"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 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 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
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 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."
(Signed) "JEW."
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:
=In the King's Bench.=
"Samuel Thomas Adams of No 9 Davis street Berkeley square in
the County of Middlesex solicitor maketh oath and saith that
he hath seen a certain book or publication entitled "The
Authentic Records of the Court of England for the last
Seventy Years" purporting to be published in London by J.
Phillips 334 Strand 1832 and that in the said book or
publication are contained the following statements or passages
which this deponent has read that is to say--"
[Here the deponent, _lawyer-like_, set out the whole of the pretended
libel, as published in the "Authentic Records," for the purpose of
putting us to all the expense and trouble possible.]
"And this deponent further saith that he was coroner for the
verge of the King's Palace at St. James's in the month of June
one thousand eight hundred and ten before whom the inquest on
the body of Joseph Sellis referred to in the aforesaid
passages extracted from the said book or publication was held
and that it is not true as stated in the aforesaid passages
that Lord Ellenborough undertook to manage the affair by
arranging the proceedings upon the said inquest or that every
witness or as this deponent believes any witness was
previously examined by the said Lord Ellenborough or that the
first jury for the reasons in the aforesaid passages alleged
or for any other reasons refused to return a verdict in
consequence of which they were dismissed and a second jury
summoned and empannelled to whom _severally a special
messenger had been sent_ requesting their attendance and each
of whom was directly or indirectly connected with the court or
the government. And this deponent further saith that it is not
true that any person was omitted as a witness whose evidence
was known or could be suspected to be material but on the
contrary this deponent saith that when the death of the said
Joseph Sellis was notified to him he as such coroner as
aforesaid was required to hold an inquest on the body of the
said Joseph Sellis and that it being required by a statute
passed in the twenty-third year of Henry the Eighth chapter
twelve that in case of death happening in any of the king's
palaces or houses where his majesty should then happen to be
and in respect of which death an inquest should be necessary
that the jury on such inquest should be composed of twelve or
more of the yeoman officers of the king's household to be
returned in the manner therein particularly mentioned he this
deponent in the first instance issued as such coroner as
aforesaid an order that a jury should be summoned composed of
the said yeoman officers of the king's household pursuant to
the directions of the said statute. But this deponent saith
that believing it to be important that the cause and
circumstances of the death of the said Joseph Sellis should be
investigated in the most public and impartial manner _he took
upon himself the responsibility of not complying with the
strict letter of such statute as aforesaid and countermanded
the first order as aforesaid for summoning such jury in
conformity to the said statute and instead thereof directed a
jury to be summoned consisting of persons not being yeomen
officers of the king's household_ but living at a distance
from and totally unconnected with the palace of St. James's
And this deponent further saith that thereupon his agent as
this deponent has been informed and believes took the
summoning officer to Francis Place of Charing Cross man's
mercer and that the said Francis Place then mentioned to the
agent of this deponent the names of many persons fit and
eligible to compose such jury and out of such persons so
summoned by the officer as aforesaid an impartial jury was
formed of which jury the said Francis Place was foreman And
this deponent saith that before such jury so summoned and duly
sworn he as coroner proceeded on the first day of June one
thousand eight hundred and ten to hold an inquest on the body
of the said Joseph Sellis And this deponent further saith that
the court which under other circumstances would have been a
close one he this deponent directed to be thrown open to the
public and all persons without distinction And this deponent
believes the same was done and that all persons without
distinction were admitted into such court amongst whom were
many reporters for the newspapers who attended for the purpose
of taking and did take notes of the proceedings and of the
depositions of the witnesses examined upon such inquest And
this deponent further saith that at the commencement of the
said inquest the several informations on oath of the principal
witnesses taken on that and the preceding day by John Reid
Esquire the then chief magistrate of the police were read over
and handed to the said jury to enable them the better to
examine such witnesses respectively and such witnesses were
respectively resworn before this deponent as coroner and
permitted to make any addition to their evidence so given
before the magistrate as aforesaid and that each and every of
such witnesses had full opportunities of making any addition
to such testimony which they thought proper And this deponent
further saith that all the circumstances of the case as far as
they could be collected were carefully and impartially
scrutinized by the said jury and that all the evidence which
could be collected and brought forward and that every person
was called before the said jury and examined as a witness and
no person was omitted to be called and examined who would
have been or who it could be supposed would have been a
material witness And this deponent further saith that in the
course of the inquiry the said jury proceeded to the apartment
where the body of the said Joseph Sellis had been first
discovered and was then lying and did then carefully view
examine and inspect the body of the said Joseph Sellis and all
the other circumstances deemed by them necessary to be
examined into and ascertained in any way touching the death of
the said Joseph Sellis And this deponent further saith that he
locked the doors of the apartment in which the body of the
said Joseph Sellis was found and did not permit the same to be
inspected nor the state and position of the said body to be
disturbed, from the first discovery of such body in the
aforesaid apartment until the same was inspected by the said
jury And this deponent further saith that on the conclusion of
the investigation the said jury immediately and unanimously
returned a verdict that the said Joseph Sellis voluntarily and
feloniously as a _felo de se_ murdered himself And this
deponent further saith that the proceedings upon the said
inquest were in all respects regular _except_ as to the jury
not consisting of the yeoman officers of the king's household
and that such proceedings were themselves conducted in the
most fair open and impartial manner and that the verdict so
found by the jury as aforesaid was a just true and honest
verdict and that there is not the smallest ground for
supposing or alleging any thing to the contrary
thereof[192:A]
"SAM{L}. THO{S}. ADAMS."
"_Sworn in Court the eighteenth
day of April 1832--By the Court._"
[192:A] Whatever our readers may think of this jumble of
words, we assure them it is _verbatim_ from the ORIGINAL
affidavit, which is WITHOUT POINTS, as lawyers consider such
matters unnecessary.]
"The first remark he had to submit to the court in this case
was, that a person who applied for an extraordinary remedy by
criminal information, must deny all the charges contained in
the libel. The rank of the illustrious individual in this case
made no difference with respect to that point. Now the court
would find, by the affidavit of Mr. Adams, the coroner, that
one of the main parts of this alleged libel, so far from being
contradicted, was SUBSTANTIATED,--he alluded to the fact of
there having been TWO JURIES summoned to inquire into the
circumstances relating to the death of Sellis. He did not mean
to say that that fact formed any justification for the
publication of the libel; but the fact itself was certainly
extremely important, and Mr. Adams' affidavit contained the
reasons why the mode pointed out by the act of parliament for
summoning juries in such cases had been departed from. The
fact of there having been two juries summoned was no doubt
sufficient to induce any person to believe that there was some
reason for that proceeding, which was not apparent on the face
of it. Mr. Adams had described the manner in which the jury
were summoned. He said he sent the summoning officer to Mr.
Place, man's mercer, of Charing-cross; but Mr. Place was not
the coroner for the verge of the King's Palace, and had no
authority to act. He would leave it to the court to form their
own opinion, whether or not this departure from the usual
course was or was not for the purpose of obtaining an
IMPARTIAL TRIAL. The affidavit showed that Mr. Adams had flown
in the face of the act of parliament, and the statement in the
Authentic Records, that there had been a second inquest, was
CORROBORATED by that affidavit. Mr. Adams had referred to the
act of parliament, as being that of the 23rd of Henry VIII.,
whereas it was that of the 33rd of Henry VIII.: that was no
doubt a trifling circumstance, but it tended to show the
manner in which Mr. Adams performed the duties of his office.
Mr. Adams had stated that summonses had been drawn up for
summoning TWO JURIES, but those for summoning the FIRST were
not used; but the reason he gave was most unsatisfactory. He
had no right to send to Mr. Place, and Mr. Place had no right
to act as coroner; and he (Mr. Wakefield) submitted that the
court ought to require an affidavit from Mr. Place to
corroborate what Mr. Adams had stated. He believed it would
not be difficult to show that the inquest might be quashed, as
being illegal; and it certainly might have been quashed if
Sellis had had any goods, which would have been subject to an
extent at the suit of the crown. At all events, Mr. Adams
might have been prosecuted for a breach of duty. There was
another point which, though of a trifling nature, he would
take the liberty of adverting to, in order to show that the
inquest was illegal. By the 28 Henry VIII. c. 12, the jury in
cases of this description were to be summoned from the verge
of the court. Now this applied to the court sitting at
Whitehall; but at the time in question the court was sitting
at St. James'. The summoning, therefore, was clearly not good,
and the jury, consisting of Mr. Place's junta, could not
legally hold an inquest on the body of Sellis."
Four other mistakes, also, in the coroner's affidavit were pointed out
by _Mr. Place_ himself in a letter to the public.
1. Mr. Adams says, "he issued an order to summon a jury of
persons of the king's household, but that he rescinded the
order, and summoned a jury of persons who lived at a distance,
and were wholly unconnected with St. James' Palace." Mr. Adams
must by these words mean that he summoned a jury from the only
place to which his power extended; namely, "the verge of the
court,"--a small space, and from amongst the few tradesmen who
resided within its limits. _I never before heard that he had
issued any order to summon a jury of persons of the king's
household._
2. Mr. Adams says, that his "summoning officer applied to
Francis Place, of Charing Cross, for the names of persons who
were eligible to compose a jury, and that out of such persons
an impartial jury, of which Francis Place was the foreman,
assembled on the 1st of June, 1810." Mr. Adams probably speaks
from memory, and is, therefore, incorrect. He might, to be
sure, have instructed his officer to apply to me; but, if he
did, it was a STRANGE PROCEEDING. The officer was in the habit
of summoning juries within the verge, and must have known much
better than I did who were eligible. The jurors could not have
been indicated by me, since, of seventeen who formed the
inquest, five were wholly unknown to me, either by name or
person; and amongst the seven who did not attend, there were
probably others who were also unknown to me. The number of
persons liable to be summoned is so small, that it has been
sometimes difficult to constitute an inquest, and there is no
room either for choice or selection.
3. Mr. Adams says, "the depositions of the witnesses were
taken by John Read, the then chief police magistrate, and were
read to the witnesses, who were severally asked if they had
any thing to add to them." This, if left as Mr. Adams has put
it, would imply negligence on the part of an inquest which was
more than usually diligent and precise. The depositions were
read, but not one of them was taken as the evidence of a
witness. Every person who appeared as a witness was carefully
and particularly examined, and the order in which the evidence
was taken, and the words used, differ from the depositions;
the evidence is also much longer than the depositions. Both
are before me. The inquest examined seven material witnesses,
who had not made depositions before Mr. Read.
4. Mr. Adams says "the jury _immediately_ and _unanimously_
returned a verdict that the deceased, Joseph Sellis,
voluntarily and feloniously murdered himself." The jury of
seventeen persons were every one convinced that Sellis had
destroyed himself, yet two of them did not concur in the
verdict,--one, because he could not believe that a sane man
ever put an end to his own existence; and another, because he
could not satisfy himself whether or no Sellis was sane or
insane.