The Sun.
London, England, 1825-08-08 00:00:00

1. 1
• ...P",
, -,
... _
• 1.,,,17 f',-V-‘ rli
1..
•

Fr

,~
%,.~

PUBLIC SPEAKING AND RECITATION.-
This day were published, in 12mb., price 4s. bound,
VIM ES in the SCIENCE and PRACTICE
of PUBLIC SPEAKING, READING, and RECI-
TATION, consisting of a Selection of Popular Pieces in
English and Latin. With instructions for appropriate Delivery.
By the Rev. C. NEWTOR, A.B.
Late Rector of the Island of Tobago, West Indies, and Chap-

lain to Ibis MajesTy'i Forces.
London t printed for Baldwin, Cradock, and-Joy.
** This Work is printed in a peculiar manner, spas dearly
tomark each pause and emphasis, arid every inflection of the
voice.

MONDAY EVENING, AUGUST .8, 1825

COMMLSION OF LUNACY.

RUTH Der.—SATURDAY, A HQ-. 6.

IN TUE MATTER OF TIIE REV. EDWARD FRANK

SUPPOSED LUNATIC.)
The-proceedings in this case were resumed this morning et the
usual hour. • Mr. ,SP;IfeE only appeared on behalf of Mr.
Frank, Mr. Brougham haling left town last night for the no:.
them circuit.
The Court was attended by. a considerable number of persons
during the day, but the crowd was not at all as great as chat 'of
yesterday.
Mr. Propart was recalled this morning, for the purpose of
being re-examined as to some circumstances omitted yesterday.
He said, in answer to questions from the Commissioners—l
invariably found Mr. Frank correct as to accounts, and willing
to obtain vouchers for monies paid by him. 1 hid a conver-
sation with him in 1820 or 1821, .when he was going to Camp.
sail. He said his was' not to let the house at a great
rent, but to have some tenant in it who would takescare of his
girls. As-long as the 'taxes were paid, the reni'shateld-lte
nominal.
By the SOLICITOR-Gretritee.e-He was in the habit of
looking over my accounts for attendance as a medical man.
'Mrs. Bury, I understood, was then under his protection. It.
was by attending her that I was first introduced to Mr. Frank.
By the CommissiortEas-1 have known Mr. Frank six or
seven years. In the first four years of that time Isaw him cons
stentlye -I was not in the habit of seeing-him so much since,
.and have therefore no such opportunity of judging of his state
of mind now. I thought his conversation in desiring to let
CamOsall-honse, very_ rational. He would sometimes talk of
his exploits with the ladies. I did not think his conversation
correct as a clergyman ; but I have known of other clergymen
who were as indiscreet-in their conduct and not insane. I al.
ways thought him a weak man. He was rather reserved in the
company of ladies in his family. I have known him for many
yeare as a depraved man ; but I think a clergyman may be so
without being insane. My decided opinion is, that he was of
sound 'mind in February last. .
Here some discussion arose between Mr. Spence and the
Commissioners,. about' an examination of Mr. Frank a se--
cond time. A wish on the part of some of the Jury had been
privately intimated to Mr. Spence, who said that such a 'pro-
ceeding would be irregular ; but that for his own part he
had no objection to produce Mr. Frank as often as was re-
quired ; but an order, he thought, should be given- by the
Chancellor--(whether this last observation referred to the pro-
Auction of Mr. Frank, or some other matter, which was talked
of in private,• between Mr. Spence and the Commissioners, we
cannot say).
Mr. Wittiam Burrows examined by Mr. SPENCE.—I re-
side at Islington; I was acquainted with Mr. Frank in 1822;
I attended him professionally—sometime two or three times
in a week; froin all I have seen of him, I am of opinion
that he was a man of sound mind during that time. There
was an oddness of manner about him, - chiefly arising from
his incapacity of walking in a straight line—or of guiding
himself when walking. He had else, I observed, an odd man-
ner of talking ; but it did not lead me to suspect that he was
of unsound mind. His oddness was confined to the mode and
manner of, expression. I saw him in May and June this
year : in June he appeared to me to be somewhat low-spirited,
which he accounted. for by his being in town on unpleasant
business; I saw him last Friday week, and on Saturday and
Sunday ; he was then better than when I saw. him in June ; I
rode out with him in a gig on last Friday week, and he ex-
pressed his dislike to a gig in London, as it was dangerous;
we conversed upon other topics, particularly on agriculture,
on which he talked very rationally. The result of my con-
versation with him was, an opinion that he was of sound
mind. I have seen him this morning, and think him rather in.
better spirits. I believe him capable of managing his own
affairs, in reference to his-mental powers ; but no: as to bodily,
for he was blind.
By the SOLICITOR-GENERAL.---I did not at ally time
ask him respecting his wife, or the imputations on- her
chastity, or whether they were calumnies. I have not read
the affidavits filed in these proceedings, not did I know the
subjects best calculated to try his sanity with reference to those
proceedings. --
By the COMMISSIONERS—I first attended Mr. Frank by
desire, I suppose of Mrs. F., as I had before attended her in
Ittriegi7. at—her -.lodoin in Goodge-street. I
did not see Dr. Dickenson there. I did not know him. The
illness...for which I attended Mrs. F. was an inflammation in the
chest. a I never attended her for any other illness.
Dr. Veitch examined by Mr. SPENCE—[Before his examin-
ation this gentleman said, "It seems to he the impression that
I attend only to cases of insanity. I beg to correct that mis-
take. I pay a great attention to cases of insane persons, hut
I also attend cases in which the body, and not the mind, is
concerned.] He was then examined—l attend the Royal Naval
Lunatic Asylum at Hoxton. In March last I examined into
the state of Mr. Frank's mind. My object was to ascertain
whether there was any striking default of mental powers, and
whether they were not overlaid by the powers of ' imegina-
tion, so as to incapacitate him for conducting the ordinary
affairs of life. He was first brought to my house by Dr. Reece.
In'the course of my examinations I found bim a man certainly
very weak, and wanting, as I may say, force of charaater; but
there was no defect of intellectual power, so as to induce me
to consider him either a maniac or an idiot. I see no reason
why he should be considered as incompetent to conduct his,
affiiirs_, -With those aide which men require who ere not brought
up'to business. He seemed perfectly alive wide own interests.
He was puntual to his appointments with me. He cattle on one
occasion in a hackney-coach, and the coachman having over-
charged him 6d. or ls. lie refused to pay it.
Cross-examined by the SOLICIToR-GENEair..—l spoke
to him on the subject of his wife. -He did and doe* think that
the imputations against his wife's chastity were calumnies.—
He also told me he considered Dr. Dickenson his friend. He
thought that Bellamy was his enemy, and had got, by im-
proper means, the possession of his papers. He did not say
that it was by bribing the postmaster. He did not say why he
parted with his wife; but he said that his taking her back
was founded on his belief that the charges against her were un-
founded, and originated in a conspiracy by Mr. Bellamy and
others. I have read the affidavits in the case. Assuming the ac-
count of the wife's alleged adultery to be true, 1 should not
consider his going back to live with her a proof of unsoundness
of mind. It may be weakness, want of delicacy, or profligacy
iaf feeling ; but, not want of soundness or mind, nor want of
reasoning powers. I have not heard him say that the post-
master was bribed by Mr. Bellamy ; but assuming that he
had so said, I should consider it a proof of weakness of
,mind,
or the effect of imposition, but not a want of soundness of mind.
Ifathe statement had no foundation, I should call it delnsion,.
arising from weakness or misrepresentation. I consider Mr.
Frank, as far as his intellect goes, a man of
.sound mind, but
with great weakness, and, as I have before said, want of force
of character. He is not of unsound mind. It is my opinion
that the mind is sound, unless its defects are such as to come
under the terms idiotism or lunacy.
By the,Coune.—l think there is such a thing as undsouud.
ness of mend. There is difficulty in satisfactorily describing un-
sonndnees of mind, hut probably I may express my view of it by
saying, that when a man is an idiot on the one hand, he is un-
sound in mind, and unfit 'to govern his affairs ; and on the
otd I would
the
hswei
hirnei Inagrlli say, that a man is of unsound mind when
possessionsuggestions
all theo e
his irnitta7i-re rust
ioofti a his s
mind.
sub-
stantial truths, which no man in his senses would do. That Is.
notalie state of Mr. Frank's mind. He is of very weak mind,
but in my (minion he is neither idiot nor insane. I should know
lunacy by the ascendancy which the imagination -has over the
intellectual powers. From all•I have seen of Mr. Frank (I go
not beyond that), I think him of sound mind. He never exhi-
bited to me any Pyrnotorn of insanity or delusion. The. Ties-
tions I put to Mr. Frank were as to Mrs. Frank ; he' :aid he
believed her to be innocent, and that she was the victim of a
conspiracy. I spoke to him of the deed of -settlement lie had
made. He said it was to-provide for the five younger children,
who would otherwise be unprovided for. I wee with Mr..Frank'
about half an hour this morning.
By Mr. Winn' MAUSII—I think there are gradations of' in-
tellect, but I do not believe there can be unsoundnese-of mind
without being directly idiotism or lunacy. I conceive idiocy
to be a .state of-absolute fatuity. I conceive there are differences
of unsoundness, but they all cause under what I would call ,
years solely confined
r alt:tbiceel iin (ribvuatt private iss eas
insanity.
Stave for the last twelve
fthluatn'ifiyY.p.
brethren. I saw Mr. Frank in May
r r °ea attendance n
delicacyns Tylaonl
fct
oemibnye cases
asked)o
last.' On the 17th Tway occupied in reading the affidavits filed
in Chancery respecting him till the 19th. He then Came to
myselfnextensiveiaDt trerßtot(.

me, and I conversed with him for two hours. On the' 20th I
saw him again, and conversed with him for about two hours in
the morning. In the evening I saw him again fin about an
hour. I was the more attentive. in my examination of him,
because I observed a great variance 'in the medical opinions in
his Case.: I waesnxious to touch on points that indicated- the
state of his mind. The first point '1 endeavoured to ascertain
was„,whether he was under controul, or a free agent when in
the 'Addled. He stated, that Malcolm, hi:, attendant, had
been Jilted as, a courier in consequenCe of his expreesing a wish
to travel on the continent, and that /re leoked upon him in no
other cepeCity. I they asked about his journey to Yarmouth,
Hull, and Cambridge, and his conduct at those places. •He
did net deny that he had acted wrong, and that he had sougLt
the company ofloose women. He expressed much regret at it,
but added, that his conduct at had been greatly ex-
aggerated.. . I asked him how he came to offer a medical gen.
tlent'an sixpence for coming to see him and meking, up a pre-
scription'? Ile said he did not know he was a enedical main .
He had Sent his bottle to a druggist, arid he was angry at
being intliesed upon, having been in the habit of sending
his bottle. I asked him whether the. alleged eriminalty
of _Mrs. Frank was. founded on observations . of -hiss awry,
or on the report of others ? He answered, e that froin
his otisa observation he had no reason to suspect Mre. ;
Frank, but his information - was - • derived from that of 1
Mr. Bellamy and Captain Main waring and others, and that
fearing it true, be had given his consent to the sepa-
ration. I askedlineihow they had come together again ? lie
told me he had written to Mrs. Frank to corneto Doncaster and
meet him at the Weise of Mrs, Greaves, and that she did. I
asked whether he had made any inquiry as to Mrs. Frank's
guilt before Ire took her back ? He answered, that there had
been much correspondenCe on the subject—that he had no proof
of adultery, and that, finding that those who had given him the
information, and whom he believed his friends were his enemies,
he at once dischargedany suspicion of Mrs. Frank's guilt. I -
asked why he thought Mr. Bellamy his enemy. He said that
he did not discharge his duty as a trustee faithfully to him—
that he had felled timber without his permission, and had
never accounted for it—that he had sold land, and put the de-
posit in his own pocket; and he understood there was a bill in
Chancery filed against Mr. Bellamy. I asked him if Mrs.
Bellamy was authorisiid to break his drawers open, and take
possession of his papers ? He said she was not, and that he
was very angry on that, account. Having observed, from the
evidence of Sir George Tuthill and Mr. Warburton, that Mr.
Frank had got a notion that there existed a conspiracy against
hint, which is a very common whim with lunatics. I was anx-
ious to know what he meant by conspiracy. lie said that he
surely might well suspeeta 'conspiracy against him, when he
found his two brothers-in-law and his two elder sons combined,
and all his sisters except Elizabeth. I asked him if 'he was in
the habit of checking his accounts. He said he was obliged to
rely much on others, .cut that he was very particular to have re-
ceipts. I asked questions on agriculture and the management
'of his estate. Amongst others, I asked this question—if, dur-
ing depression of agriculture, he had lowered his rents. He
said in many instances he had, but not all. I asked him in
What proportion. He said 10, 15, and 20 per cent. He was trot
particular in his knowledge of these things • he left them to
his steward. I asked if he regulated the reduction of ,rent by
prices of wheat? He said, in Yorkshire he did, in Norfolk
not. Wheat was not the staple of Norfolk, 'but barley was. I
asked him how he pared his time? He said, from defect of
sight he could only read large print. 1 asked if he played cards
or chess in the evening. He said he could not see well enough,
and that he went to bed early. I think these were the chief
topics that day. I riw him again last Wednesday evening—
not between these times. I conversed with him half an hour.
I particularly asked him if he was aware of the present pro-
ceeding. He was. I asked him if he was not relieved by the
prospect of its coming to a crisis. He said he could not say he
felt relieved—for that it was a fearful thing to appear before a
jury. He observed upon the dryness of the season: it would
affect the turnips in Norfolk, and he was afraid that the bar-
ley would be very light. I saw him again this morning. I
touched upon some of the topics of my examination of luin in
May. I found his memmory very retentive of . sane points_.
others he did not recollect. Dr. Veitch was present. 'We
jointly asked him the purport of the deed to which Dr. Veitch
alluded in his evidence. He distinctly said it was to provide
for younger children, who, in case of his death, would other-
wise ,be left to the kindness of their elder brother. This is
all 1 remember. As to his soundness of mind, I should pre-
mise that he is of eccentric manners ; that his defect of sight
is a great disadvantage to him. As far as I could ascertain
from these eeaminations I
and from all 1 have heard as evi-
dence in Court, though entertain no doubts of his insanity
in 1817, yet I decidedly think that he is of perfectly sane mind.
His eccentricity is such, that, together with his dimness of sight,
it might lead a person less experienced in examining the state
of the human mind to conclude that he was insane.
Cross-examined by the SOLICITOR.GENERAL.-.-4 forget
what occurred as to the interception of his letters at thet-
office. My impression was, that he had had correspondence
with several persons before taking back his wife. He said that
he had communicated with Mrs. Frank. I asked him, now I
recollect, what opinion he had of Dr. Dickenson. He said lie
had found Dr. Dickenson a more faithful steward than Mr.
Bellamy—of course he had confidence in him. I had'read the
character of Dr. Dickinson in the affidavits, and asked Mr.
Frank what he knew of him. He said that Dr. Dickenson had.
inherited property from his ,father, as he had heard, and had
lent him money. I heard nothing of a bohd of 500/. givetx to:
Dr. Dickinson. He did notbelieve the imputations of adultery
against Dr. Dickenson. I did not ask him how' he 'came to
let Dr. Dickenson live in the house after. He said that he was
obliged to confide in his agent, on account of hii own want of
light. , . _

-To questions by the COMMISSIONERS.-1 consider him as
a man of sane mind. I must beg leave to decline any precise
definition of unsoundness. My reason is, that I have heard the
question put to medical men of great eminence over and over
again, and I never heard one of them make the subject at all
clearer. I have always declined, and always shall decline,
therefore, attempting any definition of insanity in a Court of
Justice. I am contented with the common term which the law
adopts to define lunacy. I do not think him in that sense a man
of unsound mind. I am ofopinion, that with the usual assistance
enjoyed by men of his fortune, he might have been capable of
managing his property. But he labours under an absolute de.
feet of vision. He is engaged in great agricultural affairs, his
estate is considerably embarrassed, and his domestic affairs
greatly troubled. He is besides an eccentric, 1 may say also a
very immoral man—he entertains peculiar opinions upon the
subject of religion, and moreover he is a man of extraordinary
indolence—he is one Of the most indolent men I ever knew. I
cannot say that his indolence is owing to any morbid affection
of his mind, or morbid disease of the body. I have seen the
same sort of indolence in other men of fortune, who were not
suspected by any of insanity. I really can form no opinion as
to the cause of indolence in any man, In his case, I incline to the
opinion 'that his indolence is not owing to unsoundness of mind.
Owed the Jury made a request, that a message might be
sent to the Lord Chancellor, to obtain leave for the Jury
to examine Mr. Frank without 'any other parties being
present.
The reason given for this request was, that the Jury might
be able freely to put any questions to the supposed lunatic,
without being subject to the prying eyes of the Commissioners
and Counsel.

Sir George Williams strongly supported this proposition,
and thought it would be an infringement on the rights and li-
berties of en English Jury if it were denied; which rights and
liberties he was determined to support. "
Air. Commissioner Primusiottr, wittvgreat deference to
the Jury, would undertake to forward their request to the Lord
Chancellor, with his own protest against the application', be=
cause it was contrary to all precedent, and had been expressly
refused in Lord Portsmouth's case. The Commissioners were
there sworn to assist in an important investigation of evidence,
and felt equally hound as the Jury-by their oaths. They 'were
expected to be cognizant of all that was transacted in evidence,
that they aright-duly inform the Lord Chancellor. 'They bad
no wish to curtail. or qualify the examination of the Jury, who
were, as they must know by the last examination, perfectly
at liberty to put any question whatever to the subject of this
inquiry. Neither could the Counsel of Mr. Frank he ex.'
eluded. His duty required him to be present, and how -could'
he safely address his observations to them on the scope of
the evidence' unless he knew what had taken place at their
examination?

Several of the Jury disowned any participation in the
request.

Sir. SPENCE, as counsel for Mr. Frank, orilyiwislied
present that he might modify
.the few observation which he hal
to make by the occurrences of that examination. •It would in
'all probability make his remarks much more brief.
Mr. Commissioner lirurrltAitsu had sat in many commit-

,t t of ~.

of

PRicv.. S r,vErgl-,!ENG:1;:.

•
sions of lunacy, and had never known an exeninationi,by.thz
Jury exclusively to be allbwed. To say noth'ing of the e:gee-
tion cast upon the Coilithirtsioners by such' a requeit,s'ax if Illey
were likely to put any hindrance in the way of anyt eyeful and
impartial examination, the thing was wrong irrpriercille.'! Th:
COmmissionera wore appCinted as a presiding Cow:, to-conduet
an 'Evidence was brought forward and sifted pre-
sence of the Jury, who, let it be observed, were only a part or
the Court ; and in order to se' isfy. their minds thcrougly, whet
the Counsel on eithei side had done, the witnesses were r .;eir-
ed to satisfy any remaining doubps which• the Court 'or. the
Jury might -retain. In the exercise of this authority, iT.e.tul4
not, surely, be 'east:Med that the Commissioners hatfloutect
difficulty in ate way of making the inquiry most completi..;
to the conviction of every. individual juror. But the evidence
was matter for the express recognition of the Court; who were
there to regulate the depositions by their authority,. who wouil
have, after the Jury by their verdict Were discherg-d Of their
trust, td return a particular account of the whole iriett/ry
to the Keeper of the Great Seal. The request wits tie.,117
aberdontd.
Another discussion took. pisce, upon an application either to
have the affidavit of Dr. %% confined by illness at Buxton,
rt.ad, instead of his oral examination; or to adjourn the Court
till-Monday, in expectation of his attendance.
The Counsel for the Lunacy offered to admit the affidsvi.
which was against tit Fm. The Court overruled both proe...
tions. ' The first .was not at 111 adMissible; the adjournment
could not be allowed, because there was no certainty of
Dr. Willis's attendance. It was agreed at last that the
should fill up the rest of the afternoon by the examination oz
Mr. Frank, that Mr. Spente might have the advantage of
tit,
of the intervening Sabbath, and Of reading over the last exa -
minations which he had condlicted himself, and therefore le d
not the answers well digested in his memory, before stitrunine;
up the evidence against the lunacy on Monday morning.
Ajourned at; two o'clock.