"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.