The Sun. — 1864-01-14 (London, England)

THE EDTTOR OF THE SUN.  Sir,—" Who is to blame ?" and " 'Whom shall we hang ?" are questions which just now are being very generally asked.  Answer to the first question—" Nobody, of course. It is that great impersonality, The System, that is to blame." Answer to the second question-Ist., In its literal sense, "The poor murderer, to be sure, not the rich one;" 2dly, In its figurative sense, "The inferior who has been guilty of the crime, for which there is no forgiveness, at least not in this world, of having been persecuted and illused by his superiors." Some short time ago I called attention, through your columns, in commenting upon the "Crawling Court-martial," as Punch calls it—to the unhappy effect it would have on the rank and file of the army, and the classes whence it is recruited, and not recruited by conscription, but by voluntary enlistment,—if an impression were produced in the mind that there is "one law for the rich and another for the poor;" one sort efjustice for the officer, another for the privates. Now, rightly or wrongly, this impression has actually and extensively got abroad, and it may prove most fatal in its consequences. We have no pressgangs now; no proscription like that which Russia put in force a year ago in Warsaw; no conscription, as there is in France. We depend for our army upon the people volunteering into its ranks of their own free will. Will the people volunteer with such an impression abroad? It is to be feared they will rather emigrate and volunteer into the American army, where flogging is unknown. What:the "Crawling Court Martial" has done among soldiers and the enlisting classes, the reprieve of Townley has done among the people generally. Townley's escape is a flagrant illustration of the invidious charge that there is " one law for the rich and another for the poor." Of course nothing so ridiculous is meant as that Townley bribed the authorities. Nobody would dream of such insane nonsense as this. But everybody is convinced that it is the fact of Townley's family being rich, and therefore able to bring forces to bear upon the Home-office, which a poor man could not do, that alone has excempted the wilful, cold-blooded, deliberate murderer Townley from the punishment he so richly de • serves. The effect, therefore—namely, escape from punishment through being rich—is in itself, and as regards the encouragement it holds out to murderers, just as bad, though effected in this indirect way, as if it had been brought about as they bring such things about in some foreign countries, where the culprit who can afford to bribe the authorities can always get off, and the culprit who can't must die. Sir Geo. Grey, or rather his legal advisers, have acted with the strictest legality in what has been dune. That does not alter the case that had Townley been a poor man like the Fordingbridge and Whittlesey murderers, everybody believes it is a moral certainty that what has been done would not have been done, but that the law would have taken its course, and there would have been no failure of justice. And so with regard to the late court-martial. Supposing the decision to be perfectly right and legal, and just (which I only suppose for argument, and that at the present moment its being my purpose to express any opinion one way or the other) still it could only be so by accident, as the whole mode of procedure seems specially and admirably contrived to defeat justice, and prevent the real truth from being got at. An impression is abroad, both with regard to the army end to the administration of the criminal law among civilians, that there is "one law for the rich and another for the poor." Of course it is absurd to say that Townley, having been wrongfully snatched from the penalty he richly deserves, therefore Wright also ought to have escaped. It is the prevalent belief which I am dealing with, and which is so pernicious ; and that belief, right or wrong, well or illfounded, is a sinister fact in itself. It bodes no good to society, or to its individual members, or to the respect with which it is desirable that the administration of justice should be regarded, when there is a general belief in " one law for the rich and another for the poor."