Secret History of the Court of England Volume I Part 10

"The first affidavit that was read was that of his royal highness the Duke of c.u.mberland, which stated, that about half-past two o'clock on Thursday morning he received two violent blows and cuts on his head; the first impression upon his mind was, that _a bat had got into the room, and was beating about his head_; but he was soon convinced to the contrary by receiving a third blow. He then jumped out of bed, when he received several more blows; from the _glimmering light afforded from a dull lamp in the fire-place, and the motion of the instrument that inflicted the wounds, they appeared like flashes of lightning before his eyes. He made for a door near the head of his bed_, leading to a small room, to which the a.s.sa.s.sin followed him, and cut him _across his thighs_. His royal highness not being able to find his alarm-bell, which there is no doubt the _villain_ had concealed, called with a loud voice for Neale (his valet in waiting) several times, who came to his a.s.sistance; and _Neale_, together with his royal highness, alarmed the house."

The blows of the a.s.sa.s.sin must have indeed been _slight_ to resemble "a bat beating about the head of his royal highness;" but we cannot understand how the _cut of a sword_ can bear any _similarity_ to the beating of a little animal, like a bat! Poor Sellis, however, was but a _little man_, and his weak arm might be still more enfeebled by the consciousness of his ingrat.i.tude in attacking so _kind and liberal a master_! Sellis had been the duke's page, or valet, for more than five years, in daily, nay, almost hourly, personal communication with him; and it must, therefore, appear very strange, if Sellis was really the a.s.sa.s.sin, that his master did not _recognise him_! If the room was so dark that the duke could not _see the person_ attacking him, it is singular that the _a.s.sa.s.sin could see to strike his royal highness_, as he did by "cutting him across his thighs, after he was out of bed!" As the supposed murderer followed the duke, who thought it best to take to his heels, we think his royal highness should have stated whether he meant his thighs in _front_ or _behind_; but, of course, an examination of the _scars_ would soon set this matter at rest! They would, no doubt, be found _behind_, as it is _unreasonable_ to suppose that, in a _dark room_, the _pursuer_ could have cut at the _pursued_ in front. The Duke of c.u.mberland is a field-marshal, and a BRAVER man, IT IS SAID, never entered the FIELD; but _in a dark room_, with a man little more than half his weight, it would have been _cowardly_ to _fight_, particularly as his royal highness might, IF HE HAD SO WISHED, have taken the weapon out of Sellis' hand, and broken it about his head. No! no! the Duke of c.u.mberland knew what was due to his honour better than to take so _mean_ an advantage of a _weak_ adversary, and therefore _coolly_ endeavoured to ring his bell, that a more _suitable_ antagonist might be procured in his valet _Neale_!

"Cornelius Neale, sworn.--He said he was valet to the Duke of c.u.mberland, and that he was in close waiting upon his royal highness on Wednesday night, and slept _in a bed in a room adjoining the duke's bed-room_. A little before three o'clock, he heard the duke calling out, 'Neale, Neale, I am murdered, and the murderer is in my bed-room!' He went immediately to his royal highness, and found him bleeding from his wounds.

The duke told him the door the a.s.sa.s.sin had gone out at; he armed himself with a poker, and asked if he should _pursue_ him. The duke replied '_no_,' but to _remain with him_. After moving a few paces, he stepped upon a _sword_; and, _although in the dark_, he was convinced it was _covered with blood_; it proved to be the _duke's own regimental sword_. _The duke and witness then went to alarm the house, and got a light from the porter._ The duke was _afraid the murderer was still in his bed-room_. His royal highness was obliged to lean upon him from the loss of blood, and he gave directions that no person should be let out of the house. They called up the _witness'

wife_, who is the housekeeper, and told _her_ to call _Sellis_. He then returned with the duke to his bed-room. At that time the duke was very faint from the great loss of blood. Upon examining the premises they found, in a second adjoining small room, a pair of _slippers with the name of Sellis on them_, and a dark lantern. The key of the closet was in the inside of the lock, and, to his knowledge, the key had not been in that state for _ten years_. He had reason to believe the wounds of the duke had been given by a sword.

Sellis took out the duke's regimentals some time since, and put them by again, but left out the _sword upon a sofa for two or three days_. It is the same sword which he trod upon, and it was in a b.l.o.o.d.y state.

"The foreman of the jury, (Mr. Place, of Charing Cross) asked the witness if he thought the deceased had any reason to be dissatisfied with the duke. He replied, on the contrary, he thought Sellis had more reason to be _satisfied than any other of the servants_; his royal highness had stood G.o.dfather for one of his children, the Princess Augusta G.o.dmother. The duke had shown him _very particular favour_ by giving him apartments for his wife and family, with coals and candles.

"A juryman asked him if he ever heard the deceased complain of the duke. The witness asked if he was obliged to answer that question. The coroner informed him he must. He then stated that about two or three years since the duke advanced their board wages from 10_s._ 6_d._ a week to 14_s._, but at the same time took off 3_s._ 6_d._, allowed for travelling. After this regulation was adopted, a paper was drawn up by the steward for the servants to sign, expressing their satisfaction at the regulation, which the deceased _refused_ to sign, and said, 'he'd be d--d if he did, and none but blackguards would sign it.' The steward told him the duke said he must sign it, _or his wife and family must quit the apartments he had given them_, as the rest of the servants had signed it. He had never heard the deceased _complain_ since.

Within the last year, the _duke and royal family had been extremely kind to him_. He had never given him an _angry word_, although he had often made use of very _bad language to him_; if he did, he never answered him. The deceased was of a very malicious disposition. He would never be _contradicted_, if he began a subject, for which reason he never wished to have any conversation with him. He frequently quarrelled with Mr. Paulet, one of the duke's servants, and fought with the steward at Kew. Lately the deceased had a bad cold, and the duke was so very _kind_ towards him in consequence, that he took him _inside the carriage_ to Windsor. Sellis dressed the duke on Wednesday night. _He had no doubt but Sellis intended that he should be charged with being the murderer, to get him out of the way._"

This Neale's evidence ought to be received with great caution. He slept in the next room to the duke, and when called upon for his a.s.sistance, 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 circ.u.mstance, 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 a.s.sertion, 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 a.s.sert 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 c.u.mberland 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 ta.s.sel, 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 a.s.sa.s.sin 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 b.l.o.o.d.y 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 _rec.u.mbent 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 b.l.o.o.d.y state. The deceased's _neckcloth was cut through in several places. The drawers, wash-hand basin-stand, and the basin, were also b.l.o.o.d.y._"

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 a.s.sa.s.sin of the Duke of c.u.mberland!

"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 c.u.mberland'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 G.o.d! 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 princ.i.p.al 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 c.o.c.kpit, 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 c.u.mberland, 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 G.o.d! 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 a.s.suredly 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 circ.u.mstance 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 c.u.mberland 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 partic.i.p.ation 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_."