Owner Comments:
I find this piece's design attractive, and it seems to capture the simple but elegant designs that often were portrayed on pieces struck the Soho Mint. This medal was engraved by Küchler and came about after a failed attempt to assassinate King George III on May 15th, 1800 (see historical context below for more information). As was the case for several other medals, Boulton's London agent, Chippindall, wrote Boulton a letter on May 22nd informing him that a Mr. Gray of London was inquiring about a medal to commemorate the preservation of the King (Pollard, 1970; Tungate; 2020). Boulton replied on May 25th, explaining that he had two dies ready, but expressed a desire to wait until a more significant event occurred to use them unless Chippindall could secure an order for at least 500 medals (Pollard, 1970). Boulton described the two obverse dies as "
one head in ye antique stile & the other the more modern in his dress wig" (Tungate, 2020). It appears Boulton had these dies prepared by Küchler when there was some suggestion in 1795 that the long-desired peace would finally be realized, which is the event that Boulton seems to allude to in his letter to Chippindale. In total, 227 medals were struck using two obverse (i.e., the antique and modern style busts) and two reverse dies with different legends, which resulted in four different types that depict the varying die marriages (Pollard, 1970; Tungate, 2020). Interestingly, the obverse and reverse dies used for this medal appeared as lot 209 when the contents, machinery, and other articles of the Soho Mint were auctioned off on April 30th, 1850. If these dies were released into the hands of the general public, restrikes might exist. Although it is more likely that the campaign launched by Matthew Piers Watt Boulton to sabotage the sale of dies might have prevented this from occurring (Vice, 1995). On any note, restrikes might exist.
Historical Context:
Researching this led me down a path of discovery that I likely never would have stumbled upon by happenstance. For those interested in history, true crime, and conspiracy, the events that propagated the production of this medal have it all! As argued by the main source of information that I cite continuously throughout this write-up, the assassination attempt coupled with the limited scope of a judicial precedent set the stage for a genuinely fascinating trial that forever changed the landscape of the insanity plea.
 |
On May 15th, 1800, King George III was nearly shot twice in two separate events. The first occurred at Hyde Park during a military demonstration. Although the shooter was never identified, a single bullet was fired in the King's direction, which subsequently injured a naval officer standing nearby. I have had little luck finding contemporary sources to provide more detail of this event, but luckily for those interested, the second attempt on the King's life is much better documented. Seemingly undeterred by this near-death experience, the King decided to go about his day and later attended the Drury Lane Theatre. The King, entering into his private box, was greeted by the orchestra proudly playing '
God Save the King'. Unlike the event that transpired at Hyde Park, the attacker in this situation was very blatant. A man named James Hadfield, mixed within the crowd in the pit below, suddenly stood on a second-row seat, raised a horse pistol, and shot in the King's direction as he neared the front of the box (Moran, 1985). A great deal of chaos ensued as the shot rang out, and a bullet passed within eighteen inches of the King's head. According to contemporary accounts, the room filled with cries of "
catch the villain!" and the like. With the help of a Bow Street Police Officer, a group of orchestra members tackled Hadfield to the ground. Purportedly, the King remained calm and took a few steps back before advancing to the edge of the box in an attempt to get a glimpse of the would-be assassin. Fully restrained, Hadfield was then removed to a separate room for questioning while the show would continue as planned.
Magistrate Sir William Addington conducted the initial questioning. He gathered several witnesses to deduct Hadfield's intent. More specifically, he sought to determine if he fired his pistol at random or if his shot was deliberately aimed at the King. The offenses, under current law, led to two very different charges (Moran, 1985). Most witnesses recalled seeing Hadfield take deliberate aim and fire at the King, but this contradicted what Hadfield told investigators. Hadfield instead claimed that he had no intent to harm the King. He went on to say that he wished for death but not by his own hand and had hoped that the crowd would retaliate and kill him after he fired his pistol. He further protested the idea of an attempted assassination by stating that he was "
as good a shot as any in England". In other words, he bragged about his marksmanship while arguing that he obviously did not intend to harm the King because he was still alive (Moran, 1985). Once investigators finished their questioning, Hadfield was held locally for several hours. At around 10 in the afternoon, Hadfield was brought to the office of the Duke of Portland, who interrogated him further. He was once again asked if he was involved with the event that occurred in Hyde Park, which he continued to deny. He denied belonging to any political clubs and failed to name any accomplices. Once the Duke of Portland was satisfied with his interrogation, he was informed that he would stand trial for high treason. Hadfield was later transported to Newgate Prison, where he awaited his trial.
At face value, the story of the attack is interesting, but as is often the case, there is much more to tell that only adds to the intrigue. As fate would have it, Hadfield's story is rather remarkable. For this write-up, we will start by exploring his military career. As a private in the army, Hadfield served in the Fifteenth Light Dragoons under the direction of the Duke of York, the second son of King George III. During his service, he was severely injured in battle when he was shot, resulting in a broken wrist, which made his defense much more difficult. As the battle raged on, Hadfield would suffer many significant injuries, most notably to his head. Given the large degree of deformity indicated by the trial documents, it appears that Hadfield suffered no less than eight significant blows to the head. One of which was so forceful that it broke away part of his skull and left the outer membrane of his brain exposed (Moran, 1985). Left for dead by his army, Private Hadfield was eventually discovered by the French and captured as a prisoner of war. At least to me, it is unclear if all of his wounds were suffered on the battlefield or if he sustained several afterward during torture. I have found little contemporary evidence to persuade my opinion in either direction, but nonetheless, Hadfield had sustained severe trauma to his head. Eventually, Hadfield was released by the French army, and upon inspection, he was discharged from the 15th Light Dragoons as being mentally unfit to serve.
Upon his discharge, Hadfield found work at a silversmith's shop as a spoon maker in London. To fully appreciate Hadfield's story, we must first place it in the historical context that laid the path for a series of events that undoubtedly influenced one another. To do so, we need to backtrack several years just before the attack in May of 1800. The French revolution was the talk of the town, and many Englishmen, both studied and common, found sympathy with France's call for liberty. Political clubs began to spring up all over London, and understandably this made those in power very uncomfortable as any uprising could very well result in their loss of power, or as it occasionally did in the French Revolution, their life. Eventually, the government would respond, and several of the figureheads from numerous political clubs, such as the London Corresponding Society, were tried for high treason (Moran, 1985). With little luck at conviction, the figureheads were left no worse for the ware, but it did substantially impact the political clubs. In fear of prosecution, these clubs now operated in secret, which, if nothing else, seemingly made them more dangerous. Perhaps not surprisingly, it appears religious undertones and scare tactics were used by many of the fray political clubs to recruit new members and further propagate their agendas.
As noted (Moran, 1985), several religious scholars likened the "
age of reason" as the start of the second coming of Jesus and thus the beginning of the end. Some of the main fanatics of the fray groups declared themselves prophets, arguing that they had a divine purpose that was destined to be fulfilled. One such self-proclaimed prophet was Bannister Truelock. We learn from the testimony of Sarah Lock that Truelock predicted that the King would be assassinated by May or June of 1800, and once it was done, Kings would be abolished from England and that the daily cost of living would be drastically reduced. According to Mrs. Lock, he knew these things because he proclaimed himself to be "
a true descendant of God", who was a "Blackguard" by his account. According to him, his divine mission was simple, "
destroy this world in the course of three days". He reiterated much of these sentiments in the Duke of Portland's office on May 16th. He was found to be so insane that he was transported without regular practice to a "
lunatic asylum". Of course, this only came about after the actions of Hadfield had prompted an investigation. It appears that Hadfield met Truelock the Monday before the attack in Conduit Fields, an encounter that Truelock freely confessed to during his interview. As it is recorded, Truelock purportedly filled Hadfield's head with religiously laced lies that supposedly led to him making an attempt on the King's life. This would be a key argument of the prosecution to establish Hadfield's intent to harm the King.
Before discussing the details of the trial, it is essential to note that Hadfield was tried for high treason and not felony attempted murder, which many have argued saved his life (Moran, 1985). Under the contemporary law, any attempt on the King's life was high treason as it was politically motivated. In fact, these cases were tried in an entirely different court, and as noted by Moran (1985), afforded the accused many rights that were not granted to those tried in the ordinary courts. For instance, the burden of proof was doubled (i.e., two witnesses were required), the accused had the right to counsel, to call witnesses on their behalf, and was permitted to challenge potential jurors. It appears these extra precautions were put in place to protect those (mostly of rank and position) who fell victim to an attempt of political sabotage at the hands of rivals. Hadfield went on to plead not guilty and took full advantage of his rights by requesting counsel. More specifically, he requested to be represented by the Honorable Thomas Erstine, who was renowned for his work protecting the legal rights of the accused. By all accounts, he was a brilliant litigator, and his prowess is on full display within the argument made throughout the trial.
The trial took place on June 26th, 1800. The prosecution wasted no time and built a solid case. Their opening statement made it clear they intended to show that Hadfield purchased the gun, knowing that it could be used as a tool to cause harm, that he sought an opportunity to be in the presence of the King, and that he deliberately aimed his pistol at him with the full intent to kill him. The mounting evidence was overwhelming, and the testimony of the witnesses called by the prosecution provided an iron-clad motive to kill the King. As Moran (1985) suggests, the prosecution likely anticipated the defense would argue that Hadfield was insane and therefore entitled to an acquittal. The remaining portion of the prosecution's case built an argument against any claim of insanity. The Attorney General explained the law in great detail to the jury. In his address, he said the following:
THE CRIMINAL LUNATICS ACT |
"
if a man is completely deranged, so that he knows not what he does, if a man is so lost to all sense, in consequence of the infirmity of disease, that he is incapable of distinguishing between good and evil- that he is incapable of forming a judgement upon the consequences of the act which he is about to do, that then the mercy of our law says, he cannot be guilty of a crime"
He further argued that both conditions must be met, given legal precedence, and proceeded to build a case suggesting that Hadfield was well aware of the consequences of his actions. Moran (1985) noted that under contemporary law, one could be convicted even if found to be insane, so long as the crime was committed when the accused was lucid. To this extent, the attorney general only needed to prove that Hadfield was lucid when he fired his pistol. The testimony by the Duke of York, who was one of the first to question Hadfield after the attack, made a strong case that would be hard to argue against. He testified that Hadfield had complete control of his faculties and clearly understood his actions, as Hadfield reported that he hoped the crowd would take his life in retaliation for the attack. If that testimony was not damning enough, the evidence made it clear that Hadfield purchased the pistol, loaded it with a lead bullet, and used the most advantageous position to carry out his attack (Morton, 1985). As such, given that Hadfield understood the consequences of his actions, he was lucid, and therefore not insane at the time of the attack. Establishing this fact, combined with the evidence and numerous testimonies made for a seemingly iron-tight case against an insanity plea, but the defense utterly destroyed their position.
Oddly enough, the prosecution did not dispute the evidence or the role Trulock played in the assassination plot, nor did they object to any of the testimony provided. They accepted everything at face value, but Erstine objected to the legal application of precedent to establish the grounds of insanity. In a twist of brilliance, he argued that delusions, either with or without fits of madness and rage, were the true measure of insanity. He argued that the ability to distinguish between good and evil and understand the consequences of ones' actions is irrelevant if the basis of reasoning is seeded by delusion (Moran, 1985). In other words, the two metrics of insanity as argued by the attorney general are useless in establishing if the accused is insane. To further illustrate his point, Erstine called upon two prior cases in which the accused was found to be insane despite violating the conditions set forth by the prosecution for insanity. In both cases, the accused could distinguish good from evil, understood the consequences of their actions, and displayed no fits of rage; however, in both instances, the accused was found to be insane because they suffered from severe delusions which clouded their judgment. The legal precedence cited established that a person could be found insane if they suffered from delusions and thus afforded the same procedure as those found insane by the prosecution's standards. Erstine now only had to establish that Hadfield was delusional.
Erstine called a flurry of witnesses to the stand, ranging from men who served beside him to medical professionals. All of which furthered the argument that the severe head trauma changed not only Hadfield's general mental acuity but also the physical structure of his brain, evoking permanent and irreversible insanity (Moran, 1985). One man, a fellow prisoner of war detained with Hadfield, reported that Hadfield had to be moved to a hospital because he was in a fit claiming to be King George III. This testimony, of course, helped establish that Hadfield suffered from delusions. From the testimony provided by his family, we learn that Hadfield attempted to attack and kill his infant son the night before he tried to assassinate the King. His family was able to constrain him, and when they asked him why he tried to attack his son he responded that God told him to. From this testimony alone, it seems clear that Hadfield was delusional, but it did not address how his delusions incited the attack on the King.
The prosecution had already mentioned Barrister Truelock, and his role in convincing Hadfield to attack the King was clear. Erstine only needed to reframe the argument to suggest that Truelock played into Hadfield's insanity, creating the delusion that it was his duty to kill the King. This point was established with ease, and although many witnesses were prepared to give their testimony, the trial came to an abrupt end. According to Moran (1985), the Chief Justice presiding over the trial, Lord Kenyon, started to think out loud, which led to several points being made that were agreed upon by both the prosecution and the defense. Lord Kenyon acknowledged that if the case were to be conducted properly, an acquittal due to insanity was likely; however, he further argued that Hadfield presented a clear danger to society and therefore could not be released. Neither side disputed the points made, but Lord Kenyon noted that the law only allowed him to remand Hadfield back to Newgate Prison, but he was best suited for an asylum (Moran, 1985). All parties agreed, but the law limited their ability. A member of the prosecution suggested that perhaps the jury could provide their verdict and the ground upon which they give it, which would provide sufficient legal justification for Hadfield's continued confinement. The jury was present for this entire exchange and never left the box to deliberate their verdict. Within minutes, the jury released their decision "
We find the prisoner not guilty; he being under the influence of insanity at the time the act was committed". Moran (1985) noted that the entire trial only lasted 6 hours, and by the afternoon Hadfield was back at Newgate Prison.
This case brought about an interesting issue. Hadfield had attempted to kill the King but was found not guilty due to insanity. Under the current law, those acquitted on the grounds of insanity were to be detained but regained freedom once they were lucid. In Hadfield's case, he was suffering from delusions only as it related to religion and politics. Therefore he was perfectly lucid in every other manner; thus, he could be let free (Moran, 1985). The issue, however, is that allowing a man to go free after attempting to kill the King sets a dangerous precedent and presents a further danger to society. Parliament was quick to act, and within four days, a new bill was proposed to resolve the issue. As it is often referred to as The Criminal Lunatics Act of 1800, it consisted of two main parts. The first relegated attempts on the King's life as a common felony and thus stripped away the privileges that paved the way to Hadfield's acquittal. The second part allowed for the continued confinement of those found to be insane. It was sent to the House of Commons the same day. On July 11th, 1800, the bill was brought up for debate by the House of Commons, but only a few members were present and the bill was passed with little controversy. The final act consisted of four main sections. Section A made the bill retroactive to apply to Hadfield and provided little guidance as to the duration of confinement. It simply states, until "
His Majesty's Pleasure be known", which translated to a life sentence as the King never released anyone up until his death in 1820 (Moran, 1985). Section B allowed one to be detained in the same manner as the first section of they were found to be insane during arraignment or trial, even for misdemeanors. This fixed the loophole that technically would have prevented the confinement of Trulock and established a standard legal approach to the practice (Moran, 1985). Section C allowed bail to be denied for anyone found to be insane, either current or in the past. The final section granted members of the Privy Council and their secretaries the power to detain persons who appear insane and were attempting to gain access to the King's palaces or residencies. The confinement of these persons was only legal until a jury could fully reach a verdict on their insanity (Moran, 1985). Overall, the bill provided sweeping changes to the legal procedures surrounding an insanity claim and forever altered its use.
 |
Hadfield was just 28 at the time of the attack. He was transported to Bethlem Hospital on October 10th, 1800. The dark stain of his past never subsided and influenced the accusations that he killed a fellow patient on April 3rd, 1802. This was widely published in newspapers, but a medical examination soon determined that the patient suffered an apoplectic seizure, which triggered his death. Still, Hadfield would forever be branded as a murderous madman. Hadfield, and another patient, John Dunlop, managed to escape Bethlem on July 27th, 1802 but were later caught trying to cross the channel to escape to France (Moran, 1985). Because of this, he was transferred back to Newgate Prison for the remainder of his life. In 1816 he petitioned the House of Commons for his release, but it was dismissed. Hadfield was confined for 41 years before dying at the age of 69 from Tuberculosis on January 23rd, 1841. Hadfield's accomplice, Barrister Trulock, suffered a similar fate. He was transported to Bethlem on May 16th, 1800, without the same due process afforded to Hadfield. It appears this type of informal process of confining those found to be insane was very typical, but no regular procedure was in place before the Criminal Lunatics Act of 1800 (Moran, 1985). The Duke of Portland sent a letter to Bethlem explaining that Trulock should be healed within a year. The letter also informed the reader that the King desired that he should be placed on the incurable list and held indefinitely if he were not healed within a year. It appears no such recovery occurred as Trulock managed to escape Bethlem on December 8th, 1821. He eventually returned to Bethlem on his own accord, where he stayed until he died on November 2nd, 1830. He appealed for his legal release throughout his confinement and even tried to bribe the doctor with a £5 note (Moran, 1985). To this day, legal scholars continue to debate the true significance of the Hadfield trial, but its importance in forming modern law is undeniable.
It is interesting to note that several other attempts were made on the King's life, but none were quite as well documented as the Hadfield trial. For instance, Margaret Nicholson attacked the King with an ivory-handled dessert knife, but guards subdued her attack before she injured the King. Much like Truelock, she was found to be insane and was held indefinitely at Bethlem Hospital until her death. You can find more information about her story by following the second link located under the interesting links section of this write-up.
Obverse:
This particular example employs the obverse die described by Boulton as the "
head in ye antique stile". George III is depicted facing left, wearing armor that protects his chest and back (i.e., cuirassed). The breastplate is adorned at the top below the collar with a non-descript design extending halfway down its length. Protruding out of the top of the armor is a piece of fabric ruffled in large waves, the interior of which is detailed with a random pattern of raised dots. A tightly drawn ribbon covers the King's neck and is partially obscured by the excess skin under his chin. His left shoulder protrudes out toward the viewer and is draped by what appears to be a fur fleece, rolled about midway around his shoulder and folded back behind the bust. The scales of his armor, divided into four distinct sections, can be seen under the fleece. Immediately below these scales is a small tuft of fabric bundled up, which partially covers a medallion of what I assume is St. George slaying a dragon. On top of the breastplate is a wide piece of tightly fit cloth superseded by a freely flowing garment. A small medallion can be seen pinned to the left side of his chest, which depicts a cross wrapped by an oval-shaped banner fastened by a circular clasp. The same fur fleece appears on his right shoulder, evidently wrapped around his back. His hair is tightly pulled into a single thick strand tied behind his head with a ribbon double wrapped around the strand and secured by a knot with two bows and a single loose end. Almost immediately below the knot, the hair forms several strands of large curls. One rests on his left shoulder while the others fall behind his back. The lowest curl nearly touches the last letter of the legend. Two rows of tightly looped curls appear just above his ear, the lowest of which conceals all but his earlobe. The engraver signed his work at the bottom right side between the bust and the inner rim. It reads "
C · H · KÜCHLER . F.". The obverse legend appears above the bust closely in line with the inner rim. It reads “GEORGIUS III · D : G · MAGN · BRIT · FR · ET HIB · REX. ”. All of this contained within a slightly raised inner rim, which is superseded by a substantially wider rim of greater relief.
Reverse:
The reverse design of this medal, is in my opinion, is very simple yet elegant. The legend, "
PERSPICIT ET PROTEGIT. " appears at the very top. In the upper center is an outward-looking eye contained with a triangle. The triangle is made of multiple straight lines or rays of varying width that protrude outward in all angles. Several of which divide "ET" from the surrounding letters in the legend. The rays intersect and often penetrate curled clouds of smoke that appear on either side of an open flame, which rests upon an alter at the center of the medal. The front panel is marked with the letters "
D. O. " evenly spaced above "
M." . The alter rests upon a background of land, with a small tuft of grass appearing in the middle of the alter. The engraver's initial "
K" appears on the right side of the foreground. In exergue, the legend "
A SICARIO SERVATUS MAI · XV . MDCCC. " is divided into two lines. Like the obverse, all of this is contained within a slightly raised inner rim, superseded by a substantially wider rim of greater relief.
Edge: Plain
Size: 48mm
Notes:
The pictures do this medal absolutely no justice as they fail to accurately depict the vibrant red luster, much less the magenta toning on both sides. Additionally, this piece is exceptionally well preserved (pun intended), which is undoubtedly due to the original silver-lined brass shells that protected it for over two centuries. All things considered, I find it difficult to believe that I would be able to find a more original or well-preserved piece out of the 271 produced. This piece currently resides in an NGC MS-66 BN holder, which entitles it to the coveted
Top Pop status. These factors, paired with the fact that has retained the original shells set this example apart from its peers.
The picture to the right depicts one of the many other failed attempts on King George III's life during his reign. Despite contemporary political propaganda from his rivals and the heated rhetoric used by the American colonists, George III was actually a beloved ruler in his time. The moniker “Mad King” has survived the test of time, but the recent release of thousands of documents paints a very different picture. For those interested,
The Last King of America: The Misunderstood Reign of George III by Andrew Roberts is a fascinating read.
References:
Doty, R. (1998). The Soho Mint and the Industrialization of Money. London: National Museum of American History Smithsonian Institution.
Moran, R (1985). The Origin of Insanity as a Special Verdict: The Trial for Treason of James Hadfield (1800). Law & Society Review, 19(3), 487-519.
Pollard, J. G. (1970). Matthew Boulton and Conrad Heinrich Küchler. The Numismatic Chronicle, 10, 259-318.
Tungate, S. (2020) Matthew Boulton and The Soho Mint: copper to customer. Worcestershire: Brewin Books.
Vice, D. (1995). A fresh insight into Soho Mint restrikes & those responsible for their manufacture. Format Coins, Birmingham, 3-14.
Interesting links:
https://www.regencyhistory.net/2013/05/double-assassination-attempt-on-george.html
https://georgianera.wordpress.com/2014/08/02/margaret-nicholson-the-woman-who-attempted-to-assassinate-king-george-iii/
https://europeanroyalhistory.wordpress.com/2019/05/15/on-this-date-in-history-may-15-1800-james-hadfield-makes-an-assassination-attempt-on-king-george-iii-of-the-united-kingdom/