Would Daniel M'Naughten Have Satisfied the M'Naughten Test for Insanity?

In February 1843, Daniel M’Naughten was tried in London for the murder of Edward Drummond, the private secretary to Prime Minister Robert Peel. M’Naughten was laboring under the delusion that Prime Minister Peel was part of a system that was persecuting him. Only by shooting Peel could he end the torment. Drummond became the victim of these delusions when M’Naughten mistook him for Peel. The trial of M’Naughten, the verdict of insanity, and the aftermath made legal history. The trial itself is an example of wonderful advocacy. How do I know? I read the transcript of the trial, available along with centuries of other trial transcripts on the website of The Proceedings of the Old Bailey, 1674–1913. In the M'Naughten case, the prosecutor methodically presented the Crown’s case, beginning with witnesses who observed the shooting, then offering the opinion of the examining physician that the shooting was the cause of Drummond’s death (although remarkably Drummond walked home before succumbing to his injuries), and proceeding to testimony about M’Naughten’s planning of the shooting. The prosecutor ended by attempting to anticipate M’Naughten’s insanity defense with witnesses who attested that M’Naughten was in his right mind, but they fared poorly because of their limited interaction with him. It also didn’t help that the defense barrister exposed that one of the witnesses had been drinking heavily before taking the stand (although he insisted that he only had one or two). Defense counsel countered with an equally methodical presentation in support of an insanity defense. The [...]