Volume I Part 10 (2/2)
”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 _was.h.i.+ng 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_.”
<script>