Star.
London, England, 1826-08-18 00:00:00

was pubiltimielnksaused to be published by the said E. G. Wake
fieldt Or Wilton Wakefield, or some of their relatives or friend..—
And this deponent further saith, that the town of Macclesfield is
-distant from Lancaster 73 miles, of thereabouts."
" Tfie King against William Wakefield and others.
Thomas Grimsditch, of Macclesfield, in the County of Chester,
Gent. snaketh oath and saith that Edward Thevenot, one of the
'defendants in this prosecution, cannot be found in England ; that a
warrant has been issued out against the said Edward Thevenot for
his apprehension ever since the month of March last. and that this
deponent saw him In Calais, in the Kingdom of France, on the
fifteenth day of March last; that this deponent did on behalf of
the prosecutor cause considerable exertions to be used and applica-
tions wise made to the Government of France to give up the said
Edward Thevenot, for justice for the offence with which be stands
'charged by one of these indictments, but that such applications were
unsuccessful. And this deponent says be bas been informed and
'believes that the said E. Thevenot is still in the kingdom of France.
Aad this deponent further saith that he has seen letters in thehand-
welting of Edward G. Wakefield, one of the said defendants, in
which he states his residence to be Rue de la Pepinare, No. $6,
Paris, and this deponent saith that the said Edward Thevenot is a
servant of the said Edward Gibbon Wakefield, whose usual place
'of abode is in France, as aforesaid.
"THOMAS GRINISDITCH."

Mr. Serjeant Caoss followed oa the same side. He
• contended,that for the sake of public jastice there should
be no delay in the proceedings. With respect to the
difficulty of a prosecution under the Statute of Philip
and Mary, requiring that there should be an appeal to
'the Judges, there could be no such difficulty in the pro.
secution for conspiracy, which yeas an r ffence at com-
mon law, and of every d I's occurrence.
Mr. J. WILLtAMs referred to a case where a Special
Jury had been obtained in the County Palatine. in a
civil case, and a trial had. This course had been open
to the defendant, and not having availed himself of it,
he had no right to ask for this delay. It was nowhere
said in the affidavits that the defendant had not ex-
pected his trial for misdemeanour, and no ground
whateier bad been stated upon which it ought to be
further delayed.
Mr. BROUQUAM contended that there was not a word
in the affidavits which proved the absent witnesses ma-
terial to the defence. The defendant only spoke of his
information and belief, and no where stated that any
attempt had been made to procure their attendance.
Mr. SCARLET?, in reply, said that when four eminent
Counsel were found necessary to speak and to use topics
of declamatory vehemence upon an application which
`he had soppo:ed to be so much a matter of course as.
not to think it decorous that more than one Coun-ei
should address the Court, it would easily be seen that
- on the other side at least, the case was considered to be
one of great importance. He should, however, pass over
these topics, and confine himself to 0 e arguments which
had been advanced. The Court of King's Bench, when
Wm. Wakefield was admitted to bail, expressly ab-j
stained from deciding whether the offence charged was
a felony or not; therefote, it was impossible that he
could know what tsoirld be the result at the Assizes.
Under such cis ctunstances, no Counsel could have made
the application for a writ of cert lora) i before, becau-e
le would have been told at once that the ca.e might
prove to be one of felony. If the application for a
Special Jury had been made to this Court, it would
have had precisely the s rine effect of throwing over the
trial till the next Assizes, as. they now aoked to do.—
When he found that four Counsel spr ke to what
he expected would be a motion of course, and a
CentlemanAhigh official suthrtity and talent brought
down to 011Pcluct the case, which none of the other
four could be intrusted safely to do, he was alarmed,
he was terrified, and saw in it a still greater ne-
cessity of treading with the utmost caution. The
proceedings under the statute of Philip and Mary
sere unusual, and must give rise to doubts and point,
which ought to be submitted to Judges of the Court of
King's Bench. The next argument urged against the appli-
cation was that respecting the Newspapers. He appeared
there for Wm. Wakefield, and if his brother or friends
-comn.itted indiscretions, such as had been state% was
he to be made answerable for them? The affidavit in
formed his Lordship that Macclesfield was situated
nearly 72 miles from Lancaster. Was this the sort of
• answer upon which the application was to be refused ?
They all knew the distance from Macclesfield, but it
'was equally well known that the grea-est body ofJury-
tren for the County come from the neighbourhood of
Manchester and Stockport. Wi h all the declamation
and all the zeal which had been displayed on the other
side, not one fact had been shewn by any of the Counsel,
nor one suggestion made, why one trial ought to take
place nosy, and another at the next Assizes. Upon
these grounds he submitted that the application must
be granted by his Lordship.
- -

Mr. Justice PARE said, that if he were to consult his
own convenience, or his own consola:ion and comfort,
he should listen to this application with the greatest
readiness ; because- the trial would detain him there
several days in the next week. But he was there to per-
form a solemn duty under a solemn oath, and whether
tight or wrong he must he bound by it. He might be
wrong, but if he cited it would only be in judgment,
net in in•esstion. lie was by no means anxious for the
duty, as he aheady knew s, mething of some of the
parties, and leased that he was likely. to know too much.
This application Ivid been made to him upon two
grounds; and if the Attorney-General for the County
Palatine had shewn thst the law considered the granting

such an application necessary upon such stat:-Ments as
had been made, he should willingly have complied.—
But in his opinion there was no colour or pretence what-
- ever for putting I'ff the trials. He never saw affidavits
to loosely put together in his life, when the ground of
application was simply the able: ce of material witnesses.
The tact had not been stated by either Counsel, that '
Wm. Wakefield never had been cha'ged with anything
but a misdemeanour. It appeared that the writ against
Wm. Wakefield was islued so long ago as the 13th Feb.
and that he was brought up in Easter Term and bailed.
He had theiefoie had two whole Terms to preps** his
defence; and if Mrs. Hurst Sitwell and Miss Ho4re were
material witnesses, why did he not endeavour to p:ocure
their at-endance beim e the 2d of August. He had taken
no steps with that view, until within a few days of the
Assizes, when there could be no postibility of their
being present. With respect to Mr. aidnell, he never
saw such a statement in his life. There was no person
at the Criminal Bar of that Court who might not claim
to put off his trial upon the same ground. The affi-
davit stat:d that slake the defendant had been them he
bad been Wormed that Mr. Badnell was a material
witness. I,ld not Mr. Wakefield know himself who were
his material witnesses? He saidte believed him to be in
France, but he nowhere said that he had taken any steps
to ascertain whether he was or not at his residence in
Staffordshire. Then as to Mr. Dominick Daly, he could
not come because he had seem a patagraph in a news-
paper. which stated that the trial was not to come OM
Why, if what appeared in newspapers were to be acted
upon in the manner required, the whole proceedings