The Sun.
London, England, 1846-11-17 00:00:00

to plant more deeply in your wife's mind a
sense of her sister's guilt—that mid
a
consider that that letter particularises nothing that in
the slightest degree fixes Marianne Tolzer with any ,
particular specification—any charge of incontinency
whatever. In the course of my experience in
this Court I have never had to deal with a
case of private life so full of calumny as this appears
to be. It is very painful for this Court to have to deal
with transactions that go into the secresy of private life,
but it is much more painful to have before it
a person who fills, and who has filled so long
the situation you do a minister of the
holy Gospel. In your person one cannot but feel
that the Church itself is outraged. From the manner
you have conducted yourself in the whole of this
case, and after the observations you have made
this day—in which, using the language of your
own affidavit you confess yorself guilty of nothing more
than an act of impropriety, and instance your own guilt
as something that may be palliated by a fine of the
smallest possible amount—it is vain to suppose
that, as the organ of this Court, I can safely
address any observations to you whatever. I must
leave to another time to bring you to a state of
mind in which you will take a proper view of the enor-
mity of the offence you have committed. It remains
only for me to pass upon you that sentence which, upon
a full consideration of all the circumstances of
the case the Court think it right to impose
upon you, which is that you be imprisoned in
the Queen's Bench for two years on each count of this
indictment, each sentence to commence and end at the
same period ; and that at the expiration of that timeyou
enter into your own recognizances in the sum of one
• thousand pounds for your good behaviour to all her Ma-
jesty's subjects, and especially to Marianne Tolzer, for
the space of five years.
The defendant was then removed in the custody of the
proper officer, and the majority of the auditory withdrew.

BAIL COURT, Nov. 16.
(Before Mr. Justice PArrEsosi.)
IN RE SHUTTLEWORTH.
Mr. PARRY moved that the return to the writ of ha-
beas corpus issued in this case should at once be made.
Sir J. BAYLEY said that the lady was then in West-
minster Hall.
The return was then read. It set forth that on the
9th of August Maria Eliza Rhodes Shuttleworth was
delivered into the custody of Dr. Millingen, and that the
cause of her so being taken and detained was, that she
was at the time, and has since been, of unsound mind,
and incapable of governing herself or her property, and
was an unfit and an unsafe person to be at large. The
place of her confinement was a licensed house for the
reception of lunatics, called York House, at Battersea,
and at the time of her reception there, an order for her
reception, signed by J. C. Rowlack, the minister of St.
Peter's, Pimlico, was produced, in which it was stated
that she had been found in a most deplorable and in-
decent state. There were also two certificates, one
from Thomas Willmott, a medical man, who
stated that she was of unsound mind, and
that the facts from which he came to that
conclusion was, that she laboured under various
delusions, and was extremely dirty and indecent; and
another, Wm. Gifford, a medical man, pronounced her
insane, and stated that he came to that conclusion from
conversation he had with her.
Mr. PARRY said he had to submit to his Lordship
that such a return to the writ was altogether insufficient,
and that this lady should be discharged from custody.
He would state to his Lordship, on the threshhold
of the argument, that he did not intend to raise the
question as to whether or not the lady was insane, hut
he would contend that the order and certificates upon
which this lady was received into the custody of Dr.
Millengen were insufficient and illegal. The order and
certificates were given under the Act Bth and 9th of
Victoria, chap. 100, and the sections (to which he
most particularly desired to direct his Lordship's
attention), were sections 45 and 46. The intention
of the Act was benevolent, but the sections
were two of the most restrictive upon the liberty of the
subject which could be found in any Act of Parliament.
The first point to which he would call the attention of
his Lordship was the order set forth in that return. It
appeared that a gentleman named Rowlack, the minister
of the parish, having had his attention directed to the
forlorn condition of this lady, felt it his duty to inter-
fere, although not related or connected with her. The
form of the order, as specified in schedule B of the Act,
required that a number of particulars with reference to
the age, sex, malady, condition, &c., of the lunatic should
be set forth upon the order, making it evident that the
intention of the Act was, that the order should not come
from an utter stranger, but from a person related, or
intimately connected, with him or her. It did not v.p-
pear on the order that this gentleman had ever seen
her more than five minutes together. Under the
same schedule there was a list of sixteen particulars
with reference to the lunatic, to which the person mak-
ing the order should make answers, or give good and
sufficient reason for not doing so. It was required to
set forth the nature of the lunacy, whether suicidal, or
dangerous to others—whether the party was epileptic—
the date and duration of the attack—whether it was the
first attack—the former place of confinement, and other
circumstances, to which no return whatever had been
made ; and, for the absence of the returns, the only
reason alleged was, that the lunatic was watched by a
person whom she held in fear.
Sir J. BAYLEY here remarked that he saw the prose-
cutor of the present writ sitting next to, and holding a
conversation with, the unfortunate lady.
Mr. PARRY was not aware of the fact, or he would
not have permitted it. They did not require the lady to
wait in Court at all.
Sir J. BAYLEY—She is suffering acute pain from bodily
disease, and it will be better if she is not compelled to
remain.
The unfortunate lady, who appeared to be in consider-
able pain, was then supported out of Court by two fe-
male attendants.
Mr. PARRY said, with reference to the 'two medical
certificates, he was about to bring forward an objection,
which, under the construction of the 45th section of the
Act, would be at once fatal to them. Under the Act
2 and 3 William IV., chap. 107, the certificates were
only required to state that the person was of unsound
mind to obtain his introduction to a lunatic asylum ;
but, the Act of 8 and 9 Victoria, chap. 100, which was
passed as an improvement upon the old Act, required
that the person certifying should state, upon the face of
his certificate, the facts that led him to the conclusion
that the person was insane. In the certificate of Dr.
Wilmott the only facts which were put forward were,
that she was labouring under various delusions, and was
and dirty in the extreme. There were in that certificate
no facts, but merely the opinion of Dr. Wilmott. With
regard to the second certificate of Dr. William Griffiths,
that gentleman merely stated that he concluded that
this lady was insane from some conversation which he
had with her. He appeared to have a full conviction
that he was not about to state any fact, for he had
drawn his pen through the words " following facts,
videlicet," in the original printed certificate. As the
amended Act prescribed certain forms to be observed,
he (Mr. Parry) thought that they should be most impli-
citly complied with, especially in any document affecting
the liberty of any person. Under these circumstances
he submitted that the order upon the return and the
certificates were illegal, and that the lady should there-
fore be discharged from custody. The Learned Gentle-
man then proceeded to cite the case of Fell, a lunatic,
in which a decision had been given in favour of his view
of the present case.
Sir JOHN BAYLEY, in support of the return, submitted
that Dr. Quail was not the party entitled to impeach the
present return. The writ was moved for upon ex parte
applications, and on four affidavits to only one of which
ha would call the attention of the Court, as the others
were valueless. Dr. Quail stated that he was a physi-
cian, and had known the alleged lunatic for five years,
during which time she had suffered from bodily disease,
but not from any mental ailment. His affidavit also set
forth her forcible removal from his custody, and the fact
that he had not since been able to obtain access to her.
He objected to his power to impeach the return, as it did
not appear on the face of the affidavit that he was acting
under the authority of the supposed lunatic. The
Learned Counsel then cited the case of the Canadian
prisoners, 5 Meeson and Wellsby, p. 32, and the
celebrated case of the Hottentot Venus, in sup-
port of this view of the case. Dr. Quail had
stated that access to the lady was refused ; but his
proper course was to have applied to the Commissioners
of Lunacy, who had the entire and exclusive control of
all private lunatic asylums. He might have written, or
had his application answered in writing, but it did not
appear that he had taken any of these courses. He (Sir
J. Bayley) had affidavits which would establish facts to
the contrary of those adduced by Dr. Quail.
Mr. PARRY submitted that no affidavits could be pro-
duced in the case. The question as to the insanity of
the party was not under discussion ; it was as to the
validity of the return, and that would go by his Lord-
ship's judgment.
Sir J. BAYLEY would show that Dr. Quail was the last
person in the world to whom the case of this lady should
be committed.
Sir
j. otherupAaioyf the
BAILEY—The Mr. Justice PAT sofe—You had better go on with
thecaesoen.ly point then was, whether it

any party
ivaapitrittoe
individualcometot ithkwatCoouut his
ttios
seekwas competentte
ch toarge
of any
or her consent. The Commissioners of Lunacy had the
control of all private asylums, and could discharge the
supposed lunatic if in illegal custody. He would also
ask whether, supposing the certificate to be invalid, from
the circumstances mentioned by Mr. Parry, did that
make the custody of the lunatic illegal? The 45th sec-
tion of the Act stated that any person who received into
a licensed lunatic asylum any lunatic for whom money
was paid, under the forms stated in the Act, should be
punishable for a misdemeanour, and prosecuted at the
discretion of the Commissioners or their secretary, but
nothing was said as to the custody of the lunatic being
illegal. He, therefore, disputed the power of the Court
to discharge any person for an informality in the medical
certificates.
Mr. Justice PATTESON—The language of the 45th
section is very strong. It says that no person shall be
received and detained in any licensed house, without the
form of medical certificate described in schedule C, and
that any person receiving a lunatic into such asylum
without such form of certificate shall be guilty of a mis-
demeanour. So the keeper might be punished as much
as he pleased, and still keep the lunatic in custody, ac-
cording to your view of the case.
Some further discussion then took place, after which
Mr. Justice PATTESON said, that the case presented
many difficulties to his mind, and as it had been pretty
fully entered into before his Brother Erie at chambers,
he would retire and consult him. He had considerable
doubts as to the validity of the second certificate.
After some time had elapsed
had an opportunity of consulti
Mr. Justice PATTESON returned, and '
the Lord Chief Justice. Mr.said that he had
h Justiceis Brotherri
Erie
had Er l e and
entered