Reported from the Leeds Mercury. In: Williams C. Observations on the criminal responsibility of the insane; founded on the trials of James Hill and William Dove.London: Churchill, 1856: cxiii–cxiv. [See also Smith R. Trial by medicine: insanity and responsibility in Victorian trials. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1981. For the wider background to modern practice: Walker N, McCabe S. Crime and insanity in England. 2 vols. Edinburgh University Press, 1968, 1973]
2.
LaycockT.On law and medicine in insanity. An introductory lecture. Edinburgh Medical Journal1862; 7: 1132. [Laycock was especially angry about the Windham Chancery case; see Jones K. The Windham case: the enquiry held in London in 1861 into the mind of William Frederick Windham, heir to the Felbrigg estate. Br J Psychiatry 1971; 119: 425-33]
3.
UnsworthC.The politics of mental health legislation.Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987
4.
CooterR.The cultural meaning of popular science: phrenology and the organization of consent in nineteenth-century Britain.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984
5.
MoranR.Knowing right from wrong: the insanity defense of Daniel McNaughtan.New York: Free Press, 1981
6.
WestD.J., WalkA. eds. Daniel McNaughtan: his trial and the aftermath.Ashford: Hedley Brothers, for the British Journal of Psychiatry, 1977
7.
ReynoldsJ.R.On the scientific value of the legal tests of insanity.London: Churchill, 1872: 9
8.
ChoroverS.L.From Genesis to genocide: the meaning of human nature and the power of behavior control.Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 1979
9.
Regina v. Fooks. Dorset Spring Assizes, 1863. Journal of Mental Science1863; 9: 136
10.
The English reports.Edinburgh: Green, 1900–1930. Vol. 175: 515–16 (175 ER 515–16)
