Secret History of the Court of England Volume I Part 12

[192:A] Whatever our readers may think of this jumble of words, we a.s.sure 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 ill.u.s.trious 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 circ.u.mstances 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 circ.u.mstance, 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 s.p.a.ce, 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, a.s.sembled 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 const.i.tute 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.

As to the affidavits of the Duke of c.u.mberland and Neale, they contain nothing but what other people in similar situations would say,--_they deny all knowledge of Sellis' murder, and of unnatural conduct_. Whoever thought of requiring them to _criminate themselves_? But affidavits, from interested persons are not worth much. The notorious Bishop of Clogher, for instance, exculpated himself in a criminal information by an affidavit, and the result was, the man who published the _truth_ of that _wretch_ groaned in a jail!!! Sir Charles, therefore, had no occasion to boast of the Duke of c.u.mberland's _charitable_ mode of proceeding against us by _criminal information_, instead of commencing an _ex-officio_ action; for in neither of these modes of procedure does the _truth_ or _falsehood_ of the charge form an object of consideration. We are, therefore, _prevented_ by the Duke of c.u.mberland and his adherents from proving the _truth_ of the statements we made in "The Authentic Records" _in a court of law_; but where resides the _power_ that shall rob us of the glorious LIBERTY OF THE PRESS? We are the strenuous advocates of the _right to promulgate_ TRUTH,--of the right to scrutinize public actions and public men,--of the right to expose vice, and castigate mischievous follies, even though they may be found in a _palace_! The free exercise of this invaluable privilege should always be conceded to the HISTORIAN, or where will posterity look for _impartial information_? In this character only did we publish what we believed, and _still believe_, to be the _truth_ in our former work of "The Authentic Records," and which we have considerably enlarged upon in our present undertaking, merely for the purpose of fulfilling our sacred duty, and not with the idea of slandering any man! If the Duke of c.u.mberland had proved our statement _false_, we would have freely acknowledged our error, as every man ought to do who seeks fairly and honorably to sustain a n.o.ble function in the purity of its existence. We know there are writers who seek, not to enlighten, but to debase; not to find amus.e.m.e.nt, but to administer poison; not to impart information, either political, moral, or literary, but to indulge in obscenity,--to rake up forgotten falsehoods, and disseminate imputed calumnies! To such, the sanctuary of private life is no longer inviolable; the feelings of the domestic circle are no longer sacred; retirement affords no protection, and virtue interposes no defence, to their sordid inroads. Upon offences like these, _we_ would invoke the fiercest penalties of the law. The interests of society demand it, and the rights of individuals claim it! But our strictures and exposures are of a widely-different character,--not if they were _false_,--but because their TRUTH must be apparent to every unbia.s.sed individual in this mighty empire! With this conviction alone we stated them, and even Sir Charles Wetherell himself said we "seemed to have no other motive in stating them only for the purpose of stating them!" We are not disposed to comment upon this part of the learned counsel's speech, as it proves all we want to prove regarding our motives.

This year was not less remarkable for the king's family sorrows than for public grievances. His majesty was nearly childish and blind. The queen dreaded the ascendency of the popular voice in favour of the Princess of Wales, and the Princess Charlotte exhibited a resolute spirit, which it was feared would end to the unhappiness of the puissant queen. The Princess Amelia suffered under indescribable sorrows, both bodily and mental, which ultimately terminated her earthly career on the 2nd of November.

Many representations were made to the public of the numerous visits made to the Princess Amelia by the king, and their affecting final interview. We believe we may, with truth, say those representations were erroneous; for the king's malady was of too serious a nature to admit of any new excitement, and the peculiar regard he entertained for this daughter would not allow his hearing of her sufferings in any shape, without feeling the most acute pain.

The Prince of Wales also still pursued the most dissipated rounds of pleasure, making his very name hateful to every virtuous ear. The house of royalty, indeed, seemed divided against itself.

General historians say that the year

1811

was not marked by any very particular events of much interest, either to kings or kingdoms; yet we must differ from them in this opinion, inasmuch as, at its commencement, the Prince of Wales was appointed _Regent_, and the king's person confided to the care of the queen, conjointly with archbishops, lords, and other adherents of her majesty.

The session was opened on the 12th of February; and the speech, delivered by commission, in the name of the regent, expressed _unfeigned sorrow_ at the king's malady, by which the exercise of the royal authority had devolved upon his royal highness. It also _congratulated_ parliament and the country on the success of his majesty's arms, by land and sea, and did not forget to beg for further SUPPLIES,--_so much required_.

Let us here inquire the cause that prevented the _amiable_ regent from opening the session in person. Had his mistresses detained him too late in the morning? or had they played a _designed part_ with him, to prove their superior domination? or had he been in his most privately-retired apartments, _conversing with a few of the male favourites of his household in_ ITALIAN? If either of these do not give the true reason of his absence, we may be sure to ascertain it upon inquiry of the vintner or faro-table keeper. Here the different _degrees_ of morality, contrived by custom and keeping the people in ignorance, are well ill.u.s.trated!

The queen was much at Windsor at this period, she being obliged, by etiquette, to hear the bulletins issued by the physicians concerning his majesty's health, or her _affection_ for the afflicted king would not have produced so great a _sacrifice_ on her part.

In this year, the disgraced Duke of York was restored to his former post of commander-in-chief; although, but a short period before, he was found guilty of being privy to, if not actually and personally, disposing of situations in the army, by which traffic, very large amounts had been realized by one of his royal highness' mistresses.

The money required for this year's supply amounted to _fifty-six millions_! The distress in all the manufacturing districts, notwithstanding, was of the heaviest nature; while, instead of ministers devising means to relieve the starving poor, oppressive enactments were subst.i.tuted.

Let it not here be supposed that we are condemning any const.i.tutional enactment of government. We only wish to see the interests of the poor a little more regarded, instead of laws being made solely with a view of aggrandizing the wealthy, whose eyes already stand out with fatness. Is it not evident that the men at this period in power were resolved to continue their system of corrupt administration, in despite of all remonstrance and opposition? A long course of oppression had apparently hardened them, and so far steeled their hearts against the pet.i.tions of the suffering nation, that they actually seemed to delight in increasing the heavy burdens which already preyed upon the vitals of the community.

Our readers may probably be aware that the visits of the Princess Charlotte to her mother were always "few and far between;" but at this period, the interviews became so uncertain and restricted, that they could not be satisfactory either to the mother or the daughter. Some of the attendants always remained in the apartment with them, _by the regent's command_, to witness the conversation. For some time, the princess contrived to write _privately_ to her mother, and obtained a confidential messenger to deliver her communications. This was ultimately suspected, and, after a close scrutiny, unfortunately discovered, and immediately forbidden. Her royal highness was now in her fifteenth year, in good health, and possessing much natural and mental activity. It was not very probable, therefore, that the society of FORMAL LADIES, every way disproportionate to herself in years and taste, could be very agreeable to her, more especially when she knew that these very ladies were bitter enemies to her adored mother. If the Princess Charlotte had been allowed to a.s.sociate with natural and suitable companions, the very decisive feature of her character would have rendered her the brightest ornament of society; but this was not permitted, and England has great cause to mourn that she was not more valued by her father and grandmother.

The elegant and accomplished Dr. Nott was now selected for the Princess Charlotte's preceptor, and he ardently exerted himself to improve the mind of his royal pupil. The very superior _personal_, as well as mental, qualifications of the reverend gentleman, however, soon rendered him an object of _peculiar interest_ to the youthful princess. The ardency of her affections and the determinate character of her mind were well known to her royal relatives. They, therefore, viewed this new connexion with considerable uneasiness, and soon had occasion to suspect that her royal highness had manifested too much solicitude for the interest of her friend and tutor!

The Duke of York first communicated his suspicions on this subject to the regent, and the prince immediately went to Windsor (where the queen then was) to inform her majesty of his fears, and to consult what would be the most proper and effectual measures to take. Her majesty was highly incensed at the information, and very indignantly answered, "My family connexions will prove my entire ruin." Her majesty, accompanied by the prince, drove off directly for London, and the Princess Charlotte was commanded to meet her grandmother in her chamber. With her usual independent readiness, the princess obeyed the summons, and was ushered into the presence of the haughty queen.

After some considerable period of silence, her majesty began to ask what particular services Dr. Nott had rendered, or what very superior attractions he possessed, to engage the attentions of her royal highness in such an unusual degree, as was now well known to be the case. Her royal highness rose up, and in a tone of voice, not very agreeable to the queen, said, "If your majesty supposes you can subdue me as you have done my mother, the Princess of Wales, you will find yourself deceived.

The Reverend Mr. Nott has shown me more attentions, and contributed more to my happiness in my gloomy seclusion, than any person ever did, except my mother, and I ought to be grateful to him, and I WILL, whether it pleases your majesty or not!" The queen saw her purpose was defeated in the attempt to intimidate her grand-daughter, and therefore, in a milder manner, said, "You must, my dear, recollect, I am anxious for your honour and happiness; you are born to occupy the highest station in the world, and I wish you to do so becoming the proud character of your royal father, who is the most distinguished prince in Europe." The queen had scarcely concluded her sentence, when her royal highness burst forth, in the most violent manner, and with an undismayed gesture, said, "Does your majesty think I am always to be under your subjection? Can I believe my royal father _so great and good_, when I have so long witnessed his unremitted unkindness to my neglected mother? Neither do I receive much attention from the prince; and my uncle of York is always preaching to me about virtue and submission, and your majesty well knows _he does not practise either_! Mr. Nott practises every amiability which he enjoins, and I esteem him exceedingly _more than I do any other gentleman_!" The queen was quite vexed at the unbending disposition manifested by the princess, and desired her to retire, and reflect upon the improper conduct of which she had been guilty, and, by humility and contrition, to make a suitable atonement.

While walking out of the room, the princess appeared in deep thought, and more tranquil; her majesty, imagining it to be the result of her own advice, said, "The Princess Charlotte will never want a friend if she abide by her grandmother's instructions, and properly maintain her dignity of birth." Her royal highness returned to her former situation before the queen, and exclaimed, "What does your majesty mean?" "I mean," replied the queen, "that you must not condescend to favour persons in _low life_ with your confidence or particular respect; they will take advantage of it, and finally make you the tool to accomplish their vile purposes." "Does your majesty apply these remarks to the Rev.

Mr. Nott?" hastily replied the princess. "I do," said the queen. "Then hear me, your majesty; I glory in my regard for Mr. Nott. His virtues are above all praise, and he merits infinitely more than I have to give; but I resolve, from this moment, to give him all the worldly goods I can; and your majesty knows that, by _law_, I can make a will, though I am but little more than fifteen; and my library, jewels, and other valuables, are at my own disposal! I will now, without delay, make my will in his favour, and no earthly power shall prevent me. I am sorry your majesty prefers _vicious and wicked characters, with splendid t.i.tles_, to virtuous and amiable persons, dest.i.tute of such empty sounds!" The princess left the room, and the queen was more disturbed than before the interview.

The regent was soon made acquainted with the result, and recommended that no further notice should be taken of the matter, hoping that the princess would change her intention upon a more deliberate survey of the subject. But in this opinion, or hope, his royal highness was disappointed; for the princess that day signed a _deed_, whereby she gave _positively_ to her friend and preceptor, Dr. Nott, her library, jewels, and all private property belonging to her, and delivered this instrument into his hand, saying, "I hope you will receive this small token as a pledge of my sincere regard for your character, and high estimation of your many virtues. When I am able to give you greater testimonies of my friendship, they shall not be withheld." We need hardly say that the divine was _delighted_ at the great attention and unexpected generosity of her royal highness. He was more; for his heart was subdued and affected.

A considerable period elapsed after this circ.u.mstance, when the queen was resolved to recover the _deed_ at all hazards, as she feared, if the validity of such an instrument were ever acknowledged, royalty would suffer much in the estimation of the public. All the queen's deceptive plans, therefore, were tried; but failed. The prince, at length, offered a large amount as a remuneration, and finally persuaded the doctor to give up the deed! Of course a good living was also presented to him, on his retiring from the situation in which he had so long enjoyed the smile and favour of his royal pupil.

The Princess Charlotte was mortified, beyond expression, at this unexpected conduct on the part of her father and grandmother, and was not very sparing in her expressions of dislike towards them. Mr.

Perceval (who was then premier) was requested by the prince to see her royal highness, and to suggest _any_ terms of reconciliation between the princess and the queen; but he could not succeed. "What, Sir!" said her royal highness, "would you desire me to _appear what I am not_, and to meet her majesty as if I believed her to be my sincere friend, when I know I am hated for my dear mother's sake? No, Sir! I cannot do as you desire; but I will endeavour to meet her majesty at all needful opportunities with as much gentleness of manners as I can a.s.sume. What indignities has not the queen offered to my persecuted mother? You well know, Sir, they have been unmerited, and if her majesty insults the Princess of Wales again in my presence, I shall say, 'your majesty should regulate your family affairs better, and teach lessons of virtue to your _daughters_, before you traduce the characters of other ladies!'

You, Sir, are the regent's minister, and in his confidence, so I may venture to give you my candid opinion, and I do not consider that, by doing so, I exceed the bounds of propriety. Will you, therefore, oblige me by announcing to the prince, my father, that I am unalterably devoted in heart to my mother, and while I wish to be a dutiful child to my father, I must not even be that at the expense of principle and honourable sentiments. My grandfather always had my respect and pity."

It is scarcely necessary to say, that Mr. Perceval retired with evident symptoms of disappointment and chagrin. He immediately communicated the result of his interview to the regent and the queen, who declined making any further remonstrance, lest the princess should imagine they feared her, or were at all intimidated by her bold decisions.

In this year, Lord Sidmouth moved to bring in a bill to alter the "Toleration Act." His lordship stated, that this bill was calculated to serve the interests of religion, and promote the prosperity of the Church of England! But Lord Sidmouth, for once, was disappointed. The sensation excited throughout the country was of an unprecedented description; for, within forty-eight hours, no less than three hundred and thirty-six pet.i.tions against it were poured into the House of Lords!

and the House was presented, on the second reading, with five hundred more! It was consequently abandoned.

The supplies voted for the public and _private_ services were FIFTY-SIX MILLIONS!

At the close of this year, the poor were perishing for want; yet the court became more splendid than ever! The ill-fated sovereign was as imbecile and as weak as an infant, and his representative a profligate ruler. What a condition for England!

War still raged at the commencement of

1812.

We will not, however, record the scenes of devastation and horror consequent from it; neither will we eulogize Lord Wellington for the _victories_ he obtained. Much rather would we shed a tear at the remembrance of the slaughtered victims to kingly or ministerial ambition. Who that believes in the immortality of the soul can think of these horrid engagements without shuddering at the immense and inexpressible accountability of the destroyer? It would be utterly impossible to give an idea of the number of WIDOWS and ORPHANS who have had to mourn the consequences of _splendid_ victories, as a _wholesale murdering of soldiers_ are denominated. How many _ducal coronets_ have been purchased at the expense of human existence! Rather should our brows never be encircled than at such an unnatural price!

On the 13th of February, the restrictions formerly in force against the prince regent terminated; and, properly speaking, it may be declared, _he then a.s.sumed the kingly power_. One hundred thousand pounds were voted for him, _professedly_ to meet the expenses attendant upon his a.s.sumption of the regal authority.

This was a moment of triumph to the queen, and the sequel will prove that her majesty took especial care to turn it to her own account. The Duke of York was fully reinstated as "Commander-in-Chief," and, therefore, ready ways and means presented themselves to her majesty. The regent engaged that the queen should have the continued sanction of his name and interest, in all the various ways she might require.

Accordingly, it was soon arranged, that _her majesty should receive an additional sum of ten thousand pounds per annum_ FOR THE CARE OF HER ROYAL HUSBAND'S PERSON!

We cannot pa.s.s by this shameful insult to the nation without making an observation upon so _unnatural_ an act. If the queen were the kind and affectionate wife she had so very frequently been represented to be, could she have allowed herself to receive an immense payment for merely doing her _duty_? But a more selfish woman, and a more unfeeling wife, never disgraced humanity, as this wicked acceptance of the public money fully testifies.

An additional nine thousand pounds annually were also granted to each of the princesses, whilst places and pensions were proportionally multiplied. In the case of Colonel M'Mahon, upon whom a private secretaryship had been conferred, much very unpleasant altercation took place in the House of Commons; but _bribery_ effected that which argument proved to be _wrong_. It was a well-known fact, indeed, that this individual was nothing more than a pander to the regent's l.u.s.t, to which infamous engagements and practices we shall hereafter refer.

On the 11th of May, as Mr. Perceval was entering the lobby of the House of Commons, he received a shot in his left breast, and, after staggering a few paces, fell down and expired. The a.s.sa.s.sin was tried on the 15th and executed on the 18th of the same month. He defended his conduct on the ground of having received much injury from the government, who had denied redress of his grievances, and, therefore, thought he had only done an act of justice in taking away the life of a member of so callous an administration.

Agreeably to the regent's message, fifty thousand pounds were voted for the use of Mr. Perceval's family, and two thousand annually to be paid to his widow. In case of her demise, however, the same amount was to be continued annually to such male descendant as might at that time be the heir, for the term of his life.