The National Register.
London, England, 1813-03-07 00:00:00

MARCH 7.

I'L'wever, of a malicious nature, had forced him to alter his opinion,
and even to think that both pia regret and his indignation were uncalled .
i°r, and misplaced. The only act of feeling, the Royal Duke had
shewn, in the course of his life, was his interfering to prevent the
ignominious interment of the body of Sellis, in the way which the law
directed that the bodies of persons who fell by their own hands should
be interred. This, however, the writer attributes to the fear of creating
additional speculation by the exposure of the body, &c. and expresses
his belief, that though the body of Sellis has not partaken of the cere-
monials of a Christian burial, through the medium of his Royal High-
ness's Chaplain, his better part has taken its flight to a place of per-
fect rest- arff happiness, where he has no cause to dread a second re-
encounter with his
putting to his Royal Highness eight queries. In the first the writer
asks, whether it he not true that several attempts were made,
before a Coroner's Jury could be found hardy enough to declare
upon their oaths that his Rey al Highness's servant had met with
his death
.by his own hand ? The other queries go to the other
facts of the case, as long since laid before the public, in relation
to the razor, to the basin, in which it appeared that hands stained
with blood had been washed,—to the bloody coat, of
them ping to insieuate that Sellis could not have fallen by his own
hand. The second part of the libel is contained in a letter, which also
appeared in the paper called The Independent Whig, of the (27th of
September last, where a correspondent, under the title of " Plodding
Toni," having questioned the propriety. of charging the--- with
any share in the death of Sellis, giving it as his opinion, frcm looking
into the documents, copies of which, with the plan of the apartments,
he incloses to the Editor, for the purpose of sheaving to Philo- Junius,
and his friends, in order to satisfy them that the observations of
Jun'us are incorrect, and that Sellis must have been his own mur-
derer : —The Editor, after declaring the subject to he one of great im-
portance, gives it as his opinion, that the observations of Philo-Junius
are so strone, and the case itself so doubtful, that tit! strictest inqui-
ries are called for, and that, till the matter is sifted to the bottem,
and the Queries of Philo-Junius are satisfactorily answered, it•cannot
le taken ai any thin like a clear point that—Sellis fell by his own
Land —ln other parts of the libel, the Editor and his Correspondents
tleelsre that tiny car not sanction adultery, though the adulterer be
rc b.d in Ermine ; nor murder, though the murderer be crowned with
a Coronet.
Tie Soexcrroa-C ENER ALI in stating the case on the part of the
prosecution, took occasion to observe how ix possible it would be to
main.ain the common bonds by which society was linked together,
if such publications as the present were suffered to pass unnoticed.
This was prob bly more peculiarly the case, where it was sought to
throw odium and disgrace on the Son of the reigning Sovereign, there-
by implicating the whole of the Royal Family in the obloquy endea-
voured to be cast on one of its Members. All lie asked, however,
on the part of the Duke of Cumberland, was, that the same measure
of Justice should be meted out to him as the most humble individual
in the country would have a right to look for. If the publications in
question were not such as would entitle the humblest individual in
the kingdom to ask reparation for the injury which had been done him
through their means, let net any redress be, On that account, affirded
to the Duke of Cumberland.
The publication of the libels, and also the inuendoes, by which
they were made to apply to the Duke of Cumberland, being proved,
Mr. SCAR LETT addressed the Ju• y on the part of the Defesidart.
lie confessed that when he first read the publication in qu. stion, he
bad been incleied to think that it applied to the Duke of Cumber-
land, and that it meant to attribute to him some participation in the
murder of Sellis, who, at the time, was his Royal Highness's ser-
vant. On a second readiin', however, and on receiving from the
Defendant, who seemed to be a very ingenuous young man, his
view and understanding of the matter, he heel conic to regard it in
a very different light, and to he' satisfied. that it was capeble of
receiving, aed ought to receive, a very different construction. As it
had been represented to him by the Defendant, and as, upon his ho-
nour and credit, he now viewed the question, he could not conceive
it to be nothing but this,—" There Stems to be great reason to sup-
pose that Sellis did trot die by his own hand ; it is a matter of great
doubt, who were the actual parties by whern his death was oc-
casiooed ; and, in this state of uncertainty, it being a point of impor-
tance to ascertain in what rummer his death WaS or ioned, 1 rihe
Editor of The I telepeedent Whig) th; ow my paler ellen to every'
,
person who thinks he can cast any light on this interesting subject."—
That this was the intent ant incensing of the Delenoaia, and that he
did not wish to impute it ro the Duke of Cuinberlan t that he was the
murderer, ' r concerned with the murderer, of Sellis, appeared from
this, that the very article cenerined in Ott-. paper of the 07th Septem-
ber, and stated in the present indict:rent, under the signature of
Plodding Tom," dift:eed from the sent inieets expressed by " Philo-
J unite: " and exculpated the Puke of Comberland from all blame
AS to that traesastien. The present information was not fled till
&ionic time in the manila of November. .1 i;I then, it was obvious
t hat the Detendant could not have aeticipated a prowetairm, ai tho
any measure adepted by him, or, more properly speaking, by his
Correspondent ?lido Junius, to set themselves right as to any false
constructions wliith intent have been pot on the publication in ques-
tieo, must nece,serly have ye ceeded from the iineulse of fear.