The Sun.
London, England, 1833-06-25 00:00:00

THE KING V. PHILIPS.

This was a criminal information filed against Josiah Phillips,
at the instance of his Royal Highness the Duke of Cumberland,
for a false and scandalous libel, published in a book entitled
" The Authentic Records of the Court of England for the last
Seventy Years," in which the illustrious prosecutor was charged
with being accessory to the murder of his valet Sellis, in the
year 1810, for the purpose of putting him out of the way, and
preventing his being a witness to a certain abominable offence.
Sir C. Wetherell, Mr. Pollock, and Mr. Follett appeared for
the prosecution, and Mr. B. Wakefield for the defence.
Sir C. WETHERELL proceeded at very great length to read
various portions of the work in question, applicable to the pre-
sent case (which portions appeared in our paper of the 18th of
April, 1832, when the rule for the criminal information was
applied for), and commented upon the infamy and malignity
which must have operated on a mind so debased as to propa-
gate such falsehoods. It had been settled by philoso.
phers that it was a misfortune for a man to be born
a prince; and he (Sir C. Wetherell) believed it. Then
he would call upon the jury not to add to that misfor-
tune by allowing such a person to be held up as a monster
before the nation. If such a course was permitted the cha-
racter of no man would be safe, nor the peace of any family
worth a moment's purchase, when it pleased a wicked man to
put forth statements which were " false as hell." The
libel now complained of was calculated to destroy, not only the
peace of the individual, but also that of his illustrious family,
his brothers and his sisters, the Princesses of England. If such
gross libels were to go forth unpunished, Great Britain would
soon become in reality a beastly nation. In conclusion, he
begged the jury to read and consider the libel with that calm-
ness and due consideration which it was their duty to do when
placed in that box; they would look upon it with more can-
dour, and with less prejudice, than it was in his power to do,
placed in the situation in which he was—to prove a negative
to those foul aspersions. lie left the case in their hands, and
after they had heard the evidence, he did not for a moment
doubt but that his illustrious client would receive justice at their
hands.

John George Sutton examined by Mr. F. Pottocx.—Was a
clerk with Mr. Spedding. On the 9th of March, 1832, he
applied at the defendant's shop for a copy of the book. Mr.
Philips came out of an inner room, and witness asked him for
a copy of " The Authentic Records of the Court of England."
He was served with it, and paid a guinea for it.
The book was put in, and the libel complained of read.
Sir Benjamin Stevenson, a General in the army, was in
town in 1810, and having heard of the attack on the Duke of
Cumberland, went to St. James's Palace, and found
him in bed, wounded in the head and on both hands.

There was a great deal of blood about the bed and on the
floor ; also marks of blood upon the doors. Before
he arrived the Duke's wounds had been dressed. He after.
wards went to Sellis's loom. Had to go through four rooms
first. He saw the body quite dead, and no slippers on his
feet. His neckcloth was off, and his head nearly severed from
his body. In a closet adjoining the Duke's bed-room wero
found some pillows and a pair of slippers, with a scabbard of a
sword, and a pint bottle nearly full of water.

Sir Wathen Waller—Sir Everard Home and Sir Henry
Halford were the persons who dressed his Royal Highness.
Witness arrived soon after, and by his recommendation be
was removed to Carlton House, and he never left him till
he had recovered. The wounds were so very severe,
that he often saw the pulsation of the brain, and
so severe was the suffering of his Royal Highness,
that he could not bear the bedclothes to be touched, or the noise
of a pen in the room. So bad were they that the late King
fainted upon seeing them.
Mr.'Adams was coroner for the verge of St. James's Palace in
April, May, and June, 1810. Summoned a Jury to sit upou the
body of Sellis. The Jury was not of the Palace. Mr. F.
Place was foreman, there had been no previous Jury summoned,
nor had any Jury ever refused to return a verdict. The Court
was an open one, and evey reporter was admitted, and got
every facility to take notes of what passed. There were
many other persons present, as well, and the Court was open
in every sense of the word. There were 16 on the Jury
and they examined both the room of the Duke and that of
Sellis. Had lost the inquisition and verdict. Believed
that he had not seen them since the prosecution
of the Independent IVhig. The examination was as full as it
could be, and the Jury did not call for any witnesses that were
not examined. So very clear was the case, that the Jury
would not allow him to sum up, but instantly found a verdict
of "Feld-de-se."

Francis Place, Esq., was summoned in 1810 upon the Jury
that sat on the body of Sellis. There were seventeen on the
Jury, all from Charing.cross, except one, who was from St.
Martin's-lane. Only one of them was connected at all with
the Royal Family, and he was grocer to the Duke of Kent.
The Jury assembled at three o'clock, and sat till eleven
Seventeen witnesses were examined, and no attempt was made
to keep any thing from the Jury ; all was done in the presence
of four reporters, two surgeons, and the Coroner of the
county, and Mr. Bicknell. Every witness was examined
in the place to which his evidence related. The
Jury called for every witness, and examined any thing
that tended to throw light on the transaction. Fifteen were
unanimous in their verdict; two could not agree in it, because
they thought no man could be sane who killed himself.
Joseph Joux—Was formerly in the service of the Duke of
Cumberland. Was footman to him in 1810. Had seen a de-
position purporting to be in his (defendant's) book. He had
never made such a thing, and it was totally false. He never
was desired to lay a sword by the bed, nor did he do so. Never
saw the wounds, therefore he could never say they were
slight. Went for Sir Henry Halford. Never gave any de-
positions to any one, nor was ever asked for it, nor ever said
that the proceedings were arranged by Lord Ellenborough.

The Duke of Cumberland was then called. He ap-
peared on the Bench, and being sworn, deposed, that on
the night of the 31st May he slept at his apartments in St.
James's Place. In the course of the night he was awakened
by several blows on the head. He had been at the Ancient
Concert ,the previous evening. The blows were upon the right
side of the head. His first impression was that something had
fallen upon him, but as the blows were repeated he awoke. One
of he blows made a very violent incision in his head. His Royal
Highness showed the mark to the jury. The wound must
have been a very bad one, as it is now very easily seen . It
caused an immense effusion of blood. There was a looking_
glass opposite his bed, and in it he saw something gleam which
made him think he was attacked by robbers, and he then made
a dash at the person. He caught the sword in his hand
and was very severely cut across the bottom of the
thumb and across the arm. He again showed the wounds.
As he did not know whether he was attacked by one or more
persons, he took advantage of his knowledge of the room, and
made for the door—he had to go through three rooms before
he could come to his servant's. He was followed, and struck
the whole time in passing through the two first doors. He re-
ceived a very severe cut in the back, and had the sword not
struck the door, which saved him from the last stroke he must
have been killed. The sword was 17 inches long and 3 broad
on arriving at the servant's room, he sent for Sir Henry
Halford and Sir Everard Home. He had applied to Sir H. Hal_
ford to attend that day, but in consequence of a severe domestic
affliction he could not. He wan removed to Carlton house,
about nine o'clock the same evening. Was in extreme agony
for six weeks or two months. He was not able to leave the
House till the beginning of August.
Sir C. WETHERELL—Has your Royal Highness read the
paragraph which forms the subject of inquiry this day ?
The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE said that question could not be
put. His Royal Highness had made an affidavit on the sub-
ject, and it was not a matter of inquiry then, so it could not
be gone into.
Mr. WAKEFIELD then addressed the Jury for the defendant.
They were judges both of law and fact, and he was sure his
client would be perfectly safe in their hands. He differed
from his Learned Friend, for he believed that publications
such as the one in question tended much to the safety of the
public morals. He considered the royal prosecutor had been
very badly advised to bring forward such a case into Court.
It would have been better in all ways to have let the matter
sleep. Who but remembered the injury clone to the public
morals on the occasion of the trial of the late Queen Caroline?
By so raking up stories, thousands were put in mind of what
they had forgotten, and thousands more heard of them for the
first time. The Learned Gentleman had talked largely of the
magnanimity of the Royal Duke. He (Mr. Wakefield)
confessed he could not see it. Was it in his employ
ing such an array of the most eminent counsel at the bar,
for the purpose of crushing a poor man, who could not
afford to have better assistance than the humble individual
who was then addressing them? Was that magnanimity ?
He had always thought it was best shown in putting up with
injuries and letting the party escape. But in this case what
had the Royal Duke suffered ? Absolutely nothing. Great
exertions had been used to prove that all that was
written was absolutely false ; but was that a fair
way of putting the question ? Had he (Mr. W.) proved that
every word of the supposed libel was true, he would still have
been told that it was a libel. But were the words of the imforma.
tion made out—it said that the libel had produced greDt
damage, disgrace, and infamy to his Royal Highness. Now,
upon those points there was not a word of evidence. In
fact, it was impossible, for the publication was one
of the weakest that had ever issued from the press,
rnid it would have been as possible for a gnat to sting through
the hide of an elephant as for that work to have produced
any of those things to his Royal Highness. He left the case
in the hands of the Jury, and had no fears of the result.
His LORDSHIP then summed up, and the Jury instantly
found a verdict of " Guilty."

COMMON PLEAS.-(TUIS DAY.)

DEAN V. HO.: AND LEWIS.

This was an action brought by Mr. Thomas Dean, a solicitor,
against the defendants for violently assaulting him. Verdict
for the plaintiff—Damages, 101.

THE MARKETS.-f THIS DAY).

HAY MARKETS.-1 At per Load of al Trusser.)
CU l'filillLAND.
Supply limited, trade very brisk, and prices higher.
Coarse heavy Lowland Meadow Hay £2 10 to £2 15
Vew Meadow Hay 3 5 3 10
Useful Old Ditto 3 10 4 0
Fine Upland Meadow and Rye-grass Hay 4 5 4 10
Clover Hay a 5 5 5
Oat Straw £1 Bto £1 101 Wheat Straw ... 110 113

SMITHFIELD.
Supply moderate, and trade steady; prices higher.
Coarse neavy Lowtand Meadow Hay .ti 2 15 to £3 0
New Meadow Hay 3 0 3 5
Useful Old Ditto 3 5 3 15
Fine Upland Meadow and ttye-grass Hay 4 0 4 5
Clover Hay (extra tine)....£s s... Generally
"tat Straw ... £1 Bto £l 101 Wheat Straw 1 10 1 13