Having thus brought the prisoners to Chichester, and put them in safe confinement, we shall leave them there for the present, till we meet them again on their trials, of which we are enabled to give the most authentic account of any that has been, or may be, published. After that, we shall attend the prisoners while under sentence of condemnation, and truly relate whatever appeared remarkable in their carriage or demeanour; and then bear them company to the place of execution, where we shall take particular notice of their behaviour and dying words.
But, previous to this, it will be necessary to give some account of the journey of the judges from London to Chichester, in order to rectify some mistakes that were made in the accounts published of it in the public prints.
The judges set out from London on Friday, January the 13th, and arrived at the Duke of Richmond’s house at Godalming in Surrey that evening, where they lay that night, and the next day they set out for Chichester, and were met at Midhurst by his Grace the Duke of Richmond, who entertained their lordships with a dinner at his hunting-house near Charlton. After which they proceeded on their journey, and got into Chichester about five o’clock, and went directly to the Bishop’s Palace. It was reported, though very erroneously, that they were guarded in their journey by a party of horse, both thither and back again; but they had none but their own attendants, except a few servants of his Grace the Duke of Richmond, the judges, counsellors, and principal officers being in six coaches, each drawn by six horses.
On Sunday morning, the 15th, they went to the Cathedral, accompanied by the Duke of Richmond, the Mayor and Aldermen of the Corporation, where an excellent sermon was preached suitable to the occasion, by the Reverend Mr. Ashburnham, Dean of Chichester.
We shall now proceed to give an account of what passed at Chichester during their trials; only observe first, that William Combleach, the gardener (whom we have before observed to have been committed only on suspicion, by his own idle talk, which, no doubt, gave a just foundation for his said commitment) was not ordered to be indicted, nor from the mouths of the witnesses on the trials was his name more than barely mentioned.
Chichester, January 16th, 1748.
This morning between eleven and twelve o’clock, the judges assigned to hold the assize by special commission, viz., the Hon. Sir Michael Foster, Knt., one of the judges of His Majesty’s Court of King’s Bench; the Hon. Edward Clive, one of the Barons of His Majesty’s Court of Exchequer; and the Hon. Sir Thomas Birch, Knt., one of the Judges of His Majesty’s Court of Common Pleas; went from the Bishop’s Palace, preceded by the High Sheriff of the County, with the usual ceremonies, to the Guildhall, where they were met by his Grace the Duke of Richmond, Sir Richard Mill, Sir Cecil Bishop, Sir Hutchins Williams, Barts., John Butler, Esq., Robert Bull, Esq., and others of the commissioners named in the commission for that purpose; and after having opened the said commission, and the same having been read, the gentlemen who were summoned to be of the grand jury, were called over, and the following twenty-seven, who were present, sworn, viz.:
- Sir J. Miller, Bart., foreman.
- Sir M. Fetherstonhaugh, Bart.
- Sir Thomas Ridge, Knt.
- John Page, Esq.
- George Bramston, Esq.
- William Battine, Esq.
- John Winker, Esq.
- Edward Tredcroft, Esq.
- William Winker, Esq.
- Samuel Blunt, Esq.
- William Pool, Esq.
- Peckham Williams, Esq.
- Thomas B. Bilson, Esq.
- Thomas Phipps, Esq.
- William Mitford, Esq.
- James Goble, Esq.
- John Cheal, Esq.
- William Leeves, Esq.
- Richard Nash, Esq.
- Thomas Fowler, Esq.
- William Peckham, Esq.
- William Bartlet, Esq.
- John Hollest, Esq.
- Francis Peachey, Gent.
- John Laker, Gent.
- William Peachey, Gent.
- John Pay, Gent.
As soon as they were sworn, Mr. Justice Foster gave a most learned and judicious charge, taking notice among other things, that this commission, though it did not extend to all the crimes which are cognizable under the general commissions which are executed in the common circuits; yet it did not differ from other commissions granted for holding the assizes, so that they must proceed on this commission in the same method of trial as was usually done in commissions of assizes; that this commission was only to enquire of murders, manslaughters and felonies committed in the county of Sussex, and the accessaries thereto, and therefore the Grand Jury could not take notice of anything else but what was specified in the said commission.