The Express.
London, England, 1864-01-28 00:00:00

_MOH WATZZ AT LOWBOY! lIIIDGX

fix nor 411.
10410011011.. Yoeol .611. HMS Alieseusis. &IL 26..

LONDON, THURSDAY, JANUARY 28.

THE ultimate fats of Townies is still undeter-
mined. Sir Gwen' GREY has publicly declared
that the unfortunate man has been respited by
being removed to Bedlam, but that his sentence
has not been commuted. Under the Act of Par-
liament which hal been called into operation, Sir
GEORGE GRIT has power upon the certificate of
two medical men to remove TOWNLEY back to
prison. In an ()airier' case this course would
not be followed, for it seems to be a standing rule
that after sentence of death is once delayed it
is never carried into execution. But the circum-
stances of Towietev's case are so peculiar that
it is just possible Sir GEORGE GREY might i
feel himself justified in making it an exception
to the ordinary rule. At the same time the ten-
derness for human life is a feeilg so natural that
it will surprise no one if TOWNLEY escapes the
doom which he certainly deserves.
But whatever be TOWNLEY'S fate, it is of vital
importance to the public to ascertain upon whom
the blame rests for this miscarriage of justice. The
manifestation of feeling which took place on the
occasion of WRIGHT'S execution proves clearly
enough that the public are keenly alive to the
manner in which the law in such cases is admir,s-
tared. Capital punishment cannot continue to be
inflicted, unless it be inflicted with strict impar-
tiality. The poorer classes are deeply impressed
by the contrast exhibited between the fate of
Vl'aiour and the fate of TOWNLEY. if there are
people who believe TOWNLEY insane, there are
quite as many, or perhaps more, who believe that
Winonr was only guilty of manslaughter. Nor would
it be easy to persuade most men that if WRIGHT
had had the assistance of influential friends and an
astute attorney, he might not have produced an
effect upon the Set:Karam, of STATE. These con-
siderations ought to make that Minister especially
cautious; and even although under ordinary ci.-
cumstances TOWNLEY ought not to be consigned to
the hands of the executioner, the conduct of Sir
Geoitoz GAST in the case of WRIGHT may compel
him to adopt a different course. As in all serious
cases, it is, of course, by no means easy to after-
tain who is really responsible for the respite of
TowNter. At the trial, Mr. Baron MARTIN, the
presiding Judge, delivered himself to the jury in a
manner which was evidently intended to ensure a
conviction, and the conviction was obtained.
When he delivered his charge he seemed to enter-
tain no doubt whatever of the guilt of the prisoner,
and of his responsibility both at the time he com-
mitted the crime and at the time of the trial. So
far, therefore, it would seem that the Judge was
free from blame, and did his duty without fl"iching.
Sir Geonor GREY declares that he entertained
no doubt of the sanity of the prisoner. He did
undoubtedly reprieve him, but in so doing he
insists that he acted in strict conformity with the
Act of Parliament which he could not disobey.
The two certificates which were forwarded to him
were in accordance with the provisions of the
statute, and in obeying it he merely acted
ministerially. All this seems clear enough, and
the only conclusion would seem to be that the law
must be altered, for the law only has been in fault.
But, unfortunately, this is not the whole story. ,
Baron MARTIN had scarcely delivered his vigorous I
charge to the jury who convicted TowNter before
he sat down to write a letter to the Holm SICRE-
TARY, requesting him to make inquiry as to
whether the prisoner was then sane. This, as it
seems to us, was either a mistake or an
act of weaaness. It was a mistake if Baron
MARTIN believed that the prisoner who stood
before him was insane, because he had power him-
self to inquire into the state of the prisoner's
mind. And even although the jury might have
believed him to be sane at the time of the murder,
the judge ought not to have pronounced sentence
if he believed him insane at the time of the trial.
To pronounce the solemn sentence of death, with
such a conviction in the judge's mind, would have
been an outrageous mockery. It was an act of
weakness if the judge, having doubts as to the
sanity of the prisoner before him, but thinking
that no such doubts existed in the minds of the
jury, withdrew this question from the legitimate
tribunal, and threw the responsibility of the exe-
cution upon the Hoes fiscarrsav or his medical
advisers. If the judge at the time of the trial
entertained the same doubts which he enter-
tained a few hours later, he ought to have
stated them boldly to the jury, and not
. reserved them for a letter to the SZCIAZIARY of
STATE. it is impossible for the HMIS 86CIATANY
to ignore the suggestion of the judge who tries a
prisoner. If Mr. Justice BLACKBURN had displayed
less firmness than he did display in the case of
WEIGHT that criminal might have escaped the
penalty of death. If Baron MARTIN had displayed

more firmnees or more openness of 000 duet be
would hare maintained better the dignity of the
Bench

It was certainly quite right that Sir Game
Gary should direct an inquiry into the sanity of
TOWNLEY ; and if the result of that inquiry had
been that in the opinion of those appointed to
make it TOWNLEY was insane, Sir Gioaos GREY
would have been justified in acting upon their
certificate. But a very different course was
pursued. At the very moment when the Lunacy
Commissioners were conducting their inquiry
at the instigation of the Home-office, other persons
were conducting a similar inquiry on their own ac-
count. At the very moment when Sir Glossa
GREY was told by these self-appointed inquirers
that TOWNLEY was insane he was told by his own
nominees that TOWNLEY was responsible for his
actions, and ought to suffer death. Under such
circumstances what would any reasonable man do 1
Believing, as he did himself, that the insanity of
Tows Lay was a fiction—believing, as be must,

that the opinion of the Lunacy Commissioners dc-
served great weight, and that even if the Derby-
shire certificate were acted upon it might be over-
ruled by the Commissioners, what was his duty
Ought not Sir Glows Gm to have paused?
Ought he not to have made inquiry Ought
he not at least to have ascertained that
the magistrates and medical men who signed
the certificate were acting bond fide, or acting at
all events with full knowledge of the consequences

of putting their names to such a document f It
was well known to many that strong opinions were
entertained in some quarters that TOWNLEY was
insane, and surely Sir GIORGE Gary has had
experience enough in the Home Ofbe to know that
those who desire the abolition of capital punish-
ment use every case as a lever to promote the
object they have in view. That Sir Grows Giurr
believed in the necessity of inquiring into the
history of such certificates is plain, for in this very
case he has called upon the magidrates
who signed it to explain their conduct.
The pity is that this step was not taken earlier. If
it had been it is possible that Sir Groans Garr
might have felt some difficulty in acting upon it.
It can scarcely be literally true that under the
statute any certificate, provided it be signed by
any two magistrates and any two physicians or
surgeons, must be obeyed by the Holm SICRE-
TAM'. Those who sign it must surely understand
what they are about. But Mr. W. Hror Soorr,
one of the magistrates who did sign, distinctly says
that although he thought Towin.sr insane, "he
" was unaware of the effect" of the certificate
"as regarded" the Hors Sacs/easy. At all
events, it seems tolerably clear that if, upon in-
quiry, the Hors SZCILETAZY believes that those
whosigned the certificate are eithercloselyconnected
with the prisoner, or have expressed a strong opinion
in his favour, be would be amply justified in prac-
tically disregarding it—more especially if in the
opinion of himself and of the Lunacy Commis-
sioners the prisoner appeared perfectly sane. It is
most unfortunate, therefore, that Sir Grozas
Garr should have neglected so long to elicit those
replies from the magistrates who signed the certifi-
cate under which he acted. If be bad done so
the probability is that TowNurr would never have
been reprieved.
thus it seems that two grave errors at least
have jean committed in this business. The first
is, that the Judge displayed weakness or inconsis-
tency, or both ; the second is, that Sir Gamma
GREY was too hasty in acting upon the certificate.
The statute is bad, and ought to be amended.
But amend it how Parliament may, it requires to
be applied by men of firmness and discretion.