The Sun.
London, England, 1832-04-18 00:00:00

AL LED GED LIBEL ON THE DUKE OF

CUMBERL AND.

Sir CHARLES WETHERELL said he had to move for a
rule to show cause why a criminal information should
Tilt be filed against a Mr. Phillips for a gross and in-
famous libel on an illustrious person, who was a Member of
the Royal Family—the Duke of Cumberland. That libel
was contained in a publication, the title of which was,
" The Authentic Records of the Court of England
for the last Seventy Years ;" it was an octavo volume of
three hundred and ninety-five pages, and represented to be
printed " London : J. Philips, 334, Strand, 1832." The
affidavits on which this application was founded had ex-
tracted from the publication the whole of the libellous
matter which affected the chat acter of that illustrious
individual, which libellous matter commenced at page
93 of the book, and continued to about page 106,
constituting about ten or twelve pages. The subject
matter of the gross and attrocious libels consisted in a
charge, or au insinuation, against that illustrious indi-
vidual, of either having committed au unnatural crime, or
some act showing his intention to commit that crime.
Such was the nature of one of the libels corn •
plained of. The subject matter of the other was, that
his Royal Highness having, as it was pretended, been
detected by a person named Sellis in a situation with hn
individual, with whom he had committed, or was about
to commit, that offence ; that be either murdered, or pro-
cured the murder, of the only person who was a witness
to the transaction. Those two topics constituted the
two nefarious libels his Royal Highness complained of,
and in respect of which he (Sr Charles Wetherell)
was moving their Lordships for a criminal information.
The matter, therefore, consisted of the commission of a
detestable crime; and, secondly, of being privy to the
murder of the only supposed witness to that transaction.
The Learned Gentleman then stated that he would read
some of the extracts front the hook, which had been copied
at greater length into the affidavits. The introdt.ction of
the libellous matter was as follows:
" The memorable year 1810 was ushered in under distresing
and unsatisfactory circumstances."

It then stated that an attempt had been made on the
life of the Duke of Cumberland, and proceeded to say, that
" A short period before this dreadful catastrophe, the
Duke had been surprised in an improper and unnatural
situation with this Neale by the other servant
Sellis, and an exposure was expected. A brother of the Duke
had also received accommodation in the same suitable apart-
ments, and had by that act disqualified himself from
any public expression upon the case, or opportunity to
punish an aggressor. We presume that the following statement
of the Cumberland stratagem may give energy to the mind
and activity to the determinate resolution of our fellow-coup.
trymen. We hope our efforts in the best of causes—truth—
will be crowned with success ; and trust, though we may pay
the price of liberty, that our testimony will not only enrich
mankind, but prove an undefinable legacy to every child of
humanity."

The meaning of " Cumberland stratagem," said Sir C.
WETHERELL, was undoubtedly in allusion to the supposed
means by which Sellis was removed. But to proceed with
another extract :

" On the morning of the Ist of June, an astounding commu-
nication was made by the daily papers, that hi► Royal Highness
had been surprized in the night, and that his life had been at-
tempted by one of his valets, named Sellis. Many reports were
circulated, and the general opinion was that the Duke was the
murderer. Of course the high Tory party took no small pains
to propagate the opposite sentiment, but the former was most
generally believed from the analogy of attending circumstances."
The publication then proceeded to state some other cir-
cumstances, with which it was unnecessary to trouble
their Lordships, but afterwards be stated—
" The first account states, that early after midnight of May
31, an alarm was given by the Duke to his servants, by
his screaming aloud " murder, murder ;" that a valet named
Neale, was the first person who heard the Duke's cry, and ran
to his assistance; he found his Royal Highness bleeding from
wounds recently inflicted, and saying some person had at-
tempted to murder him ! Surgical assistance was immediately
rendered, the wounds dressed, and the Royal patient
pronounced out of danger. The several apartments were
searched, and in a room appropriated to the use of
Sellis, a must awful spectacle presented itself. The body
of this unfortunate man was lying on the bed, his throat
cut, and life quite extinct. The report went on to state
that it was believed Sellis: had intended to murder his
master and then to rob him ; but finding himself detected by
the Duke being aroused before he had finished his deadly pur-
pose, he hastily retired to his own room, where he committed
the rash act of suicide, to prevent detection and consequent pu_
nishment. Afterwards the daily accounts spoke of the dread-
fully wounded state of the Duke, and every expression was
used to convey an idea of the murderous intentions of the de-
ceased valet, and the improbability of the Duke being any
blameable party In the transaction. The election of the Jury
and the chosen evidence produced considerable disgust, in many
persons who were acquainted with the more private life anti
habits of the Duke."

The publication proceeded to state some of the private
life and habits of the Duke, and that Sir Everard Home
had proved that Sellis must have fallen by his own hand.
It also proceeded to detail the Duke's cries for Sellis, the
object of which was no doubt to imply that Sellis could
not have been murdered, but must have fallen by his own
hand. It then stated the position in which the body of
Sellis was found in his bed, and proceeded as follows :
" The wash basin was in the stand, but was half full of
bloody water ! Upon examining Sellis's 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 per-
son had made an attempt to cut the throat with the cravat on ;
then, finding the woollen or cotton stuffing to impede the ra-
zor, took it off in order more readily to effect the purpose."

This was evidently to show from the position in which
the body was found, that Sellis had been murdered. He
then stated that certain proceedings had been adopted fi,r
the purpose of procuring an improper, unjust, and
partial inquest to be held before the Coroner, and
among other dramatis persona, who were em-
ployed to procure that false inquest, an individual
was. who could never be brought into notice, without, at
the same time, recollecting the great legal and intellectual
attainments which were attached to his character and con-
duet—be meant the then Lord Chief Justice of the King-
lorn, and the first coroner of the land, the I ite Lard
Ellen-
borough. The statement regarding that inquest is given
as the evidence, which some supposed dernent could
swear to, but who was not examined upon that inquest.
The words were these :
" That Lord Ellenborough undertook to manage this affair
by arranging the proceeding: for the inquest ; and also, that
every witness was previously examined by him ; also, that the
first Jury, being unanimously dissatisfied with the evidence ad-
duced, 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 impannelled, to whom severally special rues_
senger had been sent, requesting their attendance, and each
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,
thought it must have been known from his personal attendance
and situation upon the occasion, that he must necessarily have
been a material witness. The second Jury soon returned a
verdict against Sellis, and his body was immediately put into a
shell and conveyed a certain distance for interment. The Duke
was privately removed from Slt. James's Palace to Carlton-house."

It then stated " that his Royal Highness scent out daily in
a sedan chair to Lord Ellenborough's."

It then summed up the various reasons why, as the
publisher stated, the verdict should not have been mur-
der, instead of felo de se, thereby insinuating that his
Royal highness either committed the murder hirns?lf,
or procured its commission. Those reasons, which were
six are as follow:

1. " The very unusual request for additional arms in the
bed-room of a prince, without some reason given.
2. " The absence of Neale during the whole of the exami-
nation of the Duke's wounds, yet he gave the alarm.
3. " The situation of the body of Sellis, rendering it utterly
impossible that he had fallen by his own hand.
4. "The omission of the principal witness (the attendant) on
the jury.
5. "The strange difference between the announced and the
actual state of the Duke's health.

G. " The refusal of a verdict by the first jury, and the very
ready compliance and concurrence of the second.
" We certainly feel sure that there was much mystery in
the affair, and we ought to inquire from whence that mystery
originated. Had it been the case of a poor man, he must have
been hung, and his body given for dissection, merely upon cir.
cumstantial evidence. But the son of a reigning monarch has,
by circumstantial evidence only, been acquitted."

The lacier sentence constituting the conclusion to
which this supposed deponent would lead people's minds
to believe that this " Cumberland Stratagem," as it
was called, had been so managed and procured
by the aid of the Lord Chief Justice of England,
that the illustrious Duke lied not been found
guilty of murder, merely because he was the son of the
reigning monarch. Now for the purpose of supporting
the present application, he would call their Lord-
shil s' to the affidavit of his Royal High.
ne.ss. There had been certainly for some time past
various mysterious insinuations, and various medes.
adopted of assailing the character of the Illustrious
Duke, which he might on many grounds be justified in
allowing to pass unnoticed. To persons in different situa-
tions of life many libels might be published which they
might not think proper to repel, and which they might
treat with utter scorn ; but the present publication con-
tained a charge so plain in its nature, composed so delibe-
rately and so malignantly, and so industriously worked
up for the purpose of scandalising a member of the
Royal Family, and exhibiting in its title-page the
words "Authentic Records of the Court of Eng-
land," that it was a duty incumbent upon his Royal
Iliehness nut to stand upon his known principles of
honour and rectitude, but to come forward and meet the
charge in a public Court. Theaffidavit of His Royal Highness
stated, thathe bad seen the publication in question, and that
lie believed that one object of the libel was to charge lion with
the commission or with the intent to commit an abominable
offence with a person named Neale ; that the whole and
every part of th it statement was a wicked, scandalous, and
malicious falsehood ; that he had never committed, or had
any intention or desire to commit that detestable offence
with Neale or with any other person ; and that he always
held such and the like offences in the greatest indignation
and abLorrence. His Royal Highness also, upon his oath,
negatived the charge of having been detected with Neale
by &His, or by any other person or persons whatsoever,
and that the whole of the matter insinuated in the pub-
lication was utterly false and untrue. The next part of
the affidavit related to the imputation that his Royal
Highness had murdered, or caused to be procured the murder
of Sellis. His Royal Highness deposed, that in case Sellis
did not die by his own hands, which he verily believed he
did, he was nut accessary to the death in any way whate-
ver. On the contrary, he verily believed that Sellis did
die by his own hands, as was found by the coronet's in-
quest ; that the proceedings of that inquest were duly,
properly, and impartially conducted, and that he had no
reason to believe that the verdict was not a just and honest
verdict; also, the insinuation that he was accessary or
privy to the murder, or death of Sellis, was a scandalous
and malicious falsehood. The next affidavit to which he
(Sir Charles Wetherell) would refer their Lordships, not
wily denied the charges imputed to His Royal Highness,
but most circumstantially denied them. It was the
affidavit of Cornelius Neale, with whom the detestable
offence was alleged to have been committed, and with
whom it was said in the publication, that the Ro)al Duke
had been detected in an indecent situation by Sellis.
Ne *le deposed, that he had read the libel; that in May,
1810, he was one of the valets to his Royal Highness
the Duke of Cumberland, and was always called by the
name of although his sirname was M'Neale ;
that he believed one object of the publication was
to charge him with having committed, or intended to
commit, a destable offence with the Duke of Cumberland ;
that the whole of that statement was untrue and destitute
of foundation ; that he had never committed, or had any
intention or desire to commit, such an offence with his
Royal Highness, or with any person whatsoever ; 'that it
is liaise and untrue that he was ever surprised in an un-
natural, indecent, or improper situation with the Duke
of Cumberland by Sellis or by any person what-
suever, and that the whole statenierst was false
and unf ,unded. The next affidavit to which lee
would refer was that of the Curoner who held the in-
quest on Stills; and their Lordships would see that the
whole statement in the publication regarding the inquest
contained the most abominable falsehoods, and must have
emanated from a most malignant mind. The gere'ral
representation in that publication respecting the inquest
was, that it was solely under the management and contri-
vance of the then Chief Justice, in order that the son of
the monarch might not be found guilty of murder,
because he was the son of George the third.
The affidavit of Thomas Adams, the coroner for the verge
of the King's Palace of St. James's, befinte whom the in-
quest on Sellis was held, in the year 1810, deposed that
it was not true that Lord Ellenborough undertook to ma-
nage the affair by arranging the proceedings of that in.
quest. He denied that any witness had been previously
examined by Lord Ellenborough, or that the first Jury
had been dismissed because of their refusal to return
a verdict. He denied that each juryman was connected
wiih the Government; that it was not true that any
erson was omitted as a witness, whose evidence was
ma-etial to the investigation. He deposed that when
Sellis died he was required to hold the inquest; that
by the statute of the 23d of Henry VIII. it was provided,
that in case of death happening in any of the King's p daces
and an inquest necessary to be held, the jury should be
composed of 12 yeatnen and officers of the King's household ;
that he issued an order for the attendance of twelve yeomen
and officers of the household ; hut, believing th it it was
important that the investigation should be conducted in
the most impartial mann. r, he took upon himself to coun-
termand the order, arid assembled a Jury of persons who
lived at a distance, anti were wholly unconnected with the
Palace of St. James; thet his summoning officerNip-
plied to Francis Place, of Charing-cross, mercer, 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, as-
sembled on the Ist of June, 1810, to hold the inquest;
that the Court was thrown open to the public, anti all
• persons who chose were admitted without distinction,
among whom were several reporters, who took notes
of the prooceedings ; that the whole of the
depositions were taken by John Reid, the then Chief
Magistrate of police, and they were read over to the wit-
nesses, who were severally asked if they had any thing
to add to them ; that all the circumstances were most
impartially scrutinized by the Jury, and every person was
called who could give the slightest information respecting the
case; that the Jury went to Vie aparttnentwhere the body
of Sellis was discovered, and carefully examined it, and all
other circumstances touchinLt Sellis's death ; that he locked
the doors of the apartment, and would not permit the po-
sition of the body to be disturbed until it was ex twined
by the Jury ; that tl:e Jury unanimously returned a ver-
dict that the deceased, Joseph Sellis, voluntarily and
feloniously murdered himself ; that the prose- dings
were in all respects regular, except that the
Jury were not composed of yeomen and officers of the
King's household; that the verdict was a just, true, and
honest verdict; and that there was not the smallest ground
to allege the contrary. Their Lordships would therefore
perceive that the imputed perversion of justice by managing
the inquest, as stated in the publication, was wholly nega-
tived by the Coroner. With regard to the other affidavits,
he would not trouble their Lordships at any great length,
because they applied to the person from whom the book
was procured. At the foot of the title page"was " Lon-
don, J. Phillips, 331, Strand," What the" Christian
name was—whether John, James, or Joseph, did not
appear ; but it was sufficient for the purpose of this
moton, if the identity of the individual be established,
which he conceived had been sufficiently done.
Lord TENTERDEN. What says your affidavit ?
Sir C. WETHERELL said he had the affidavit of John
George Sutton, who deposed; that on the 29th of March
he went to the Office of the Satirist Newspaper, No. 334',
Strand, and asked a person whom he saw there for the
book in question. That person called " Mr. Phillips,"
when a person came from the inner room, to whom he

repeated the application. That person put his hand under
the counter and delivered him the book, demanding one
guinea for it, which he paid. Then there was the affidavit
of J. Hackwell, who deposed he went to N,s. 334. Strand,
to ask if they sold the book, when a person called out to
another person in a❑ inner room ; on the latter person
coming out, the deponent requested to be supplied with
the book; that person, who was caled "J. Phillips,"
asked him if he wanted it for himself? and he said " Yes,"
upon which "J. Phillips" delivered the book, and received
from the deponent a guinea. The deponent inquired what
would be charged him if he purchased them for sale, and
the reply was " fifteen and eightpence." Mr. Phillips then
took up an advertisement of the book and said, " You
see my name is J. Phillips, 331, Strand." Understanding
that the book was subsequently sold in Wellington-street,
the deponent, on the 12th instant, went to No. 13 in that
street, where he perceived that it was soul. There he
saw the same person of whom he had previously purchased
a copy at the Satirist office, and, without appearing to
know that person, he asked him if Mr. Phillips lived
there? The reply was, "he did," and that his name
was Phillips.

Lord TENTERDEN stopped the Learned Counsel -by
stating, that ha had shown quite enough, and granted a
rule to show cause.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.-(THIS DAY.)

BEESTON AND OTHERS V. FOSTER AND ANOTHER.

This was an action of Craver, to recover twelve bills of
exchange, tried before the Lord Chief Baron at the sittings
after last term, at Guildhall.

Mr. CAMPBELL this morning applied for a rule to show
cause why the verdict, which was for the plaintiffs, should
not be set aside and a new trial had, on the grounds of
misdirection on the part of the Learned Judge, and the
verdict being against evidence. The Learned Gentleman
said the plaintiffs were large merchants in the city, and in
the course of their business had intrusted twelve bills of
exchange for discount in the hands of a Mr. Stevens. He
again for the same purpose gave them into the hands of
Messrs. Wood and Poole, bill-brokers, on the morn-
ing of Saturday, the ISth of November, 1831. On the
trial it appeared that Wood and Poole bad been in
the habit of having advances from the defendants, Fosters,
on the security of bills placed temporarily in their hands.
Pursuing that practice, Wood and Poole being pressed for
money to meet their engagements on the Saturday, went
to the counting-house of the defendants with a bundle of
hills, amounting sixty, among which were the bills in
question, and obtained 3,0001. upon them, on the pro-
mise of leaving other hills in the evening, Fosters then
being a considerable sum in advance, and pressing for se-
curity. Wood and Poole failed on the Tuesday. The
Learned Counsel said, that whe❑ at the trial he was about
to call evidence to prove that it was the regular practice of
the most eminent bankers in London to do business on the
same principle, it was admitted on the other side that such
was the practice so to lodge bills as security without their
being ciscounted ; therefore on that ground it was clear that
his clients were the real bona
,fide holders of the bills. The
question at the trial turned upon the evidence of a
Mr. Stephen Fox Stevens, a brother of one of the
plaintiffs, but his Lordship would remember the confused
manner in which he had given his evidence. He ha
sworn to having seen the bills in the possession of Wood
and Poole on the afternoon of Monday, as well as at in-
termediate times ; but they (the defendants) had strewn
clearly at the trial that the bills were in their hands on
the Saul-day, but on the applieatian of Wood they were
returned to him o❑ the Monday, in order that he might
make a list of them, he not having done so on the Satur-
day in the hurry of business, but that they were returned
in the afternoon of the same d,y, and were never after-
wards out of their possession. On the trial they had the
evidence of Mr. Wood to this effect, and now he (Mr.
Citnpbell) bad the affidavits of Mr. Foster, and four of
his clerks. The question was of the utmost importance
to his clients, both as to their character and in a pecuniary
point of view, for the original owners of the remainder of
the 60 bills had commenced actions for the recovery of
them. T!,e Learned Gentleman contended that the way
in which the case should have been left to the Jury should
have been, were the defendants the bona fide holders of
the bills for a valuable consideration, which the Learned
Lord haul not done.
The COURT granted the rule.

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)