The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-08-09 00:00:00

him? why, leans: their testimony would not support Mr. F.'lll
peiciaeln,
ihnt
hdintlifereohfeorsolethiceyhowilreenkeraepthlitaocuk.y w
lie Hoped thh Jury would
had been proved, dm, t'M in 1816 Mr. Frank was in a state of in-
sanity. Dr. Wright's testimony on thialslauthijicaedt bweeas:llpve
untouched
It had not been attempted to touch it. Now it would be against all;
the rules of right reason to say that because a man was insane in ;
1816 be must be Ito in 1823 ; but no tvideuce of his recovery had '
been adduced. In 11116 and 1817 he was confessedly in an unsound I
' state of niind, and no witnesses had been tilled to slot, that be-!
tween that tone and the present he ever was in a !infect state of;
mind. A mailman, in the strictest tenet of the word, ha was in 1
.1816 and in 1817. That topic would be for the eonsidera-;
tion of the Jury, coupling it with the fact, that of the in-;
' terming time no proof of his sanity had been produced ; !
, while on the other side it had been proved that he was con.'
scantly in a state. it' not of absolute madness, of continual un.l
• soundness of mind. He would say, in the first place, that it was a ;
delusion that Mr. Franks now considered his wife innocent ; that it'
was a delusion his considering that air. Bellamy had bribed the;
postmaster to retain his letters ; that it was a delusion his consi-
dering Mr. Dickenson as his friend; and that it was a delusion the
manner in which he managed his property. Those tour delusions
were sufficient to prove that his judgment was overlayed by his
I imagination, and that his mind was tim in a sound state. Suppos;-
; lag it to be proved beyond a doubt that Roebuck had not towed
what had taken place, and that Lucy Bradley had not declared her
opinion of Mrs. Frank being a good wife, in all other circum-
! stances the evidencepf this woman was unshaken ; and the only
opposition to that of Roebuck was,- that he had given away some
alßeteinaharn Mations. The next argument for the Jury to con.
abler was not of a. negative, but of a positive kind. 1 t was to
call a man who could not err—to call Mr. Frank himself.
If the gentlemen on the other side could bring letters, and if they ,
proved that in 1817 he believed his wife's infidelity, and could
write letters expressing that belief, how could they reconcile them ;
; with his disbelief in her infidelity at an after period. How could
he. if he were sane, write and say, " I am the calumniator of my
wife, I abused Dickenson, and I only am guilty ?" Vet he had
been informed of her criminality by Roebuck and by Main waring,
had been convinced of the truth of the charge ; and the only
sew he assigned for taking lice back was, that he had corte-1
sponded with herself, and she had denied it. The letters alluded to
were four in lumber. In one he said be would be no longer im-,
posed upon by that low-lived rascal Dickenson, and would only al-
low hint one guinea a-week. In another, addressed to ('sprain'
alainwariog, he admit. that he has heard from him of his wife's.;
infidelity. In the third. he alludes to his domestic misfortune. and;
wishes not to reside at Catupsall-house—a house which had been
rid
contaminated by filthy amours and low ribaldry. Those three let.
tern were written in 1817. The fourth was produced in May 1818,
raunhd,edplationleyevp:or weed. his knowledge
of the disgraceful sceneri during
the visit to town ; describes his wife as •-• infamous. lost. and
end calls Dickenson a low and rascally fellow."
What would the .7,ary say then to his replacing this man, and per-
mitting the acting of the same disgraceful scenes ? This was not
the calumny of Bellamy, but his own opinion, and an opinion dic-
tated by experience. It was the charge of Mr. Frank himself—
truly describing him, and truly naming him. Yet he again re-
stored
him to the office of his steward. Was not this delusion ?
Was it not the act of a man of unsound mind ? Was it not in short;
an act of lunacy in the most palpable shape that it could exist ?'the
dislike expressed by Mr. Frank against Mr. Bellamy was rot be-
cause he was not a good steward, or because he had same unknown
dislike against hint. lie did not pay,
I do nut like thee, Dr. Fell. • '
The reason why I cannot tell;
but he disliked him because he bad bribed the postmaster to keep
back certain letter!. ; what letters they were, or to what they minted,
Ire could not, when asked the question, tell. Another topic he (the
Solieitor-Generat) would allude to was rather allied to unsoundness
of mind than insanity, although heahought even there a little of in- ,
sanity crept in. Ile alluded to the ine,pacity of Mr. Frank 0
settle his accounts. If it were true that lie was always careful to
receive vouchers or receipts in settlicg any accounts, why had rot
such receipts been produced, and why had no steward been brought
forward as a witness This capital accountant was found In one
instance giving a guinea for a ride when one shilling would have
been enough, anti in another offering sixpence to a respectable
sttriceon for his attendance and prescription. During the whole
period of 12 years no receipt in his hand-writing had been produced,
no memorandum, no pocket-book, he had no banker with whom he
kept any account, and yet the Jury were told that he was extremely
careful in calling for vouchers. The very roving state of Mr.
Frank, one day going to Cambridge, and another day to another
place, was also a proof of the unsound state of his mind. It would
be for the Jury to decide whether this rambling after scenes of
wickedness was a proof merely of profligacy or of unsound mind.
In calling the attention of the Jury to tire opinion delivered by the
medical gentlemen who had been examined, he (the Solicitor-Geue.
ral) would observe, that the opinions of Dr. flaslam, Dr. Burrowes
and Dr. Veitch were directly opposed to sound reason, to expe.
rience, and to the long established law of the land, for they had
declared that they did not consider the verdict of a Jury was suf-
ficient to prove a man insane. The last topic to which lie would
advert was the legal proposition—we had malting to do with the
civil law el, her of Rome or of Scotland (to which reference had
been made by Mr. Brougham) but merely with that of England.
Formerly the Telma of Juries were sometimes worded " lunaey,"
and sometimes " unsoundness of mind." The term /traaricsor was
was not* term in old English law, but for four centuries that state
which rendered a man unfit to manage his owe affaits wan described
anti compartment:ls, and Lyttleton had laid it down that of all
term' this term was the most SUM It, therefore, mattered little
what thawing arts metaphysicians might denominate it. If in any
way the understanding was gone, that was sufficient to tring the
parson an unhappily situated Lind& the control of the Great Seal.
He had now brought to a conclusion tile general result of the evi.
deuce, and would merely observe, that the question was whether
er not this man were capable of taking care of his own affairs?
whether or not his mind were in a sound state, and if the Jury were
Convinced of his inability to do the one because of a defect in the
other, no matter by what term such a state were described—i; was
exactly the same misfortune, whether it was called weakness of
mind, indolence of' mind, unsoundness of mind, or lunacy. The
Learned Counsel concluded by drawing a comparison between the
present ease and the case of Lord Portsmouth, which lie described
as not many degrees different. He hoped the judgment of th •
Jury would be such pa he was sure would satisfy the Lord Chan-
cellor.
Mr. Commissioner PiriLT.IIIORE then addressed the Jury, and
said, as the arguments of Counsel had been concluded, and all the
evidence had been heard, it was necessary for hint to make some
few observations. The questionrhey had to consider was, whether
the Rev. Edward Frank was or was not in an unsound state of,
mind, arid a Nether he was or was not capable of managing his af-
fairs. If they found hint to be of unsound mind, the must also
rind him incapable of managing his talkies, and vice verra—adivided
return, the Commissioners could not lay before the Lord Chancellor.
That - • --• •