The Sun. — 1849-04-17 (London, England)

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, therefore, 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 considerable 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 Stanfieldhall 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 circumstances have not been prominently brought forward, and petitions forwarded to the Home-office, praying that the strong and unanimous recommendation 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 manslaughter, 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 several facts —so ably alluded to by Mr. Sergeant ALLEN in his imprt-ssive address for the defence 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, however, 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 unpremeditated, and that the wretched girl never contemplated 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 towards 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