Chapter V: Part 5

"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.

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 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."