directed to do so by the clerk of the Crown. Under these circumstances, the court decided that the Crown were in time with their challenge--and the juryman was excluded. In this kind of out-skirmishing the whole of the first day was consumed!--a full jury not having been sworn till the evening, when they were "charged" with the prisoner and then dismissed for the night--but with the unpleasant information from the court, that they themselves were thenceforth prisoners (though with every kind of proper indulgence) till the trial was over. On the next morning, just as the Attorney-General was rising to state the case of the Crown, he was interrupted by Sir Frederick Pollock, and doubtless sufficiently astonished by what fell from him: "I feel myself bound, at the earliest moment--and this is the first opportunity that I have had,--to take an objection which must occur the moment that the first witness is put into the box,--namely, that the prisoner has never had a list of the witnesses, _pursuant to the statute_, and that therefore _no witness can be called_!" What could be the meaning of this? inquired the Attorney-General's companions among themselves, with no little anxiety; but he himself somewhat sternly censured the interruption, as premature, (as it certainly was,) and proceeded with his address to the jury. He made a lucid and very temperate statement of the case--drawing attention prominently to the necessity imposed on him of proving that what had been done by Frost and his companions was with a _general_, and not a particular object,--a _public_, and not a private purpose. His proposed proof was crushing: but immediately on the Solicitor-General's calling the name of the first witness, Sir Frederick Pollock rose, and required him to prove the delivery of a list of the witnesses, containing the particular one in question, pursuant to the statute. The Attorney-General then called Mr Maule, who proved having done what has already been explained: whereupon Sir Frederick Pollock disclosed the exact objection, which he himself had been the first to detect--that whereas the statute required all these documents,--_i. e._, the indictment, the jury list, and witness list--to be delivered "_at the same time_," in the present instance that had not been done, the first two having been delivered on the 12th, and the list of witnesses on the 17th December! This was a very formidable move on the part of the prisoner: who stood at the bar on his deliverance--the jury being bound to convict or acquit according to evidence, and none could be offered them! If that _were_ so, he must of necessity be pronounced not guilty, and be for ever safe. The objection was urged with extreme tenacity and ingenuity by both the prisoner's counsel, who insisted on the statute of Anne receiving a strict literal construction of the words "at the same time,"--admitting the benevolent intentions by which Mr Maule had been actuated.