The Sun.
London, England, 1864-02-02 00:00:00

THE TOWNLEY CASE.

On Friday afterooen last an important meeting
of the visiting justices and other magistrates of the
country of Derby Wa 3 bold at the County-hall, for
the purpose of taking into consideration certain
communications received from the Home Secretary,
and also the letters that have recently appeared
from the " Local Commissioners," Messrs. Cox, Roe,
Scott, and Forman. Sir H. S. Ble.rie presided.
After the matter had been fully discussed, the
following reply to Sir George Grey was unani-
mously adopted, and signed by Sir H. 5, Blane on
behalf of the magistrates assembled :

Derby, Jan. 30.

Sir,—We beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letters
of the 20th, 23d, and 25th inst„ and the copies of the letters
from Mr. Scott, Mr. Cox. Mr. Poe, and Mr, Forman.
They were yesterday laid before the visiting justices of
the gaol and other magistrates (11 in number), assembled
at the county-hall, in whose names I am requested, in the
absence of Mr. Mundy, to send the following reply :
The magistrates cannot refrain from saying that they
have read your letter of the 20th inst. with regret. They
most emphatically repudiate the supposition " that four ma-
gistrates and two medical men had, without any probable
grounds, and with the wilful and deliberate intention of ob•
strutting the course of justice, signed a certificate of Town-
ley's insanity." The magistrates believe those gentlemen to
be wholly incapable of so acting, The observation that
" Townloy's removal to Bethlehem was effected by the ex-
penditure of money" is shown by another part of the same
paragraph to refer to an expenditure of money in obtaining
the certificate by which he was removed. That was not an
illegal expenditure, but the fact remains that "Townley has
escaped by means accessible to the rich, but out of reach of
the poor." If the act in question had been applied, as the
magistrates have themselves applied it, and in the only way
in which they consider that such an act ought to bo applied,
by the agency of the gaol authorities, equal advantages
would have been afforded to the rich and to the poor,
With reference to the entries in the surgeon's journal you
have twice expressed your regret that the visiting justices
"wholly overlooked them for so many months, and did not
discover them and send copies of them to the Secretary of
State till it was too late to render them of any practical use."
Now, although the visiting justices made frequent inquiries
about Townley's state, they never until after his trial heard
from any officer of the gaol a hint of Townley's insanity, nor
until after the certificate of his insanity had they any spe-
cial reason for examining the surgeon's journal. To say,
therefore, that they had overlooked for many months en-
tries which until after Dec. 27th they had no motive to look
for at all, is an expression, to say the least, exceeding the
occasion. As soon as they were informed of the certificate
the journal was searched and the entries found, and sent to
you immediately. The magistrates do not know, nor do you
point out what "practical use" could previously have been
made of those entries. They could not have affected the ob-
ligation which you considered yourself under to act upon
the second certificate, But at the time they were sent they
were of this practical use—to show the divergence of opinion
respecting Townley's sanity, and to support the other rea-
sons assigned for further inquiry. If the surgeon of the
gaol, who had the most frequent opportunities of seeing
Townley, had considered him to b 3 legally insane, there
could not have been a more St person to sign the certificate.
He was present when it was signed.
The magistrates were aware that it was not in your power,
under the law as it now stands, to direct an inquiry upon
oath into the present state of Townley'smind, and therefore
they suggested that if the existing legal machinery was
deemed unequal to the occasion, Parliament might be applied
to to remedy the defect.

Your letter of the 20th inst. contains the following pas-
sage --" You inform Sir George Grey that in the opinion of
the magistrates Dr. Goode and his coadjutors did not in-
tend to sign a document which would be obligatory on the
Secretary of State." In this passage the statement quoted
from Dr. Goode's published letter is represented as only the
"opinion of tho magistrates," and the quotations are omitted.
Then the letter proceeds, "No statement which could
support this opinion has ever been received by Sir George
Grey from any one of the magistrates or medical men by
whom either of the certificates were signed.

In the first place, the quoted statement of Dr. Goode is
set forth as the opinion of the magistrates only, and then it
is asserted
.that no statement to support that opinion has
been received from any of the medical men, but a state-
ment signed and published by one of those medical men was
sent to you, and its effect does not depend upon the channel
through which you received it.
The magistrates regret that when you addressed inquiries
to the justices who had signed the certificates you did not
extend those inquiries to the medical men who also signed
them, and especially to Dr. Goode, whose important state-
ment had been brought to your notice,
The magistrates did not need to be twice informed that
you were not called upon to act upon the report of the
Lunacy Commissioners alone, for they know from you that
the removal of Townley was wholly founded on the second
certificate; neither were they ignorant that a magistrate
acting corruptly is amenable to punishment, nor can they
understand why such a remark is thrust into a letter to
them, inasmuch as they have not imputed corruption.
Dismissing these comparatively unimportant matters, the
magistrates proceed to those bearing upon the merits of the
case. It is not disputed that the proceedings relating to
both certificates were promoted, and the certifying rnag;s-
-tra,el3 and medical men put in motion, by Townley's so:leiter.
In one of the letters of which you have sent copies it is
stated that
c form of certificate was prepared by the go-
governor denies this, and says that the
vernor's clerk. :rho
form was prepared by
'be clerk of Townley's solicitor.
You say that
you have dc.,..au-ed the governor of the gaol
to inform ytu by whose authority-
he admitted to visit and
: s,igned the signed the
.
examine the prisoner the two medical en who
cortificatea, and the two borough justices ho
first certificate. Ths magistrates have, in the i,.'112 para-
graph of their letter to you of the 15th inst., informed :7°ll
that the visiting justices consented to an inquiry as a pre-
liminary inquiry only. As that information does not seem
to have been satisfactory, the magistrates will now
verity it by the following published documents. In a
letter of the 4th inst. to Mr. Mundy, the chairman of the
visiting justices, by Townley's solicitor, that gentleman
s;ays he had been informed that, " In order to strengthen
my application for the appointment of a commission of
lunacy to examine the prisoner (which I had previously
made) it would be well to obtain a satisfactory certificate of
local magistrates and medical men as to the state of the pri-
soner's mind, and, having resolved to obtain it, I waited
upon you on Saturday, Dec. 26, for a visiting justice's
order." The prisoner's solicitor adds that, not being pre-
pared with the name of any other magistrate than Mr. W.
T. Cox, a country and borough magistrate, he asked Mr.
Mundy to add the words, "and one or two other magis-
trates." Mr. Mundy added these words to the order,mean-
ing, of course, such magistrates as had jurisdiction within
the county gaol, which the borough magistrates have not,
nor ever before exercised; and under that order the two
borough justices, who had been subsequently applied to by
Townley's solicitor, obtained admission to the county gaol.
At the sessions on the following day, Jan. 6, Mr; Mundy is
represented to have said with reference to Townley's soli-
citor's application, "It was urged upon roe that the certi-
ficates of these 1:cal gentlemen would enable the Homo Sec-
retary to send down the Lunacy Commissioner." D. r.
Goode also states that ha regarded the inquiry and certifi-
cate as only preliminary, and Mr. Scott says that he did
not understand the certificate as obligatory upon you. Thus
the inquiry asked by Townley's solicitor, and acceded to,
was asked and obtained for one purpose and used for ano-
ther.
With regard to the first certificate, the magistrates aro
confirmed by high legal authority in their opinion that that
certificate is bad for the two reasons alleged in their letter
of the 13th inst. You observe that the certificate " was not
a judicial act."
Mr. Cox, who signed it, says that he was applied to by
Townley '5 solicitor " to make a judicial inquiry jut° Town-
ley's state of mind," and did make it.
The second certificate appears also to be open to objection
on the following grounds, viz. :-
1. It is admitted by Dr. Goode, ono of the four who
signed the certificates, that the inquiry was " a preliminary
to obtain Government Commissioners," and that " it was de-
cided to leave to persons more conversant the task of col-
lecting and comparing the evidence for the Secretary of
State," clearly showing that ho did not intend the certifi-
cate to be final or obligatory upon you.
2. It is stated by Mr. Scott (another of the four who
signed the second certificate) that he "was unaware of its
effect as regarded its obligation upon you."
3. The magistrates are informed by competent medical
men that Mr. Harwood, who signed both certificates, was
not a member of the Royal College of Surgeons, and was
therefore not a surgeon, and not authorized to sign the cer-
tificate as such. If this be so, it has not been "duly certi-
fied" to you by two physicians or surgeons that Townley is
insane, and the foundation of your order for his removal
fails, and ho should be remitted to the custody whence he
has been removed.

Independently of this objection, you now have the state-
ment of two of the four gentlemen who signed the certificate
under which you felt obliged to remove Townley to Beth-
lehem, that they did not intend the certificate to have that
effect, At present, therefore, Townley is withdrawn from
justice by your order, founded upon a certificate which was
not intended by Townley's solicitor when he asked per-
mission to obtain it, nor by Mr. Mundy, who granted that
permission, nor by two of the four gentlemen who signed
it, to have that effect. The magistrates submitted to you
that the certificate ought not to have an effect contrary to
the avowed intention of those who signed it, but they have
not been favoured with an answer. It only remains, there.
fore, for the magistrates to point out to you that the latter part
of the clause in the act of Par liament,through the instrumen-
tality of which the evil has arisen, also contains the remedy.
To that clause we therefore call your most serious attention,
as the only means left (under the existing law) of averting
the evils arising out of this unfortunate affair, and of
restoring the confidence of the public in the faithful and
impartial administration of the letter and spirit of the
law. They therefore submit that this course rests wtth
yourself, and on your own solo and undivided respon-
sibility.
WUey will, therefore, only add that it will be very gatiefao-

tory to them, and also tend to allay public anxiety here, if
you will favour them with, or publish in the newspapers,
copies of the reports or communieatioos made to you by the
authorities of Bethlehem of the state of Townley's mind
since he arrived there.
I have the honour to be, Sir, your most obedient servant,
H. SEYMOUR BLAME,
Chairman pro tern. of the Visiting Justices of
Derby County Gaol.
The Right Hon. Sir George Grey, Bart., M,P.,
Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for
the Home Department.