[[189]]solicit me to make a full disclosure of all the improper transactions to which I might have been made a party upon this solemn subject. I declined many times, but at length conceded, under a binding engagement that I should not be left destitute of comforts or abridged of my liberty; and, under special engagements to preserve me from such results, I have given my deposition."

(Signed) "JEW."

The fact of two juries being summoned has been acknowledged by the coroner, in his affidavit before the Court of King's Bench in April last. The affidavit of this gentleman, however, contains so many errors, that we here introduce an exposition of it, as given by the talented D. Wakefield, esq., in shewing cause against the rule being made absolute in the case of "Cumberland v. Phillips."

"Mr. Wakefield said it would be in the recollection of the court, that this was a rule obtained by Sir Charles Wetherell, for a libel contained in a publication relating to his royal highness the Duke of Cumberland. He would not read the alleged libel in detail now, but confine himself first to the affidavit of Samuel Thomas Adams, the coroner who had held the inquest on Sellis. It was necessary that he should read the affidavit, as he had to offer several remarks upon it."

The learned counsel then read the affidavit, as follows:

In the King's Bench.

"Samuel Thomas Adams of No 9 Davis street Berkeley square in the County of Middlesex solicitor maketh oath and saith that he hath seen a certain book or publication entitled "The Authentic

[[190]]Records of the Court of England for the last Seventy Years" purporting to be published in London by J. Phillips 334 Strand 1832 and that in the said book or publication are contained the following statements or passages which this deponent has read that is to say—"

[Here the deponent, lawyer-like, set out the whole of the pretended libel, as published in the "Authentic Records," for the purpose of putting us to all the expense and trouble possible.]

"And this deponent further saith that he was coroner for the verge of the King's Palace at St. James's in the month of June one thousand eight hundred and ten before whom the inquest on the body of Joseph Sellis referred to in the aforesaid passages extracted from the said book or publication was held and that it is not true as stated in the aforesaid passages that Lord Ellenborough undertook to manage the affair by arranging the proceedings upon the said inquest or that every witness or as this deponent believes any witness was previously examined by the said Lord Ellenborough or that the first jury for the reasons in the aforesaid passages alleged or for any other reasons refused to return a verdict in consequence of which they were dismissed and a second jury summoned and empannelled to whom severally a special messenger had been sent requesting their attendance and each of whom was directly or indirectly connected with the court or the government. And this deponent further saith that it is not true that any person was omitted as a witness whose evidence was known or could be suspected to be material but on the contrary this deponent saith that when the death of the said Joseph Sellis was notified to him he as such coroner as aforesaid was required to hold an inquest on the body of the said Joseph Sellis and that it being required by a statute passed in the twenty-third year of Henry the Eighth chapter twelve that in case of death happening in any of the king's palaces or houses where his majesty should then happen to be and in respect of which death an inquest should be necessary that the jury on such inquest should be composed of twelve or more of the yeoman officers of the king's household to be returned in the manner therein particularly mentioned he this deponent in the first instance issued as such coroner as aforesaid an order that a jury should be summoned composed of the said yeoman officers of the king's household pursuant to the directions of the said statute. But