Part 11

"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.