1810

was ushered in under distressing and unsatisfactory circumstances. The royal family were divided amongst themselves, and every branch seemed to have a separate interest. Under these circumstances, it was not a matter of surprise that truth was now and then elicited; for it is a veritable saying, that "when rogues fall out, honest men are gainers."

The king was at this time labouring under a severe attack of mental aberration: the situation of the country, his children, and his own peculiar sorrows, made impressions on his mind of the most grievous description.

In a former work of our's, called "The Authentic Records of the Court of England," we gave an account of the extraordinary and mysterious murder of one Sellis, a servant of the Duke of Cumberland, which occurred this year. In that account, we did

[[157]]what we conceived to be our duty as historians,—we spoke the TRUTH! The truth, however, it appears, is not always to be spoken; for his royal highness instantly commenced a persecution against us for a "malicious libel." We say persecution, because almost every person is aware, that filing a criminal information against an individual can be done only with a view of preventing the exposure of truth, which, though such procedure be according to English law, cannot be reconciled with the original intention of law, namely—to do justice both to the libelled and the libeller! In America, no such monstrosities disgrace the statute-book; for there, if any person be accused of scandalum magnatum, and can prove the truth of what he has stated, he is honorably acquitted. Yet as we are not in America, but in England,—the boasted land of liberty,—we must, forsooth, be seized as criminals, merely because we wish to institute an inquiry into the circumstances of the murder of an individual, whose assassin, or assassins, have hitherto escaped the slippery hands of justice! We are no cowards in regimentals, nor did we make our statement with a view of slandering the royal pensioner. We would have willingly contended with his royal highness in a court of law, if he had had the courage to have met us on fair grounds. At the time we write this, we know not what the judgment of Lord Tenterden,—we beg his lordship's pardon, we should have said the court,—may be; but, whatever the punishment awarded, we hope to meet it with that fortitude which never fails to uphold a

[[158]]man "conscious of doing no wrong!" If the Duke of Cumberland, however, imagines he can intimidate us from speaking the truth OUT OF COURT, he has mistaken us. We are not, as we said in our first work, to be prevented from doing whatever we conceive to be our duty. Though it may not be in our power to prove who was the murderer, the very suspicious circumstances attending the death of poor Sellis fully warrant renewed inquiry.

Passing over the various reports in circulation at the time of the murder, we proceed to notice the very contradictory evidence brought forward at the inquest. That we may not be accused of partiality, we take the report of this judicial proceeding from that Tory organ, "The Morning Post," which, it will be observed, deals out its abuse with no unsparing hand on the poor murdered man, whom it calls by the charitable appellation of villain, and sundry other hard names, which had better suited the well-known characters of other persons, who acted a prominent part in this foul business. After a few unmeaning preliminaries had been performed,

"Mr. Adams addressed the jury, and informed them of the violent attack that had been made upon the Duke of Cumberland; and that there was very little doubt but it was done by the deceased. He stated, the circumstances had been fully investigated by the privy council on Thursday, and that the depositions of the numerous witnesses had been taken before Mr. Justice Read, which he should read to them; after which the witnesses would be called before them, and the depositions would also be read to them, when they would have an opportunity of altering or enlarging, and the jury could put any question to them they thought fit."

In this address, some of the privileges of royalty

[[159]]are explained. Because the murder had been committed in a palace, the privy council must examine the witnesses before they may be allowed to meet the jury, and their depositions taken by a justice, under the influence of the suspected party. The coroner may then tell the jury that there was very little doubt of the deceased person having attempted his master's life, and afterwards cutting his own throat to avoid detection. Merciful heaven! can this be called an impartial administration of justice? Are such careful proceedings ever adopted in the case of a poor man? To be sure, the jury were told they might ask any question they thought fit; but is it to be supposed that, after the INQUIRIES they had undergone, the witnesses would let slip any thing likely to criminate themselves or their royal master?

"The first affidavit that was read was that of his royal highness the Duke of Cumberland, which stated, that about half-past two o'clock on Thursday morning he received two violent blows and cuts on his head; the first impression upon his mind was, that a bat had got into the room, and was beating about his head; but he was soon convinced to the contrary by receiving a third blow. He then jumped out of bed, when he received several more blows; from the glimmering light afforded from a dull lamp in the fire-place, and the motion of the instrument that inflicted the wounds, they appeared like flashes of lightning before his eyes. He made for a door near the head of his bed, leading to a small room, to which the assassin followed him, and cut him across his thighs. His royal highness not being able to find his alarm-bell, which there is no doubt the villain had concealed, called with a loud voice for Neale (his valet in waiting) several times, who came to his assistance; and Neale, together with his royal highness, alarmed the house."

The blows of the assassin must have indeed been

[[160]]slight to resemble "a bat beating about the head of his royal highness;" but we cannot understand how the cut of a sword can bear any similarity to the beating of a little animal, like a bat! Poor Sellis, however, was but a little man, and his weak arm might be still more enfeebled by the consciousness of his ingratitude in attacking so kind and liberal a master! Sellis had been the duke's page, or valet, for more than five years, in daily, nay, almost hourly, personal communication with him; and it must, therefore, appear very strange, if Sellis was really the assassin, that his master did not recognise him! If the room was so dark that the duke could not see the person attacking him, it is singular that the assassin could see to strike his royal highness, as he did by "cutting him across his thighs, after he was out of bed!" As the supposed murderer followed the duke, who thought it best to take to his heels, we think his royal highness should have stated whether he meant his thighs in front or behind; but, of course, an examination of the scars would soon set this matter at rest! They would, no doubt, be found behind, as it is unreasonable to suppose that, in a dark room, the pursuer could have cut at the pursued in front. The Duke of Cumberland is a field-marshal, and a BRAVER man, IT IS SAID, never entered the FIELD; but in a dark room, with a man little more than half his weight, it would have been cowardly to fight, particularly as his royal highness might, IF HE HAD SO WISHED, have taken the weapon out of Sellis' hand, and broken it about his

[[161]]head. No! no! the Duke of Cumberland knew what was due to his honour better than to take so mean an advantage of a weak adversary, and therefore coolly endeavoured to ring his bell, that a more suitable antagonist might be procured in his valet Neale!

"Cornelius Neale, sworn.—He said he was valet to the Duke of Cumberland, and that he was in close waiting upon his royal highness on Wednesday night, and slept in a bed in a room adjoining the duke's bed-room. A little before three o'clock, he heard the duke calling out, 'Neale, Neale, I am murdered, and the murderer is in my bed-room!' He went immediately to his royal highness, and found him bleeding from his wounds. The duke told him the door the assassin had gone out at; he armed himself with a poker, and asked if he should pursue him. The duke replied 'no,' but to remain with him. After moving a few paces, he stepped upon a sword; and, although in the dark, he was convinced it was covered with blood; it proved to be the duke's own regimental sword. The duke and witness then went to alarm the house, and got a light from the porter. The duke was afraid the murderer was still in his bed-room. His royal highness was obliged to lean upon him from the loss of blood, and he gave directions that no person should be let out of the house. They called up the witness' wife, who is the housekeeper, and told her to call Sellis. He then returned with the duke to his bed-room. At that time the duke was very faint from the great loss of blood. Upon examining the premises they found, in a second adjoining small room, a pair of slippers with the name of Sellis on them, and a dark lantern. The key of the closet was in the inside of the lock, and, to his knowledge, the key had not been in that state for ten years. He had reason to believe the wounds of the duke had been given by a sword. Sellis took out the duke's regimentals some time since, and put them by again, but left out the sword upon a sofa for two or three days. It is the same sword which he trod upon, and it was in a bloody state.

"The foreman of the jury, (Mr. Place, of Charing Cross) asked the witness if he thought the deceased had any reason to be dissatisfied with the duke. He replied, on the contrary, he thought Sellis had more reason to be satisfied than any other of the servants; his royal highness had stood godfather for one of his children, the

[[162]]Princess Augusta godmother. The duke had shown him very particular favour by giving him apartments for his wife and family, with coals and candles.

"A juryman asked him if he ever heard the deceased complain of the duke. The witness asked if he was obliged to answer that question. The coroner informed him he must. He then stated that about two or three years since the duke advanced their board wages from 10s. 6d. a week to 14s., but at the same time took off 3s. 6d., allowed for travelling. After this regulation was adopted, a paper was drawn up by the steward for the servants to sign, expressing their satisfaction at the regulation, which the deceased refused to sign, and said, 'he'd be d—d if he did, and none but blackguards would sign it.' The steward told him the duke said he must sign it, or his wife and family must quit the apartments he had given them, as the rest of the servants had signed it. He had never heard the deceased complain since. Within the last year, the duke and royal family had been extremely kind to him. He had never given him an angry word, although he had often made use of very bad language to him; if he did, he never answered him. The deceased was of a very malicious disposition. He would never be contradicted, if he began a subject, for which reason he never wished to have any conversation with him. He frequently quarrelled with Mr. Paulet, one of the duke's servants, and fought with the steward at Kew. Lately the deceased had a bad cold, and the duke was so very kind towards him in consequence, that he took him inside the carriage to Windsor. Sellis dressed the duke on Wednesday night. He had no doubt but Sellis intended that he should be charged with being the murderer, to get him out of the way."

This Neale's evidence ought to be received with great caution. He slept in the next room to the duke, and when called upon for his assistance, stated his wish to pursue the murderer with a poker; but was prevented by his master's "fear of being left alone!" In this courageous offer of Neale, however, he trampled upon a sword, which, although in total darkness, he was CONVINCED was COVERED WITH BLOOD!! We have no intention to dispute Neale's

[[163]]knowledge of this, or that "it was his master's own regimental sword!" There have been so many wonderful people who could see AS WELL IN THE DARK AS IN THE LIGHT, and describe the minutest particulars of an article as well with their EYES SHUT AS OPEN, that we ought not to be surprised at any thing! Notwithstanding, many persons WERE SURPRISED at the sagacity of Neale, not only in this, but in many other particulars. If the duke, "covered with gore, accompanied this servant to alarm the house," the traces of blood on the doors, &c., leading to Sellis' room, might be very naturally accounted for! They, however, thought it better not to call Sellis THEMSELVES, but sent Neale's wife to do it!!! Although the duke pointed out to his confidential man the door through which the villain had ESCAPED, his royal highness "felt afraid the murderer was STILL in his bed-room," which we have no reason to doubt! "A pair of slippers were left in an adjoining room, with the name of Sellis upon them." That Sellis left them there, however, is rather IMPROBABLE; because it is natural to suppose he would, if HE had been the murderer, have gone to his master's room WITHOUT SLIPPERS, or shoes of any kind, to make as little noise as possible. This circumstance, we are inclined to think, was a planned affair, though badly executed; for we know that these slippers were placed the wrong way,—a fact which will be hereafter proved. Through the whole of Neale's evidence, not a word was said to show that Sellis had the least motive for murdering either

[[164]]the duke or himself. On the contrary, "Sellis had every thing to expect from his master's living."

In concluding our remarks upon Neale's evidence, we point the attention of our readers to the last sentence: "He had no doubt but Sellis intended that he (Neale) should be charged with being the murderer, to get him out of the way!" Now, as there was not the slightest evidence to bear Neale out in this malicious assertion, we think, FOR HIS OWN SAKE, he had much better have kept the expression to himself. Some of our readers may not be aware of the cause Sellis had given this fellow-servant to hate him; but the following letter, addressed to B. C. Stephenson, Esq., written by Sellis a few months before his death, will elucidate this matter a little:

"St. James', July 9th, 1809.

"Sir,—I am extremely anxious to know his royal highness' decision concerning the evidence produced before you against Mr. Neale, and I beg you, Sir, to have the goodness to relieve me from this most disagreeable suspense. If I may, Sir, judge from appearance, either his royal highness is not acquainted with what has been proved, or his royal highness has entirely forgiven him. Should the former be the case, Sir, I hope you will have the goodness to acquaint his royal highness to the full extent of the roguery of this man; and here it may be necessary to say, that the witnesses you have examined are all of them ready to take their oaths in a court of justice, and there to assert what they have already said before you. But, Sir, should his royal highness have forgiven him, then I must be under the most disagreeable necessity to beg his royal highness to have the goodness to dispose of me as his royal highness may think proper, so that I may not have the mortification to live and act in the same room with a man I have convicted as a rogue, and with whom no human being is able to live on friendly terms. Had it been his royal highness' pleasure to have had this business in a court of justice, the man would have been transported at least for seven years; and what I am going to communicate to you now is, I believe,

[[165]]transportation for life. I have been told, Sir, that Mr. Neale cheats his royal highness in every thing he buys; in two different articles I have already ascertained this to be a fact; on the toothpicks he gains fifty per cent., by charging eighteen pence for that for which he only pays one shilling, and on the soap he charges two shillings for that which he pays eighteen pence, and should his royal highness wish me to proceed with these discoveries, it will be found that the dishonesty of this man has no bounds! The evidence you have taken, Sir, and what I have communicated to Major Thornton, with which also you must be acquainted, you must be satisfied, that this man is as great a villain as ever existed; NO OATH OR PROMISE IS BINDING WITH HIM; and he relates alike that which he must have sworn to keep sacred in his bosom, as he will a most trifling thing; and slanders and THREATENS WITH PUBLIC EXPOSURE AND LARGE DAMAGES HIS BENEFACTOR and only maker of his fortune, just as he would one of his own stamp. Sir, to serve his royal highness, I have always thought it as my greatest honour, and to serve him in any situation that his royal highness may be pleased to place me, shall always be the greatest pride of my life; but no longer can I live with this monster. I have, Sir, served his royal highness for nearly twelve years, and would rather forego all my wishes and pretensions, and beseech his royal highness to allow me permission to look out for another place. To your goodness I trust, Sir, that you will lay my case before his royal highness, and acquaint me with his royal highness' pleasure.

"I have the honour to be, Sir,

"Your most obedient and most humble servant,

"J. SELLIS."

"B. C. Stephenson, Esq."

In this letter, enough is set forth to make us receive the evidence of Neale with caution, if not to render him unworthy of belief altogether. Why the Duke of Cumberland retained Neale in his service after his peculating tricks had been discovered, and after the THREAT he held out against his royal master, we must leave our readers to discover.

"The jury proceeded to examine the bed-room of the royal duke, which they found in a most distressing and horrible state. It

[[166]]could not be discovered what his royal highness' nightcap was made of, it being completely soaked in blood; the first blow given his royal highness was providentially prevented from proving fatal, from the duke wearing a padded ribbon bandage round his cap, and a tassel, which came in contact with the sword; the bed-clothes generally were blooded; the paper of the room, the prints and paintings, the door at the head of the bed (through which his royal highness endeavoured to make his escape) was cut with the sword at the time the villain was cutting at the duke, and the dark assassin must have followed his royal highness to the door of an anti-room, which was also spotted with blood."

Supposing Sellis to be the villain here meant, the wretched means he took to accomplish the end in view were so inadequate, that it were quite impossible for him to have done all the bloody work so minutely related, from the position in which the parties were placed. The duke was in a modern high bed, his head well protected with "a padded ribbon bandage," the only vital part of him that was above the bed-clothes, and the curtains drawn around him. Sellis was not taller than the level of the bed-clothes, and yet he chose a SWORD to attack his recumbent master!!! In a contest so unequal, the duke might have annihilated Sellis in a minute.

"The jury then proceeded to the room where the corpse of the deceased villain remained. They found it with the whole of the body (except the head and feet) covered with blood; the razor which did the deed in a bloody state. The deceased's neckcloth was cut through in several places. The drawers, wash-hand basin-stand, and the basin, were also bloody."

To some people, such a state of the room may appear any thing but convincing of the guilt of Sellis; yet, to such sensible men as were on the

[[167]]jury, all confirmed the verdict afterwards recorded. Sellis, from his neckcloth having been "cut through in several places," blood being sprinkled in all parts of the room, and an appearance of some one having WASHED THEIR HANDS IN THE BASIN, MUST have been his own murderer, and consequently the assassin of the Duke of Cumberland!

"After the examination of the rooms, the jury proceeded to the investigation of the witnesses.

"Thomas Jones, a surgeon and apothecary, of the Strand, said he had attended the Duke of Cumberland's household since the year 1803. He knew the deceased well. He never saw him in a low or desponding way. The last time he had seen him was on Monday evening; he observed he was not very well, from a cold. He had seen him on the Sunday previous, when he was very anxious for the state of his child, having lately lost one. On Tuesday the child got better. He observed nothing particular about him for six weeks past, when he complained of a pain in his chest. He never complained to him of harsh treatment from the duke. He attended him four or five years since for a pain in his chest, which he said was brought on by riding on horseback. He understood he lived very happy with his wife. His wife told him it was of no use his sending physic for the pain in his chest, for he would not take it. He never observed any symptoms of derangement in him."

It will here be perceived, that Sellis was neither deranged, nor had the slightest cause for attempting his own life, or that of his master. Is it not singular, that Mr. Jones mentioned nothing about the wound in Sellis' throat, or the methodical position in which the murdered man was found? Was he permitted to examine the body? If he was not, dark suspicion must ever attend upon those who refused any medical man such a privilege; and if he did view it, why not have given his opinion of the matter?

[[168]]But this affords another proof of the unfairness of the proceedings on this inquest.

"Ann Neale, the housekeeper, said she was called up at about three o'clock on Thursday morning by her husband; at the same time she heard the duke saying, 'I am murdered.' She got up with all possible speed, and saw the duke bleeding very much in the valet's room: she went with several others to the door of the deceased, to call him; she found it fastened on the inside, and no answer was given to their calls. She and other servants went to another door, which opened to his room; as they approached the door, they heard a noise, as if a man was gargling water in his throat. The porter entered first, and he exclaimed, 'Good God! Mr. Sellis has cut his throat.' He was a very obstinate and quarrelsome man. He would not bear contradiction, not even from the duke. His royal highness and Princess Augusta stood (by proxy) to his last child. The duke was very partial to him, and allowed his family to sleep in the house. His royal highness allowed him to ride in his carriage with him, when travelling, since his illness. The Princess Elizabeth gave his wife two pieces of muslin lately. The Princess Augusta made her a present of several articles of value. The principal acquaintance the deceased had was a Mr. Greville, a servant to the Duke of Cambridge, and Mr. and Mrs. Dupree, wax-chandlers. About three weeks since, he told her Mrs. Marsh, the housekeeper to the Royal Cockpit, was dead, and that he should speak to the duke to give the place to his wife; and if he did not succeed with Lord Dartmouth for that, he should apply to him to get his wife a sinecure, as he had asked his royal highness to get him a messenger's place, but he supposed the duke did not like to part with him. She asked him about a week since if he had succeeded. And he replied, he had not yet. He and his family were in so much favour, that every court-day, when the queen came to dress at the duke's apartments for the drawing-room, Sellis' wife and children were had down for the queen and princess to see them. On the last drawing-room the child the princess stood for was had into the queen's private apartments. A special privilege was granted to Sellis of a bell being permitted to be put up, to ring him to the duke from his family's apartments. The deceased would quarrel with people sooner than give up a point."

This woman's description of the door of Sellis'

[[169]]room being fastened inside was, doubtless, thought to be a very clever affair. Guilt, however, generally betrays itself; for, instead of bursting open the door so secured, "she, and other servants, went to another door, which opened to his room," and which door WAS NOT FASTENED INSIDE! Now would not the first impulse of every person, unconscious of crime, in such a peculiar situation as this woman was placed, have rather suggested the breaking open of Sellis' door than going round to another? If both doors had been secured, the thing would have appeared a little more consistent.

"Benjamin Smith, porter to the Duke of Cumberland, said, that about a quarter before three o'clock, he was called up by the duke and Neale, who said his royal highness had been murdered. He got up, armed himself with a sword, and then called to the soldiers on guard not to suffer any person to go out of the house. He then went to call the deceased, but receiving no answer, he went to his family's apartments, and called through the key-hole. A child answered he was sleeping at the duke's. He then, with several of his fellow-servants, went to Sellis' apartments again, when, on hearing the noise in his throat, he supposed somebody else was murdered in the house. When he first saw the duke, he was covered with blood, and Neale said the duke was murdered. There had not been any quarrel between any of the servants and Sellis, to his knowledge."

This was the porter described by the last witness as having exclaimed, "Good God! Mr. Sellis has cut his throat!" There is, however, a little difference between his own statement and that of Mrs. Neale; such as his going "to his family's apartments" after "receiving no answer from Sellis," and then "returning to Sellis' apartment, when, on hearing the noise in his throat, he supposed somebody else

[[170]]was murdered!" If this man thought that Sellis cut his own throat, as stated by Mrs. Neale, what did he mean by saying, "he supposed SOMEBODY ELSE WAS MURDERED?" Do not the porter's own words imply, that Sellis had been murdered, and not that he had murdered himself? Yet the jury saw no discrepancy in the evidence!!!

"Matthew Henry Grasham, a servant of the duke's, said he armed himself with pistols upon his being called up. He was not able to find his way to Sellis' apartments by the REGULAR door, but found his way to another, when he and his two fellow-servants were afraid to enter the room on account of the groans and noise in the throat of the deceased, although he had two pistols, and another had a sword. He had been so much frightened ever since, that he had not been able to visit the room where the body lay. He considered Sellis a civil, well-behaved man. He seldom heard Neale and Sellis speak together; did not suppose he ever heard them exchange ten words together. The last time the duke went to Windsor, he took Sellis inside the coach, because he would not expose him to the morning air. He never observed Sellis to be low spirited; he did not appear so well lately as in general, in consequence of his having a cold."

This witness, it appears, although terribly alarmed, was unable to find out the regular door to Sellis' apartments, but found his way to another, more difficult of access. Now, without denying the truth of this statement, it seems rather singular that he should not have gone the way he knew best; but, from his cowardly nature, he probably followed Mrs. Neale, who appeared to know the EASIEST WAY OF GAINING ADMITTANCE TO THE CHAMBER OF HORROR. Grasham also added his testimony to almost all the other witnesses as to the amiable character of the murdered Sellis, as well as proving his perfect sanity.

[[171]]"Mr. Jackson, a surgeon.—He had examined the body of the deceased; he found the windpipe completely divided; he had seen larger wounds done by a man's own hands; the arteries on both sides were completely separated; he had no doubt but they were done by a razor, or sharp instrument; the wound was five or six inches wide, and an inch and a half deep. He had no other wound in his body, and had no doubt but his throat being cut was the cause of his death."

This was the only medical gentleman allowed to give evidence as to the state of the murdered man's wounds. We are totally unacquainted with Mr. Jackson, and cannot, therefore, be actuated by any malice towards him; neither do we wish to accuse him with interested motives when he made the above statement. But Justice asks, why was not the opinion of six medical men, at least, recorded on this very momentous head? We will, however, tell the reader why. One or two other professional persons DID examine the body of poor Sellis, and, if they had been ALLOWED TO GIVE THEIR OPINION, would assuredly have convinced every honest man of the IMPOSSIBILITY of Sellis being HIS OWN MURDERER. One of these, Dr. Carpue, has frequently been heard to say, that "the head of Sellis was nearly severed from his body, and that EVEN THE JOINT WAS CUT THROUGH!!!" Dr. Carpue has also stated, that "no man could have the power to hold an instrument in his hand to cut ONE-EIGHTH of the depth of the wound in the throat of Sellis!"

"Sergeant Creighton, of the Coldstream regiment of Foot Guards, said, in consequence of the alarm of the duke being murdered, he went with several men into the house; when they came to the deceased's room, the servants were afraid to go in on account of the

[[172]]noise; he in consequence took the candle from them. He found the deceased dead, with his throat cut, and a razor about two yards from the bed; the deceased was quite dead, but not cold; the blood was then running and frothing out of his neck. He did not appear to have struggled with any person, but had his hands quite straight down by his side. The deceased had on pantaloons and stockings."

Notwithstanding part of this man's evidence was suppressed, we have here sufficient to prove that Sellis was not his own murderer. No man, after cutting his head nearly off, could possibly throw a razor "TWO YARDS FROM HIS BED!"[172:A] A man, in the agonies of death, would rather have grasped the deadly instrument in his hand; for this circumstance has almost always been observed in those persons committing suicide. Further than this, however, the witness states, "he did not appear to have struggled with any person, but had his HANDS QUITE STRAIGHT DOWN BY HIS SIDE." Every man, who will not abjectly resign his reason, cannot deny that such a position of the hands was contrary to the NATURAL STRUGGLES OF A DYING MAN, and that it was quite impossible for Sellis to have so SYSTEMATICALLY LAID OUT HIS OWN BODY! But the suppressed evidence of this sergeant, which afterwards appeared in "The News," fully proved that the first impression

[[173]]of the duke's servants was, that Sellis had been murdered, and not that he had murdered himself! For Creighton says,

"On entering the house, accompanied by another sergeant, and two or three soldiers, he met two servants, who told him that the Duke of Cumberland had been wounded and that Sellis was murdered!"

This witness also corroborated some other important points, for instance:

"On the floor before the bed lay a white neckerchief, cut in several places. On the opposite side of the room was a wash-hand basin, with some water in it, which looked as if some person had been washing blood in it! The curtains were sprinkled with blood, as well as several parts of the room; at that time it was broad day-light."

When we ask why the "Morning Post" thought it prudent to omit this and much other important evidence, we could give the because; but our readers will easily understand it!

"James Ball, a footman, said, upon the alarm being given, he inquired of a female servant what was the matter. She informed him the duke was murdered. He went down to the porter with all possible speed, who desired him to call Sellis, which he did, but could not gain admittance; he went to the other door, when he saw the deceased with his throat cut on his bed; the sight was so shocking, he drew back and almost fainted. His wife since told him he ate a hearty supper, shook hands with her, and bid her good night at parting. He never quarrelled with the deceased. He understood the origin of the quarrel between Sellis and Neale was Neale's taking a newspaper out of Sellis' hand. The duke was particularly partial to Sellis, and behaved better to him, he thought, than to any other servant. Sellis and Neale were obliged frequently to be in the same room together, but he never observed any thing particular between them. Sellis was a very sober man. If he was not at the duke's apartments upon his business, he was sure to be found with his family. The duke continued his kindness to the last. He had

[[174]]heard Sellis say he could never be friendly with a man (meaning Neale) who had treated him as he had done. Sellis used some years since to ride in the carriage with the duke, but since a box has been made to the carriage he was ordered by the duke to ride there. He objected to that, saying it shook him very much."

This servant, like most of the others, was ordered to call Sellis, and his evidence, in this particular, seems merely a REHEARSAL of the rest. The corroboration which Ball here gave of the excellent character of Sellis had been sufficient, one would think, for any jury to have acquitted the poor fellow of any participation in the attempt upon the duke, or with being his own murderer. In Ball's evidence, also, the dislike which Sellis entertained towards Neale is again set forth, and which, in our opinion, goes far to prove the occasion of it, which we have before explained. Neale, in his evidence, attempted to turn this dislike to his own advantage, by charging Sellis with the attack upon his master, and with endeavouring to fix the crime upon him (Neale) out of revenge! "A guilty conscience needs no accuser,"—a saying perhaps never better exemplified!

"Thomas Creedy, a private in the Coldstream Regiment of Guards, who was on duty, and the first man who entered the room of Sellis. The servant being afraid, he trembled so much that he let the candle fall, but he caught it up, and prevented it from going out. After seeing Sellis' throat cut, and hearing robbers were in the house, he looked under the bed. He did not see a coat in the room, (which is very small) although there was a blue one belonging to Sellis, with blood on the left cuff, and blood on the side. He observed a wash-hand basin with blood on the sides, and blood in some water. The deceased did not appear to have struggled with any one; his head was against his watch at the head of the bed."

This was one of the soldiers who accompanied

[[175]]Sergeant Creighton; but whether the sergeant or this man was the "first who entered the room of Sellis," is not exactly clear. Creighton, in his evidence, says "IT WAS BROAD DAY-LIGHT," and, therefore, why CANDLES were required is rather difficult to comprehend! Yet, notwithstanding the smallness of the room, "he did not see a coat, although (as he himself confidently states) there was a blue one, belonging to Sellis." How could this witness know it belonged to Sellis, whom he probably never saw alive? As to "blood being on the left cuff and on the side," what proof did he adduce of this, for he himself never saw the coat at all? He, however, observed a wash-hand basin, in the very suspicious state described by other witnesses, and gave the additional evidence of Sellis' head being "against his watch at the head of the bed;" indeed, the poor man's head only HUNG BY A SMALL PIECE OF SKIN, and his murderers had therefore placed it in that position to keep it from falling off altogether! Is it not monstrous, then, that men could be found so lost to honor as to record a verdict of felo de se?

"John Probert and John Windsor, two privates in the Guards, said they were on duty opposite the duke's house at the time of the alarm, and were positive no person went out of the house after the alarm was given."

The evidence of these men merely shew, that Sellis was murdered by some one belonging to the house, which we see no reason to dispute.

"Thomas Strickland, under butler to his Royal Highness the

[[176]]Duke of Cumberland, said he saw the deceased in the duke's bed-room about ten minutes before eleven o'clock on Wednesday night; he was surprised at seeing him there, supposing him to be in close waiting upon the duke. The deceased appeared to have a shirt in his hand; he looked very earnest at him, but had a smile on his countenance. He went to take a cupfull of light drink for the duke to take in the night, which it was his duty to do. He never heard Sellis speak disrespectfully of the duke."

No satisfactory reason is here given why this man should have felt surprised at seeing Sellis in the bed-room of his master; for Sellis was there only in the performance of his duty, which the witness acknowledged. How ardently have those connected with this black affair endeavoured to fix the odium upon the murdered man! Yet how futile, to all reasonable men, must appear their observations! Sellis, with a "shirt in one hand," and "a cup of light drink" in the other, in the Duke of Cumberland's bed-room, ought not to have created surprise in any one, knowing the peculiar situation which Sellis filled in the household of his royal highness! Did Strickland really feel surprised, or was he anxious to say so? But, it will be observed, that even this witness confessed "he never heard Sellis speak disrespectfully of the duke." Can it, then, be believed, he was guilty of the attack upon his royal master?

"Sarah Varley, housemaid to the Duke of Cumberland, said she put two bolsters into the closet in the second anti-little room adjoining on Wednesday night, they being only put upon his royal highness' bed for ornament in the day-time; there was no lantern in the closet at the time she put them there, and the dark lantern found in the closet is like one she had seen on the deceased's dressing table. There was no sword or scabbard when she put the bolster there."

[[177]]The dark lantern, sword, &c., were not in the closet when this woman went there to put away the bolsters. Well, what of that? Might they not have been put there afterwards? As to "the dark lantern found in the closet being like one she had seen on the deceased's dressing table," proves nothing against Sellis, even if this lady had positively sworn to its being the same. It were very easy to place a lantern in Sellis' room, and afterwards remove it to the aforesaid closet! But we have little doubt that more than one dark lantern might have been found on premises where so many secret deeds had been done! To have made this matter better evidence, why did not some kind friend write the name of Sellis on the lantern, similar to the plan adopted with the slippers? Such a scheme might have brought the very scrupulous jury to their verdict three hours sooner, at least!

"James Paulet, a valet to the duke, first saw his royal highness in his room with Neale holding him up. The duke told him he was murdered, and the murderers must be in his room. The witness replied, he was afraid they should be all murdered, on seeing all the doors opened. The duke insisted they should both stay with him. His royal highness repeatedly called for Sellis. In a short time after, some person called at the door that Sellis was found murdered. The duke appeared very anxious for the safety of Sellis, and as soon as Surgeon Home had dressed his wounds, he sent him to attend to Sellis. Mr. Home soon returned, and said there was no doubt but that the man had killed himself. Sellis cautioned him not to be friends with Neale. He complained to him of the duke's making him ride in a dickey, as it shook him much, and riding backwards made him ill. Sellis, however, had the carriage altered to go easier, without asking the duke's leave, at Windsor, and he had appeared content with it ever since. Sellis often talked about leaving the duke's service, saying, he could not remain in the family if Neale did. He urged him to the contrary, reminding him how kind the duke was to him and his family."

[[178]]The duke's anxiety for the services of his faithful valet, Sellis, manifested itself by his royal highness repeatedly calling for him. "Some person called at the door that Sellis was found murdered,"—another proof that the first impression of the servants was the true one! Indeed, TRUTH is ever uppermost in the mind; but ARTIFICE requires time to mature its plans. We are sure that our readers WILL ADMIRE, with us, the "ANXIETY of his royal highness for the SAFETY of Sellis;" for, as soon as his wounds were dressed, the duke sent HIS OWN SURGEON to attend Sellis! Where shall we look for greater CARE or CONDESCENSION than this? How truly fortunate was the duke in being blessed with so expeditious and so penetrating a surgeon! "Mr. Home soon returned, and said there was no doubt that the man had killed himself!" Oh, talented man! who could perceive, at a glance, that "the man had killed himself!" Dr. Carpue must never more pretend to a knowledge of surgery, when his opinion can be set aside by a single glance of a man of such eminence in his profession as Mr. Home! As to the joint in his neck being cut through, Mr. Home easily accounted for. What! a man cut his own head off, and wash his hands afterwards! The further testimony of Paulet only proves the dislike which Sellis entertained for Neale, and the caution he gave to all the other servants to avoid him.

"The widow of the deceased was examined. Her appearance and evidence excited the greatest compassion and interest; it tended to prove he was a good husband, not embarrassed in his circumstances, and that he had parted with her in the usual way, without any suspicion on her part of what he had in contemplation."

[[179]]Well, even this admission of the substance of the poor woman's evidence is sufficient to throw discredit upon the jury, who, "after deliberating for upwards of an hour, returned a verdict of felo de se." As Mrs. Neale's evidence, however, "excited the greatest compassion and interest," "The Post," acting impartially, ought to have printed it at length, as tending to prove how little the interest of Sellis was involved in his master's murder, and how wholly unprepared the poor woman must have been to find her husband accused of committing such a deed. For instance:

"She never heard him complain of the treatment he received from his royal highness; but, on the contrary, was highly gratified by the kindness he and other branches of the royal family had shewed him, particularly the present of muslin which witness had received from the queen, and Princess Augusta, standing godmother to his child. He was not embarrassed in his circumstances, for she did not know of any debt he owed, but one to the apothecary. Since the birth of their last child, about eight months ago, he never spent an evening out, but was always with his family, when not employed with the duke. He belonged to no club or society. During his illness, he was sometimes giddy, but never took the medicines that were prescribed him by the surgeon, saying that regular living was the best medicine. He sometimes talked of leaving the duke's service, on account of his disputes with Neale; but she remonstrated with him on his imprudence in entertaining such a wish, when they had a good house and plenty of coals and candles allowed them. The subject was not mentioned within the last two years. After supper on Wednesday, he mixed a glass of brandy and water, which he made her drink, as she was troubled with spasms in the stomach. He partook of a little of it, shook hands, and wished her a good night, and she never saw him more cheerful. He took some clean linen away with him, and said he would bring home the dirty linen on the following morning. She said he was a tender father and an affectionate husband."

[[180]]Let every unbiassed individual read this, and then judge of the monstrous and unnatural verdict returned by the jury! Some further statements were given to us by a gentleman who received the communication, a few years back, from Mrs. Sellis herself:

"The heart-broken widow said, that she had been brought up from a child in the service of the Princess Augusta, and that he had been many years in that of the Duke of Cumberland. Their marriage had, therefore, taken place under the special sanction of their royal master and mistress. They had one child, a daughter, to whom the princess condescended to stand godmother, and it was the practice of the parents, on the return of every birth-day, to present the child in her best array to her royal godmother, who always distinguished her by some little present as a token of recognition. The birth-day of the child was a few days after the death of the father; and the widow represents the conversation which occurred between her and her husband on the evening of his death as consisting, among other things, in consultations as to the cap and dress in which the child should be presented to the princess; so little did he appear to have in view the event which followed. He was accustomed to spend all the time not required on his attendance on his master with her, to whom he was in the habit of communicating every little incident in which he was concerned that he thought might be interesting to her. On the night in question, he was just as usual, nothing in his conversation or manner betokening the least agitation, much less the contemplation of the murder of his master, on whose favour, as she says, their whole hopes for subsistence and comfort depended. According to her account, he was habitually civil, sober, frugal in his little expenses, and attentive to his duties. His wife and his child appeared the whole world to him; and the poor woman declared, that when he parted from her, but a few hours before the dreadful catastrophe occurred, the committal of a wrong towards the duke appeared as improbable a proceeding from him as the destruction of her and her child. In fact, the one was involved in the other; for when these circumstances came to our knowledge a few years ago, she represented herself as in temporary want and distress."

It was, however, thought PRUDENT to pension Mrs.

[[181]]Sellis and her mother, who offered her remarks very freely about this mysterious transaction. They were both privately sent out of the country, (it is believed to Germany) but, with all our efforts, we have not been able to ascertain where they now reside, as their evidence had much assisted us in proving the statements made in our work, entitled "The Authentic Records," &c.

The public appeared much dissatisfied with the verdict of the jury, and one or two publications spoke rather openly regarding the impropriety and suspicious nature of the whole proceeding, throwing out some dark insinuations against the royal duke. In order to counteract this, Sir Everard Home, the extraordinary man whose perceptive faculties are described on the inquest by the name of Mr. Home, published the following declaration relative to it:

"Much pains having been taken to involve in mystery the MURDER of Sellis, the late servant of his royal highness the Duke of Cumberland, I feel it a public duty to record the circumstances respecting it that came within my own observation, which I could not do while the propagators of such reports were before a public tribunal.

"I visited the Duke of Cumberland upon his being wounded, and found my way from the great hall to his apartment by the traces of blood which were left on the passages and staircase. I found him on the bed, still bleeding, his shirt deluged with blood, and the coloured drapery, above the pillow, sprinkled with blood from a wounded artery, which puts on an appearance that cannot be mistaken by those who have seen it. This could not have happened had not the head been lying on the pillow when it was wounded. The night ribbon, which was wadded, the cap, scalp, and skull were obliquely divided, so that the pulsation of the arteries of the brain were distinguished. While dressing this and the other wounds, report was brought that Sellis was wounded, if not MURDERED. His royal highness desired me to go to him, as I had declared his royal highness

[[182]]out of immediate danger. A second report came, that Sellis was dead. I went to his apartment, found the body lying on his side on the bed, without his coat and neckcloth, the throat cut so effectually that he could not have survived above a minute or two. The length and direction of the wound were such as left NO DOUBT of its being given by his own hand. Any struggle would have made it irregular. He had not even changed his position; his hands lay as they do in a person who has fainted; they had no marks of violence upon them; his coat hung upon a chair, out of the reach of blood from the bed; the sleeve, from the shoulder to the wrist, was sprinkled with blood, quite dry, evidently from a wounded artery; and from such kind of sprinkling, the arm of the assassin of the Duke of Cumberland could not escape!

"In returning to the duke, I found the doors of all the state apartments had marks of bloody fingers on them. The Duke of Cumberland, after being wounded, could not have gone any where but to the outer doors and back again, since the traces of blood were confined to the passages from the one to the other."

"EVERARD HOME."

We regret, with Sir Everard Home, that "so much pains should have been taken to involve in mystery the murder of Sellis," but such pains were taken in the PALACE, AND NOT BY THE PUBLIC! Sir Everard's description of the matter, however, is only calculated to involve it in still greater mystery and contradiction! For instance, "he found the body lying on his side on the bed, the throat so effectually cut that he could not have survived above a minute or two!" How a man could cut his throat so effectually, when lying on his side, for "HE HAD NOT EVEN CHANGED HIS POSITION," is rather a puzzling matter to people of common sense! yet Sir Everard says, "the length and direction of the wound were such as left NO DOUBT OF ITS BEING GIVEN BY HIS OWN HAND!" In a conversation we had with Mr. Place, the foreman of

[[183]]the jury, a few weeks since, that gentleman informed us "the man lived TWENTY MINUTES after his throat was cut!!!" We do not mean to say that Mr. Place's knowledge of this matter is to be put in competition with that of Sir Everard Home; but Mr. Place urged this circumstance to us as confirmatory of Sellis having murdered himself. It is, therefore, very extraordinary that Sir Everard Home did not set the talented foreman right upon this all-important point, as it might have been the means of producing a widely-different verdict! With regard to "the hands having no marks of violence upon them," we can only say that such an account is contrary to the report of other persons who saw them as well as Mr. Home; for both his hands and wrists BORE EVIDENT MARKS OF VIOLENCE! The desire which Sir Everard manifests, in this account, to bring proof against Sellis for an attempt to assassinate his master has more of zeal than prudence in it; for, in speaking of the blood said to be found upon Sellis' coat, the learned doctor asserts it to be "just such kind of sprinkling, the arm of the assassin of the duke could not escape!" How ridiculous must such an observation as this appear to any man, possessed of common understanding! Sellis was reported to have used a SWORD in this pretended attempt upon his master's life, the length of which and the position of the duke would render it next to impossible for any blood of the duke's to reach him! The worthy knight further says, when speaking of the matters in Sellis' room, "his coat hung upon a chair, out of the reach

[[184]]of blood from the bed;" but several witnesses upon the inquest stated that "blood was found all over the room, and the hand-basin appeared as if some person had been washing blood in it." What is the reason, then, why blood might not have been sprinkled upon the coat of the murdered man as well as "upon the curtains, on several parts of the floor, and over the wash-basin?" Why did Sir Everard Home omit to mention these important particulars in his attempt to explain away the "mystery of the murder of Sellis?" His description of the dreadful wounds of his royal master are also rather at variance with the idea the duke himself gave of them, "THE BEATING OF A BAT ABOUT HIS HEAD!!" The skilful surgeon concludes his statement by saying, "The Duke of Cumberland, after being wounded, could not have gone any where but to the outer doors and back again, since the traces of blood were confined to the passages from the one to the other;" when it will be observed in Neale's evidence, that "the duke and witness went to alarm the house, and got a light from the porter!!!" Now we may naturally suppose the porter slept at some distance from the duke, and therefore either Sir Everard Home or Neale must have made a slight mistake in this particular; for we cannot accuse two such veritable personages with intentionally contradicting each other!!

Having now carefully and dispassionately examined all the evidence brought forward to prove Sellis an

[[185]]assassin and a suicide, we proceed to lay before our readers a few particulars tending to confirm an opposite opinion.

Mr. Jew, then in the household of the duke, and who probably is now alive, (information of which fact might be ascertained by application to the King of Belgium) was inclined to give his deposition upon this subject, in the following terms, alleging, as his reason, the very severe pangs of conscience he endured, through the secrecy he had manifested upon this most serious affair.

DEPOSITION.

"I was in the duke's household in May, 1810; and on the evening of the 31st, I attended his royal highness to the opera;—this was the evening previous to Sellis' death. That night it was my turn to undress his royal highness. On our arriving at St. James', I found Sellis had retired for the night, as he had to prepare his master's apparel, &c., and to accompany him on a journey early in the morning.

"I slept that night in my usual room; but Neale, another valet to the duke, slept in an apartment very slightly divided from that occupied by his royal highness. A few days previous to this date, I was commanded by my master to lay a sword upon one of the sofas in his bed-chamber, and I did so. After undressing his royal highness, I retired to bed. I had not long been asleep, when I was disturbed by Neale, who told me to get up immediately, as my master the duke was nearly murdered! I lost no time, and very soon

[[186]]entered his royal highness' bed-room. His royal highness was then standing nearly in the middle of the chamber, apparently quite cool and composed, his shirt was bloody, and he commanded me to fetch Sir Henry Halford, saying, 'I am severely wounded.' The sword, which a few days before I had laid upon the sofa, was then lying on the floor, and was very bloody. I went with all possible haste for Sir Henry, and soon returned with him. I stood by when the wounds were examined, none of which were of a serious nature or appearance. That in his hand was the most considerable.

"During this period, which was nearly two hours, neither Neale nor Sellis had been in the duke's room, which appeared to me a very unaccountable circumstance. At length, when all the bustle of dressing the wounds (which were very inconsiderable) was over, and the room arranged, the duke said, 'Call Sellis!' I went to Sellis' door, and, upon opening it, the most horrific scene presented itself: Sellis was lying perfectly straight in the bed, the head raised up against the head-board, and nearly severed from the body; his hands were lying quite straight on each side of him, and upon examination I saw him weltering in blood, it having covered the under part of the body. He had on his shirt, his waistcoat, and his stockings; the inside of his hands were perfectly clean, but on the outside were smears of blood. His watch was hanging up over his head, wound up. His coat was carefully folded inside out, and laid over the back of a chair. A razor, covered with blood, was

[[187]]lying at a distance from his body, but too far off to have been used by himself, or to have been thrown there by him in such a mutilated condition, as it was very apparent death must have been immediate after such an act.

"The wash-basin was in the stand, but was HALF FULL OF BLOODY WATER! Upon examining Sellis' cravat, it was found to be cut. The padding which he usually wore was covered with silk and quilted; but, what was most remarkable, both THE PADDING AND THE CRAVAT WERE CUT, as if some person had made an attempt to cut the throat with the cravat on; then, finding the woollen or cotton stuffing to impede the razor, took it off, in order more readily to effect the purpose.

"During the time the duke's wounds were being dressed, the deponent believes Neale was absent, in obedience to arrangement, and was employed in laying Sellis' body in the form in which it was discovered, as it was an utter impossibility that a self-murderer could have so disposed of himself.

"Deponent further observes, that Lord Ellenborough undertook to manage this affair, by arranging the proceedings for the inquest; and also that every witness was previously examined by him; also, that the FIRST JURY, being unanimously dissatisfied with the evidence adduced, as they were not permitted to see the body in an undressed state, positively refused to return a verdict, in consequence of which, they were dismissed, and a SECOND jury summoned and empannelled, to whom, severally, a special

[[188]]messenger had been sent, requesting their attendance, and each one of whom was directly or indirectly connected with the court, or the government. That, on both inquests, the deponent had been omitted, and had not been called for to give his evidence, though it must have been known, from his personal attendance and situation upon the occasion, that he must necessarily have been a most material witness. The second jury returned a verdict against Sellis, and his body was immediately put into a shell, and conveyed away a certain distance for interment. The duke was privately removed from St. James' Palace to Carlton House, where his royal highness manifested an impatience of manner, and a perturbed state of mind, evidently arising from a conscience ill at ease. But, in a short time, he appeared to recover his usual spirits, and being hurt but in a very trifling degree, he went out daily in a sedan chair to Lord Ellenborough's and Sir William Phipps', although the daily journals were lamenting his very bad state of health, and also enlarging, with a considerable expression of sorrow, upon the magnitude of his wounds, and the fears entertained for his recovery!"

The further deposition of this attendant is of an important character, and claims particular consideration. He says,

"I was applied to by some noblemen shortly after this dreadful business, and very strongly did they

[[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

[[191]]this deponent saith that believing it to be important that the cause and circumstances of the death of the said Joseph Sellis should be investigated in the most public and impartial manner he took upon himself the responsibility of not complying with the strict letter of such statute as aforesaid and countermanded the first order as aforesaid for summoning such jury in conformity to the said statute and instead thereof directed a jury to be summoned consisting of persons not being yeomen officers of the king's household but living at a distance from and totally unconnected with the palace of St. James's And this deponent further saith that thereupon his agent as this deponent has been informed and believes took the summoning officer to Francis Place of Charing Cross man's mercer and that the said Francis Place then mentioned to the agent of this deponent the names of many persons fit and eligible to compose such jury and out of such persons so summoned by the officer as aforesaid an impartial jury was formed of which jury the said Francis Place was foreman And this deponent saith that before such jury so summoned and duly sworn he as coroner proceeded on the first day of June one thousand eight hundred and ten to hold an inquest on the body of the said Joseph Sellis And this deponent further saith that the court which under other circumstances would have been a close one he this deponent directed to be thrown open to the public and all persons without distinction And this deponent believes the same was done and that all persons without distinction were admitted into such court amongst whom were many reporters for the newspapers who attended for the purpose of taking and did take notes of the proceedings and of the depositions of the witnesses examined upon such inquest And this deponent further saith that at the commencement of the said inquest the several informations on oath of the principal witnesses taken on that and the preceding day by John Reid Esquire the then chief magistrate of the police were read over and handed to the said jury to enable them the better to examine such witnesses respectively and such witnesses were respectively resworn before this deponent as coroner and permitted to make any addition to their evidence so given before the magistrate as aforesaid and that each and every of such witnesses had full opportunities of making any addition to such testimony which they thought proper And this deponent further saith that all the circumstances of the case as far as they could be collected were carefully and impartially scrutinized by the said jury and that all the evidence which could be collected and brought forward and that every person was called before the said jury and examined as a witness and no person was omitted

[[192]]to be called and examined who would have been or who it could be supposed would have been a material witness And this deponent further saith that in the course of the inquiry the said jury proceeded to the apartment where the body of the said Joseph Sellis had been first discovered and was then lying and did then carefully view examine and inspect the body of the said Joseph Sellis and all the other circumstances deemed by them necessary to be examined into and ascertained in any way touching the death of the said Joseph Sellis And this deponent further saith that he locked the doors of the apartment in which the body of the said Joseph Sellis was found and did not permit the same to be inspected nor the state and position of the said body to be disturbed, from the first discovery of such body in the aforesaid apartment until the same was inspected by the said jury And this deponent further saith that on the conclusion of the investigation the said jury immediately and unanimously returned a verdict that the said Joseph Sellis voluntarily and feloniously as a felo de se murdered himself And this deponent further saith that the proceedings upon the said inquest were in all respects regular except as to the jury not consisting of the yeoman officers of the king's household and that such proceedings were themselves conducted in the most fair open and impartial manner and that the verdict so found by the jury as aforesaid was a just true and honest verdict and that there is not the smallest ground for supposing or alleging any thing to the contrary thereof[192:A]

"SAML. THOS. ADAMS."

"Sworn in Court the eighteenth
day of April 1832—By the Court."

"The first remark he had to submit to the court in this case was, that a person who applied for an extraordinary remedy by criminal information, must deny all the charges contained in the libel. The rank of the illustrious individual in this case made no difference with respect to that point. Now the court would find, by the affidavit of Mr. Adams, the coroner, that one of the main parts of this alleged libel, so far from being contradicted, was SUBSTANTIATED,—he alluded to the fact of there having been TWO JURIES summoned

[[193]]to inquire into the circumstances relating to the death of Sellis. He did not mean to say that that fact formed any justification for the publication of the libel; but the fact itself was certainly extremely important, and Mr. Adams' affidavit contained the reasons why the mode pointed out by the act of parliament for summoning juries in such cases had been departed from. The fact of there having been two juries summoned was no doubt sufficient to induce any person to believe that there was some reason for that proceeding, which was not apparent on the face of it. Mr. Adams had described the manner in which the jury were summoned. He said he sent the summoning officer to Mr. Place, man's mercer, of Charing-cross; but Mr. Place was not the coroner for the verge of the King's Palace, and had no authority to act. He would leave it to the court to form their own opinion, whether or not this departure from the usual course was or was not for the purpose of obtaining an IMPARTIAL TRIAL. The affidavit showed that Mr. Adams had flown in the face of the act of parliament, and the statement in the Authentic Records, that there had been a second inquest, was CORROBORATED by that affidavit. Mr. Adams had referred to the act of parliament, as being that of the 23rd of Henry VIII., whereas it was that of the 33rd of Henry VIII.: that was no doubt a trifling circumstance, but it tended to show the manner in which Mr. Adams performed the duties of his office. Mr. Adams had stated that summonses had been drawn up for summoning TWO JURIES, but those for summoning the FIRST were not used; but the reason he gave was most unsatisfactory. He had no right to send to Mr. Place, and Mr. Place had no right to act as coroner; and he (Mr. Wakefield) submitted that the court ought to require an affidavit from Mr. Place to corroborate what Mr. Adams had stated. He believed it would not be difficult to show that the inquest might be quashed, as being illegal; and it certainly might have been quashed if Sellis had had any goods, which would have been subject to an extent at the suit of the crown. At all events, Mr. Adams might have been prosecuted for a breach of duty. There was another point which, though of a trifling nature, he would take the liberty of adverting to, in order to show that the inquest was illegal. By the 28 Henry VIII. c. 12, the jury in cases of this description were to be summoned from the verge of the court. Now this applied to the court sitting at Whitehall; but at the time in question the court was sitting at St. James'. The summoning, therefore, was clearly not good, and the jury, consisting of Mr. Place's junta, could not legally hold an inquest on the body of Sellis."

[[194]]Four other mistakes, also, in the coroner's affidavit were pointed out by Mr. Place himself in a letter to the public.

1. Mr. Adams says, "he issued an order to summon a jury of persons of the king's household, but that he rescinded the order, and summoned a jury of persons who lived at a distance, and were wholly unconnected with St. James' Palace." Mr. Adams must by these words mean that he summoned a jury from the only place to which his power extended; namely, "the verge of the court,"—a small space, and from amongst the few tradesmen who resided within its limits. I never before heard that he had issued any order to summon a jury of persons of the king's household.

2. Mr. Adams says, that his "summoning officer applied to Francis Place, of Charing Cross, 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 1st of June, 1810." Mr. Adams probably speaks from memory, and is, therefore, incorrect. He might, to be sure, have instructed his officer to apply to me; but, if he did, it was a STRANGE PROCEEDING. The officer was in the habit of summoning juries within the verge, and must have known much better than I did who were eligible. The jurors could not have been indicated by me, since, of seventeen who formed the inquest, five were wholly unknown to me, either by name or person; and amongst the seven who did not attend, there were probably others who were also unknown to me. The number of persons liable to be summoned is so small, that it has been sometimes difficult to constitute an inquest, and there is no room either for choice or selection.

3. Mr. Adams says, "the depositions of the witnesses were taken by John Read, the then chief police magistrate, and were read to the witnesses, who were severally asked if they had any thing to add to them." This, if left as Mr. Adams has put it, would imply negligence on the part of an inquest which was more than usually diligent and precise. The depositions were read, but not one of them was taken as the evidence of a witness. Every person who appeared as a witness was carefully and particularly examined, and the order in which the evidence was taken, and the words used, differ from the depositions; the evidence is also much longer than the depositions. Both are before me. The inquest examined seven material witnesses, who had not made depositions before Mr. Read.

[[195]]4. Mr. Adams says "the jury immediately and unanimously returned a verdict that the deceased, Joseph Sellis, voluntarily and feloniously murdered himself." The jury of seventeen persons were every one convinced that Sellis had destroyed himself, yet two of them did not concur in the verdict,—one, because he could not believe that a sane man ever put an end to his own existence; and another, because he could not satisfy himself whether or no Sellis was sane or insane.

FRANCIS PLACE.

Charing Cross, April 19, 1832.

The very morning this letter was published, we called on Mr. Place, who repeated the substance of it to us, adding that Sir Charles Wetherell had sent a person to him for his affidavit, which he REFUSED in a letter to the learned knight, condemning the whole proceeding of criminal information. Mr. Place read a copy of this letter to us, and promised he would publish it if ever a sufficient reason presented itself. It was an admirable composition, and did credit to the liberality of the writer's opinions.

As to the affidavits of the Duke of Cumberland and Neale, they contain nothing but what other people in similar situations would say,—they deny all knowledge of Sellis' murder, and of unnatural conduct. Whoever thought of requiring them to criminate themselves? But affidavits, from interested persons are not worth much. The notorious Bishop of Clogher, for instance, exculpated himself in a criminal information by an affidavit, and the result was, the man who published the truth of that wretch groaned in a jail!!! Sir Charles, therefore, had no occasion to boast of the Duke of Cumberland's charitable mode of proceeding against us by criminal

[[196]]information, instead of commencing an ex-officio action; for in neither of these modes of procedure does the truth or falsehood of the charge form an object of consideration. We are, therefore, prevented by the Duke of Cumberland and his adherents from proving the truth of the statements we made in "The Authentic Records" in a court of law; but where resides the power that shall rob us of the glorious LIBERTY OF THE PRESS? We are the strenuous advocates of the right to promulgate TRUTH,—of the right to scrutinize public actions and public men,—of the right to expose vice, and castigate mischievous follies, even though they may be found in a palace! The free exercise of this invaluable privilege should always be conceded to the HISTORIAN, or where will posterity look for impartial information? In this character only did we publish what we believed, and still believe, to be the truth in our former work of "The Authentic Records," and which we have considerably enlarged upon in our present undertaking, merely for the purpose of fulfilling our sacred duty, and not with the idea of slandering any man! If the Duke of Cumberland had proved our statement false, we would have freely acknowledged our error, as every man ought to do who seeks fairly and honorably to sustain a noble function in the purity of its existence. We know there are writers who seek, not to enlighten, but to debase; not to find amusement, but to administer poison; not to impart information, either political, moral, or literary, but to indulge in obscenity,—to rake up forgotten falsehoods,

[[197]]and disseminate imputed calumnies! To such, the sanctuary of private life is no longer inviolable; the feelings of the domestic circle are no longer sacred; retirement affords no protection, and virtue interposes no defence, to their sordid inroads. Upon offences like these, we would invoke the fiercest penalties of the law. The interests of society demand it, and the rights of individuals claim it! But our strictures and exposures are of a widely-different character,—not if they were false,—but because their TRUTH must be apparent to every unbiassed individual in this mighty empire! With this conviction alone we stated them, and even Sir Charles Wetherell himself said we "seemed to have no other motive in stating them only for the purpose of stating them!" We are not disposed to comment upon this part of the learned counsel's speech, as it proves all we want to prove regarding our motives.

This year was not less remarkable for the king's family sorrows than for public grievances. His majesty was nearly childish and blind. The queen dreaded the ascendency of the popular voice in favour of the Princess of Wales, and the Princess Charlotte exhibited a resolute spirit, which it was feared would end to the unhappiness of the puissant queen. The Princess Amelia suffered under indescribable sorrows, both bodily and mental, which ultimately terminated her earthly career on the 2nd of November.

Many representations were made to the public of

[[198]]the numerous visits made to the Princess Amelia by the king, and their affecting final interview. We believe we may, with truth, say those representations were erroneous; for the king's malady was of too serious a nature to admit of any new excitement, and the peculiar regard he entertained for this daughter would not allow his hearing of her sufferings in any shape, without feeling the most acute pain.

The Prince of Wales also still pursued the most dissipated rounds of pleasure, making his very name hateful to every virtuous ear. The house of royalty, indeed, seemed divided against itself.

General historians say that the year