published a satirical poem by T. Campbell titled "Congratulation On a Late Acquittal" with the lines:
"Congratulation on a Late Acquittal By T. Campbell," The Standard, March 7, 1843. Source: Newspaper.com
​
The poem symbolized the public's response to the court's handling of the case, as they still perceived this new legal definition as a threat to society. The public felt distrust for the latest legal test and its effectiveness in successfully identifying legitimate insanity from those feigning to avoid punishment. Many alienists and lawyers saw the M'Naghten Rules as exemplifying a restrictive view of madness that did not reflect developing theories in mental disease.
The Trial of Lunatics Act passed in 1883 on the request of Queen Victoria, who wished to change the verdict outlined in the M'Naghten Rules from "not guilty" to "guilty but insane." Queen Victoria was subject to many attacks by mentally ill individuals and believed the new terminology would act as a deterrent to lunatics. This late shift, however, clearly rejected the accepted idea amongst the legal and medical community that those suffering from insanity could not be considered responsible for their actions. The new moniker lasted in British law until 1964.
"The Attempt on the Life of the Queen," The Graphic, March 11, 1882. Image Source: British Newspaper Archive.
While the British legal system worked to define and deal with "criminal lunacy," developments in mental health and asylum laws created an opportunity for legal and psychiatric professionals to carve space for the growing population of "criminal lunatics." In 1845, the Lunacy Act and the Pauper Lunatics Act passed concurrently in Parliament and established the need for every county to construct an asylum for their lunatic populations. They also established The Commissioners of Lunacy, a national public body tasked with overseeing all public and private asylums as well as to publish public reports on their findings. These Acts increased the construction of asylums throughout Britain and offered more sites for "criminal lunatics" to be held and treated. By the 1850s, the Commissioners, along with many superintendents and medical officers of lunatic asylums, expressed their opposition to the growing populations of "criminal lunatics" amongst the pauper and private patients. They argued that the presence of "criminal lunatics" posed a threat to the successful treatment of pauper and private patients. They stated that "criminal lunatics" induced harmful moral effects in "ordinary patients" as they would attempt to escape or feign insanity. "Criminal lunatics" bridged the two categories in law – criminal and lunatic – and in doing so were doubly stigmatized and the "psychiatric leper of society." This growing population of dangerous lunatics required a dedicated space to detain and treat them so they may re-enter society.