The Sun.
London, England, 1864-01-15 00:00:00

TO THE EDITOR CF THE SUN.

SIR,—In the communication made in this case to
the Home Secretary by Mr. W. T. Cox and two
other magistrates, and by Dr. Goode and Mr. Har-
wood, and published in The Sun of the 12th
there is an important error, which, with your per-
mission, I should like to correct.

It is stated :—" Upon the trial of the prisoner,
Mr. J. H. Sims, the Governor of the Gaol in which
the prisoner was confined, deposed to the fact of the
prisoner being insane at that period—viz., on the
11th of December." I never was at the trial asked
by counsel whether I considered the prisoner sane
or not. Immediately after council had elicited an
opinion of insanity from Dr. Winslow and Mr.
Gisborne, I was asked whether I considered the
prisoner was in the same state then as he was when
be came into the gaol; my answer was in the affir-
mative, not that I meant to imply that I considered
him insane, for I never have done so.
I am, sir, your obedient servant,
J. H. Sims, Governor of the Gaol.
County Gaol, Derby, Jan. 13.

The Derby Mercury publishes a letter from Mr.
Gisborne, surgeon to the Derby county prison, and
another from his partner Dr. Goode; both letters
having for their object the personal justification of
the writers as to their share in the transaction which
led to Townley's respite. Noticing the statement
of Mr. Mundy, M.P., that the Visiting Justices were
greatly surprised " that they were not informed by
the surgeon to the gaol when he first became aware
of the prisoner's insanity, after having previously
given us his decided opinion that the man was per-
fectly sane"—Mr. Gisborne says :
Townley entered the gaol on the 24th August. I saw him
on the 25th, and occasionally visited him till the 6th Octo-
ber, the date when I made the following note in my jour-
nal :—Oct. 6, Townley aperient pills. Good health, mind,
and body." In my interviews with the prisoner our conver-
sation was of the most general character. I found him placid,
free, and satisfied ; ho eat his food, slept well, and neither
asked for nor needed any medical advice; in fact, during
the whole of his imprisonment, he only twice or thrice re-
quested to see me as his health was good. Up to October
the 6th I never once alluded to the crime on which he was
to be arraigned, for with that I had nothing to do. My
conversations with him had only proved to me tha;
his mind was weak, and that he was ill-educated. The
evidence thus before me disclosed no grounds for
suspecting insanity. I was impressed as the public were
that he was sound in mind and body. The above curt note
was made for recalling to my memory his general state of
health, and not for the purpose of supplying the visiting
justices with any formation. The visiting justices, though
they met on Oct. 9, Nov. 13, and December, never indivi-
dually or collectively officially asked me one word as to
Townley's mind, or ever called my attention to it. As soon
as a winter assize was arranged, I visited Townley more
frequently, not that he required it. I also made repeated
inquiries of the governor, chaplain, and turnkeys as to what
they had observed, and as to his remarks. I did so because
I thought it possible that the judge might ask my opinion
as to his mental condition. During the last seven or eight
weeks I frequently discussed and entered into details of the
horrible tragedy and of his religious views; he was always
open and unequivocal in stating his opinions, though they
were of the most absurd character; he justified his acts and
often expressed comfort at the approaching termination of
his life. Sometimes I thought his monstrous notions might
bo all pretence—that he had an object to accomplish, so I
often travelled over the same ground with him to test his
sincerity. From all that I saw and heard I was sorely
perplexed as to the true state of his mind. Sometime I
thought he was insane—again I thought he was sane. In
this difficulty I remained till the aseiees approached. Mr.
Leech called en me a fortnight before the trial ; I told him
that I was desirous of having nothing to do with either the
prosecution or defence, that I could only state to the jury
what I had observed, and that I considered Townley suf-
fered from a morbid condition of mind. Some days after-
wards I had a consultation with Dr, Hitchmann, and our
joint opinion was that no case of legal insanity could be
established, and that an intelligent jury would be certain to
find him guilty. About this time, Dr. Forbes Winslow, a
great authority in lunacy, saw Townley, and reported on
his case. This I read carefully. Dr. Winslow had no doubt
that Townley's delusions and statements emanated from
organic brain mischief ; that ha was insane. I put all these
varied and accumulated facts, opinions, &c. together, and
after balancing the evidence before me, and endeavouring
to give a mature and impartial judgment, I came to the cone
elusion, through the portals of doubt, that Townley was of
unsound mind. His esz-ential defects were not discernable
in discussing ordinary topics,but on matters relating to Miss
Goodwin ho was monomaniacal. My early impressions were
made on superficial data I believed then to be correct. I now
consider the note in my journal regarding his mind to be
erroneous. Mr. Mundy's language at the sessions implies
that the magistrates having read my note on or about the date
it was written (Oct. 6), have remained till the day of Town-
ley's trial under the conviction that my " decided opi-
nion" was that he was " perfectly sane." I must now
very respectfully ask the Visiting Justices whether my
consideration entry was ever seen by them till January
3, 1864, the day previous to the sessions. If that bo a
fact, how could my note have misled them I If they
were uninformed of my written opinion, why should it
surprise and aggrieve them ? It is asked by Mr. Mundy,
,6 why I did not communicate the change that had taken
place—that change taking place at the gaol ?" If this
applies to Townley, my reply is, that no change did take
place in him ; if to myself, I answer, that almost till ring
into the witness-box, I was undecided as to the opinion
1 I should give, I told Mr, Leech I should be guided much

by what transpired its court, so in fact I had nothing posi-
tive to communicate to the Magistrates. The pros and cons
which had been traversing my brain for two months I could
not place in my journal—a history of my embarrassments
would not afford any insight to the state of the prisoner's
mind. Supposing I had considered kim insane on his ad-
mission, all was done for him that could be done. Magis-
terial authority is very limited over a prisoner before trial;
after conviction it is extended, and it becomes an important
duty with me to report to the Visiting Justices the phy-
sical capabilities of prisoners to perform their different pri-
son duty ; it is also highly imperative on me to look after
the mental state of sentenced prisoners, so that if insane
they may be removed to Lunatic Asylums.
Dr. Goode thus explains his share in the matter :
No steps having been taken by the Visiting Justices to
inquire into the state of the criminal's mind, some magis-
trates were applied to under this clause (of the Prison
Discipline Act) to take with them two medical men and
make the necessary inquiry; the proceedings and the set
were duly explained to the Chairman of the Visiting
Justices, and an order obtained fur admission to visit the
prisoner; and let it be observed that if those who desired
Itehaisstinthgeuir judgment
irywerei
was
n aminorityamong the Magistrates, at
corroborated by that of the autho-
rities at a distance, who actually did stud down Commis-
sioners. The "local commission," as it has been termed,
having for a few hours deferred its visit to suit the conrcni•
I once of some engaged, met at the gaol some persons stated
to be the very Commissioners required. The Local Commis-
sion was of course of necessity deferred, and would have been
omitted altogether but for the feeling that no act of forma-
lity should remain unfulfilled in this emergency; it hence in
due course entered on a careful examination of the prisoner,
and the members, acting on their etanictiens, signed the
necessary paper; this paper was simply drawn up in Formal
compliance with the act, and no rearms were appended
to it, because it was decided to leave to persons more
conversant the task of collecting tied comparing the
evidences for the Secretary of State. No friends of
the prisoner, nor his solicitor, bore any part in or
were present at the examination. Subsequently, to
this proceeding, an informality having been pointed out,
since but one of the magistrates was a misty magistrate, a
second examination was undertaken in the presence of two
county magistrates to avoid the technical difficulty, and if
it was needless, at any rate the amount of undue influence
exercised thereby in obtaining a reprieve may be judged of
by the fact that it had not yet left the town when the re-
prieve arrived. The magistrates engaged justly remark that
if the friends of Townley did not interfere, who else would
by possibility do so, and in this they are sustained by the
fact that since the time of the trial the visiting justices had
never visited the prisoner, though it must not hence be in-
ferred that the magistrates who did visit Townley had any
personal connection whatever with his friends. It has been
objected to the individuals who conducted this examination
that they were all already committed to maintain the pri-
soner's insanity, through having already signed petitions
for the prisoner to the Secretary of State. This allegation is
not true. Doubtless two magistrates had signed a petition,
but the third had refused to do so, though he had signed a
document praying for a commission ; and neither of the two
medical men had signed any document whatever ; one, Mr.
Harwood, from his public opportunities, has the experience
in judging of insanity attained by but few general practi-
tioners; of my own fitness as the other I may not speak, but
I would ask why was my name before all others called
for by the public local press at a previous stage of these pro-
ceedings ? Although partner with the surgeon of the gaol,
I have myself no connection with the gaol, and had had
nothing to do with the prisoner, and participated in the
general bias entertained against him. With regard to the
proofs of insanity exhibited by the prisoner, I may remark
that the account of his ordinary be. ring, and ultra opinions
on religious and other subjects, have been already much
discussed, and are well known, I need not hear repeat them :
we find a man whose creed is annihilation after death, and
yet we fled him exulting and gaining flesh on the conviction
that he shall again possess in flesh and blood, as before, the
victim he has himself destroyed; from this and his other
delusions we may fairly dress a key to explain what we might
otherwise simply call hardened impenitence, and conclude
he is not simply impenitent, but mad. If a person enter-
tains impossible and irrational couvictions on matters of
fact, irrespective of the teachings of superstition or ignor•
ante, such persons may fairly be accounted insane. The
delusions entertained by the prisoner having all reference
to conditions immediately upon, and subsequent to, the
commission of his crime evidently follow, and do not pre-
cede it, though it must be confessed that they prove the
material from which have emanated these manifestations of
unsound mind.