In 1843, one man would set a legal precedent that is still utilized today. Daniel M’Naghten attempted to assassinate the Prime Minister of England only to be caught up in a case of mistaken identity. Did his delusions cause his actions or was he legally sane at the time of the crime? Listen to the story of how Daniel’s actions set the standard for generations to come. The burden of proof of one’s mental status is the defendant’s responsibility to prove.
Apple Podcasts
Stitcher
Pandora
Spotify
Google Podcasts
iHeartRadio
TuneInEarly Life
Daniel M’Naghten was born in Scotland (probably Glasgow) around 1813. His true date of birth is unknown. He was the illegitimate son of Daniel M’Naghten and Ada, a poor dressmaker. Daniel was raised by his mother until she passed away in 1821 at which time he went to live with his father and stepmother.
His father was a businessman in Glasgow. His primary occupation was woodturning, but he also was landlord to several properties. It doesn’t appear Daniel’s stepmother was a big fan of having him around, but by 10 years old he was beginning as an apprentice to his father. After years of studying Daniel M’Naghten was ready to take his place as his father’s partner, but his stepmother wanted the business to be passed down to her legitimate sons. He still stayed on as an employee.
Besides the heritage of wood turning, Daniel had another passion, the stage.
In 1832, at the age of 19, Daniel M’Naghten had enough money saved from work to pursue his theatrical career. He used the stage name Mr. Knight and joined a group that performed at the Glasgow Trades Hall. He then joined a group of touring actors and found himself traveling across western Scotland. It ended unsuccessfully and he returned to Glasgow three years later when finances forced him to return to the more profitable trade of being a woodturner.
His shop was successful even though in the late 1830s while much of the country was struggling economically. By 1842 he couldn’t continue to run his shop due to a lack of customers.
London
In the fall of 1842, McNaughtan booked passage to London on the steamship Fire King. He reserved a room in a boarding house for 16 weeks. During his time in London, he spent time familiarizing himself with the surrounding area around 10 Downing St.
10 Downing St, also known as Number 10, is the headquarters of the government of the United Kingdom and residence of the Prime Minister. It has over 100 rooms, most of which are offices.
Daniel M’Naghten was surveying this area to study the daily habits of the then current Prime Minister, Sir Robert Peel.
The Shooting
On Friday, January 20, 1843, McNaughtan followed a man as he emerged from the public offices on Downing Street. He walked to the bank and was returning to Downing Street when McNaughtan drew a pistol from his pocket and shot him in the back. He was reaching for a second pistol when a policeman wrestled him to the ground. The man survived for four days before dying from his wounds.
What Daniel M’Naghten didn’t realize at the time of the shooting was that the man he shot and killed wasn’t the Prime Minister at all, but his secretary.
Edward Drummond was the private secretary to the prime minister and resembled Robert Peel in stature and age. The two men were often mistaken for one another by the public. They kept the same schedule and there was no pictorial press available for people to distinguish one from the other in the nineteenth century. For weeks he had been watching the wrong man.
What Set the Shooting in Motion?
The question remained, why did Daniel M’Naghten want to kill the Prime Minister in the first place?
Daniel was a part of Chartism, a working-class male suffrage movement for political reform in Britain that existed from 1838 to 1857. It took its name from the People’s Charter of 1838 and was a national protest movement.
The People’s Charter called for six reforms to make the political system more democratic:
- A vote for every man twenty-one years of age, of sound mind, and not undergoing punishment for a crime.
- The secret ballot to protect the elector in the exercise of his vote.
- No property qualification for Members of Parliament to allow the constituencies to return the man of their choice.
- Payment of Members, enabling tradesmen, working men, or other persons of modest means to leave or interrupt their livelihood to attend to the interests of the nation.
- Equal constituencies, securing the same amount of representation for the same number of electors, instead of allowing less populous constituencies to have as much or more weight than larger ones.
- Annual Parliamentary elections, thus presenting the most effective check to bribery and intimidation, since no purse could buy a constituency under a system of universal manhood suffrage in every twelve months.
Because of this affiliation and their beliefs, he began harboring a delusion that there was a conspiracy against him.
During his interrogation, he stated, “The Tories in my native city have compelled me to do this. They followed me to France, into Scotland and all over to England. In fact, they follow me wherever I go… They have accused me of crimes of which I am not guilty; they do everything in their power to harass and persecute me. In fact, they wish to murder me.”
Daniel M’Naghten Pleads Insanity
While this may seem cut and dry, the defense pleaded insanity. Six weeks later, on March 3, 1843, the thirty-year-old Daniel M’Naghten stood trial for the wilful murder of Edward Drummond. The trial took place at the Old Bailey before Chief Justice Tindal, Justice Williams, and Justice Coleridge. The courthouse was packed with curious observers, including the famous author Charles Dickens. Daniel M’Naghten entered a plea of “not guilty,” and the trial began.
During the trial it often seemed as though the prosecution and defense were arguing the same point.
The prosecution’s case centered on the fact that McNaughtan had shot the wrong man, which showed evidence of his diminished mental capacity. The lead attorney then offered his observations on the law of insanity to the court. The defense acknowledged that McNaughtan had shot Drummond and stated that its case would rest upon his state of mind at the time McNaughtan committed the offense.
Multiple physicians examined Daniel and all testified that at the time of the crime he was insane.
Daniel M’Naghten was acquitted of murder and a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity was delivered.
M’Naghten Rule
Due to the public outcry over his acquittal, the M’Naghten rule was established by the House of Lords. On March 6, 1843, there was a discussion in the House of Lords, and Lord Chancellor put five questions to a panel of His Majesty’s judges. The five questions were replied to on June 19, 1843, and they were construed as the McNaughton’s rules. The following are the main points of McNaughton’s rules:
- Every man is to be presumed to be sane and to possess a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his crimes until the contrary is proven.
- An insane person is punishable “if he knows” at the time of the crime.
- To establish a defense on insanity, the accused, by defect of reason or disease of mind, is not in a position to know the nature and consequences.
- The insane person must be considered in the same situation as to responsibility as if the facts with respect to which the delusion exists were real.
- It was the jury’s role to decide whether the defendant was insane.
Later Life
Daniel M’Naghten was forcibly institutionalized for the rest of his life under the Criminal Lunatics Act 1800. He was first remanded to Bethlem Royal Hospital (Bedlam) on March 13, 1843.
In 1864 Daniel was transferred to the new State Criminal Lunatic Asylum at Crowthorne in Berkshire. He died the next year after twenty-two years of confinement and struggles with diabetes and heart disease. He was buried on the asylum grounds in an unmarked grave.
Resources
- Daniel MNaghten
- 9: Daniel M’Naghten- 10 Uses of the Insanity Defense | HowStuffWorks
- Daniel M’Naghten’s Case
- McNaughtan, Daniel
- Daniel McNaughton (1813-1865)
- Chartism
- Daniel M’Naghten’s Case