The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser. — London, England, 1826-08-18 00:00:00

note came y of ppeal C". en- I and nine tat if IA ROM witeut VAkr either ritlantf tg Cr de- Tata II Port of arouse 11.04 lon DC that , se that ite the uitted, .Itough er.saq, e ptin• rest o be a - nrito , Tl [rt tl•at try has m con- lot yet grave xcitc a t vt et ! al in te only if the r. 31 formation, in order that it might be brought into that Court for final judgment, I think that your Lordship ca n t hetet:de to say, that this is • fit fie a certiorari, in older that it may be tried by a Special Jury, and that there be not iiepoteed on an individual Judge the oarronsibility of trying and deciding points of law which are likely arise on a Statute, which has not often been proceeded u nder. On these grounds I submit to your Lordship that it is ex pedient nut to try the defendant now. Ve have hail no suggestion o f an y grounds of urgency why the trial shouhl now be proceeded in. If such pounds exist, they can wily be offered in a ffidavits, and those affidavits we ought to have an opportunity of considering. On that grttund 1 shall say no more. as I do not wish to invite premature discussion. But I could suggest to your Lordship strong arguments that may arise upon the admissiffillity of pr e cu t.r wimps, and questions at the last importance as to this defendant, which will probably arise at the trial, and I h o pe I shall rot suffer in the o p inion 4f your Lonlship ; if, in the carte' discharge of my duty, .haTe advised my rlient not to repose in the judgment of any single Judge, but to avail hhoself of f the combined lemming, and wisdom of all the Judges of the (oust 0 Ki u n'e B e nch, to give weight to a judgment which any be so highly penal in esenneeeptences to him. • I therefore think this a fit case tor the favourable exercise of your Loydehip'e discretion. I live no wish in putting oft the trial to en•ele the defeetlant to escape justice, if amenable to it : because your-Lordship may take heavy bail for his appearance. But, situated as this defendant is, 1 think the interests of justice will be best answered by deferring the trial to the next Assizes, so that the . hole trial may come on at once, and that one dt temant allay not be prejulliced by thet trial of the other. I hope, therefore. that your leirdship will of that opinion, and will not apply that infringement of the common law, which was introduced by the statute. to the present ease. The affidavit on which Mr. Scarlet' moved was then put in and i read. It was as follows: " The King against WiWain Wakefield, indicted together with Edward Gibbon Wakefield. s' The King against William AVakefield, indicted together with Edward Gibbon aValtefichl, ,etheaid Thevenot, and Frances Wakefield. " ai'illiam Wakefield, of Reading, in the County of Reek's. Esq., one of the above-named dee:whine*, and Joseph Denison. of Mimeheiree, in the County of Lancaster, at mncy for the above named Helena/it, Witkelielsl , weevilly make oath and say; and fret this • deponent. the said William Wakefield, for himself ratini that two several indictments have been found against this deponent. by the Grand Jury for the Caney Palatine of Lancaster. at the present aseites, holden in and for the said county, fur a iniretememiour, in one whereof he is charged under a attain statute, nude in the fourth and fifth year of the reign of King Philip and Queen Mary, with assisting in the taking and con veying away one Ellen Turner. and procuring her to be married to the ahovemsmed Edward Gibbon IVakefield, contrary to the form of the statute; and in the other of which said indictments he is charged with conspiring with the Other defendants therein mentioned, to procure by unlawful mean.: the said marriage to he effected; to both which indietsuents hr. this deponent. bath pleaded that he is not guilty thereof, and he is advised by his Counsel that be may be tried on the first of the same, at these assizee; and this deponent further saith. that front the time of the alleged com mission of the offences with which lie has been charged as afore reel, down to the middle of site month of June last. various paragraphs have appeared in a certain paper, called the 3farefes ele/J Cosner, which, as this deponent bath been Informed, and be lieves, lessen extended circulation, and is generally read in many parts of this county, giving an unfair and untrue statement of the facts rebeiog to the said alleged offence, and tending in a very high degree to inflame the mind of the public against this depo nent; and in prouf of this, he the raid defens'ant craves leave to Mir to a copy of a parsereph from the MaITII , AId Carver, of the date of the 19th June, 11e16, mareed with the leter A, and hereunto annexed; and this deponent further saith that he bath been informed by his brother, the said Edward Gibbon Waketied, and which information he verily believes to he true, that it is his intention to apply to his Majesty's Court of King's Bench, at IVeetnenster for a writ of rertineerri, to remove the said Iwo indictments, found against him, the said Edw. Gibbon Wakefield, and to bring the unit down to trial at the ensuing Spring Assists, benne a Special Jury of the county of Lancaster. And this deponent. the sled Joseph Denieun, fur himself teeth, that he is infonneal by his Counsel that several questions of great nicety and difficulty in points of law are likely to arise upon the trial of the eeki indictments, the more particularly as he is Ir formed that no prosecution has taken place under the said statute of Philip and Mary for a very long pelitlti of years, anti that there are few, it any, juridical decisitots upon the said statute. And the said de- i weenie severally say. that, for the reasone above stated, it is ex. timely desirable, and they are very anxious, that tie trial of this deponent. the said William IVaketield, may be postponed to the ensuing Spring Assizes, in enter that there may be an appeal to the Court of King's Bench upon any question of law that may alive, and that there may be time for the ferment at present existing in the public mind to be allayed, and that the investigation may take place before a Jury whose superior rank and station in life near protect them from any ',tender prejudices. And these de ponents severally say, that since their arrival at Lancaster, (luring the Assizes, they have, for the first time, learnt and been intiimiett, and which information they verily believe to be true, that Richard Bad:tall. the younger, of A:eh:ulnas: Ilan, in the county of Staf ford. Esq., can give via: tell evidence for this deponent, the seid William Wakefield, upon the trial of the said Indictment., but that the said Edward Retinall is now absent in France, from which place he is expected to return in the course of a few weeks. And these deponents severally further say, that from the circumstance shove mentioned, it was impossible to serve the said Richard Bednall with a subpoena to appear at the present Assizes; but that they verily believe that they shell be able to pro cure his attendan c e at the Assizes to be holden at the en eueig Spring. And this deponent, the said William Wake. belt!, for himself, with. that he is infunnest and believe+, that on or about the eacond day of August instant, copies of subpasna were sent to 31r. Hurst Sitwell, 31iss Harriet Hoerr, and leomiumk Daly, E q. who were at that time in France. requiring their attend. ce at the present Amite*, as witneues on behalf of this deponent; and this deponent has reason to believe, front the answer teem to Mill by the said last.mentioned persons, and did fully believe and ex pect, that they would have attended in Hurst of the 'said tub pare; but that neither the said Mr. Hurst Sitwell, nor Horrid Hoare, have yet arrived. And this deponent further sai'. that lie verily believes and expects that the said Mr. 11.Sitwell and 11.11tetre will be in England, where the said Mr. Hurst Sitwell usually re liefs, in die omen of the ensuing winter, and that he, this depo nent will be able to procure their attendance at the next Assizes. .Ind this deponent fluffier !tape, that a letter has been received from the said Dominick Daly, Esq. In which he states that from a para graph which he has read in the Siln newspaper, he understood that tliireestattin'd)t.ttli:.iets d epo n ent etireteq w u e l) : ee l d t n h o e t reo t ?he ill s a li .e out t l not the ift r t e e s n e tl n t As deo:omit verily believes and expects that he will return to England in the course of a few weeks, when he shall be able to enforce his anendsnee at the melt Assizes. And this deponent fnrther says, that he has used all the diligence in his power to procure the attend. ante of the said .jr. Hurst Sitwell, Ilarriet Hoare, and Dominick telly. And both these deponents severally say, that they have been advised by their Counsel. and they do believe. that the said legit-mentioned persons are material and necessary witnesses for the Raid Wm. M'alti field, and that without their evidence he cannot safely proceed to the trial of the said indictment, or either of them.. (Signed) " Was. ‘I'AXEI'IELD. "Jos. Dewisox." The paragraph alluded to in the affidavit, marked A, was not al lowed to be read, 31r. Justice Park observing, that hy giving it publieation they would only increase that prejudice of - which the Attie/We'd cemplitined. Mr. Al"loit%ev-fiennaite—lt does not appear. my Lord, that my Learned Friend the Attnyney-General (3lr. Se:erten) has either in his statement or upon affidavits laid sufficient grounds for call big upon your Lordship to postpone this trial. I must beg leave, in the first hietance, to fetal to your recollection the situation in which the defendant William Wakefield stands. As far back as the moreli of April last, applicatien was made at the Court of King's Bench, to admit this gentleman to bail. Upon that occasion, the whole of the charge against him was particularly stated in Court, and inves tigated very minutely in his presence. Accordin g to his 'statement then made upon oath, it appeared that he, in company with his brother Edward Gibbon Wakefield, had by imposition and fraud obtained Pomeetion of the young lady named in the indictment. It also %Tested tied they had by a succession of falleheods, which 1 don't wish to characterize by Any other term, induced the young lady to accompany them into Scotland, where, by a continuation of a sys tem of fraud, and by working upon her feelings in various ways, they persuaded her to contract matrimony with the brother of the present defendant, and by continued frauds and Mtn hoods, to accompany them to France, where she was afterwards taken from them by the exertions of her father's relations. All this was communicated to the defendant in the month of April tau, when it became a subject of discussion whether the offence with which he stood charged did not amount to felony, under the statute of Henry VII. Probably, if the Learned Judges of the Court of King's Bench had thought the offence amounted to hiwne, they would nut have admitted him to bail. flow. ever, after considerable deliberation, the Court of King's Bench agreed to admit the defendant to bail, and he having been brought before the Court by Habeas Corpus, was it upon giving bail, and, upon my !suggestion, a particular film of reemenizences, to answer not only the particular charge founded upon the Statute of Philip and Mary, but any charge which might be preferred against him, founded upon the facts hill berme the Court of King s Bench upon affidavit, was en tered into. 1 mention this in order to show that the indiviiluel now making this application has had sufficient opportunity for preparing his defence. One argument is, that the defendent ought to be allowed time to apply for a certiorari, in order to leave a trial by a Special Jury. Sly Learned Friend hiss made snore (A:iterations upon en Act of Parliament which bee been r e!coile passed for the purpose of preventing delay in cues of misdemeanour, and my Learned Friend says, that the defendant 4wl had 5 0 opportunity of applying fur a certiorari under the c"lotruction of that Statute, because, as illy Learned Friend says, there was another person who could not join In the application. Now, 1 apprehend ,my Lord, that it is every day'» pructtee, when two Persons are in custody upon a charge of intedemeatiour, that one of them may apply fur a Certiorari without the consent of the tuber, and this the Court will grant the Certiorari, if sufficient Enwids be laid. I recollect a case, in which my Learned Friend, r. Broaghasu, was engaged. It was an application for a CeT.. h9 ll rio made by en Individuel, indicted with others fur a conspiracy. yet of th ; objections to that apylieet ion was, that all the persons die rot join in it; but the Court, upon that occasion, sild, dot that efeewmatence did not fetter their diectillitn, and that they Yule' grant a Certiorari upon suffieieet groentle bong lola. My Frical has observed, that the Act ue t'erlierheut which: lieu been already men.ioned was not made by a lawyer. hether or not it was made by a lawyer, it is, I apprehend, perfectly imma terial in the present case ; for your Lord s hip, upon looking into that Sedate, will see that W. Wakefield has had ample opportunity of applying for a Certiorari. if he hail thought lit. Whether a Certio rari could be applied fur out of Term, is also immaterial to the present case, bemuse the transaction 'originated about Christmas. Nrilliam Wakefield was taken into custody. I think, in March, and :on application for a Habeas Corpus to bring hint before the Court of King's Bench was made in Easter Tenn following ' to that two :terms intervened, and he might, if Incthmtglit proper, . . „ . . employ the intervcitir.g time in applying tor a Certiorari, if l i i. wish Wan to be tried by a special Jury. 1f he Ind wished tonvail himself of that opportunity, it would lie for the Court of King's !tench to decide whether or not his application could be acceded to. apprehend, my Lord, that oy !warned Friend puts the proposition much too strongly, when he says that a Certiorari, in such cases, is a matter of course. I Ray, my Lund, that when an application for a Certiorari is made, the Court is bound to examine and to con. sitter all the !'acts of the case, and to decide upon those diets ; It he that or not the facts would justify the issuing of the writ. In this case, it is sufficient to say, that the defendant had sufficient time to apply fur a Certiorari ; that he might have done so if lie pleased ; that he has not done so ; and, theretkre, that this application, upon that ground. cannot he entertained. 31y Learned Friend says, that no Special Jury can be struck without a Certiorari; but, I appre hend, that he might make an application to your Lordship for a Certiorari. in all cases under treason or felony ; and sucO applica tion might be made under the :111:h Section of the tith lfeurge IW.. which provides that, in all cases under treason or felony, the Judges in the Courts of the Counties Palatine might grant writs of Certiorari. Mr. Justice Pea►:—There is a Cereiorai, which issues from my authority, as Chief Justice of the Common Pleas of ',anteater, into the Crown Office. . . Mr. Hopkins (Clerk of the Crown), and Mr. Phillips, said it had been the practice for 60 years, in the County Palatine, to grant Special Juries. .Me. SCAnLETT—Bat a Certiorari must be first obtained. I re member, when Lord Chief ]tarns al•Donald first came this cir cuit, that I applied to your Lordship, ns Vice-Chancellor of this Duchy, for a Certiorari on behalf of some persons who had been en gaged in the nous m LTlverstone. Mr. Justice PAKK—Yes, there must be a Certiorari first, but perhaps the Attorney-General for the Duchy, high as his office is. does not know that I art here, not onlyas a Judge of Oyei and Terminer, but as Chief Justice of all Pleas of the Crown at Lan ewer. Ala A TTalia ge-G e—Then it is quite clear that the de feadant has had an opportunity of applying to the Court of King's Bench for a Certiorari, and that lee might apply to this Court for a Certiorari, and therefore the ground that this cause ought to be post poned until a Certiorari should be issued, for the purpose of having it tried by a Special Jury, entirely fails, foe when the defendant had passed by his opportunity, it is too late fur him at this period of the Assizes to make an application to pos•pone hie taut. Al y Learned Friend says, that this trial ought to be postponed because of the corn plexities and difficulties which It involves; but I must say, my bard, Mat upon reading the statute of Philip and Mary, upon Mach the indictment is founded, the language of it appears to me_ to be so plain, so simple, and so intelligible, that it is idle to say that the couiplexities of the statute form a sufficient ground for postponing the trial. al y Learned Friend goes too far when he says that the defendant will have opportunities of having the case Mies tigateel, by having it moved into the Court of King's Bench, I which he would not have by having the trial before a single Judge jof Assizes. When my Learned E rieutl made that assertion, lam satisfied lie must have forgotten that if your Lordship, in the course of the investigation, should sec any difficulty in the point of law, you have authority to refer it to another tribunal for their grave deliberation ; and therefore there is no ground for a post. ponement on that point. I shall now come to another point, which my Learned la iend has nut adverted to, but which forms a promi nent parts in the affidavit on the part of the defendant. It appears that some article was published in a newspaper called the Maccles field Cornice ' relative to this prosecution. Now it must be remem. bend that that newspaper is published iu another county, at a place about an or flO milts distant from the place where we now are, that it is a newspaper of very partial circulation ia this county that die article complained of was published in the month of ' June last, and that it was en article in reply ;o an article which had ap peared in another newepaper, commendatory of Mr. Edward Gib bon Wakefield, and of his father and relations. It is remarkable, my Lord, that the Gentleman who makes an affidavit, complain ing of the article in the Maccbagicld Cornier, does not swear that be bad nothing to do with the fi rst article. I think whet, j lie comes before your Lordship, and urges ail a ground for post poning his trial this article which append in the Macclesfield Concise, that be ought to state in his affidavit that he had nothing to do, ecit!tet directly or indirectly, with the original article, to whichatite one complained of was a reply. The article in the dlacclogield Counter is nothing more titan a comment neon the other article, of which the defendant does not venture to swear that he had no knowledge. Another subject of complaint is the part taken by the public press generally. With reference to that cir. canistance, what will sour Lordship say when I tell you that one of the defendants in this indictment has published a long detailed account of the proceedings, containing the basest insinnations upon the character of this young lady ; but finding that this pub. lication did not produce the intended effect, he afterwards denied it. I shade however, satisfy your Lordship, that this statement was published by the atehority of the defendant's relation ; and I shall also satisfy your Lordship, that a manuscript copy in the hand-writing of one of the defendants had been sent to Mr. Turner, the prosecutor. What think you, my lead, of the nab who corner forward and eoinplains of the public prese, after having used it f r such bad and infamous purposes ? Another ground of postponement is, that a p non named Daly, cannot appear to g ive evidence at the trial. %Ye all know to what Mr. Daly allu des, and my wonder and surprise is, that the man who comes for ward and asks your Lordship to postpone a trial upon such grounds, does not swear distinctly that he hed nutting to do with those paragraphs which have appeared in the newspapers, that lie is not the author of those paragraphs, or of the para graph referred to by Mr. Daly ; anti that he does not know by whose authority or at whose expense it was inserted. As he has not ventured to swear to that died, I think I may fairly call upon your Lordship to conic to the conclusion, that either he is the author of dime paragraphs, or that he was the instrument of another permin in publishing them, or that be knows something about them. The paragraphs complained of appeared two months ago, and I trust your Lordship will nut, upon an affidavit which is so perfectly silent as to the peat taken by the defendant in publishing them ' say that the publication of them forms a su ffi cient ground fur postponing the trial. There is one material par: of the affidavit to which I beg leave to call your Lordship. The principal ground re lied upon is the absence of mitterial witnesses—W. Badnall, Esq., of Axberhurst. Oxfordshire; Alias Harriett Hoare; Mrs. Hurst Sitwell, and 11r. Doinisiidc Daly. I beg your Lord. ' ship to observe the words in a Lich the absence of those witnesses, and the materiality of their evidence is bWOIn to, and having done so, 1 may enffidentla call upon your Lordship to say, that upon that ground this trial cinnot be postponed. First, with respect to Badnall. 3lr. Wakefield swears, that he knew nothing about Mr. B. until the commencement of the present Assizes; 'aikat he is now informed and believes that ,lr. B. can state something material for his defence." 1 have always thought, arty 'Lord, that a person swearing that he was informed, and believed, teat a certain person could state something material for his de fence, was bound to state by whom he had been so informed. HON, if this part of the affidavit should turn out to be un:rue, could Mr. 1 11% Wakefield be indicted for perjury ? Ile also swears that lie has le en informed that Mr. Hadrian is in France, but dues not swear that he has taken ordinary pains to ascertain that fact. lie does not swear that lie has even made inquiries at the residence of 31r. Itatlnall, in a neighbouring county. I therefore submit to your Lordship that those general words a. inMrnied and believed," with-' out stating that ordinary pains have been taken to ascertain the fact, will not be sufficient to warrant your Lordship to postpone this trial. Next, with respect to files. Hurst Sitwell, bliss Harriet Hoare, and Mr. Dominick Daly, it is merely sworn that copies of subpoenas have been sent to them to France. Your Lordship is aware that every circumstance, every fact, sworn to iti support of this indictment, ;was known to the defendant in the month of April last. Did he iminedistely order subpoenas to be served upon his a itneeses ? No. What are the words of the affidavit ? " That on or about the 'id of August," copies of subpienas had been sent to France, to be served upon those persons. On or about the 2d of August might mean the 4th or bib of August, just two days before the Assizes. Does it appear, my Lard, that the de fendant has ever insole any inquiries about those witnesses, that he liar ever made any application to them to attend and give evidence. that lie has ever written letters to that effect, or that he has received any answers from them ? 31r. Justice Paine—Upon that part of the affidavit, there is one observation which must strike every one accustomed to the nature of evidence, namely, that to this part of the affidavit, ale. Wakefield only swears he is informed, and. believed that sub. ptenas ham been sent to France, but lie dues not say by whom they have been sent. In that part of the affidavit he is not joined by his Solicitor, file. Denison, who is a most respectable man, and who is, in my opinion, the person who ought to know must about those matters. Ale. ATTORNEY-GENERAL- 1 was about to observe to your Lordship, that file. Denison, whose duty it is to send those sub etenite, is silent upon that point. If subpsetets have been sent, who jaled be so well able to speak to that fact as AI r. Denison ? .Me. Wakefield states, that he has received answers from those persons, but lie does not state to what species of application he liar received those answers. Mr. SCAR LET T—To letters, no doubt. Mr. ATTORNEY-GENEIIAL—It does not appear upon the face of the affidavit that any letters have ever been written to those persons either by AI. Wakefield or by anybody else. I am well aware of the pains which hate been taken in preparing this affidavit. Fur a whole day that affidavit was under considera tion before we could procure a copy of it. It cannot be doubted that eve) , word contained in it has been considered and deli. berated upon again and again. There can be no doubt that the Learned Gentlemen under whose advice it has been prepared have gone as near the wind as they could ; but notwithstanding this Mr. W. has not ventured to swear that any letter has ever been written, nor from whom he has received the infonuation w whieli he swears in hie affidavit. Now, with respect to Mr. Dominick Daly, that eiremmitance is open to the same observations, with this additional obscrvaion—it is said that this gentleman has sent a letter to same . petsoa, Dot named, stating, that in consequence of a paragrigh wh ich he had seen in u newspaper, he did not intend to tonic to England, to Eire evidence upon thin trial. Is E• G. aliaaetali, or Nr.Waaaticld, the author of that paragtaph ? THE EhIITISH PRESS. it inseried by their authority, or with their knowledge? Mr. WM. M'akefield does not swotr that it was nut, and 1, therefore, submit that that part of the affidavit is not sworn in such a way as to lay sufficient grounds for postponing this trial Your Lordship knows that, in the case of a criminal prosecution against indivi duals, 1, as proaecutor, have a right to call upon them to take their trials, unless sufficient grounds shall appear to your Lordship to postpone the trial. I think it material, file the advancement of public justice, to call upon one of those deteodants to take his trial and I therefore submit, that I have matte out a case to justify me in calling upon your Lordship, as a matter of right, to procetd; and to 'eke care that the public justice of the country is not delayed. Mr. Sergeant (doss followed on the same side. The pink calor hstl been here with his witnesses from the first day of the As sizes, waiting the pleasure of the defendant to know whether he would be tried or not. This prosecution was no pleasant tusk to Mr. Turner. Ile had been driven to the necessity of instituting it by the conduct of the defendants. How could his Learned Friend (31r. S.) know that there would be another. trial at the next Assizes ? The principal defendant was domiciled out of the country; and whether he forfeited his recognizance or appeared to try, depended solely on his own will. Besides, other circurnistances might occur. The prosecutor 'Waist die, or his witnesses might the, and so the prosecution of Edward Wakefield might never take effect. Mr. WlLl.laatS and Mr. Ilmonottan followed on the same side. Mr. SCARLE CT in reply.—lf his Lordship were to give his judgment according to the measure of the speeches on both sides, he would have no difficulty in giving his decision, when he saw four Counsel on the other side, exerting their utmost zeal. learning, and address, tooppbse a motion, which he (Mr. Searlett) regarded so much as a matter of course that he should have thought it indecorous to have allowed any other Counsel to follow him in his application. His Lordship would see from that circumstance the opinion which the prosecutor entertained of the difficulty of the ease. Some of the topic's upon which his beamed Friends had expatiated were purely declamatory, and he hoped therefore to be excused if lie passed them over in Ocoee, as not fit for con eldemtion In a case like this. !Wens safe that his Lord ship would nut be influenced by daelarstatlon. Indeed, if the 'observations of 31r. Sergeant Cross were to have any weight, every prosecutor might come and tell them that his witnesses were ready, and he or they might die before next Assizes; but such observe. tions would, he believed, never be attended to it' there were good grounds for deferring a trial. He should therefore attend to the arguments which had been used by the Attorney-General. His Learned Friend hail endeavoured to insinuate that he (Mr. S.) disparaged the common Juries of' the county, of whoth he, bows ever, would take leave to say, his Learned Friend did not entertain a higher opinion than himself. What the law allowed a man to do, the Court would permit him to exercise his own judgment as to the propriety of doing. He would first observe, that throughout the speech of the Learned Attomey•General, no answer had been attempted to that part of his (Mr. Scarlett's) argument, that if the defendant had previously applied to the King's Bench for a cern°. earl, he would have been told that it could not be granted, because it was uncertain whether a hill would be found for felony oe misdemeanour. Had his beamed Friend contradicted the state ment, that when the Court of King's Bench liberated the defen dant, it declined to give any opinion whether the offence was a felony or not ? lie did not think that any Counsel would nave haa the courage to apply fur a certiorari where he was sure that he would be met by the answer—s' We donut know what will occur at the Assizes." So far, then, the Attorney-list..rat had not met his argument. All that lie had said hail been, that the recognizance of bail entered into had been so framed as to prepare the defendant to meet any charge that might be brought against him. Now, let them pureed by steps. Ills Learned Friend, the Attorney-(lene t:lh had told them, that if the defendant wanted a Special Jury, he hail no occasion to apply for a cerflorari,because a Special Jury might be granted in that Court, and Mr. Williams had told them that such was the practice in the County Palatine of Chester. To be sure it was. On the Civil Side the had the same rule as the Court of King's Bench ; and on the Criminal Side the certiorari was issued under the seal of the Vice-Chaneellete. He believed that his Lordship had himself been the originator of the Act of Parlia ment which had assimilated the practice of Counties Palatine is the practice of the Courts of King's Bench. By the statute of William, the jurisdiction of the King's Bench to issue certioraris had been limited, and it had been enacted that a defendant should remove nothing by certiorari unless upon special application. Still, how ever, the Couctles Palatine had n o t been affected by that enact ment, and his Lordship hail introduced the Act which extended the limitation imposed on the Coon of King's Bench to the Coun ties Palatine. Now, suppose the defendant had applied for a certiorari to the lice-Chancelliw of the County Palatine, and not to the Court of King's Bench, the effect would have been that the trial would have been put off to the next Assizes,—so that the re medy proposed by the Attorney-General, in answer to his (31r. S.'s) objection) would have been liable to all die objections now made to the application. With respect to the rule which the Clam of' the Court, Mr. ilopkins, had produced, he must admit that suds was the rule, but then they should first put parties in a condition to ask, before they told them that they might have a special Jury on appli cation. Why, in due case of Mr. Uunt, had he riot applied to the Judge for a special Jury? His Learned Friend, the Attoeney 'General, had next adverted to a topic which seemed to be address ed ad bwitlians to him (Mr. S.), and that was, the confidence re posed in Ida Lordship's judgffietit: lie (3[r. S.) was sure that In any case of his own he should submit with the most entire confi dence to thedecision of his Lordship. But if Lord Mansfield him self were then sitting in his Lordship's seat, he should still say that he would advise his client to remove the case into a Court from whence he could appeal to the Court of King's Bench. lie Was the more confirmed in that feeling by the zeal with which the opposition to his motion had been urged on the other side. Four Counsel had replied to hint—a gentleman had been brought specially down from London to oppose him—and lie, therefore, confessed that all these things oppressed and alarmed him, and induced hint to think that every sort of deliberation and every sort of caution ought to be observed in conducting the pro ceedings of the defendant. lie came next to the subject of the newspapers. They had been an example id' the danger to which the defendant was subject. The Attorneieneral had throughout alluded to a publication imputed to Edward Wakefield only. Now, suppose Edward Wakeheld had done any thing imprudent; suppose he had conducted himself in a manner to deserve the no tice and reprobation of newspaper editots, and to draw down the attack of Mr. Grimselitch, what had it at all to do with William Wakefield, who was not charged with any participation in that par titular conduct ? But it was said that some friend of Mr. Wake field had put into die Sum newspaper the paragraph which had de. tared one of the witnesses from coming. That was indeed a strange answer to the atfidavit. Again, it was objected that they had not mentioned in the affidavit the name of' the person who had informed them that 31r. Bachiall's te,tiinnny was material. If his Learned Friend wished it, or it' his Lordship thought it necessary, that fact should be disclosed in a further affidayit. Sir. Justice PAU—The Court will receive no further affidavit. 3lr. Sesal.ETT—lt WRS a great hardship to 31r. Wakefield to be tried individually under a prejudice, caused by the indiscretion of his brother, whose acts they were not then considering. Then, again, haws said, that Macclesfield was 70 miles from Lancaxter,as if that were any answer to the allegation that the Mosek t fieb/ Con ri se had prejudiced the minds of persons who might try the canes. Now 31acclestield wawonly 20 toiler from :Manchester, and the ma jority of the persons who formed the tribunals at Lancaster came front the former lance. But it had also been said, that Sir. Deni son ought to have joined in the uffidavits ; that sublitenaes had been seat to France. lie (Mr. S.) wished that they had °lily been given to understand, beforehand, what affidavits would be required. Mr. Denison had not sworn to the issuing of the subponae, because Sir. Denison resided at Manchester, and the subpsenas had been issued by his agent, who lived in Condos. But suppose the whim:nes were blotted out altogether, he apivehended that it war enough to swear, as in these affidavits it was done, that the wit nesse' were material ; that they generally resided in England, ant not in France ; and that they were expected to be here by the next Assizes. Then Mr. lirougham had alluded to the case of the Che valier D'Eon, where an application to put off a trial had been re fused. But in that case the witnesses had all been Frenchmen, re siding abroad, to compel whom to attend no process cotdd be homed, and respecting whom it had only been swop that they were ex pected to arrive by the following Term. But what were the circum stances here? The witnesses all resided in England ; their return was expected immediately. Then, as it regarded Mr. Beane'', it was urged that the name of the person who infant:mei 'ltem that Mr. Badnall was a material witness was net set out in the affidavit. Now, was it necessary to infer that a party committed perjury be cause lie did not state who the person was that had told him that Mr. Badnall had important facts to disclose ? Upon the whole, he submitted that no sufficient answer had been given to any part of the case OR which he (Slr. Scarlett) had originally reheat, and that the grounds which he had 'submitted for putting off the triahstood unitimeached. After all the zsal which had been displayed on the other side, none of the four Counsel had suggested a single argu ment to show that any injustice would :trifle to any party by deferring the trial of the defendant until the next Assizes. The Attorney-General had said, that it was, in his opinion, of consequence that the trial should now be urged on. To this it was sufficient to answer, that, in the opinion of the Counsel for the defendant, it was of such importance to postpone the trial, that it was a matter of doubt with them whether they would appear at all, if the defendant were now urged on to his trial. If, indeed, anything had been advanced to show how the ends of justice would be served by hurrying on the prosecution (when the same expense and trouble must necessarily be incurred another time), be should be glad to meet the argument. Nothing of that kind, however, had been advanced ; no affidavit had been offered suggesting such fact ; and he trusied, therefore, that lute Lordship would see the propriety of postponing the trial. Mr. Justice PAILK-11 I were to consult my own convenience, my own consolation, or my own comfort, I should agree with the Learned Attorney-General for the Palatinate, that I ought to listen to this application with the greatest readiness ; but the queutios for my consideration is not whether or not I shall sit here, perhaps for several days next week ; I sit here, bound by a sudenul oath to discharge a solemn duty. The conclusion to which I have come may be tight, or may be wrong, but if I do err, 1 am ;abated that I err not in intention. I know nothing of the pardes in this case, except what appears from the depositions._ am sorry to say that in a few days I shall know too much of them. The application to postpone this fnal untie upon two grounds. The first is founded upon the di:tete:ion of the• Judge, atud the vecend is ones the Law. It, as the Attorney-(leneral for the Palatinate sse.ns to think the legs; ;;;mend urged for the pustpuneuteet is good in pots: al lass there is an end to it. I cans gut agree with the Leutned :ittolinssae: social for the Vala.i• nate, that It is a matter of evs:)-day et. taaiiisa to grant an ap niieasioa of this kind. I ask it; llirtia to 1001.1, bwon: as the affidavit of Mr. el'idiem Wakefield, I could postpone en action for goods sold and delivered ? I have never, in my expe rience, seen an uffidavit so loosely sworn respecting the absence of material witnesses. I shall address myself to this point. I is not an unimportant consideration, that this Gentleman his never been in custody for any tiling more than a misilemestnottr ; and if, as it has been stated, that the Judges of the Court of King'. Bench doubted, upon the return made to their writ of certiorari, whether the offence was a felony or misdemeanour, I must say, notwithstanding the regard and reverence which I eh•ertain towards the four very able and Learned Judges of that Court, that • man charged with such an offence had better be tried anywhere else than in that Court. I say this, ;eh has been as stated, that teat Court entertained any doubt upon the pint, because, thmughout the whele committal, it is word for word with the statute of Philip and elery, and upon that committal alone the Court of King's Bench had a right to decide. The writ was issued on the 13th of February, and the defendant was brought tip in Easter Term, and bailed acceordingly. The consequence is, that hff bad two Whole Terms to collect his witnesses, and if Mrs. Hurst Sit *tie Alias Hoare- and :dr. Italy, are important and mateiial wit nesses, why not have made application to them before the 3J of August? Supposing it to be the fact as stated, that the town agent of the defendant's attorney had written letters to those persons, and had served them with sublimes on that day, it was not pfitbable that they could be here in time to give evidence, if the trial had taken Place in the early part of the Assizes, but if the eubpanas had been served at the time stated, it is probable that the wit. nesees Might yet arrive in time to give evidence. With respect to Mr. Raffinate I never saw such a statement; and, if that statement be admitted to be sufficient to postpone the trial, there la, I Will venture to say, not • etiminal who comes to that bar who :could not urge groutuls for postponing his trial. Jlr. Wakefield says, that since his arrival here he has been informed that .Me. liadinell can give material evidence for his defence. Does not elr. Wakefield himsed know who can give material evidence fur him? Ile must know it, It is impossible that he can be ignorant edit. Mr. IVakefield says he has been informed to that effect ; but lie does nut state to the Court by whom he Imo been so informed, nor in what way, whether by letter or otherwise. Another emend tirged is, that Mr. Dominick Dotty has, in a letter to some person, StEl!ttl th.ie, in consequence of a parasmph which he had read in a newspaper, stating that this trial would be postponed, he (11r. Dominick Daly) did not intend to come to England to give evidence upon this vial. This is trifling with the administration of the justice of the reentry. If the paragraphs in the newspapers are to be lis tened to, the whole justice of the country is at once paralyted. At Appleby, I myself read, to my avonethment, a paragraph in a newspaper stating that this ease was appointed to be tried on ' Thursday last. I had never befine heard it. No application had ever been made to me upon the subject, nor had any appoint. anent been otade by me to try the Cease on any particular day.— Cos I then, upon such ground., postpone the trial ? The next = urged upon me is, the propriety of having this case con.by the Court of King's Bench instead of by a single Judge. I ask what benefit could the defendant derive front ' baying a Certiorari granted ? I have no overweening confidence IN my abilities as a Judge, and I should wish, if I were to con. salt my own personal convenience, mostly that the case should M removed, but I confess that I cannot see any great empire. ity or difficulty in the terms of the Act of Parliament upon ich this indictment is fruited. I have read dust Act of Paella meet very minutely, and I have charged the Jury upon it. If thereeee were removed by Certiorari into the Court of King's Bendi i it must be sent down here to be tried by a single Judge, who must decide upon the evidence, subject to the revision of the Court of King's Bench in case any evidence should be improper ly admitted. I speak with due respect of the four eminent and Lamed Persons who preside in the Court of King's Bench, but 1 must say, that I have more respect for the opinion of the Twelve Judges of England titan tie the opinion of that Court, and In every case tried in this Court the defendant has the oppor tunity of' taking the opinion of the Twelve Judges. Belem a better tribunal no person can come. I must say, that which cannot be contradicted, that if in any case tried in this Court any Learned Connorl would say, that in his opinion any evidence had been Ispeoperly admitted, or that the law had been improperly ex pounded, although those points reserved in Courts of this kind am decided in content, and the greatest pairs taken to investigate, yet If it should be the wish of any Counsel to have the point reserved argued before the Twelve Judges, permeation is given without in tufty. This, theretore, being the cave, every possi ble advantage which can be derived from having the case subject to the revision of the Court of King's Bench is• derived in a superior degree front having it tried in this Court. because any Clung wrong which might occur in this Court would be set right by the Twelve Judges. The next ground tweed is, that this case ought to be tried by a Special Jury. Whether or not the case is a tit one to be tried by a Spacial Jury I shall not now atop to inquire ; but if an application is made to me for a Special Jury I shall then consider it. I have, as well as the Attorney-Gene- MI for the Palatinate and Mr. Williams. long had the honour of being acquainted with the Juries who attend at this place, and I must say, and I say it without any disparagement to the gentry of this county, that during a long experience I never saw in this county any Special Jury half so good as a Common Jury. I know that gentlemen who attend here on Common Juries are mti eoneiderable property in the most populous parte or this ; but, supposing for a moment Met the persons compering ili7 omen Jury to be of the inferior rank ( which I don't at al admit), I don't think, looking at the indicentent, that the de fendants would be worse dealt by at the hands of such a Jury. than he would be at the hands of those who generally attend upon Special Juries. Looking at the most prominent ground of this application (there is an old saying, that a man puts his best leg foremost), namely, the paragraphs in the newspapers, about which not less than two pages of the affidavit are filled, I must say that they aflbrd no ground for this application. The most serious ease of this description that has ever come under my notice was th a t of Thurtell, who was executed at Ilertferd For mender. An epee cation was then made to me to put off that trial, on the ground of the incessant paragraphs which had appeared in the newspapers respecting his case. I then thought, as I think now, that there were no sufficient grounds for postponing the trial ; but if the Learned Attorney-General for the Palatinate is willing to spend ' a part of the month of September or of October here, I ant will tag to do now, what I did upon that occasion ; and I will, if he chooses. postpone: this trial for a month, in order to live time to the Jury to wean their minds of any prejudices (which I don't believe exist) that may have been excited against the defendant. The case of Thurtell was a case of murder, which must have inevitably ended in the death of the prisoner; and I theretore, from a feeling of humanity, notwithstanding the inconvenience to my. self, said, that as that was the first county of the Circuit, I was willing to come back and try him after I had finished my other la bours on the Circuit; and I trusted the prosecutor would not then force on the trial. What is the paragraph complained of ? The Atturney-General for the Palatinate has very properly abstained from reading it with the affidavit, but I have read it, and I must say that it is an answer to another article (for publishing which I shan't now say whether or not the printer may not be liable in an action of libel), which has been brought home to Edmund Gibbon Wakefield, and the clerk of another per. son who is connected with the defendant. With respect to the ob jtetion which has been urged against trying one defendant without trying both, I shall only say that the legality of such a course has been recognised in the case of the King v..laniee Stamp Sutton Cooke. Upon neither the ground of discretion nor of law do 1 think thie trial ought to be pow poned. An application was made by the Attorney-General to have a day appointed ter the trial, but Me Justice Park woald not appoint any day. He said, if the trials of the rioters should be concluded at an early hour toenorrow, he would commence to-morrow afternoon, - 1 but it' not then, not until after Friday. rims •sseestee WkSTERN CIRCUIT. Bnisrnr., At 19. [Before Mr. Justice I.crir.EDALE and a Special J ury.l COLLINS V. T.VLIELL AND 07IIEGS, ASSIGNEES. This was an action of trover, brought to recover the value of 100 bushels of wheat, taken possession of by the defendants as the assignees of.lohn Lewis, a bankrupt. The facts of the use were simple, but it involved a question of considerable importance to commercial men. ............-.... ....... Mr. Sergeant W I FDE (with whom was Mr. Pallmer) stated the case. The demand of his client was very small, but it involved a principle of great imporanee to those who purchased corn from warehouses. In October. 1824, 31r. W. Davis, a respectable mer chant in this city, lied a large quantity of corn in the warehouse of Mr. Lewis. Ile then authorized a broker, named Norman, to make sale of a part of this warehoused corn, and upon this au thority Norman sold 200 bushels to the plaintiff. Shortly after, 11)0 bushels were delivered to Collins, but before he applied for the remaining lOU bushels, Lewis had become a bankrupt, and the defendants, as his assignees, took possession of the plaintiff's wheat, and refused to let him have it. Ile understood that the defendants relied upon an Act passed in the reign of James I. It was a hardship under any case, that a man should not be able to get possession of goods for which he had paid ; but for the protec tion of commercial men a law hat! passed, that when a trader be came bankrupt, his assignees should remain in possession of any goods of which he was the reputed owner. At that time, when commercial transactions were much more simple than at present, it was thought that a commercial man's credit depended on the quan tity of goods he appeared to have in his 11o:session ; and there fore it was conceived, that when he unfortunately became bankrupt, the goods of which he was the reputed owner should conic to his creditors as well as those In which lie possessed an actual owner ship. The law was still in force, though she chancier of commer cial transactions was greatly altered. Merchants were now trusted on mein general responsibility. Trade was carried on by means of symbols ; and instead of goods, orders and transfers were given, so that a merchant's credit depended sin his previously paying his bills, and not in any great degree on the quantity of goods of which he was the reputed owner. In the present case, 200 bushels of wheat having been bought by plaintiff, and paid fur to Norman the broker, he acting as agent between Davis, the owner, and Col. line the purchaser, wen: to the bankrupt's warehouse, and got 100 bushels, the remaining 100 bushels being refused to hint. Ad vetting to the principles laid down in cases of this nature, it was material to consider whether the possession had passed into the hands of the plaintiff, and out of the hand,' of the bankrupt. In this view it was to be observed, that the wheat purchased by the plaintiff was a part of a large parcl, and that a option of the purchase was actually received by the pl;:intlif: There was a iv , lect delivery ofthe goods sold by Davis, as far as depended on him. It was obvious that the bankroll kept a public warehouse 1 far the reception of goods, anti it would put an end to ad taus. tiet:ons of this kind, if property sa ph;ceti should be IL'ols. t.) be Weia.Nl on by the warehousekeeper's creditors. The col was merely placed in the warehouse on rent, and be contended lwas impossible to slippage t h at Lewis was ever the reputed or of any of th e goo d s d e p osi t e d in o h w ie n : r at o e f h t o hLcor . question, Norman (the broker) was produced to prove tZiat be had s-14.the plaintiff 2ts bushels of wheat. upt.n the authority of Mr. Davis., flue order was given fur the delivery of this timmtity. It w.. also proved 1114 1011 bushels had been received by the plaintiff. anti that lie had applied for the remaining ItO bushels, ond was refused them. Me Davis was then examined. Ile stated that he had largd dealings in wheat with heals; that he punt:visa:A two parcels, run. fairing ao and LIMO bushel., from Lewis, in September, 1144. 'Dine parcels were in Lewis'a warehouse. W was to r ay rent to Lewis for the use of his warehouse, and had atehoriztd Nora man to sell Situ bushels out of the pane l containing 800 bushels. When the purchase was made from Lewitt he pointed out the par. eels belonging to Mr. Davis to Isis warchouseman, and tad him fist those were ]lr. Lavine, and were not to be touched. At that time a card with witness's initials was stuck in the wheat, and sub. sequently the witness became dissatisfied, and thotrght the corn marked out as his did not correspond with the sample!. Ile told Lewis he would not accept the parcels as those he bad hottght„ but wateid take them, and endeavour to make sale of diem as security r y for die acceptances which were out. The witness never acknow ledged the wheats were those sold to him ; Lewis always persisted the wheat, were those sold to w i tness . Witness never paid Lewit arty tent for warehousing the wheat. Witn ess considered Lewis only as a broker, and he had told witness he Peter made /latex of wheat on his own account. Witness could not sweat the parcels be purchased were ever measured to him. It was subsequently proved that Le w i s d ea lt l arge ly on his own , account. as well as a factor. Mr. TAttsituir (with whom were Messrs. MEitewessrwa and Bestrasi addressed the Jury for the defendants. Ile said Hie Learned Friend had observed on the hardship of the ease. as re. spected the plaintiff' but there wee also a hardship elsewhere. The equity of the case was, dist all die property should be equally di. vialest amongst die bankrupt's utditovr. llu Learned Fraend, too. 'had eithniued risk the law of James the First was still in force: but he forgot to state that it had been re-enacted last year, attire niuch consideration. The effect of that law was, that all geode re. puled to belong to a trader, in the event of his having the misfire time lb heroine a bankrupt, should revert to the assignees. In this case there was oo evidence that the corn was ever measured to Davis; there was no evidence that a bushel was ever received by Lewis on account of rent. The only evidence on that point was, that those who did not like to take their corn front the warehouse at a moiler time were charged storage. To support the plaintiff's case it should be proved that it was notorious that the wheat had not belonged to Lewis, hut there was no evidence to that effect. There was a nhing (said the Learned Counsel) to prove that a change of property had taken place. It is true there were initials placed in the corn, but these may have denoted the ship as well as the pun teasers and did not sufficiently indicate the change of prie• puny to prettnt the goods from falling into the hand. of the swag. nee% Davis swore lie did not acknowledge the wheats in question as his property, but derived from Lewis the power of selling for his own security. lie must, therefore, have taken them on Lew is'e flak, and his possession derived in this way was void. It war. a material fact that Davis had never settled the rent with beide, nor waas the rent ever tendered. Davis, therefore, had no tide to the wheat, and he could not give Collins a better title than he had himself. Witnesses would be called to prove that the wheat in question w,ts frequently mixed MIL the alleged sale to Davis. Ile had bought old English wheat, and the 100 bushels delivered to C thins were ordinary Irish wheat. The plaintiff too had failed td prove that Ike aaslgnea ever pesaessed the wheat ; and under these eiretenstances he confidently submitted that the Jury Wi44 bound to find for the defendants. On the pert of the defendants, the Commission of Bankruptcy was given in evidence, and witnesses called to prove the set of bankruptcy. The bankrupt's warehouseman proved that the wheat designated by Mr. Davis had been mixed at several periods by miler of Lewis. This witness had kept an account in writing of the mix ings. It was also given in evidence that Lewis dealt very largely on his own account, and not extensively as a broker. Mr. Sergeant Wont:, in his reply, contended that the evidence went to prove, t h at the bankruptcy had been concerted between the bankrupt and his sister s who was the petitioning Creditor, and that it was therefore void. The Learned Juottn, after summing up. observed that he would not call upon the Jury to decide, generally, for the plaintiff or the defendant, as this monies case must be ultimately decided by the Court above. There were some facts, however, which might be properly submitted to them. Ceder the direction of the Learned Judge, the Jury then found a special verdict, subject to the opinion of the Court above. She above case occupied the Court from nine in the morning until seven in the evening,. HORTICULTURAL DINNER. The Members of the Brighton and Sussex Horticultural Society held their ant iversary dinner, on Saturday IR-St at the Old Ship. The show of fruit on this occasion excelled in quality, though not perhaps In quantity, that of any former year. The pines and me lons were of the must exquisite flavour, nod the grapes were thought never to have been excelled in variety and quality, at any show of this nature in the kingdom. They consisted of the Muscadine, the ',Muscat of Alexandria, the Black Tripoli, the Black Ham burgh, the Black Prince, NParner's Ilainburgli, the Black July, ;the Sweet -water, the l'oonah, the Kiswish, and the Dcthana. In delivering the prizes, Mr. PHILLIPS, the Chairman, nb. served, that it was a proud day fur Brighton, when he had the Ilatisfaction to find that ha Horticulturists had already surpassed all competitors in the culture of the grape, both Mr the size of the hunch and the flavour of the berry. In presenting the premium to I Mr. Dilburd, of the Steyne Hotel, for the best bunch of black grapes, he could not retain from complimenting both that genth. man and his gardener, for the perfection in which the fruit had been grown, and holding up the bunch, which weighed 41b. 20z., he remarked that the cluster was not unworthy of Bacchus him. self, and with such grapes as those the Steyne Hotel would never r quire a bush. Mr. Phillips took occasion to dwell on the muni ficent couduct of the Lord Identenantiof the County to the town of Brighton, and next adverted to the deaths of two highly.esteemed members, the late Earl of Chichester and Mr. Ironmonger. The Hornier had not only encouraged the Society by the sanction of hi* name, but had contributed fruit to their dessert and venison to their dinner, besides adding consequence to their party by his presence. Dr. RONALDS rose, and gave " The Athenaeum and Oriental Gaidens." And, what with good toasts, and plenty of them, and goi'd wire too, the company passed their time iu very good humour, and parted, we hope to meet again as pleasantly next year. N.II.—We understand, although, as Cobbett says, we do not vouch for the fact, that tie Heralds' College have it in contempla lion to register as the arms of the Brighton and Sussex Horticultu ral Society, a melon quartered on a eabbage.leaf veer, surmounted by a squirrel rampant, tenant a bunch of nuts, with the motto— " Frigres euhrtintere nate."—Brigilou Gazette. BOW BELLS. A few mornings ago the family of Mr. Aughtie, in Cheapside, were awakened by a tremendous crash, as if the upper part of the house had fallen in. They found that a stone of nearly one hundred weight had fallen from the upper cornice of the tower, anti broken in the roof. It had hit some of the projecting cornices of the tower, by which its force was broken, and it had fallen lengthways, or it is probable that it would have gone through the two floors below the attic where it stuck, and might have occa sioned the loss of lives. Mr. Gwilt, the architect, was sent for by the parish officers, to examine and report as to the cause of the accident. This Gentleman has, we learn, reported that the stone has most probably been detached by the vibration of the tower, caused by the ringing of the bells, and that the effects of this practice are manifested by large cracks in the plaqering of the belfry walls, which were p!asteresl over in 1822. %Viten in 1816 the spite was found to have lost its perpendicularity, it was con. *eeived that the mischief was caused by the ringing, Mr. Genic, however, ascertained that although the split ting of the tower might be attributed to that cause. yet the deviation of the spire to that position was caused by the injudicious use of wrought iron in its construction. The expansion of the metal by oxidation, hail, he found, actually " spelled" or s plit solid blocks of stone, and partially lifted up the obelisk from its perpendicular station. This, with the tremendous shaking the whole had undergone from the incessant ring ing of the heaviest peal in the city, rendered its repair ab solutely necessary, and little doubt was entertained that, had it fleet' delayed, the steeple would, in no great length of time, have fallen. The architect, on the completion of the repairs of the spire, expressed his opinion to the parish officers, that it would not be prudent to ring the bells. In the report he has made on the present occasion, he states it as Lis firm conviction, that the part of the steeple front which the stonß fell never was strong enough for the ori ginal peal of bells, previously to 1762. Even if it had been constructed with sound masonry, which he de clares most decidedly it never was, the subsecitibnt ad dition of two bells, weighing upwards of a ton, was not calculated to improve it. The effect of a peal of ten bells upon such a steeple may be conceived, from *he fact which this gentleman ascertained from actual experi ment, that the smallest bell, which weighs eight hundred weight, shakes it from the top to the very foundation. The largest of the ten bells is upwanls of two tons and o half in weight. The only rival peal in the metropolis, as to the number and quality, is the peal of St. Saviour's. The silence of Bow Bells will be felc by every body in the ! City, by all professors of campanology , and by every in. dividual who .has heard the wretched tin-kettle -sounding pieces of metal girzu in SOWC of the Hew chutelles fut bells. I