Secret History of the Court of England Volume I Part 11

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 c.u.mberland, 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 c.u.mberland'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 c.u.mberland, 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 _d.i.c.key_, 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 compa.s.sion and interest_; it tended to _prove he was a good husband, not embarra.s.sed in his circ.u.mstances, 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 compa.s.sion 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 G.o.dmother to his child. He was not embarra.s.sed in his circ.u.mstances, 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 gla.s.s 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 unbia.s.sed 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 c.u.mberland.

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 G.o.dmother, 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 G.o.dmother, 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 circ.u.mstances 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 a.s.sisted us in proving the statements made in our work, ent.i.tled "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 c.u.mberland, I feel it a public duty to record the circ.u.mstances 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 c.u.mberland 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 pa.s.sages 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 a.s.sa.s.sIN OF THE DUKE OF c.u.mBERLAND COULD NOT ESCAPE!

"In returning to the duke, I found the doors of all the state apartments had marks of b.l.o.o.d.y fingers on them. _The Duke of c.u.mberland, 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 pa.s.sages 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 compet.i.tion with that of Sir Everard Home; but Mr. Place urged this circ.u.mstance 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 a.s.sa.s.sinate 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 a.s.serts it to be "just such kind of sprinkling, the arm of the a.s.sa.s.sin 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 c.u.mberland, 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 pa.s.sages 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 dispa.s.sionately examined all the evidence brought forward to prove Sellis an a.s.sa.s.sin 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 b.l.o.o.d.y, 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 b.l.o.o.d.y. 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 circ.u.mstance. 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 b.l.o.o.d.y 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 sh.e.l.l, 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 n.o.blemen 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 dest.i.tute 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 "c.u.mberland _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 c.u.mberland. 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 Middles.e.x solicitor maketh oath and saith that he hath seen a certain book or publication ent.i.tled "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 pa.s.sages 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 pa.s.sages extracted from the said book or publication was held and that it is not true as stated in the aforesaid pa.s.sages 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 pa.s.sages 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 pa.s.sed 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 circ.u.mstances 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 circ.u.mstances 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 princ.i.p.al 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 circ.u.mstances 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 circ.u.mstances 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._"