The Sun.
London, England, 1855-04-06 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF TEE-PUBLIC JOURNALS.

THE CASE OF MRS. RAMSBOTHAM.
(From the Times of this day.)
The case of Mrs. Ramsbotham, which has recently
been brought before one of our police magistrates, is ra-
ther calculated to excite feelings of pity than to arouse
the stern resolution of letting justice " have its course"
at all events. The circumstances have atttained such a
degree of publicity that, most unwilling as we are to
cause any pain to the friends and relatives of this unfor-
tunate lady, it is impossible not to feel that a few obser-
vations upon it can scarcely add in the slightest degree to
the poignancy of their grief, while they may hive the
effect of calling public attention to a few considerations-
which may in fairness be urged in mitigation of the
offence. It is, we trust, unnecessary for us to say that
the position in society of the person accused does not in
the minutest degree affect our judgment. There exists no
reason why she should not be visited with the full rigour .
of the law because she happens to be a lady ; but, on the
other hand, she ought not to be Made a- victim to
vulgar claptrap, and more severely judged than if she
bad been in humbler circumstances, simply because she
is a lady. Let the case be considered in a spirit not of
vindictiv.dgess, but of justice. If her offence be so re-
garded, we can have no reasonable doubt that it will
be held that hers is an instance of that not very uncom-
mon monomania which leads persons otherwise esti-
mable and well-conducted to pilfer articles of trifling
value in obedience to the impulses of a diseased imagi-
nation. The fact is notorious that many persons of high
rank and ample means have been affected with this
strange disorder. Every one who is acquainted with
London society could at once furnish a dozen names of
ladies who have been notorious for abstracting articles
of trifling value from the shops where they habitually
dealt. Their modus operandi was so well known that on
their return from their drives their relatives took care to
ascertain the nature of their paltry peculations, in-
quired from the coachman the houses at which he had
been ordered to stop, and, as a matter of course, reim-
bursed the tradesmen to the full value of the pilfered
goods. In other cases a hint was given to the various
shopkeepers at whose houses these monomaniacs made
their purchases, and they were simply forewarned to
notice what was taken away and to furnish the bill,
which was paid as soon as furnished, and, as a matter of
course, by the pilferer herself, without evidence of shame
or emotion of any kind. All this is very shocking, but
would any man in his senses who may be called upon to
adjudicate upon the case of a woman who is so evidently
out of her senses, determine that she is guilty of theft, in
the legal sense of the word ? There is no thievish mind,
for, indeed, mind is not concerned in the transaction.
The unfortunate victim of the hallucination acts as com-
pletely under the dominion of a blind impulse as the raven
which pilfers a glass bead or a silver thimble, as it may be,
and hurries off with its useless trophy to hide it under
a parcel of dead leaves, or in the most recondite
corner of a dunghill. It will not do, even in law, always
to argue back from acts to motives. The absence of mo-
tive must occasionally in right reason qualify the act..
We have not one word to say against the decision of the
magistrate. He had no option, but acted as he was
bound to act. The question of maniacal influence was
obviously one which could only be left to the decision of
a jury. When the case comes on for trial, we believe_
we fairly represent public opinion when we say that we
sincerely trust it may be mercifully dealt with. It
should not be forgotten that, even if punishment be
deemed a suitable treatment for madness, this most un-
happy person has already been brought to the brink of
the grave and to the verge of absolute insanity by the
detection and exposure of her offence.
Now, if any of our readers should for a moment be
weak enough to suppose that our comments upon this
case are inspired by the station of the person accused, we
will straightway give them a most practical proof that
considerations of this kind do not influence the judg-
ment of the Times. We have endeavoured to urge a
few considerations in mitigation of the offence of one
lady ; we will now proceed to hold up another to tLe
most richly deserved reprobation. The person con-
cerned—for we will no longer dishonour the brighest
word in the English language by applying it to her—is
a Miss Emilie Frances Goi don, stated to be a daughter of
a Scotch baronet, and the possessor of considerable pro-
perty. She was summoned before the petty sessions at
-Kingsclere,- Hants, for torturing a pony. On the 23d
of February she left her house at Baughurst in a pony
phaeton for Kingsclera. The wretched animal, it ap-
p ars, did not get along the road fast enough to satisfy
her impatience. She got out of her carriage, belaboured
the poor creature about the head and neck with a thick
stick, and, finally, thrust the end of the stick up its
nostrils and into its mouth with great violence. A
little further on the roal—the snow was lying deep all
the time—she tied the pony up to the gate, and left
it standing in the cold uncovered for a couple of
hours ; this, however, was nothing ; we do not insist
upon this point. Many: a brute in woms-n's dress is
guilty of that modified 'degree of barbarity Vile worst
remains to be told.-. On returning to her e.rriage this
Miss Emilie Francis Gordon drew a knife from her
pocket, and stabbed the pony several times, the poor
creature plunging violently as it felt the blows. She
had not yet completed her bloody work. When she
reached her house at Baughurst she desired herstable-boy
to hold the pony's head while she "served it out." She
then drew a claspknife from her pocket, and, as the lad,
with a feeling which might have put his brutal mistress
to shame, had retired a few paces,
unwilling to take
share in her proceedings, she seized the reins with her
left hand, and with the right "jobbed the knife" into
the pony's nostrils and about its mouth. The blood
flowed freely upon the snow. These allegations did
not rest merely upon testimony ; the condition of
the pony five weeks after the occurrence, covered as it
was with wounds and stabs, fully confirmed the
truth of these statements. Miss Emilie Gordon is,
no doubt, entitled to be heard "in extenuation." Here
is what she said :

"Miss Gordon, in extenuation, declared that her poly
being a confirmed ' jib,' she had been told of two cures—
the one waste apply a hot iron to the animal's hocks, and
the other to cut slightly the animal near the flank, and
apply a little turpentine to the wounds. She admitted
she had cut the pony, and that it was her intention to
apply some turpentine next day. If it was wrong she was
sorry, and would undertake not to de so again. She con-
cluded by remarking that sho was prepared to pay way fine
that might be inflicted upon her."
The decision of the magistrates upon the case was,
that Miss Emilie Frances Gordon had been "clearly
proved guilty of torturing a brute animal," and they
accordingly fined her 5/. We cannot but say that a few
months' imprisonment, with a few private whippings,
administered by the hand of the stoutest woman in
Hampshire, would have constituted a much more fitting
punishment for Miss Emilie Frances Gordon. Such a
wretch is not entitled to the privileges and honour due
to her sex ; we cannot think of her as a woman at all.
It seems that she appeared in court elegantly attired,
and when the decision was made known threw down a
101. note, took her change, and walked off in the most
unconcerned manner.
Let us entreat of our readers quietly to compare the
circumstances of these two cases, and to obser►e how
unequally punishment is meted out even to ladies. In
the one instance a poor lady whose mind, we doubt not,
was already out of joint, is driven ntad by the exposure
of an offence, which in ber case was probably no offence
at all, and must soon make her appearance before a cri-
minal court in a most disgraceful position, whatever the
result may be. On the other hand, we have a kind of
female Greenacre, who flaunts jauntily before a bench of
magistrates, is proved guilty of a most barbarous crime,
and flings down a bank-note as compensation for
her offence—just as if she had been purchasing a new
dress at Howell and James's, or any other fashionable
establishment in town.

(From the Daily News of this day.)
Our readers will have learned from our police reports
that a lady of ample means, and respectable station, has
recently been arrested and held to bail on a charge of
theft. It is the general practice of the English press to
abstain from comment on criminal charges till after trial
for fear of prejudging the accused. The observance of
such a rule seems more than usually desirable in a case
so peculiar as that to which we have alluded. The inci-
dent is of a nature so provocative of idle gossip that all
care ought to be taken to shield the accused, and the
friends of the accused, from avoidable and painful pub-
licity. Unfortunately, however, the course pursued by
certain silly and officious persons renders it impossible in
the present instance to abstain from comment upon some
of the accidental accessories of the case.
Anonymous letters have been addressed to the magis-
trate who held the accused to bail, threatening him with
the anger of the Prime Minister for his conduct. Anony-
mous letters have been addressed to the prosecutor,
threatening him with loss of custom if he persist in his
prosecution, and suggesting a compromise. Anonymous
letters alone are, in general, utterly undeserving of notice,
but we must take in connection with these the line of
defence which the counsel for the accused seemed dis-
posed to adopt before the police magistrate, and articles
which have appeared in one or two of the journals. Mr.
Bw
prosecutional
er l
were
nret i nl ley askressn,rhee
edntaci
French
r cambric,
offeringhof t
French
ef
o handkerchiefs e
e saleacambric.
witnessesnbod In whether
.h
inferioretN h eo iw,examinedt
a,they
article,
producedtl f
had
aiendo
prose-
cutor the
court
rbnooeduseert
en;
offeredrhafsorsale
designationbeen
of a better, in order to extort
laid
cp
theuritco e for it, there can be little doubt that laeahasi
himself
uelfndoperTtootod
that
eatprboy the
dw of Englandinturn.Butpoiwtwe
we have
never .