The Sun.
London, England, 1849-04-17 00:00:00

eiytnimiflhi

LONDON, TUESDAY, APRIL 17. 1849.

The execution of the unfortunate girl, SARAH
H ARMLET Tuossis, who was convicted at the last
assizes for the county of Gloucester of the murder of
her mistress, Miss Euzsasexu Jereares, at Bristol,
on the 3d of March last, has been appointed to take
place on Friday next, the 20th instant. If, there-
fore, the Royal prerogative of mercy should not be
exercised in her favour, this ill-fated young creature
(who was only 18 years of age in August last)
will, on that day, expiate her offences by
suffering a painful and ignominious death.
The case would undoubtedly have attracted a consi-
derable portion of the public attention, and have been
commented upon by the press generally, but for the
deep and overpowering interest felt respecting the
trial of JAMES BLOMFIELD RUSH for the Stanfield-
hall murders, which was going on at the same time.
The entire transaction has riot, therefore, been as
fully considered as would otherwise have been I
the case; and it is perhaps owing to this
fact that efforts have not hitherto been
made to rescue the unfortunate child from
the fearful fate impending—that the mitigating cir-
cumstances have not been prominently brought for-
ward, and petitions forwarded to the Home-office,
praying that the strong and unanimous recommenda-
tion to mercy with which the jury who tried the case
accompanied their verdict might be taken into
consideration.

We are not among those who consider that capital
punishment should be wholly abolished, that the
wilful and deliberate murderer should escape the
extreme penalty which the law has wisely affixed
to his enormous offence. There is, perhaps, no crime
in which there are so many gradations and degrees
of guilt. Some cases approach so neArly the line of
demarcation between murder and aggravated man-
slaughter, that the jury would be fully justified in
returning either verdict. The present is one of the
number. It is itnpossil-de to say that the seve-
ral facts —so ably alluded to by Mr. Sergeant
ALLEN in his imprt-ssive address for the de-
fence might not have warranted the jury
in taking the more lenient view of the
case and coming to a decision which would have
subjected the wretched prisoner (although her life
would have been spared) to the highest secondary
punishment known to the law. We do not, how-
ever, impugn the conclusion at which they reluctantly
arrived. The case undoubtedly came within the
legal definition of murder, although there are the
strongest reasons for believing that it was wholly un-
premeditated, and that the wretched girl never contem-
plated the death of her mistress until, in the excess of
passion brought on by the great provocation she had
received, and the extremely harsh and oppressive
treatment to which she had been subjected, she strut k
the fatal blow that deprived a fallow-creature of life,
and involved herself in the murderer's punishment.
The entire evidence showed that Miss JEFFRIES'
conduct towards her servants was extremely bad, that
she habitually used abusive language, and that she
did not hesitate even to beat them on some occasions
when provoked to anger. It %as at an early hour in
the morning that she generally quarrelled most, being
anxious to make them get up from bed, and proceed
to the cheerless kitchen, in which no spark of fire
was ever allowed. The witness, SARAH MILLER,
proved " that Miss JEFFRIES was very violent to-
wards her servants, and thit she ill-treated them?'
L UCY CHAD had been obliged "to leave on account
of bad treatment." Her mistress had " threatened to
beat her," and "raised a stick" for that purpose. She
also "threatened to beat her for not getting up in the
morning when called." CHARLOTTE MoROAR had
only been able to remain " two nights and one day;"
she bad left because her mistress quarrelled with her

" about getting up in the morning." These undoubted

facts throw some light on the otherwise mysterious