Upon the whole matter we are of opinion,--_First_, That there was very satisfactory evidence that the pistols were loaded with ball, and that the jury ought to have found their verdict accordingly. _Secondly_, If they remained of opinion, to the last, that there was no satisfactory evidence on this point, they ought unquestionably to have pronounced the prisoner Not Guilty, independently of any question as to the prisoner's state of mind. In Scotland, the jury would, in such a case, have returned a verdict of _Not Proven_; but in England, deficient evidence--_i. e._ such as leaves the jury finally in doubt--is regarded as leaving the charge unproved, &c., requiring the verdict of Not Guilty. _Thirdly_, The defence of insanity utterly failed, and the evidence offered in support of it was scarcely worthy of serious consideration. _Lastly_, It is possible that the verdict was given--though by men anxiously desirous of acting with mingled mercy and justice--under a condition of mental irresolution and confusion, and with a deficiency of moral courage. The jury either shrank from the fearful consequences of a verdict of Guilty, on a charge of high treason, and yet feared to let the prisoner loose again upon society; or there was a compromise between those who believed that there _was_, and there was _not_, sufficient evidence of the pistols having contained bullets; and also between those who were similarly divided on the subject of the prisoner's sanity. Thus stood, thus stands, the case; and Oxford has ever since been an inmate of Bedlam: though Mr Taylor, to whose work on _Medical Jurisprudence_ we have already referred, and who is a decided and able supporter of that theory of "moral insanity" to which we, in common with all the Judges, are so strongly opposed, admits expressly that, with the exception of M'Naughten's case, "there is perhaps none on record, in English jurisprudence, where the facts in support of the plea of insanity were so slight as in that of Oxford."[21] M'NAUGHTEN'S CASE.