The Sun.
London, England, 1832-05-02 00:00:00

1 Wheat.

s. to s. s. to 8. 8. to 8.
27 20 33
37 2t) 34
37 44 18 25 36 38
3(1 40 18 22 28 38
30 35 16 22 30 34
39 40 20 24 34 36
32 36 20 22 32 35
32 38 21 24 28
30 44 17 25 32 42
NtntWlCH, April 2S.

Barley. 1 Oats. 1 Beans.

Per Quarter. s. to s.
Boston — 60
Gainsborough —63
Grantham _ 57 64
52 66
Horncastle 56 63
Lincoln
Spilsby 56 60
Stamford. 55 65
York—. 5O 64

Wheat (per qr.) ... 60s 655. 70s. I.l3eans (per qr.) 375.
Barley 2ss. 325. 345. lease,34s. 38s.
Oats . 2os. 255. 275. Flour, fine (per sack) 48s. 50s

Wheat, white—.—

CANTER BU RI April 28.
58s. to fBs. to —s.
50s. to 63s Old---- —s. to —.s.
325. to Ms. Grinding.. 245. to 30s,
203. t0,28s —s. to —s.
325. to 36s ...... 38s. to 40s.
383. to 403. Grey.-- 335. to 375,

---: red-----
Barley, Malting ..--
Oats ---._
Beans ••••••••••••.....e....nr.e•
Pease -----

MANCHESTER, Apnl2B.
Wheat, per 701 b. 9s. 6cl. to 9s. 9d. Red...... 9s. Id. to 9s. 6cl.
Barley, per 601 b 5 0 5 6 Oats 3 9 4 ()
Beans, per Imperial quarter
Pease, White, per Imperial bushel 5 0 3 6
Malt, per 6 Imperial bushels 4'2 0 48 0
Flour, per Sack of 2801 b. 45 0 52 0

EXETER .IAR
Beef (5c0re).....,.-Ss Cd. 94 6d.
Hutton (1b.).,.......-0 50 0 6
Veal and amb—.....0 6 0 7
Pori; 0 4 0 6
Geese (each) 0 5 6
Ducks 'counie\ 4 0 5 0
Fowls 0 4 0

KETS —April '27.
Wheat (bushel) ...Bs. Od. Bs. 0,1,
Barley 4 6 4 9
Oats ' 3 2 5
Beans _ 5 6 6 0
Miner 0 1 3
Eggs (12) 0 1 0
Potatoes (peck) 6 0 7

IRISH MA
DUBLIN MARKET NO'i

,RKETS.
TE.—FRIDAY, April 27.
From To Average,
646 Wheat, per barrel 20 stone 26 0 34 6 31 2
0 lime l6 stone 0 0 0
_ .

17 Barley l6 stone) 14 0
2,976 Oats 12 stone 9 0
13,757 Cwt. 9 stone 7 0
635 Oatmeal 8 stone 9 0
Sold to Rakers only.
12,149 Cwt. Flour l5 0 1 21 0
Average price of Wheat and Flour 455. Od. per
..--.
Receipts of Flour, 11, 7 from 19s. Od.
Sales of Do. 13,757 Firsts,
13 /Seconds . from 153 Od.
s from 7.. Od
.

o
o
12 0 10 5
21 0 1 0 0
14 0 1 10 2

Quartern Loaf,

I 17 9:!_i
sack.

PRICE OF BREAD.
...«..B%d. I Half Quartem.

to 21s. Od
to 18s. Od.
to 11s Oct.

1
Wheat, Barley. Oats. Flour, per cwt.
per barrel per barrel per barrel ~..--...-4,-.—...,,
20 stone. 16 stone. 14 stone. Ist. 22.
8. d. as. d. s. d. as. d. s. d. as. d. s. d. as. d. s. d. as. .1.
Cork ............ 250 296 120 150 90 109 15 0 18 5 0 15 0
Limerick 127 6 30 0 13 0 14 Of 12 0 13 616 0 190 00 15'0
Waterfordl26 0 290 130 15 0111 0 120 17 0 19 010 0 16 0
Clonmel —129 4 300 120 16 011:3 6 139 17 0 19 0 13 0 16 0
Carlow —127 0 29 014 0 15 61 9 0 10 020 6 21 0 0 0 0 0
— ----=
Beef, Mutton, Pork, Butter.
per lb, per lb. per cwt. Ist. 22. 3d. 4th. sth
---- — -
d. a d. d. a d. s. d. as. d. s. d. s. d. s. d. s. d. s. d.
Cork ---,Ai 634 529 0 32 0840800 68 0 59 'l4B 0
Limerick.. 3 434 434 0 35 0.80 0720 64 056 018 0
Waterford 3 6 3 532 0 38 0199 080070066 0 60 0
Clonmel 4 5 5 6 330 36 6178 0750--0 —. 0 0
Carlow.--4 540 0 00 0 018) 0750650 55 0 0

KILKENNY.—Butter —s to —s. per cwt. ; Wheat 255. to 28s.
rer barrel; Flour 2.05. to 345. per bag; Oats Ps. to 10s. per bar.
rel; B4rley 13s. to 15s. ; Beef 4d. to 5.1. per lb. ; Mutton 4d,
to sd. ; Potatoes 2d per stone; Coals Is. 2d. per cwt.; Bacon,
Pigs 325. to 335. per cwt.

THE CONSOLIDATED FUND AND THE
ANTI-REFORM PEERS.—In the annual Finance Accounts
for 1831, we find the following names, with the amount of
pensions and annuities affixed, paid out of the Consolidated
Fund in Great Britain and Ireland, and of the charges
which have accrued during the same time:--
Payment. Charge.
£ 5, d.
Duke of Cumberland 13,500 0 0
Prince George 6,001 0 0
Dukeof Gloucester 14,000 0 0
Duchess of Gloucester
Princess Sophia of Gloucester 7,000 0 0 .
Duke of Wellington
5,889 19 6
Earl of Eldon 4,000 0 0
Lord Rodney 2,923 1 6
Lord lonthermere
Lord Exmouth 2,000 0 0
-
Lord Beresford 1,500 0 0
Lord Colchester
3,00. „ A
Lord Sidmouth 3,000 0 0 -
Lord Bexley 3,000 0 0 ...... 3,000 0 0
Lord Wynford 3,750 0 0
Lord Lyndhurst
VITALITY OF SEEDS.—On boring for water
lately at a spot near Kingston-upon-Thames, some earth
was brought up from a depth of 360 feet ; this earth was
carefully covered over with a hand-glass to prevent the
possibility of any other seeds being deposited upon it.;
yet, in a short time, plants vegetated from it. If quick
lime be put upon laud, which from time immemorial has
produced nothing but heather, the heather ivil be kill'il,
and white clover spring up in its place.—Jesse.

Mr. WAKEFIELD, jun., on behalf of the defendant.
showed cause against the rule for a criminal information.
It would he in the remembrance of their Lordships that
when Sir Charles Wetherell moved for the rule for the
criminal information, that Learned Counsel read the
libellous matter complained of, and, therefore, he, Mr.
Wakefield, would not trouble the Court by reading it
again, the more especially as he intended to confine him-
self, to a few remarks upon the affidavit, of Mr. Samuel
Thomas Adams, which bad been read in support of the
rule. Mr. Adams stated that in 1810, he was Co-
roner for the Verge of the Palace of St. James, and
that the inquest on the body of Sellis was held before
him ; that it was not true that Lard Ellenborough
undertook to mannage the affair by arranging the proceed-
ings of that inquest. He denied that any witness had been
previously examined by Lord Ellenborouah, or that the
first Jury had been dismissed because of their refusal to
return a verdict. He denied that each juryman was con-
nected with the Government; that it was not true that
any person was omitted as a witness, whose evidecce was
material to the investigation. He deposed that when
&Cis died hie was required to hold the inquest; that by
the statute of the 23d of Henry VIII. it was provided,
that in case of death happening in any of the King's palaces
and, an inquest necessary to be held, the Jury should be
composed of 12 yeomen and officers of the King's household ;
that he issued an order for the attendance of twelve yeomen
and officers of the household ; but, 'believing that it was
important that the investigation should be conducted in
the most impartial manner, he took upon himself to coun-
termand the order, and assembled a Jary of persons who
lived at a distance, and were wholly unconnected with the
Palace of St. James ; that his summoning officer ap-
plied to Francis Place, of Charing-cross, mercer, for the
names of persons who were eligible to compose a jury ;
and that out of such persons an impartial jury, of which
Francis Place was the foreman, assembled on the Ist of
June, 1810, to hold the inquest; that the Court was
thrown open to the public, and all persons who chose were
admitted without distinction, among whom were several re-
porters, who took notes of the proceedings ; that the whole of
the depositions were taken by John Reid, the then Chief
Magistrate of police, and they were read over to the wit-
nesses, who were severally asked if they had any thing
to add to them ; that all the circumstances were most
impartially scrutinized by the Jury, and every person was
called who could give the slightest information respecting the
case; that the Jury went to the apartment where the body
of Sellis was discovered, and carefully examined it, and all
other circumstances touching Seilis's death ; that he locked
the doors of the apartment, and would not permit the po-
sition of the body to be disturbed until it was examined
by the Jury; that the Jury unanimously returned a ver-
dict that the deceased, Joseph &Ili., voluntarily and felo-
niously murdered himself; that the proce,dings were in
all respects regular, except that the Jury were not com-
posed of yeomen and officers of the King's household ; that
the verdict was a just, true, and honest verdict; and that
there was not the smallest ground to allege the contrary.
'fee first remark which be should have to submit to the
Court upon that affidavit was one which would not be
denied, viz. that a person applying to their Lordships for
such an extraordinary proceeding as a criminal informa-
tion should be prepared to deny all the charges in the libel,
and that however high the illustrious prosecutor in this
case was in rank, still he was bound to adhere to that
general principle. Now it would be perceived that in-
stead of there being a complete denial in this affidavit of
all the charges relative to the inquest on Sells, there was
one point which had been substantiated instead of con-
tradicted. He alluded to the fact of two juries having
been summoned on the inquest in question. That differ-
ence would certainly be no justification of the libel, for he
admitted that it was a most atrocious libel, but the affidavit
was contradictory iu itself; it professed that a jury was
summoned in the most impartial manner, but it stated
that two juries were summoned, and it gave no reason for
departing from the Act of Parliament for regulating those
cases. The coroner had summoned parties on the jury
who were expressly abut out by the Act of Parliament
from being on juries on such occasions ; therefore an
ig-
norant person like the defendant might suppose there was
some reason to believe that the proceedings were not fair.
The Coroner said lie applied to Mr. Place, a man's-mercer
at Charing-cross: he (Mr. Wakefield) did not know
who Mr. Place was, but certainly he was not the
Coroner, and therefore he bad no right to summon a jury
or to furnish a list of the jury to the Coroner. He would
therefore leave it to the Court to say whether Mr. Adams
was correct in saying that what he did was for the pur-
pose of having a fair and impartial investig akin. He flew
in the face of the Act of Parliament, and by his own shew-
ing he substantiated the fact of his having summoned two
juries. Again Mr. Adams swore that it was the
Act of the 23d of Henry the Eighth, by which he was
required to hold inquests within the verge of the
palace ; instead of which it was the 33d of Henry the
Eighth, which was another proof of the looseness both
of his affidavit and his mode of proceeding. He had no
business whatever to send to Mr. Piece, and Mr. Place had
no business to take the part he did upon that occasion. The
Learned Counsel submitted, therefore, that their Lordships
should have the affidavit of Mr. Place, detailing what had
-aiccurred, with a view of corroborating the evidence of the '
Coroner, who by his own affidavit was capable of com-
mitting very gross errors. As to the inquest itself, it would
not be difficult to show that it could be quashed even at
this distance of time, and if Sellis had had any personal
good , and an application made to the Court of Exchequer,
it would not only be quashed, but the Cot oner might be
proceeded against for a breach of his duty, and he would
have to change places with the press nt defendant. The
inquest would be illegal on another point. The 28th of
Henry VIII., chap. 12, stated that the jury should be
chosen from the verge of the Court, and it pointed out the
limits to designate the verge of the Court, which was then
sitting at Whitehall. In the present case the Court was
held at St. James's, and it was quite clear that the verge
of the Court con d not be the same at St. James's as at
Whitehall. He had now done with his remarks respecting
the Jury as it was called, but which he called Mr. Place's
junta. He would now address himself to the general reasons
why the present application should not be granted, and he
would refer their Lordships to the case of the King v. Robin-
son, reported in the Ist Blackstone, in which Lord Mansfield
stated his reasons fur not granting and for granting criminal '
informations, Ist, as to the merits of the parties applying,
and 2dly, as to the ti ne of the application. Now, as to
the time of the application, he (Mr. Wakefield) was not
sure whether it was intended to refer to the cause of the
publication, or the period of publishing the libel; but both
circumstances should he taken into consideration in such a
case as this, the gravamen of which was the raking up of
old stories, which, if revived, would lead to bad conse-
quences. The period of 22 years should be considered before
their Lordships permitted the Royal prosecutor to drag a
gllo
eo d
w,
obuultdonnotwherecfrrttroaryt,hmight
ddaoviat veorfy st7eioduesfeenvdila.o—t,
party before the public for a cause which could do no public
Josiah Phillips, of No. 13, Wellington-street, Strand, who
stated that he was printer and publisher of a book, entitled
" Authentic Records of the C airt of England for the last
Seventy Years ;" that since the rule nisi bad
been obtained at the instance of his Royal High-
ness the Duke of Cumberland against him for a cri-
minal information he had been informed by the affidavits
filed that certain parts of that book, from pages 93 to
105, contained various libels ; that be was ignorant they
were so ; that he was only 22 years cf age ; that the cir-
cumstance=, as therein detailed, had, as he had believed,
Ita and
taken place, and that he published them as such ; that
that part purporting to be a deposition of a witness then
in the service of the Duke of Cumberland was given to
trim for publication,
truthai ese; inotonb:avt andlitvhien that l i
persona
int h e
the
albelievedsuetirevdi
service
etto
of was‘vat
wasmade named
naKmi
ne gd
Jew, to
elicit hre p
of Belgium, and consequently he was deprived of that
f,eheolsinegtratnowsaacrtdiosnshNis R
v
itla Highness,
ighhuntestshatnelviaevr
person's assistance ; that he was actuated by no hostile
inhgavrinegadseaecn_
him in his life, nor heard of him, except as relating to
ccounts respecting them in the newspapers for a long time
hack, and no proceedings having been instituted against
those publications, he considered that his publishing them
might tend to get the whole matter cleared up, and there-
fore he inserted them in his book, having received them
from persons whom he considered credible, and not for
the purposes of slander, or of wounding the feelings of

Sir C. WETHERELL then rose for the purpose of making
a few observations in answer to what had fallen from his
Learned Friend. It was impossible for him not to notice—
Lord TENTERDEN—The Court considers, Sir Charles,
that nothing has been offered to it which at all justifies the
libel. The rule, therefore, must be made absolute.
Sir C. WETHERELL observed, that his Learned Friend,
who had spoken last, had stated that the present proceed-
ing could not go on consistently with the dignity and cha-
racter of his Royal Highness. Now, in his opinion, if his
Royal Highness was not to proceed with it, the high sta-
tion he held would be tarnished, and he would lose the
dignity of his character as a Royal Duke and as a gentle-
man ; but by proceeding with it, his dignity, if possible,
was increased, and his determination shown to put a stop
to such infamous libels as the present. His Learned Friend
had said that degradation would be the consequence of
going on with it; to his (Sir C. W.'s) mind it was per-
fectly clear that degradation would be the result of not
going on with it. It had also been said that the proceed-
ing further with this prosecution would be the means of
increasing such libels; that was a complete falacy, for lie
(Sir C. W.) did not believe that a British public would
persevere in such atrocious and scandalous calumnies when
they fully examined the facts on which the present infor-
mation was founded. His Learned Friend had concluded
his address to the Court with that which his ingenuity had
disguised, but which he (Sir C. W.) must say was a threat,
that if his Royal Highness dared, as a Prince of the House
of Brunswick, to come into a Court of Justice to claim that
which the lowest subject of the country was entitled to,
that his dignity as a Prince would be let down, and that
be would merit and obtain an accumulated load of ca-
lumny, insult, and reproach. He must tell his friend that
the Counsel for his Royal Highness thought differently.
His Royal Highness, acting under that advice, instead of
calling, as he might have done, as a Prince of the Royal
blood, upon the Attorney-General to proceed against the
parties by ex-officio information, had treated this case as a
private individual, and had come into that Court, and
claimed from the administrators of justice of the country
the same protection for his character as was given to the
lowest of the King's subjects. That course his Royal
Highness had been advised by his Counsel to take, and that
course he had adopted.
Lord TENTERDEN—Sir Charles Wetherell, the Court
has before intimated that it saw no reason for pursuing a
different course in this case to what it does in others.
The rule must be made absolute, for nothing has been
offered in justification of the libel. As to the summoning
of the Jury, that was a subject over which his Royal
Highness could have no control.
Sir C. WETHERELL bowed to the decision of the Court,
but he trusted their Lordships would pardon him if he
made some further observations. The defendant, under
the cover of showing cause against making the rule abso-
lute, had aggravated the libel, and had held out threats to
to his Royal Highness.
Mr. WAKEFIELD, jun., observed that the observations
he had made were not intended to convey any threat to-
wards his Rival Highness.
Sir C. WETHERELL knew perfectly well that his
Learned Friend had no Intention of doing it, he did not
charge him with it; hut the persons who had nut in his
hand the affidavit which hail been read, hail done is.
They had thrown out a threat, that if his Royal Highness
attempted to continue these proceedings that his dignity
would be degraded, and that he would obtain an addi-
tional load of calumny, insult, and reproach. He (Sir C.
W.), on the part of his Royal Highness, treated that threat
with ineffable contempt, and he would tell those who had
instructed his Learned Friend, that that threat would have
no effect whatever in deterring his Royal Highness, who
had as high a spirit as any Member of the Boise of Bruns-
wick, from carrying these proceedings to the extent the
law allowed. Those who interfered to intimidate the
Duke of Cumberland, or any branch of the House of
Brunswick, by such b ise, miserable, and contemptibh
threats, would find that coinage was not wanting in any
Member of that 11.-yal House to bring a libeller like the
present to the punishment that he deserved, and that
doing so it would not. And by accumulating upon him
base and mis, sable libels, they would find that his Royal
Highness had courage enough to bring such lihdlers to
the bar of that Court, and to visit upon them the full
punishment which every subject had a right to require.
Lord TENTERDEN—The rule must be made absolute.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

MANSION-HOUSE.

A person named Smith, who formerly carried on
a respectable business in Fenchurch-street, but whom
misfortunes had reduced to the condition of a can-
didate for parochial relief, complained that, on ap-
plying to his parish for further relief, he had received,
to use his own words, an order for the perpetual
imprisonment of himself and his whole family.
The following is a copy of this parochial lettre-de-
cachet :
" To Mr. D. Showell—Sir, please to receive into your
house Thomas W. Smith, with wife and five children the
whole or none, and I have to request you will not let
them out of the house without my order, or that of the
senior churchwarden, Mr. Mills.

" Sighed "CHARLES JONES,
" Churchwarden, All Hallows, Staining."
The MAGISTRATE remarked that he did not think
this letter quite legal ; but the beadle said the parish
had relieved the applicant so often, they had got
quite tired.
The man said it was impossible to accept relief
on the terms in the letter, and withdrew.
1Y OR S lIIP-S TREE T.

Yesterday Mr. H. Raystcn, a young gentleman
residing in Pool-street, Hackney, was brought be-
fore Mr. TWYFORD by his wife, under the following
charge :—The complainant, who had an infant in
her arms, and with tears in her eyes, stated that on
that morning she and a female friend went to Black-
friars-road to purchase some articles. On their re-
turn, and on crossing the bridge, her friend stopped
to speak to a gentleman who met them ; dunng
which time her husband unexpectedly came up, and,
to her utter astonishment, passed her without speak-
ing a word. On her returning home she found him
waiting for her,
.and when she expressed some sur-
prise at his strange conduct, he struck her a violen.
blow on the face, which knocked her down; afrt-r
which he broke a handsome mahogany table, a look-
ing-glass, all the plates in the kitchen, besides
chest of drawers and other articles, and again bru-

It appeared that Mrs. Deane is " tverry fond of
a pipe of baccy," which her husband is averse to on
the score of ungentility. On Monday night hek
husband went out, and she determined to enjoy her-
self. She put on a suit of his clothes, and weut to
a public-house, where she drank and smoked like
any coalheaver ; until at length her frequent appli-
cation to the jug of mixed beer and gin set her fa-
culties astray, and she with great volubility Com-
menced a disquisition on the rights of women, in
the course of which she provoked fierce replies from
several coalheavers. They at last found out she was
a woman, and a cry was raised that she had come
as a spy on their actions. Words and blows next
ensued, in the handling of each of which Mrs. Deane
showed herself an adept. A policeman at length put
a stop to the disturbance.

Vie fair defendant said, " as how she was sorry
for her lark," and the magistrates delivered her to
her husband, who said, that " he'd larn her to rear
his briches again, and he'd cure her'of blowing a
gale."