The Sun.
London, England, 1864-01-13 00:00:00

fend him, the unfortunate criminal of Waterloo-
road was arraigned, convicted, and sentenced to death
within five days of the perpetration of his crime.
He was unrepresented by counsel, and stood confused
and bewildered in the dock, and when called upon
to answer to the charge of wilful murder he pleaded
guilty. The counsel for the prosecution, in justice
to the prisoner, requested the Court to let the case
stand over until the next sessions, in order that he
might have the advantage of counsel, but, owing to
some legal technicality, the Judge was unable to
accede to the request, and thus the man, by his own
pleading to an indictment which he afterwards
maintained that he did not understand, was dnomed
to die. No doubt whatever exists that WRIGHT
took the life of his paramour, but the question
arises, Was the act murder ? He was charged with
wilful murder, and he pleaded guilty, not knowing
at the time, as afterwards explained, the difference
between murder and manslaughter. In the state
of mind that he then was in, this was probably the
case. He admitted that he slew the woman, but he
declared that he did it in self defence. Whether
this be true or not, it is certain that WRIGHT was
a sober, hard-working man, notwithstanding that
he kept company with a woman of bad
character, of violent habits, and thus in
its worst aspect the crime was com-
mitted in passion and unpremeditated. Much
sympathy was evinced in his favour, and the visit
ing Justices of Horsemougerelane Gaol presented a
memorial toSir GEORGE GREY, expressing their_
opinion that,
trial, a verdicthad all the facts been known at his
of manslaughter would have been
returned instead of one of murder. Taking all the
circumstances of the case into consideration, was
not this an instance -in which the Royal
prerogative of mercy might have been fairly
extended. Not that if wilful murder had
been committed unpremeditatedly and in the
heat of passion, the offender should not suffer
the extreme penalty of the law ; but in this case, we
maintain that SAMUEL WRIGHT did not receive
justice at the hands of the law ; he was, in fact, per-
mitted to hang himself. It is customary in crimi-
nal oases for the Judge to request some barrister to
represent the accused, when he is undefended.
Under these circumstances, what explanation can
be given for the unflinching pertinacity with which
Sir GEORGE GREY has turned a deaf ear to the most
earnest entreaties, not of a few, but of almost the
entire community. WRIGHT was, to all intents
and purposes, insane, or at least had not the
command of his mental faculties during the
day that intervened between his crime and his con-
demnation. The very fact of a man pleading
" Guilty," when advised by the Court to plead
" Not guilty," is surely as great a proof of insanity
as the twitehitg of TOWNLEY'S toes and fingers, or
the aberration of his great aunt. Sir GEORGE GREY
has ideas of h!ti own of common sense and justice, to
say nothing of mercy. It would suggest itself to
many that an Argument might well be cited in sup-
port of WRIGHT'S temporary delusion in the well-
know adage, Tra furor Irevis eat. Men have been
known to have committed actions daring fits of rage
that in their sober moments they would have
shrunk from. Great indignation is justly expressed
throughout the metropolis at this execution.
People declare that what is murder in Southwark
would be manslaughter at the West-end—that
there is one law for the rich and another for the
poor—and that they trust that never again may the
life of a man or the vindication of justice be at the
disposal of the present Home Secretary. Without
going to the length which excitement and
indignation may prompt the multitude, there
is, it must be confessed, much justice in their anger.
Why should TOWNLEY be allowed sufficient time
to go mad at his leisure while WRIGHT is not per-
mitted time even to collect his thoughts to defend
himself ? Surely our law ought to be altered, since,
while justice should be prompt, she ought also to
be deliberate. Both men probably deserved death.
TOWNLEY certainly did, but he escaped through
his after-insanity. WRIGHT perished even before
it was certain he was guilty of manslaughter. Had
TOWNLEY been hanged as expeditiously, would we
have heard anything of his insanity ?