[[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.