The Sun.
London, England, 1849-04-23 00:00:00

3111 L

LONDON, MONDAY, APRIL 23, 1849.

Judgment has at length been given in the case of
Mr. Drca SOMBRE. The petition of that unfortu-
nate gentleman, which had been argued at consider-
able length during the months of February and
March, was on Friday dismissed by the Lord Chan-
cellor, in an elaborate judgment, in which he entered
very fully into the consideration of the law of lunacy
as administered in the Court of Chancery. A
stronger illustration could not possibly have
been afforded of the imperative necessity for a
complete and thorough reformation of the law.
Protection must be afforded to those whose relatives
or connexions may deem it expedient to assert that
they. are of unsound mind, and unfit to manage their
own affairs ; and it is now manifest that the Legis-
lature alone can provide an adequate remedy.
Aocording to the principles on Friday enunciated
by Lord CoTTENBAM it is perfectly useless for any
Person who has ever been brought within
the jurisdiction of the Court to look forward
to ultimate emancipation from its trammels.
However
powerful the testimonials he may adduce
• as to the complete restoration of his faculties ; how-
: • ever overwhelming the evidence
as to his sanity—
evidence on which no jury could
entertain a reasona-
. ble doubt; however acut,c, his intellect,
tsand satisfac-
tory his conduct, he must still be regarded •
as a lunatic,
incapable of taking charge of his own
and
affairs
not only remain deprived of all control
• over his fortune, but even the libert'yof
his person will no longer be sacred.
lumatic once and a lunatic for ever" will henceforth
be the rule—

"Facilis descensus averinised revocezo gradual,
Hic labor, hoc opus est."
it is, indeed, easy to incarcerate any person in
a madhouse, to drag him from his family and
friends, and subject him to discipline so
stringent that the severest punishment that could
legally be inflicted on a convicted criminal is
mild in comparison ; but to obtain his release
from the thraldom is an arduous undertaking, in
the way of which almost insuperable difficulties are
interposed. Even the possession of the golden

branch will not facilitate the escape. The very
wealth that would be all-powerful under other cir-

eutngtances supplies a motive to the parties interested
to keep the unhappy victim under their
control and management. The mere certificate
of two medical practitioners, given after a hasty and
superficial examination, without any guarantee for
its accuracy, is sufficient to warrant the confinement
of the alleged lunatic in a madhouse. The report of
six professional gentlemen of the utmost skill and
experience, of undoubted character and integrity,
who had acquired European reputations, more
_ _

especially for the treatment of mental diseases—a
report delivered after the closest and most searching
investigation, during repeated interviews with the
individual whose sanity was impeached—after nume-

rous consultations with each other, and sustained by
the solemn oaths of those eminent persons, declaring
that they have been unable " to detect the existence

of any insane delusion whatsoever in the mind" of the
party, is not only insufficient to obtain his release, but
even to justify an appeal to a new jury to pronounce
on the additional evidence that may be brought for-
ward. Nay, insufficient to obtain protection for the

unfortunate gentleman on whose case they had re-

ported "to reside in London or elsewhere in Eng-
land, without being liable to seizure and incarcera-
tion at any moment."
The LORD CHANCELLOR in his judgment assigns
two distinct grounds for refusing the prayer of the
petition. Ist. That in consequence of the
manner in which the petition was got up,
and the irregularity of the application made to him
by several noblemen and gentlemen in January last,
he would not feel justified "in giving effect to any
favourable opinion he might have formed on the real
merits of the case." 2d. That the weight of the
evidence convinced him that " he ought not to super-
sede the commission."

Now, as to the letter of the 13th of January
1849, respecting which so much has been said
we are quite prepared to admit that nothing
can be more improper in ordinary cases, than
any private communication addressed, to a judge,
concerning matters under litigation, where conflicting
claims are involved. No higher contempt of court
could be committed, and the conduct of the parties
is justly open to grave and serious censure. But
matters of infancy and lunacy have ever been con-
sidered to form exceptions to the rule ; there are no
opposing interests. No person can by any proba-
bility be unduly prejudiced. The benefit of the
minor (or lunatic) is supposed to be the sole object
of the Court, and any suggestions that may
be thrown out from any quarter, and
in any form, justly receive that consideration which
on full investigation they may appear to deserve.
They cannot, of course, influence the final decision
of the Court, but they direct its attention to matters
bearing on the question that might otherwise have
been passed over without notice. It cannot, in our
opinion, be said that a different rule is applicable if
the nature of the communication should be respect-
ing the restoration to sanity of a party against whom
a commission of lunacy had been issued, and men-
tioning, additional evidence bearing on that question
that had never previously been brought before the
Court. The only possible effect would be to induce
the Lord Chancellor to cause inquiries to be insti-
tuted to satisfy himself as to the correctness and accu-
racy of these statements ; and it is by no means im-
probable that such communications might lead to the
liberation of a person, of mind, memory, and un-
derstanding, from restraints that were no longer
necessary for his protection. It is also very
possible that but for such interpositions the
alleged lunatic might linger on in confine-
ment and suffering until the imputed disease
became a sad reality ; for he might be without the
means of making his true condition known. There
is, therefore, no case in which an extra judicial ap-
plication of such a character, couched in respectful
language, can be more fully justified.
The letter itself merely suggested that at the time
when the former petition for a supersedeas had been
argued, " Counsel for the petitioner were not in
possession of most important and material evidence
that Mr. DYCE SOMBRE had never exhibited the
least symptom of insanity previous to his marriage ;"
that he was like most natives of Hindostan, of a very
jealous disposition, which might account for the
manner in which he acted towards his wife, and
requesting his Lordship's attention to several affida-
vits and other documents bearing strongly on the
question of the competency of Mr. DYCE SOMBRE to
manage his own affairs. We confess that in any of
these points we cannot discern anything meriting the
severe language used by Lord COTTENHAM towards
the noblemen and gentlemen who signed the docu-
ment, or such that it would prevent his Lordship
from " giving effect to any favourable opinion he
might have formed on the real merits of the case."
His Lordship also relied in this portion of his
judgment on the fact that he could not consider the
petition on which he was giving judgment as the act
of Mr. DYCE SOMBRE, but that it was got up
altogether by Dr. MAHON, in pursuance of the
agreement of July, 1845, by which Mr. SOMBRE
" agreed to pay 10,0001. to Dr. Manor/ in the event of
the commission being superseded through his
instrumentality and exertions." This agreement,
which his Lordship seemed to think so im•
provident as alone to constitute sufficient evi-
dence of insanity, was, it appeared, cancelled
in April, 1848, and it was referred to arbitra-
tors to decide what sum should be paid to Dr. MAHON
for his actual expenditure, and the bona fide services
he had rendered, when a sum of 2,1401. was awarded
to be paid to that gentleman by instalments. Now
a consideration of the circumstances in which Mr.
SOMBRE was placed in 1845 will show that such an
agreement was not by any means so improvident on
the part of Mr. SOMBRE, or unreasonable en the
part of Dr. MAHON, as his Lordship seemed to
suppose.
Mr. SOMBRE was left at that period with compara-
tively scanty resources, insufficient to provide fcr his
personal expenditure, much less to enable him to bear
the enormous costs of applying to the Court for a
supersedeas of the Commission, Mr. GOLDSMITH
(the father-in-law of Lord LYNDHURST), through
whose instrumentality the former petition had been
brought forward, and who was to have received a
much larger sum in the event of success, had just
died. Mr. SOMBRE was consequently without any
party to assist him in the emergency. At this period
he met Dr. Malox, a professional gentleman of con-
siderable experience and independent fortune. He
felt that no person could be more competent to
conduct such a case than a person who was tho-
roughly acquainted with cerebral diseases, and he
placed himself in his hands, stipulating, however, that
no payment was to be made unless the Com-
mission was superseded, and be himself completely
emancipated from the control of the Court. Unless
Mr. Sonnann was perfectly sane that contract would
have been utterly void. No remuneration could be
received, either for the trouble to be incurred or the
certain heavy expenditure that must be provided for,
If he was really a lunatic it was utterly useless—no
benefit could be derived. If he was sane, although
the sum stipulated was large, it was, not extravagant
when the nature of the undertaking and the advan-
tages he would receive from the services of Dr.
MAHON, and the entire removal of the Commis-
sion, when his enormous fortune was taken
into account. A man possessed of more
than half a million sterling might af-
ford liberal remuneration to one through whose
agency he was restored to perfect freedom. In
either point of view, then, there does not appear
anything of so serious a character in this contract,
which it must be remembered was forwarded to the
Lord Chancellor by Mr. DYCE SOMBRE:
We regret that our space this day will not enable
us to enter into a consideration of the substantial
merits of the case. We shall, howaver, resume the
subject on a future occasion.

Upwards of six hundred pounds lave, we observe,
been already Subscribed fur EMIT Ar SANDFORD, the
mistress of the diabolical mi screant who on
Saturday expiated his crimes on the scaffold.
A smaller sum has been accumulated in
the name of alas CHESTNRY-1, :he sufferer from
the wretched man's attempt at wholesale assassination.
The contrast afforded by the amount of the two col-
lections tells, we fear, rather agai st the purity of
this spontaneous outburst of benevo 1 ence. It indi-
cates that much of the generosity of the public
arises from a morbid, rather than. . from any very
elevated sentiment.
No doubt the paramour of the mu lerer is a most

unfortunate person, a person whose ealarnitorts nnqi-

tion is ties,,2rving of ..,v,-.A...;-

alleviation. But we cannot but feel indig-
nant at that want of discrimination which
lavishes upon her a larger .
amount of kindness
than upon the amiable and • unblemished girl
who was the unoffending victim of brutality.
Even with reference to ELIZA CHESTNEY, we
have considered the enthusiasm betrayed in her
regard as a very exaggerated display of a
very mawkish sensibility. One maniac has
gone so far as to propose a monument to perpetu-
ate the heroism of the " good servant" to the most
remote posterity !—placing the housemaid of Stan-
field-hall above the level of such men as DENIS AFFRE
and WILLIAM WALLACE. We have been in-
capable of appreciating that sublimity in the conduct
of ELiza CHESTNEY which seems to have led to the
derangement of one or two respectable gentlemen.
We look upon her with the complacency inspired by
a good, warm-hearted girl, who ran to her mistress,
and flung her arm round her waist and offered
her solace, if not protection, when the
butler was bolting himself in the pantry and the
flunkey was swimming across the moat. But if we
view the behaviour of ELiza. CHESTNEY in this mode-
rate aspect—we certainly regard the misfortunes of
EMILY SANDFORD as of an inferior bitterness as far as
her own pat tial culpability is concerned. It should not
be forgotten that the latter is of a sullied and the
former of an unsullied reputation—that besides
being the concubine of the monster who
perished by the hands of the hangman on
Saturday, EMILY SANDFORD was his accomplice in
his forgeries. For these reasons and from these con
siderations we are distressed to observe the demo-
ralizing disproportion between the subscriptions now
making for the servant and the paramour.