"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."
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."
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: