The Express.
London, England, 1855-04-12 00:00:00

A CLASS i, AFFLICTION."

Otrx of our contemporaries expresses a hope that
"some fitting answer may be given to the exposure
[of Mr. Faarcis Vu.Lizas] now threatened." There
can be no doubt what the answer will be. We shall
be told that Mr. F. Vauxas is insane—labours un-
der a monomaniacal predisposition to play such tricks
es he is charged with. Some time ago a reverend gen-
tleman in the county of Norfolk was charged with an
indecent assault on a female : he was forthwith shut

up in a Lunatic Asylum ; where he was, however,
employed to officiate u chaplain. In the very same
number of the journal from which we have been
quoting, conspicuous place and type is given to a
letter which labours to establish that the "mania
of which her [Mim-- EMILIE FRANCES GORDON'S)
savage treatment of her pony was only one manifes-
tation, has been developing itself in her mind for
years past, and is making rapid advances towards a
highly dangerous stage." Strenuous efforts are being
made to obtain a remission of the punishment of Dr.
Gass—who endeavoured to suborn witnesses to per-
jure themselves for his defence—on the plea that he
is affected by partial or total insanity. In short,
"insanity," "monomania," and such like dainty and
delicate phrases, are now the received euphuisms by
which men designate in the " respectable classes"
what in those less favoured of fortune are called
"crimes."

The cue of Mrs. RANSBOTHAII, tried yesterday at
the Westminster Sessions, may be added to the list
we have given above. We offer no apology for again
adverting to this painful story : for the notoriety
that has been given to it none are to blame but the
injudicious friends who, by the most unwarrantable
means, attempted to save the accused from under-
going a legal trial. It is false that the press of Eng-
land, u a body, panders to any unworthy desire to
exult in discoveries of culpability in persons under-
stood to be " respectable." It is false that such a desire
exists to any considerable extent in any class of
English society. The English public and the Eng-
lish press are, on the contrary, predisposed to sym-
pathise with the feelings of the connexions of eulprita
in conspicuous stations, and to abstain from aggra-
vating their grief by discussion or denunciation.
But neither the English public nor the English
press can tolerate attempts to tamper with the
administration of justice, in order to shield from me-
rited punishment those who ought to have been pre-
served, by their educational advantages and the tone
of the society in which they have habitually moved,
from lapsing into crime. Whenever an indignant
expression of public opinion has been provoked in
the case of any offender of influential station, it will
be found either that an inadequate penalty has been
awarded by the judge, or efforts, more or less suc-
eeisfal, made to avert a fair trial.
In Mse. Ruunaraut's one the jury could not
sines wen a verdict, and consequently every indi-
vidnal le left to form his own unaided judgment on
its merits. It was proved by the witnesses—it
was not indeed denied by the counsel for the ac-
cused—that on the 16th of last March she
took a pair of sleeves, and on the 27th at
the same month some cambric handkurehish,
from Mr. MouLfs shop. On both oseaslans she
took the articles furtively and secretly without ten-
dering payment. These facts having been esta-
blished, a prima fame owe of theft was made out.
It was for the defendant's counsel and witnesses to
adduce facts that could shake this conclusion. Have
they done this? Mr. BALLswriss reminded the
jury that if Mrs. Ramancrrium was acting under a
mental hallucination the crime of theft could not be
imputed to her. He went on to assert that females,
at certain periods of life, are peculiarly liable to such

hallucinations. We admit the soundness of
Mr. BALLANTINI% legal doctrine ; we are
not going to controvert his pathologisal law-
tion—though we are not prepared to admit that
it is correct to the extent he sought to die
the jury. It is enough for us that he did sot pat
ens person into the witness-box to state any Let or
facts calculated to raise a presumption that Mrs.
RAXIMOTRAM labours, or has at any time laboured,
under such a mental hallucination as he described.
The jury were asked to take for granted that the
lady was of unsound mind, because it was difficult to
conceive any motive or inducement eke could have to
commit theft. The evidence of the witnesses for the
defence went, if anything, to weaken the
assumption that she was of weak or unsound
mind. Mrs. RANSIOTHAII may be a thief,
or she ma be the unfortunate victim of a
mental disease : the public is at this moment as
much in the dark on the matter as it was when the
story first crept abroad. No evidence has been ad-
dated to show what the state of her mind wan
Poe oar own part we have no objection that the
affair should rest here. It is not vengeance on any
individual, but the security of the general public that
the law seeks to establish. The punishment of Mrs.
Ramenarnam—the irremediable tarnishing of her
character—is not required for the vindication of the
law's authority, even though she be guilty. If the
attempts that were made to save her from undergoing
the ordeal of a trial had been persisted in ; if there
wen any risk that the Cot:laminas-like line of
defence—by aspersing the character of the prosecutor
—had been successful, the case would have beset dif-
ferent. But, as it is, we admit the validity of the
plea that the exposure to which the accused has boss
subjected is lenient to deter all sane individaele
her rank and station from committing sae olllasse
as she has been accused of; and we admit the fogies
of abstaining from harrowing the feelings of her sew
amnions by keeping the subject before the pubis sine
minute longer than is necessary.
Bat we emphatically re-assert the principle which
has guided us in our remarks upon this am. It is

sonde that people of wealth and station have
liner • bows to appropriate the goods of others
wkila if= suspend state of mind, and consequently
adresteeisibis line their actions ; but it is equally
oaten that people of wealth and station, who were
perfectly aware of the criminality of the solicit, and
the responsibility they incurred by oommitting :it,
have degraded themselves by thieving. Theeseeeity
of property requires that snob °fleshes sissoltlo,
punished, all the same as those who belong to lbs
poorer and worse-taught classes. It im true that
the amount of property liable to be abstracted by
wealthy or "respectable" pilferers is not likely to be
so great as that abstracted by professional thieves I
bet the secondary ensequences of the crimi-
nal ads of the wealthy are more mischievous
than in the case of professional delinquents. The
eyes of the police are on the crime clue, who find it
more difficult to escape. The mere presence of some
of this class at the time the goods were stolen diverts
suspicion from other bystander.. But the wealthy
thief being less liable to suspicion and detection, the
suspicion of the plundered parties naturally fall os
their own assistants and servants. One wealthy thief
may destroy the harmony of many large retail add,-
lishments, and bring unmerited suspicion on many
persons of the strictest honesty. Again, the deter
tion of one lady thief excites for a time the sow
picioes of shopkeepers against all of the same
class. We know many ladies who dread to enter
a shop at this moment on amount of the state of
mind prevalent among shopkeepers since the Ran-
BOMA( story got wind. Crime in the influential
dames is at least as dangerous as crime in the lower
classes, and cells equally for repression by law. As
to the allegation that the more refined sentiments of
the higher clause make the same punishment prom
Mose heavily upon them than upon the coarse and
Uneducated, it most be kept in mind that, inso-
les& as the higher classes have been better taught,
sad are less exposed to temptation, their criminality
Is greater.

We have only one other remark to offer. When
a seemingly orimieal act is the result of a morbid
state of mind in the perpetrator, it can rarely happen
that his (or her) friends and relations are unaware of
the disease. If they are, it is their duty either to
watch the patient closely, or to put those with whom
he deals on their guard. The owner of a ferocious
bull or a savage dog is held liable for any damage
the brute may occasion, if due care has not been
taken to restrain him. And on the same principle
the relatives and connexions of any human gazza
ladra ought to be held liable for its pilfering', unless
they can show that they have adopted precautions
to keep them in check.—Daily News.