An inquiry into the state of mind of W. F. Windham, Esq., of Fellbrigg Hall, Norfolk, before Samuel Warren, Esq., Q.C., and a special jury : upon the petition of General Windham, C. B., etc., the uncle of the alleged lunatic, and other members of the family, at Her Majesty's Court of Exchequer, Westminster, commencing December 16, 1861.

Date:: 1862

Credit: An inquiry into the state of mind of W. F. Windham, Esq., of Fellbrigg Hall, Norfolk, before Samuel Warren, Esq., Q.C., and a special jury : upon the petition of General Windham, C. B., etc., the uncle of the alleged lunatic, and other members of the family, at Her Majesty's Court of Exchequer, Westminster, commencing December 16, 1861. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by Royal College of Physicians, London. The original may be consulted at Royal College of Physicians, London.

70/202 page 70

attempt to “ tickle his fancy;” he was treated with great respect all through. I did not find when I introduced disagreeable subjects that Mr. Windham was particularly anxious to change them. The interviews were undoubtedly of a very trying character for Mr. Windham. lie showed a vtry small amount of intelligence, and he certainly did not go through the examination very creditably. There was no particular excitement about him, nor was there anything in his behaviour or language inconsistent with the character of a gentleman. His remarks were very childish. I asked him whether he himself had not been intimate with his wife before marriage. He said he had not. Then I asked him, “ Have you not said so to others ?” He denied that he had made any remark of the kind. Afterwards I repeated the question pointedly to him, when he admitted having said that he had had all he wanted out of his wife ; “ but,” he added, “ I said so by way of a blind, not wishing other parties to know what I was going to do.” I learnt the fact of Mr. , No. 1, having slept in the same house with Mrs. Windham the night before her marriage, from Mr. Field. I did not ask Mr. Windham for any details of his debts. He seemed to be aware that he was responsible for his wife’s debts, and he told me he had advertised in the papers that after a certain time he would not be answerable for any obligations she might incur. He was asked whether his feelings of friendship for Roberts would be altered if it were proved that Roberts, and not Messrs. Lawrence and Fry, was the real pur- chaser of the timber. His reply was that he did not see why that should interfere with his friendship with Roberts. I attached great importance to that answer. [Here the witness, at the request of Sir Hugh Cairns, referred to the notes he had taken on the spot; they did not contain any allusion to the answer attributed to Mr. Windham about Roberts.] I think Dr. Mayo asked Mr. Windham whether Roberts was not called “ Mahogany Roberts.” 1 do not recollect the answer. I am quite posi- tive it was not I who referred to the nickname of “ Mahogany.” 1 was not aware at the time that Roberts was known by that sobriquet. [The witness was told by Sir Hugh Cairns to look at the paper of instruction furnished to him by Mr. Field previous to his interview with Mr. Wind- ham. He did so, and found that one of the instructions related to “ Mahogany Roberts.”] I communicated the result of my examination of Mr. Windham to the advisers of the petitioners before the case was opened by Mr. Chambers. I do not think that a casual observer, judging merely from his appear- ance, would come to the conclusion that Mr. Windham has an unsound mind. Such a person as I have described Mr. Windham to be, may be capable of writing a rational letter, and making bargains to a certain extent. Some lunatics, inmates of a public establishment, are permitted to go abroad for the purpose of making small purchases. I cannot tell you where sanity ends and insanity begins. It is impossible to trace the line of demarcation. Judging alone from what I saw of Mr. Windham in the two interviews I had with him, supposing I had met him with my mind a tabula rasa, I should have been loth to form the opinion which I have expressed to-day with respect to his imbecility. But the truth is, that indepen- dently of the data supplied to me by Mr. Field, and of certain circumstances which I assumed to be true, I had no means of testing Mr. Windham so as to arrive at any conclusion on the subject of his mental condition. I repeat that the opinion which I have stated is partly founded upon the assumption that certain actions which I have heard attributed to him, and which formed the principal topic of conversation, were really committed by Mr. Windham. The cross-examination of the witness was not concluded when the Court ad- journed. TWELFTH DAY—Wednseday, Jan. 1. The adjourned inquiry into the state of mind of Mr. W. F. Windham, of Fellbrigg- hall, Norfolk, was resumed this day in the Court of Exchequer, Westminster, before Mr. Warren, Q.C., one of the Masters in Lunacy, and a special jury. Mr. M. Chambers, Q.C., Mr. Field, and Mr. Hume Williams appeared for the peti- tioners ; Mr. Charles Russell for Lady Sophia Elizabeth Giubilei, the mother of the alleged lunatic; Sir Hugh Cairns, Q.C., Mr. Karslalce, Q.C., and Mr. Milward for Mr. William Frederick Windham ; and Mr. Coleridge, Q.C., for Mrs. Windham. The Master remarked that on Tuesday a question was raised whether a skilled witness, such as Dr. Forbes Winslow, was entitled to express an opinion founded upon the evidence taken in court. He had ventured to decide that question in the

Licence and re-use

Contents