The Express. — 1864-01-13 (London, England)

WHIGHT.—Men and " women of London, abstain from witnessing this " sad spectacle of injust:•!e. Let CALcsirr " and Co. do their work this time with DODO but " the eye of Heaven to look upon the crime. Let " all window shutters be shut, and window blinds " be down for an hour on Tuesday morning in " Southwark. Englishmen, shall Wesoar be " hung I If so, there is our late fur the rich and " another fur the poor." It was indeed a strange spectacle ,the culminating point of several days' excitement. The working classes of London warmly espoused Witionr's cause. On Monday no fewer than four public meetings were held on the subject, and deputation after deputation conjured Sir Gisonoe GREY to stay the law, whilst it is said that strenuous efforts were used to induce her MaJearr, and even the Prince of Warms, to interfere on Waronis behalf. These efforts were unavailing, and it is only just to admit that if they had prevailed capital punishment was practically abolished. If the man who cuts the throat of his mistress in cold blood and in his sober senses, and who himself confesses his guilt, is not worthy of death, every criminal who has died upon the scaffold has been judicially murdered. Nor let it be supposed that the working men of Southwark or the constituents  of Mr. DortroN deny this conclusion. As a body they have expressed no opinion upon capital punishment, but they insist, and most justly insist, that the law shall be impartially administered, or, if necessary, so altered as to render this possible. They know that about the same time when SAMUEL WRIGHT, a poor workman, cut the throat of his paramour, Grozor Views TOWNLEY, a young gentleman of good connexions and of superior education, deliberately cut the threat of an innocent young lady, simply and solely from jealousy and revenge. They know that in the caws of SAMUEL WRIGHT all the efforts made to save his life have proved abortive, whilst in the case of TOWNLEY, by the ingenuity of his solicitor and the unprecedented interference of magistrates and medical men, means have been discovered of withdrawing this convicted criminal from the hands of the executioner. It may be perfectly true, as Sir Grown GREY declares, that in transferring Townixv to a lunatic asylum he had no option, and that what he did he did in obedience to an imperative Act of P►rliament. This may be a sufficient justification for Sir GEORGE GREY as the administrator of the law, but it is no justification of the law itself. The working men of Southwark probably feel that after the verdict of the jury was delivered in WRIGHT'S case his fate was pistLically sealed ; whereas after the verdict of the jury was delivered in TOWNLEY'S case, it was set asHe and overridden by the certificate of four men who should never have been allowed to interfere in the matter. Sir Groans GREY, indeed, refers to the case, in 1862, of a man named Ctssx— a poor man, without frieuls—who was convicted of wilful murder and sentenced to death, but was afterwards transferred toa lunatic asylum. It appears, however,tbat the certificate of insanity in CLARK'S case was not, as in TOWNLEY'S ease, signed by four magistrates and medical men who had appointed themselves to conduct the inquiry, but that the inquiry into the prisoner's state of mind was directed by the HOME SECRETARY, and the certificate was signed by persons selected by that responsible Minister. It follows, therefore, that Groans Vicroa TOWNLEY is the first condemned criminal