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."