The Sun.
London, England, 1826-05-31 00:00:00

STEALING AN HEIRESS.

The facts-which have been hitherto developed in
the case of Mr. Wakefield, have been of such a des-
cription as 'to give a high degree of public interest to
the circumstance, and .to excite the, public attention in
no common way. The statementin
which appeared
all the newspapers of the past week (said to. have been
.
originally printed by Mr. Wakefield's own authority) '
and the examination of Miss Turner herself before the
magistrates, and in the foe°. of Mr. Wakefield, and 11
sub Sequent committal on the 'capital charge have
.added greatly to it, and indeed, as additional facts
collie to light, they give a colouring to the whole affitiry
and make this case as. much the case a the public as
the individuals who were the more iminettiate, actors of
in it. If thiS case has not been attended kith results
quite so criminal as:those which followed Elie forcible
abduction of Mrs. •Lee by' Lockhart. London
Gordon,.it nevertheless displays- circumstances in its
origin, far exceeding in atrocity those facts which led
to the foreible abduction of Mrs. Lee, and this places
the two cases nearly on a footing in point of criminality.
The MethOd which, it:is said, was employed by Mr.
Wakefield to effect his purpose, and by which he in-
duced. Miss Tur»er to consent to his wishes, and
made the affection which she felt for her father the
cause of her own destruction, are not the least remark-
able features in this case, and afford an opportunity
for reflecting on Mr. Wakefield's character, which we,
trust he feels, and will, on his trial, apply himself to
remove. Mr. Wakefield, indeed, is not the only per 7
son to blame in this business ; Miss Daulby, mast come
in for her share of censure, in parting with the custody
of a child to a man a stranger to herself, and to Miss
Turner, and that'too upon pretext too flimsy to' escape
detection if common prudence only had been used.—
Several featureS in this ease, however, have lately trans-
pired which tend to change .the character of the
offence altogether, and remove the capital part of it.
To constitute a capital felony by the forcible abduction
of an heiress, it is necessary that the foree be continued
from the commencement to the' end ; for although
the original taking away Were fOroible and against the
will, yet subsequent consent in a county otherthan that
where the force was put upon her on the part of the
woman, when: acting Withchit fear, and withoutrestrainti
Would remove the offence altogether ; for Alio offence
is not complete unless followed by a forcible marriage
or defilement, a point decided by the before-mentioned
case of Mrs. Lee and the Gordons. ' .

Now it is asserted by Mr. Turner that no legal Mar-;
riage took place, and Mr.'Wakefield assures theni on
the other hand (and it is an assurance that
the lady's family- will be loath to discredit.) that
she has not been defiled. Applying this circum-
stance to the beforeinentioned rule of law, the
result is at. once to acquit Mr., Wakefield of the
capital felony, and' subjects 'hith only to the more
moderate punishment' of the statute 4 and 5, Philip
and Mary, c. B,•for carrying away a maid without the
consent Of her parents or guardians. But another
difficulty i
arises n this case, which is till!, in . which
county can the trial take place ? The' forcible 'ab-
duction was commenced in Lancashire, but the mar-
riage, if any, Wok place in Scotland. Here,'inde4
is a crime commenced in' one county of 'England,
but completed in another kingdom ; admitting
that there was continuance of 'the force.
through Out ' and the result -is, that Mr- Wake-
field IS not am:enable to the' latve of England, but to
those of Scotland only, if there is any law in Scotland
which applies to' this offence. That there was a con-
tinuance- of the force sufficient to constitute the Aimee
is clear, for " Miss Turner thimighont acted under
false impression that Mr. Wakefield had artfullyinade-
so that any consent on her. part cannot be considered
as a voluntarily act, or be supposed to sanction the
violent proceedings of her abducer. It has been
ready said, that consent-of theWbriuin after the forcible
taking away, if given in a county other than that where
the force was first used, and before marriage and de-
filement, would alter the character of • the offence,
whereas if such consent wag given in the same er-ii!Mty,
it would be attended with no 'such' consevences.l
This, indeed,' admita' of eiplanation. 'lire law
requires all offences ageing the public peace to
be laid and tried in the county where they oc-
curred, because the &rand Jury is sworn to inquire de
cm pore cmitaatus; a rule of law so strictly obierved,
that. at cOreinoif law; 'if a Mari Were mortally 4044
in one county, and died in another, the offender was
not indictable in either, an inconvenience that Ilea been
aided in very many instances by express stathte provision.
Simple forcible abduction; unattended' by Marriage
or defileMent, is not a capital felony, and as therefore
no offenee re committed until marriage or defilement,
it follows, from the aforesaid rule oflaw, that the of-
fender.must be indicted in the county where that takes
place. 'Thus then' if such marriage or defilement is
with the consent of the woman, the Grand Jury not,
having anthority.to enquire into the forcible abduetion,
the same having taken place in another county, no
crime hai been coMmitted,(the Grand Jury being sup
posed to have no cognizance orst ic ;11)(1 Caoh)and thus
the offender escapes. But on the other hand, if the
forcible abduction and subsequent marriage or defile.
mint by consent, all takes place in one county,
the law will not permit such subsequent consent.
to cover the original forcible taking, because'
the woman might be won to consent by flat
terieS,- and it does notviolate any
-
other rule of
law by so doing ; and' moreover the whole transaction
is legally before the Jildges, who, having cognizance
thereof, would be fully justified in holding that a COli•
sentgiven under- such cireUmatances
.as; given under
the 'influence of fear; and"extorted rather by an appre-
hension of public Shame than as the vontaneous and
voluntary act of the party. On the Whole, therefore,
it would appear that the capital' charge cannot be
sustained; and we are therefore surprised that, ' with
such evidence before them, the Magistrates have been
induced to put Mr. Wakefield on his trial for
the same;
f9r it iz del; that no covictio can follow Mows