Part 12

"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.

FRANCIS PLACE.

_Charing Cross, April 19, 1832._

The very morning this letter was published, we called on Mr. Place, who repeated the substance of it to us, adding that Sir Charles Wetherell had sent a person to him for his affidavit, which he REFUSED in a letter to the learned knight, condemning the whole proceeding of criminal information. Mr. Place read a copy of this letter to us, and promised he would publish it if ever a _sufficient reason_ presented itself. It was an admirable composition, and did credit to the liberality of the writer's opinions.