The Sun.
London, England, 1832-11-12 00:00:00

the system of delusion which the Holy Allies
were practising, all manner of taunts and sneers,
and a liberal portion of coarse invective, were
levelled at us, for daring to bring into suspicion
the earnest and sincere desire of the Holy Allies
to co-operate with England in bringing the
Belgic question to a peaceable and speedy settle-
ment. There is not now a man in England
who does not know that our Government was
the dupe and tool of the Holy Alliance, who,
underhand, encouraged the King of Holland to
resist the Belgic claims as they encouraged the
Pope to resist the claims of his subjects, while,
during 15 months, not one of the political im-
provements suggested in the memorandum of
the Five Powers was adopted. We say again,
our Government acted wisely in withdrawing
from the Roman Conference under such circum-
stances ; and if it had withdrawn from the Lon-
don Conference a year ago it would not have
been led into the rash and foolish engagements
in which it is now entangled.—Morn. Herald.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Nov. 10.

CRIMINAL I NFORM ATION.-EX-PART E THE EARL OF

LONSDALE.

Sir JAMES SCARLETT, on behalf of the Earl of
Lonsdale, applied to the Court for a rule Nisi for
filing a criminal information against a Mr. Taylor
(as we understood), the proprietor and publisher of
a newspaper called the Packet, or the Whitehaven
Packet, for publishing in that paper at various times,
and particularly in August last, two separate libels
upon his Lordship. The Earl of Lonsdale, in the
affidavit on which he made the present application,
stated that the affairs of the harbour of Whitehaven
were managed, under Acts of Parliament, by twenty-
one trustees, of which his Lordship bail the ap-
pointment of six, another individual of one, and the
rest were chosen by a certain body of the towns-
men by ballot. His Lordship positively swore that
be did not exercise any improper or corrupt influ-
ence in the appointment of the trustees, or in di-
recting them as to the application of the revenues
of the harbour. These revenues amounted to 6,0001.
per annum, and his Lordship swore he had never
diverted any part of the money from its proper
object, nor applied it to his own use and be-
nefit, except that he took for the use of a stone
quarry a rent below that which he could have got
from other quarters. These denials went directly to
contradict the charges in one of the libels, which
was, that Lord Lonsdale had used improper influ-
ence in the appointment of the trustees, and had, by
that and other means, diverted a great proportion
of the harbour revenues from their proper purpose,
arid applied them to his own private use and benefit,
to the amount of 50,0001. As to the other libel,
his Lordship stated that an ancient lease (1742) of
some charity lands had come into his possession,
which land was surrounded by his own coal lands ;
and that he had, in 1819, sunk a shaft in the charity
field, and wrought a seam of coal there. This was
no injury to the charity, but rather a benefit. Some
few years ago the Attorney-General filed an infor-
mation in Chancery relative to this charity field and
other lands in the occupation or possession of his Lord-
ship, and prayed for an account. To this his Lord-
ship made no opposition, but immediately rendered
his accounts, arid the moment that he found that
there was any doubt about the matter he referred it
to the Attorney-General himself, to say what he
ought to pay, arid he did immediately pay the money
into Court. Now the second libel charged his Lord-
ship with having converted money belonging to the
charity to his own u.se, to the extent of 200,0001.
All these charges Lord Lonsdale distinctly denied.
LORD CHIEF JUSTICE—Take a rule to show
cause.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. 10.

FREEMAN V. M ITFORD .

Mr. WHITMORE showed cause against a rule ob-
tained to discharge the defendant out of custody,
on the ground that she was a married woman. The
plaintiff, in the affidavits tiled against the rule, ad-
mitted that the defendant had not actually repre-
sented herself as a married woman; but he denied
all the other statements made in the affidavits on
which the rule had been obtained. He stated that
in May, 1830, she had come to his shop at Wor•
tester, and had applied to him to supply her with
goods to furnish a house she had recently taken at
Great-Morven. She was then accompanied by her
daughter, a most respectable married lady, whose
name the Learned Counsel forbore to mention; and

the plaintiff had at once consented to supply her
with goods, and had done so to the amount of
571. He now distinctly swore that during the
time he was supplying her with these goods he be-
lieved her to be a widow. There were also affida-
vits of other tradesmen, speaking as to their having
believed that the defendant was a widow, and their
having trusted her under that impression.
Mr. WILSON, in support of the rule, contended
that the plaintiff was bound to make some inquiry
before he furnished the goods; and that the fact of
the daughter ought to have shown the plaintiff that
the lady was, or had been married.—Rule absolute.

-BANKRUPTCY COURT, Nov. 10.

JOY'S BANKRUPTCY.

Mr. BLACKMORE appeared for the bankrupt.
Mr. Clarke, the official assignee, in reply to a
question from the Court, had not been enabled to
elicit much further actual information relative to the
sum claimed (about 500/0 by John Geale, head
waiter at Joy's Hotel, but that, in all probability,
the information would be ready at the meeting for
the dividend.

The COMMISSIONER wished to know whether the
outrageous usury alleged against the waiter was
matter of fact ?—Mr. Clarke replied, certainly; 10
and 15 per cent. had been frequently exacted, and
even more. He had procured from the claimant an
acknowledgment to this effect.
The COMMISSIONER would never sanction illegal
usury, and the present appeared to him a most atro-
cious instance ; the claimant acknowledged to the
exaction of 10 and 15 per cent.; and, not content
with lending his own money to his master at this
monstrous interest, he gets his friends to advance
further sums, dividing the enormous interest he
exacts first with them.
Mr. Clarke had learnt that, in three years alone,
the claimant had exacted 3871. excess of interest
from his unfortunate master.
The COMMISSIONER expressed his indignation at
such conduct, and assured Mr. Geale that he would
get no claim allowed by him.
Mr. Caldron proved debts to the amount of
2661. ss. 4.1.
Mr. Andree to the amount of 71. 13s.
Mr. Chaffers claimed 1301. on three bills for 501.
each, which he said had come to him through an
intermediate channel ; 201. had been paid, which he
had deducted.
This claim was met with some discussion. Mr. Joy
had paid the claimant personally interest on those
and other bills at the rate of 10, 15, and 20 per
He (Mr. Joy) had paid him money for inte-
rest at this illegal rate over and over again. He had
no witness to prove it, but could swear it.
In compliance with the wishes of the assignees,
the further examination into this case was adjourned
to Saturday, the 24th instant, at one o'clock.

The example of something like contumacy
exhibited by Earl GUILFORD, in refusing to answer the
queries submitted to the clergy of the Established Church,
has not been followed, we are informed, in any one in-
stance. The Bishop of LONDON has been particularly
anxious that the fullest information should be furnished by
every beneficed clergyman in his diocese to the Church
omm►ssioners. The returns are now nearly completed,
and afford—at least we have heard so—a complete refuta•
tion of the Ultra-radical assertions as to the extent of Church
property.—Court Journal.