[[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