The Express.
London, England, 1852-01-24 00:00:00

THE COMMISSION OF LUNACY ON MRS.

CUMMING.

Burgas ML

Bhaunr.

Sir F. Thesiger commenced his reply yesterday morning
in support of the commission, and did not conclude till
half.past 4, having spoken nearly seven hours. He said he
deeply felt the importance of this case, because those who
were connected with the feeble minded would find in the
decision to which the jury might come, whether they could
afford them protection or whether those who were base
enough to take advantage of their helplessness could carry
out their schemes with impunity. But he felt still more
society as to the result on another ground. The question
the jury would have to decide was whether this unhappy
lady was to be consigned to that careful and watchful pro-
tection which was thrown around persons in sack a condi-
tion, whether persons were to be appointed over her under
the most solemn sanction, and under the most ample secu-
rity ; whether thee* to whom the law had entrusted this
important duty should be enabled to take care that
every comfort and every caution consistent with her
melancholy situation should be continued during the
few short years, or perhaps months, of her existence. Let
not the jury imagine that their verdict would consign Mrs.
Cumming to a lunatic asylum, for her destination would
rest with those to whom the law had entrusted the regula-
tion of such matters ; and if at any time her infirmity should
pass away, the commission might at any time, on application
to the Lord Chancellor, be superseded. But if the jury
cams to the conclusion that the lady was nut of unsound
mind, the consequ. nee would be that nu investigation could
take place into the extraordinary transaction which had
occurred—that Mr. Haynes could be called to no account,
Whatever he might have received, however he might have
dealt with her property, all that he had derived from her
would be secured, and she would be left as she was at this
moment, utterly destitute, and without the means of pro-
viding for her own support. It was this circumstance that
made him particularly anxious a. to the result of the in-
quiry, and he believed that even Mr. Rayon would not be
dissatisfied with a verdict of unsoundness provided that it
should not be carried far back, but confined to the years
1560 and 1551. He could not help exprisaiog his surprise
that the ease had been brought to a conclusion
without Mr. Haynes being called as a witness. It bad been
said that Mr. Haynes could be called to account in another
place, and might be indicted for conspiracy. The question
was certainly here the sanity or otherwise of Mrs. Cumming,
but what more fitting witness could have been called to
prove her sanity than the person who had been her agent
from 180 down to the present thee, with the exception of
a very few months—whs had bees sosessed la tietions
of the greatest impaction to her—erlse bait eseis sales
for bee, paid and rembsed money helot—who Wandered
accounts, end had lbws ammanns nmetioned by her—who
had obtilsall Item her hotractless as to a will, and made
that will aseerfilagly ? If the transactions between Mr.
Haynes and Mrs. Cumming were fair and legitimate, they
esetlialy would bear upon her unity and her capacity to
mines her aisles. If the transactions were such that
they meld not have been presented in open daylight,
this this lady's position would go far to prove that
dr did not possess that capacity and sufficient?
he the management of her affairs which was
pmenneded on the other side. When it was said Mr. Haynes
might be called to account in another place, he would ask
why was es cell him to account but Mrs. Cumming ? If Mr.
Items end Mr. Hutchinson had secured this lady within
their charmed circle, so that she could not escape, they
might laugh at the notion of their being liable to indict-
ment fur conspiracy, which could only be prosecuted by
Mrs. Cumming. The evidence of Mr. Haynes was essential
to a full elucidation of the circumstances of the case, and it
was filled with suspicion when they had not the courage to
produce that person who had been from first to last near
the person of Mrs. Cumming, who could have detailed all
the transactions between them, and given the best testi-
mony other sanity. The learned gentleman then entered
upon the facts of the case OS they were detailed in evidence,
and endeavoured to imprimis upon the jury that Mrs. Cum-
ming was a mere tool la the hands of ?dr. It. Haynes and
Mr. Hutchinson, but more particularly of the former.
If Mr. Haynes had bent the honest and faithful steward of
Mn. Cumming's property that was represented, what had
become of the money which had been received in 1848 in
respect of the different purchases of her property It was
mid that Mrs. Cumming -herself received part of the money,
and that a part had team paid in to her banker, his Claude
Been. If so, why were not the beaker's books peedneed
Because, if it was paid in at all, it would be head is hem
been drawn out immediately after. Throughout OW whale
of the argument the conduct of Mr. !Layne was
Neale(' as sinister and selfish, and as that of one who trialei
to work upon a weak sad feeble mind for his own min
With regard to the ondartnaate lady herself, her language
sad bee aces_ )word hee to be dos capricious and unsound
mind; and anweert=bse argued of each particular it was oat with sanity and reason,
when taken together her MMus showed that she was in-
capable of Ishii. NOM herself or managing her pro-
perty. Ifer endplay to her children was unaccount-
able. There wenyinses of father disinheriting and
casting of shamus *Ohm kr making marriage, that
displeased hem, bat thew nee se hatanee of a mother en, I
Ottani eis bate hee elipoteg he loth a reason. Bet she
become ratioefled Is them IS the birth of Mrs. Hooper's
second eldld, and hos asebeegoent aversion could be justified
or accounted for oa a ether hypothesis than that of a delu-
Aim in regard to her skidren, which was the product of a
diseased mind. Towards the conclusion of his address the
learned gentleman reverted to the modest of Mr. Haynes,
and again asked why be was sot peodeeed as a witness ?
The jury would draw their own conclusion. Viewing the
case in this light, the question they had to determine was,
whether indirect dealing was to be allowed neeesefully and
with impunity to play upon a poor, unfortunate, feeble, and
weak-minded woman, to the prejudice and injury of her own
offspring ? The hon. and learned gentleman concluded an
able and powerful address amidst the applaase of those who
were present.

The learned commissioner and the jars paid another visit,