1808,
in which the session of parliament was opened by commission, on the 21st
of January, the king's indisposition preventing him from going in
person.
At this period, a very strong sensation was excited against the
continuance of the pension list. The productive classes ascertained, in
a very correct way, how the fruits of their industry were devoured. In
consequence of which, they felt themselves imposed upon in the highest
degree; but resolved to try rational entreaty and petition ere they
resorted to acts of violence. The number of these dissatisfied classes,
in every large town, was immensely great, and they only needed _system_
to obtain, by their SIMPLE PETITION, what they so much desired; but the
authorities knew the incapacitated state of the sufferers, in the
absence of that _system_, and therefore very ungenerously refused their
appeal.
In March, the City of London (John Ansley, mayor) petitioned both Houses
for parliamentary reform, and the abolition of sinecure places and
pensions; but they received the expense attendant upon their exertions
for their reward, and the mortification of the ministers' apathy for
their satisfaction. Popular indignation, however, is not so easily
allayed; for, though extreme appearances may for a time be concealed,
they will eventually break forth with ten-fold force. The public
reasoned upon a rational ground, and was fully aware that their strength
was spent to support _enemies_. Their resolve to petition for freedom
was the dictate of an unerring and fixed principle, ever inherent in the
breast of man. The blandishments of folly, and the encouragement given
to imposition, have rendered the industrious and honest citizen a prey
to the lordlings of arbitrary power; and so long as he can assist to
supply means whereby their cravings may be satisfied, so long do they
seem to suppose he lives to a sufficient purpose. Under these
circumstances, the oppressed classes were perfectly justified in making
a stand against farther innovation; and also in resisting the
intolerable injustice in force against them. Still the administration
continued inexorable to the pressing prayers and miserable condition of
the people. The political disease, however, was rapidly advancing to a
crisis.
Similar distress and dissatisfaction existed at the commencement of the
year
1809:
provisions were dear, and labour scarce; yet an additional sum was
required for the state, to uphold its _secret_ machinations, and pervert
the ends of justice.
It will be remembered that, in this year, the celebrated Mrs. Mary Ann
Clark, formerly a mistress of the Duke of York, appeared at the bar of
the House of Commons, as evidence against him. Mr. Wardle, with an
intrepidity worthy of the cause in which he was engaged, took upon
himself the awful responsibility of preferring those serious charges
against the duke, which it were unnecessary for us here to repeat. The
public officers of the king volunteered their services to rescue his
royal highness from public odium by denominating the proceeding as a
_conspiracy_! In spite, however, of every artifice which a knowledge of
the law enables bad men to practice to defeat the ends of justice, there
were exposed to public view scenes of the grossest corruption, of the
most abandoned profligacy, of the most degrading meanness, and of the
most consummate hypocrisy. The contagion had reached every department of
the state; nor was the church exempted from its baneful influence. It
was fully proved that, not only subordinate situations, but even
deaneries and bishoprics (which had been supposed to be the rewards of
piety and learning) were applied for to his royal highness, through the
intervention of his mistress! A great majority of the boroughmongers, of
course, acquitted the duke from these charges, and talked of voting an
address of thanks to him for the manner in which he discharged his
official duties. Fortunately, however, the mode of investigation adopted
enabled every man in the kingdom to judge for himself. Englishmen, for
once, spoke out, and the duke was compelled to resign. This step on the
part of the _illustrious_ debauchee prevented further exposure, and
saved him from the severe and heavy weight of being _voted out of
office_, and degraded! Behold, then, reader, what the principles of Pitt
achieved! That minister always persuaded the male branches of the
family, that the queen's protection (through the medium of the minister)
would prove at all times a sufficient retreat and asylum, in case of
complaint or _refractory sensation_ of the people at their frequent
derelictions from duty and honor.
The fluctuations of the public funds was an opportune chance for
speculation, and the queen's love of money induced her to turn her
sources of information to the best account; she therefore acted in
concert with her broker, and immediately, upon any rise taking place,
she "sold out," and when gloom overspread the market, she "bought in."
By this speculation alone, the Duke of Kent acknowledged that his mother
realized _four hundred thousand pounds_! At the same period, her majesty
had another excellent speculation in hand; namely, the profits arising
from the sale of cadetships for the East Indies. Dr. Randolph and Lady
Jersey were the chief managers of these affairs, though her majesty
received the largest portion of the spoil. Dr. Randolph himself
acknowledged, that the queen had realized _seventy thousand pounds_ upon
this traffic alone! In one transaction with a candidate for a cadetship,
an enormous premium was required, and the applicant was very much
incensed, as it appeared to him to be nothing less than a bold
imposition. He expostulated; but Dr. Randolph made short of the affair
by refusing any further communication upon the subject. For once, Dr.
Randolph forgot his own interest, as also the _public character_ and
_safety_ of his royal mistress. The gentleman, shortly afterwards, was
visiting a friend in Paris, when the conversation turned upon the
English constitution, and the immense revenues of the kingdom. The
friend spoke in raptures upon the liberal feelings and generous
provisions exercised and provided towards, and for all, aspirants to
honor. At length, the visiter could no longer conceal his mortification
and chagrin, and he candidly explained every particular of his
correspondence with Dr. Randolph, in which her majesty's name was as
freely introduced as the doctor's. The astonishment and surprise of his
friend were great indeed, and he recommended him _to publish the whole
affair_ in France, and circulate it through the surrounding kingdoms. A
printer was sought for, who required a certain time to determine the
risk he should run in the undertaking; this was accordingly granted, and
the parties separated. As soon as the person intended to be employed
found the consequence attached to it, he communicated the important
information to a solicitor, of some eminence, in London, to whom he had
formerly been known. The affair was subsequently made known to the
queen's youngest son, and by him the queen was fully acquainted with the
probability of public exposure. An overwhelming infamy she well knew
would be inseparably attached to it. Her majesty had been accustomed to
deception, but hitherto she had not feared detection; but the moment of
her fancied security was the moment most likely to prove fatal to her
existence as a queen.
The Duke of Kent was unremitting in his exertions to obtain a settlement
of this nefarious affair, and _twenty thousand pounds_ were actually
paid for the _correspondence_, and _two thousand pounds_ given by the
queen (through the medium of the duke) to the person who effected the
settlement of the business, under the provision "that that business
might never transpire to the public." His royal highness was too well
aware of the general disposition of the queen, and her avaricious
character, not to _affect satisfaction_ at the high price her majesty
paid for silencing this unpleasant affair. It may be inferred, that if
the queen had committed herself by such flagrant acts of injustice as
these, there might be many more dishonourable transactions of a minor
description, occurring nearly at the same period. Yes, the inference is
correct, for her majesty was truly born and bred a German!
We will relate another instance of Queen Charlotte's ungenerous
conduct. She had the superintendence of the education of her daughters,
as far as related to the choice of their preceptors. Her majesty
appointed a very clever and scientific gentleman, who resided in London,
to teach herself and the six princesses--geography, astronomy,
arithmetic, and the nature of the _funds_. Besides which, he was asked,
as a _favour_, to settle the very deranged accounts of the princesses.
This accomplished and worthy gentleman also held of Princess Elizabeth a
bond for ten thousand pounds. After dancing attendance upon these
_illustrious_ individuals for twenty-six years, without receiving any
remuneration, though he had frequently pressed for payment of his
long-standing account, he again solicited a settlement with the queen;
but, as he only received abuse of an unmeasured description for his
pains, he determined to maintain himself and his large family out of the
profits of his private scholars, leaving the royal debt as a provision
for his children after him. His expenses were considerable in attending
the royal family, as he was always obliged to go full dressed in a bag
and silk stockings, to hire carriages to go down to Windsor, to live at
an inn, and to sleep there, if they chose to take lessons the two
following days, by which he was also often obliged to neglect and
disoblige his private scholars. For all this attendance, he received _no
remuneration whatever_; and Queen Charlotte had the heart to say, "I
think you have had remuneration sufficient by your youngest son
receiving a pension of eighty pounds a year for teaching the younger
princesses only writing!" The preceptor, however, still claimed _his
remuneration_, and was, at last, referred to the lawyers, who required
him to produce proofs of every lesson he gave, the day and the hour, for
twenty-six years! To their astonishment, he produced his diary, and such
clear accounts, that there was no contradicting them. But as lawyers are
never at a loss how to gain their ends, they next required him to
declare, upon oath, the name of each particular servant that had let him
in during the twenty-six years! This he could not do; and her majesty,
not to be behind the lawyers, advised they should plead the statute of
limitation! The lawyers, however, persuaded _her most excellent majesty_
that such a proceeding would be against her interest. After being
harassed about in this manner for a considerable time, the old,
care-worn, broken-hearted master was most injuriously persuaded to
suffer the business to be decided by _one_ arbitrator only, instead of
trusting to the laws of his country. The poor old gentleman never held
up his head afterwards, but always used to say he should leave all his
family beggars, which, alas! proved too true. He shortly after died at
his house in Manchester-street. He was a very worthy and an exceedingly
clever man. On one occasion, Mr. Pitt sent for him to solve some
difficulty in the finances of the country, for which none of the
ministers could account. He instantly set them all right by showing that
such an error was _possible_ to occur, though it very seldom did occur.
Besides the claims upon Queen Charlotte, the worthy preceptor had a bill
against the Princess Charlotte for eight hundred pounds. On applying to
the Prince of Wales for this money, he refused to pay it, and referred
him to the king, who was then quite deranged! The Princess of Wales knew
all these particulars, and told her daughter, the Princess Charlotte,
the desperate state of the poor man's family. Her royal highness spoke
to her uncle, the Duke of York, about it, who persuaded her that the
venerable master was an _old rogue_, who had robbed the princesses and
all the family, and her royal highness chose to believe him. That he was
a scientific man, his books and valuable mathematical instruments bore
ample testimony. These were sold after his death for eight thousand
pounds, which went to discharge his debts.
Many other instances might be recorded to prove the unfeeling and
barbarous behaviour of the queen; but this alone must be sufficient to
convince our readers how totally unfit her majesty was to reign over a
_free people_.
In the September of this year, Lord Castlereagh sent a challenge to Mr.
Canning, which was accepted; but the effects of the duel were not _very
serious_, though it subsequently led to the resignation of both. It is
hardly worth while, perhaps, to recur to this now-forgotten, and always,
as far as the public were concerned, insignificant business. Lord
Castlereagh acted as a vain and high-spirited man, who fancied his
confidence betrayed, his abilities called in question, and, like an
Irishman, saw but a short vista between an offence and a duel. Mr.
Canning, equally high-spirited, felt that he had got into a disagreeable
business, and that the fairest escape from it would be to fight his way
out. Lord Castlereagh's conduct, when we think of a sober and wise
statesman, is ridiculous. Mr. Canning's, when we picture to ourselves a
high-minded and frank-hearted gentleman, in spite of the _plausibility_
of explanations, is displeasing.
The wretched policy of this year required _fifty-four millions of money_
to support it.
1810
was ushered in under distressing and unsatisfactory circumstances. The
royal family were divided amongst themselves, and every branch seemed to
have a separate interest. Under these circumstances, it was not a matter
of surprise that _truth_ was now and then elicited; for it is a
veritable saying, that "when rogues fall out, honest men are gainers."
The king was at this time labouring under a severe attack of mental
aberration: the situation of the country, his children, and his own
peculiar sorrows, made impressions on his mind of the most grievous
description.
In a former work of our's, called "The Authentic Records of the Court of
England," we gave an account of the extraordinary and mysterious murder
of one Sellis, a servant of the Duke of Cumberland, which occurred this
year. In that account, we did what we conceived to be our duty as
historians,--we spoke the TRUTH! The truth, however, it appears, is not
always to be spoken; for his royal highness instantly commenced a
_persecution_ against us for a "malicious libel." We say _persecution_,
because almost every person is aware, that filing a criminal information
against an individual can be done only with a view of _preventing the
exposure of truth_, which, though such procedure be according to English
law, cannot be reconciled with the original intention of law, namely--to
do _justice_ both to the libelled and the libeller! In America, no such
monstrosities disgrace the statute-book; for there, if any person be
accused of _scandalum magnatum_, and can prove the truth of what he has
stated, he is honorably acquitted. Yet as we are not in America, but in
England,--the boasted _land of liberty_,--we must, forsooth, be seized
as _criminals_, merely because we wish to institute an inquiry into the
circumstances of the murder of an individual, whose assassin, or
assassins, have hitherto escaped the slippery hands of justice! We are
no cowards in regimentals, nor did we make our statement with a view of
slandering the royal pensioner. We would have willingly contended with
his royal highness in a court of law, if he had had the courage to have
met us on _fair grounds_. At the time we write this, we know not what
the judgment of Lord Tenterden,--we beg his lordship's pardon, we should
have said _the court_,--may be; but, whatever the punishment awarded, we
hope to meet it with that fortitude which never fails to uphold a 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 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 _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 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.
"The foreman of the jury, (Mr. Place, of Charing Cross) asked
the witness if he thought the deceased had any reason to be
dissatisfied with the duke. He replied, on the contrary, he
thought Sellis had more reason to be _satisfied than any other
of the servants_; his royal highness had stood godfather for
one of his children, the Princess Augusta godmother. The duke
had shown him _very particular favour_ by giving him
apartments for his wife and family, with coals and candles.
"A juryman asked him if he ever heard the deceased complain of
the duke. The witness asked if he was obliged to answer that
question. The coroner informed him he must. He then stated
that about two or three years since the duke advanced their
board wages from 10_s._ 6_d._ a week to 14_s._, but at the
same time took off 3_s._ 6_d._, allowed for travelling. After
this regulation was adopted, a paper was drawn up by the
steward for the servants to sign, expressing their
satisfaction at the regulation, which the deceased _refused_
to sign, and said, 'he'd be d--d if he did, and none but
blackguards would sign it.' The steward told him the duke said
he must sign it, _or his wife and family must quit the
apartments he had given them_, as the rest of the servants had
signed it. He had never heard the deceased _complain_ since.
Within the last year, the _duke and royal family had been
extremely kind to him_. He had never given him an _angry
word_, although he had often made use of very _bad language to
him_; if he did, he never answered him. The deceased was of a
very malicious disposition. He would never be _contradicted_,
if he began a subject, for which reason he never wished to
have any conversation with him. He frequently quarrelled with
Mr. Paulet, one of the duke's servants, and fought with the
steward at Kew. Lately the deceased had a bad cold, and the
duke was so very _kind_ towards him in consequence, that he
took him _inside the carriage_ to Windsor. Sellis dressed the
duke on Wednesday night. _He had no doubt but Sellis intended
that he should be charged with being the murderer, to get him
out of the way._"
This Neale's evidence ought to be received with great caution. He slept
in the next room to the duke, and when called upon for his assistance,
stated his wish to pursue the murderer with a poker; but was prevented
by his master's "fear of being left alone!" In this _courageous_ offer
of Neale, however, he trampled upon a _sword_, which, although in _total
darkness, he was_ CONVINCED _was COVERED WITH BLOOD_!! We have no
intention to dispute _Neale's knowledge of this_, or that "it was his
master's own regimental sword!" There have been so many wonderful people
who could see AS WELL IN THE DARK AS IN THE LIGHT, and describe the
minutest particulars of an article as well with their EYES SHUT AS OPEN,
that we ought not to be surprised at any thing! Notwithstanding, many
persons WERE SURPRISED at the sagacity of Neale, not only in this, but
in many other particulars. If the duke, "covered with gore, accompanied
this servant to alarm the house," the traces of blood on the doors, &c.,
leading to _Sellis' room_, might be very _naturally accounted for_!
They, however, thought it better not to call Sellis THEMSELVES, but sent
NEALE'S WIFE TO DO IT!!! Although the duke pointed out to his
_confidential man_ the door through which the villain had ESCAPED, his
royal highness "felt afraid the murderer was STILL in his bed-room,"
which we have _no reason to doubt_! "A pair of slippers were left in an
adjoining room, with the name of SELLIS upon them." That Sellis left
them there, however, is rather IMPROBABLE; because it is natural to
suppose he would, if HE had been the murderer, have gone to his master's
room WITHOUT SLIPPERS, or shoes of any kind, to make as little noise as
possible. This circumstance, we are inclined to think, was a _planned
affair_, though badly executed; for we know that these slippers were
placed the _wrong way_,--a fact which will be hereafter proved. Through
the whole of Neale's evidence, not a word was said to show that Sellis
had the _least motive_ for murdering either the duke or himself. On the
contrary, "Sellis had every thing to expect from his master's living."
In concluding our remarks upon Neale's evidence, we point the attention
of our readers to the last sentence: "He had no doubt but Sellis
intended that he (Neale) should be charged with being the murderer, to
get him out of the way!" Now, as there was not the slightest evidence to
bear Neale out in this malicious assertion, we think, FOR HIS OWN SAKE,
he had much better have kept the expression to himself. Some of our
readers may not be aware of the _cause_ Sellis had given this
fellow-servant to hate him; but the following letter, addressed to B. C.
Stephenson, Esq., written by Sellis a few months before his death, will
elucidate this matter a little:
"_St. James', July 9th, 1809._
"SIR,--I am extremely anxious to know his royal highness'
decision concerning the evidence produced before you against
Mr. Neale, and I beg you, Sir, to have the goodness to relieve
me from this most disagreeable suspense. If I may, Sir, judge
from appearance, either his royal highness is not acquainted
with what has been proved, or his royal highness has entirely
forgiven him. Should the former be the case, Sir, I hope you
will have the goodness to acquaint his royal highness to the
full extent of the roguery of this man; and here it may be
necessary to say, that the witnesses you have examined are all
of them ready to take their oaths in a court of justice, and
there to assert what they have already said before you. But,
Sir, should his royal highness have forgiven him, then I must
be under the most disagreeable necessity to beg his royal
highness to have the goodness to dispose of me as his royal
highness may think proper, so that I may not have the
mortification to live and act in the same room with a man I
have _convicted as a rogue, and with whom no human being is
able to live on friendly terms_. Had it been his royal
highness' pleasure to have had this business in a court of
justice, the man would have been _transported at least for
seven years_; and what I am going to communicate to you now
is, I believe, transportation for life. I have been told,
Sir, that Mr. Neale cheats his royal highness in every thing
he buys; in two different articles I have already ascertained
this to be a fact; on the toothpicks he gains fifty per cent.,
by charging eighteen pence for that for which he only pays one
shilling, and on the soap he charges two shillings for that
which he pays eighteen pence, and should his royal highness
wish me to proceed with these discoveries, it will be found
that the _dishonesty of this man has no bounds_! The evidence
you have taken, Sir, and what I have communicated to Major
Thornton, with which also you must be acquainted, you must be
satisfied, that this man is as _great a villain as ever
existed_; NO OATH OR PROMISE IS BINDING WITH HIM; and he
relates alike that which he must have sworn to keep sacred in
his bosom, as he will a most trifling thing; and slanders and
THREATENS WITH PUBLIC EXPOSURE AND LARGE DAMAGES HIS
BENEFACTOR and only maker of his fortune, just as he would one
of his own stamp. Sir, to serve his royal highness, I have
always thought it as my greatest honour, and to serve him in
any situation that his royal highness may be pleased to place
me, shall always be the greatest pride of my life; but no
longer can I live with this monster. I have, Sir, served his
royal highness for nearly twelve years, and would rather
forego all my wishes and pretensions, and beseech his royal
highness to allow me permission to look out for another place.
To your goodness I trust, Sir, that you will lay my case
before his royal highness, and acquaint me with his royal
highness' pleasure.
"I have the honour to be, Sir,
"Your most obedient and most humble servant,
"J. SELLIS."
"B. C. STEPHENSON, Esq."
In this letter, enough is set forth to make us receive the evidence of
Neale with _caution_, if not to render him _unworthy of belief
altogether_. _Why_ the Duke of Cumberland retained Neale in his service
_after_ his peculating tricks had been discovered, and _after the_
THREAT he held out against his royal master, we must leave our readers
to discover.
"The jury proceeded to examine the bed-room of the royal duke,
which they found in a most distressing and horrible state. It
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 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? 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' 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 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_.
"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 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 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_!"
[172:A] When the inquest was held, the razor was found on some
drawers in the room; but it was placed there by a Bow-street
officer, by _mistake_,--at least, so it was reported. We,
however, consider even the very partial evidence published in
the "Morning Post" quite sufficient to prove that poor Sellis
had nothing to do with the razor himself. Some one else must
have thrown it "two yards from the bed." The murdered man
could not possibly have so exerted himself after the
infliction of such a severe wound!
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 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 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
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._"
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."
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_."
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."
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. 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
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._"
"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 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 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 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.