The Press. — London, England, 1858-09-04 00:00:00

THE PRESS, SEPTEMBER 4, 1858. pass of the nation, and then to extend Chris tianity till it has become the religion of all mankind. THE LUNACY QUESTION. Tom►, inquiry, which has just finished, on poor Mr. RUCK, and the one, which took place not long ago, on the state of mind of Sir HmutY Mix; surely, if they teach any lesson, ought to teach this one—viz, that matters of this descrip tion are not fitted to meet the public eye. Moreover they suggest the question, whether, with equal protection to those unhappy persons who fall under this kind of calamity, it may not be possible to devise some mode of inquiry, which shall save the individual and his family from the sad exposure of most afflicting domestic occur rences, the publication of which only serves to gratify the prurient appetite of those who can amuse themselves with such painful revelations. No one can have read the proceedings in the case of Mr. RucK, without being of opinion that his unhappy wife was placed in a very cruel position. Conscious of being innocent of the slightest indiscretion, she was constantly charged, by her husband, to herself and to others, with the vilest and most abandoned conduct She was consequently in a position in which the more she loved her husband, the more she was bound to hope and to believe that he was under insane delusions. The force of those delusions could come home to none, in the way they came home to her. She knew that he was believing what she knew to be utterly false, and she therefore knew that he was insane, and, as became an affec tionate and loving wife, she took measures to put him in a place where his malady would be properly treated, in the fond hope that it might be the means of cure. No reasonable person can blame Mrs. Rucx for the course which she took : that she did take it when she did, it is now owing that the jury have been able to pronounce a verdict, which has placed her husband again at liberty. Had he never been deprived of his liberty, and had he never been subject to medical treatment, he would inevitably have become in curably insane. Had this inquiry not taken place, in all probability, in a few months, Mr. RUCK would have been pronounced sane, and might have rejoined his wife, and lived on with her in happiness. But what is now the state of Mr. RUCK and his family, after the long public investigation, which has given to both parties the most painful of no torieties ? If Mr. RUCK is sane, and continue so, can he feel towards his wife as he felt before ? Will a man easily forgive being brought before a public tribunal, and all the disgraceful utterances of his diseased mind being dragged into the light of day ? Had the confession that he knew that he had had delusions been spontaneous, and been m ade within the walls of an asylum, he would then have been allowed to rejoin his wife, and there need not have been any disruption of affec tion between them : but, to say nothing of the husband's feelings, what value can the wife set upon the acknowledgment of delusions, and dis claimers of the most insulting accusations, made, not of his own free will and accord, but made (as it is quite clear he well knew) as a means of obtaining the verdict which he wanted? What security has Mrs. RUCK that he would be a single day in the house with her without his reiterating the same charges ? The restoration of domestic happiness, after what has taken place, is there fore perfectly hopeless for Mr. Rum And, as to the solace to be derived from the society of friends and neighbours, that is gone too. Wherever poor Mr. Rucx appears, the question which each individual who sees him will invo- luntarily ask himself is, "Is he sane? ne am I not, in the company of a mtulman r verdict of a jury ctn. replace pocoarnArlerp.lßate' mrs ' - the positisk to which he 'night have bee n re tat atioYed, had not this unhappy publicity bee n g i ren to his ease. Nothing, hkeiise, Rucx in the position in which she would hare been, had not these insane imaginations of he r husband about herself been given to the world. As a Contemporary re ins!ked, during the progress. of the the main issue to be decided is, whether Mrs. It ucK was, or was not, guilty of the vite deeds with which her husband charged her? Now, however innocent or blameless a woman may really be, she never can stand exactly in the same position as if such an issue had never been raised. So far, then, as private good is concerned, and so far as the happiness of the family itself is concerned, no demon of discord could have invented a process, more calamitous for their interests, or more torturing to their feelings. It is impossible, then, not to ask, Is this process really reciuired for the public good ? Is it neces sary for the well-being of the social system that that which every well-disposed member of a family would wish to conceal from the light of day, should be brought under its broadest glare ? For what constitutes public good ? Is not public good an aggregate of private good ? and bow can public well-being be increased by producing private misery ? nve i ne s , art very we horrible a madhouse l tuhee d h a t b e n d to s I i b r e u e t agree,t; most s a ou t: e c t a h r ys saneta vr g mo e n n outrage ag t n, l s a hv l o e : urusy wicked, u a p nrp prevented v t i readily admit that some circumstances have recently come to light to show that although in this point the improvement which has taken place in the last fifty years is beyond calculation. yet that still something remains to be done to remove blots from the existing system. No doubt a more efficient course of inspection than now exists ought to be adopted ; but when we bear of proposals to give increased publicity in all com— a publicityunnecessary wholly to secure the one single object—viz., improper confinement of persons who ought to be free, we really tremble at the certain misery, of untold extent, which must ensue from the adoption of such a course. In the recent case of Mr. RucK, if it be necessary that a jury should be called in to pronounce a verdict, what public advantage can povibly accrue from the proceedings being earned on in open court ? Would not the jury have been equally well able to decide—and just as likely t o decide fairly—if the investigation had been con ducted in a quiet way, without all the parapher nalia of a public trial? But if such public investigations are neceagary to decide the state of a man's mind, why are they not necessary for all ? Why are they only neces sary for persons possessed of a sufficiently large property to excite the cupidity of r elations, and to defray the enormous expenses ? But, if all the lunatics in the kingdom are to have the benefit (?) of a writ de lunatico inquirendo, by what sort of machinery are those inquiries to he carried out ? The thing is neither desirable nor possible, and why the unhappy possessors of property are alone to have this fearful infliction fastened on them, of having all their follies Bald vices, and delusions paraded b e f or e the public gaze, it is impossible to give any satisfactory reason. It is all very well to talk of Magna Charta , and the Habeas Corpus Act, but they have really nothing to do with the matter. What is wantial, is a more efficient inspection of private asylum than exists at present, and in disputed cases S° Me . machinery should be established for their • . been" brought quietly before a jury, without their being paraded before the world, which a . t the cren. m, to the parties concerned of a public brand by t i n ,, e set upon the victim and his family, and ut. c , hopeless disruption of all the domestic ties, re under other circumstances might have been united if divided, or drawn closer if previuu-q slackened. 114 The process which results from t h e writ lunatico inquirendo is a disgrace to the Jul7P nt deuce of this country, and we trust . the r gr,e7 of Lord Chancellor, who is the ex officio ea au' wcrfud the interests of all lunatics, will turn hi; po . mind to establishing some other means or op ing just decisions on those rausetshle axe. nations in social morality, but still it is very far short of perfection. Compared with other periods of our history, crime seems just as com mon, though less gross—vice as rampant, though more restrained—moral delinquenciet in indivi duals as frequent, though not less loudly de nounced—than at any other period. We can scarcely take up a newspaper on any day with out seeing an Account of fresh murders—fresh outrages upon unoffending individuals—fresh beating of wives by their husbands—fresh sepa rations—fresh robberies—fresh perjuries—fresh peculations upon the public. What frauds in business—what abuses of trusts—what dishonest artifices for making rich—what overreaching and cheating—have been brought to light within even the last year. What " social evils" stalk unblushing and unrebuked in our streets. All these things ought to move every patriot, every philanthropist, and every statesman to exert him self to stay that which eats out the heart of na tions, and is the real cause, whenever there is a cause, why a country declines. When at the height of their prosperity, nations are often nearest their fall. It is when a tree has at tained to its full growth that, beginning to rot at the root, the rot steals up the heart, and it gradually fades, withers, dies. It is more especially incumbent on statesmen to see to these things, and provide remedies. Lord DERBY, when he came into office, pro claimed the law of Progress (and in this he was quite right) to be the law of Conservatism. What is not from time to time renewed, decays. It is the progress of England as a nation that has preserved it in so much vigour. But if morals decay, there is rottenness at the core, however vigorous may appear to be the branches. To check crime—to prevent the outbreak of public immoralities—to maintain salutary social order—is the work of the politician. The Con servatives may take to themselves the credit of having originated and carried more amendments in the law, more social improvements, more practical reforms, than any other party. Yet still there are social reforms which, we think , are greatly needed. Either the police are neg ligent of their duties, or they are not armed with sufficient power to put a check upon the so-called "social," it ought rather to be called the " un social evil," in its public impudency. Law is compassed about with too many difficulties for it to be generally taken advantage of by the public. When to obtain redress for a wrong a man has to suffer a yet greater wrong, in the heavy expenses of an action, he will be far more likely to wink at an evil, though it be one by which thou sands of others may suffer, than to seek redress for it. Facilities for the redress of social wrongs ought to be made easy; checks upon them ought to be multiplied. The person of the subject, and not merely his property, ought to be more rigidly protected—his social confidences, and not merely his civil rights, more jealously guarded by the lynx eye of Law ; for liberty itself ceases to be liberty when it takes the form of license. As we have made progress as a nation in every other respect, it is to be hoped we shall strive as a nation to make progress in moral improvement, and to extend this improvement, as we have all others, to the world at large. The only way to do this is to provide wholesome restraining laws; to protect the helpless; to put down with a strong hand the licentious ; to promote education ; to purify the press ; to give additional places of worship to the people ; to curb the excesses of the rich ; to preach the Gospel to the poor ; to send out missions to the heathen ; to expand, in short, the Church of England to the full com- s I. me ld is re It xa at a or lie 1W mat be we lye in ell )11, to ibt ow of 3 )oe of ble ich ary ! bly in :en to on- arY hey ~es• rge and all the by 11;c nor of :ion and blic ory