The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1833-06-28 00:00:00

trial. They would probably be aware that an information_
against any person for a libel might be obtained by the Attor
ney General es u//ieio, and that in support of such an applica
tion an affidavit of complaining party, denying the truth o
the statements of the libel, was not required, the single autho-
rity of the Attorney-General heing sufficient in itself to obtain
a proceeding of that description. The present information, how-
ever, was not one obtained by that mode of proceeding, but had
been filed on the private application of the complainant, who had,
as was required by that form of application, previously made an
affidavit, denying the statements complained of as libellous.
Another mode of proceeding against a defendant for a libel was
taat of an indictment, in which case the prosecutor would not be
required to swear before procuring it; and there was also
another mode, viz., that of bringing an action. By the former
of these two, however, the Duke had not thought fit to proceed;
and with respect to the latter, it was one which he could not be
expected to adopt. He merely made these remarks to show
that the royal duke had not shrunk from coming forward with
his distinct denial of the statement complained of, and that he
had chosen that course of all others whichrimperatively obliged
him so to come forward. The learned counsel then went into a
state ment of the circumstances from which the publication com-
plained of originated, and it was to the following effect :—ln the
month of June, 1810, it was that a valet or servant of his Royal
Highness the Duke of Cumberland, named Sellis, was found
with his throat cut in a bedroom at some distance from the royal
duke's apartments in St. James's-palace • and as a circumstance
of that sort of course excited a considerable degree of attention,
a minute investigation of it immediately took place. The co-
roner summoned a jury, and one of the most full and minute in-
vestigations upon record was gone into for the purpose of ascer-
taining the real circumstances under which Sellis had met his
death, the result of which was the returning by the jury of a ver-
dict offal° de se upon the body of Sellis. But after the trans-
action had proceeded thus far, there were persons sufficiently evil-
minded to insinuate (and he was sure the jury would concur
with him that there had been many men in this country who had
been attacked by anonymous slanderers, under whose imputa-
tions they had suffered, when, if a full and impartial investiga-
tion of circumstances had taken place, they would have stood
perfectly exonerated from suspicion,) that the Duke of Cum•,
berland had himself been the murderer of Sellis, notwithstand-
ing that the jury had found that he died by his own hand.
Rumours to that effect were set afloat on several occasions, and
from that time until the publication of the book in which the
present libels were contained, his Royal Highness had been in-
cessantly made the victim of the scandalous calumnies of some
obscure slanderer or slanderers, who in all probability. had for
their motive the gratification of some private object, in
pursu-
ance of which they circulated these calumnious rumours in such
shape as did not come within the declared provisions of the law,
and in such a manner that it was impossible to get hold of the
man who set them afloat, or to stop the rumours themselves
from circulating. On one occasion, hiowever,'these rumours
assumed such a shape in the columns of a paper called the In-
dependent Whig, that the then attorney-general, Sir Vicary
Gibbs, thought it fit that they should be noticed, and he accord-
ingly filed au az- officio information against that paper. Neither
that proceeding, 'however, nor the long interval which has now
elapsed between the death of Sellis and the present time, has
satisfied the malignity of the private and personal enemies of
the royal duke, or those of the royal family in general; for in
the publication which he (Sir C. Wetherell) held in his hands,
those rumours were once more revived, and put into certainly a
most plausible shape. That publication came out in the month
of March, 1832, and was entitled " Authentic Records of the
Royal Family during the last Seventy Years," the frontispiece
being the arms of the royal family of England, in which, in the
place of the motto, were the words " Magna est veritas." Now,
if the object of the publication of this book (the editors of
which called themselves faithful historians) had really been
hone fide to elicit any new facts which would throw an addi-
tional light upon the melancholy circumstance of the death of
Sellis, in 1810, he (Sir C. Wetherell) would be the last person
to object to so laudable a design; but when, on the contrary,
it was clear that its object was merely to revive by-gone ca-
lumnies, with every addition which the ingenuity of the writer
could supply, he felt that he was conscientiously performing his
duty in now advocating the punishment of the slanderer.
'I publication of the book was admitted, and a copy handed

in.
The learned counsel then called the following witnesses :
Sir Benjamin Stephenson, examined by Mr. FOLLETT. •On
the Ist of June, 1810, between eleven and twelve in the morning,
I went to St. James's Palace. The Duke of Cumberland was
on his bed, and was severely wounded, both on the head and
hands. Much blood was about the room and the bed of the
Duke. There were marks of blood on both the doors. The
wounds had been dressed before witness came. Afterwards.went
into the room where Sellis's body was. There were four rooms
between. Saw the body quite dead, and there was blood about
the room. He had no slippers on. His cravat was off, and his
head was nearly severed from his body. Found the slippers in
the closet of the adjoining room, with the scabbard of a sabre
and a three parts filled pintbottle. Remained there a considera-
ble time. Was not examined at the inquest.
Sir Wathen Waller, examined by Mr. Jelf.—Was in London
on the 31st of May, 1810. Remembers the circumstance-of the
Duke being wounded. Sir Evcrard Home and Sir H. Raiford
were the medical men. The former is dead, and the latter is at
this moment attending the funeral of his wife. Witness was
told of the state of the Duke, and went to the Palace ; found the
Duke lying covered with blood, and did not leave him till he
was recovered. Had him removed the same day to Carlton-
house. Was in attendance on the Duke till the 4th of August,
and ,never slept out of the house. Frequently saw the wounds,
which were very severe. They could not have been inflicted
unless there had been an attempt to assassinate. They were
so severe that the Duke could not even bear the scratching-of a
pen when witness was writing; he even screamed when witness
touched the bed-clothes. Witness could perceive, through the
wound in the head, the pulsation of the brain,
Mr. Adams, the coroner on the occasion, examined by Sir
C. Wetherell.—Summoned a jury to inquire into the death
of Sellis. Summoned them of the verge of the Palace, but not
of the Palace itself. By a statute of Henry VIII. the coroner
for a palace is to summon within the verge. Witness caused
persons to be summoned unconnected with the palace. Mr.
Francis Place was foreman. Witness had not summoned a
prior inquest. There was no jury before that which refused to
give a verdict. The inquest was held at the palace, and several
witnesses were examined. The room was an open court, and
every reporter was allowed to attend. Anyone might enter the
court, and there were very many persons, perhaps 50 or 60,
coming in and going out. There were several reporters for
the press who took notes. The Duke was then resident at
Carlton-house. The jury examined the Duke's room, as also
Sellis's room. Sellis was lying on the bed. The verdict has
been mislaid, with the other papers. Has missed them since
the prosecution against the Independent Whig. When the jury
inspected Sellis's room they examined minutely the body. It
was on the Ist of June. They examined into all the circum-
stances. Several persons were examined before the jury, such
as were deemed fit and proper to be called. The examination
was decidedly full awl complete. Diligent inquiry was made
after all witnesses likely to be material. About two hours
elapsed before the jury returned their verdict. The jury de-
sired witness not to sum up as they were unanimous in their
verdict of fel° de se.
Francis Place, Esq., the foreman of the jury, examined by
Mr. Pollock.—Corroborated the testimony of the last witness as
to the circumstances attending the summoning of the jury.
They were selected in the usual manner, by the marshal going
over the list regularly. One only, Mr. Gray, the grocer to the
Duke of Kent, was connected with the Royal family. The case
lasted from 3in the afternoon till 11 at night. Seventeen wit-
nesses were examined. Some were by deposition, but those de-
positions were compared with the rooms, and the occurrences
attending the transaction. That was in the presence of four
reporters and two surgeons, as well as of two other gentlemen.
The jury went from place to place with the witnesses, and com-
pared the rooms, &c., with their statements. The bed-hang-
ings appeared to be cut, as though by the flourish of a sabre.
There were spirtings of blood, as if from an artery, along that
Wrt of the room by which the Duke was stated to have retired.
itness examined the body, and there was no other wound ex-
cept the one in the neck. The cravat was discovered and ex-
amined, and it was found to have been slit. Went to the closet
where the slippers were found, and called for everything witness
thought necessary to establish the truth. Examined the sword
and the razor; the latter was on the left side of the bed, and the
man was a left-handed man. The verdict was fob() de se, and it,
was that of fifteen, but one .(Mr. Noble) said he could not be-
lieve that the man was sane, and another, Mr. Evans, agreed
with him. The two doubted as to the fact of sanity.
Joseph Joux.—Was servant of his Royal Highness at the
time in question. Was footman, and has since been in the ser-
vice of the King of Belgium. Has seen the book and the al-
leged deposition. Never gave the facts contained in that depo-
sition. What is stated there about witness is false. Never
laid a sword in the Duke's bedchamber as stated. Went for
Sir H. Halford. Believes Neale first gave the alarm. Did
not see the Duke till at Carlton Palace. All that is in the sup-
posed-deposition as to the wounds is not true. Witness never
saw them. Never gave any. deposition, nor was ever asked.
Never stated what is alleged in that deposition about Lord El-
lenborough. Ilas been abroad with Prince Leopold.
His Royal highness the Duke of Cumberland examined by
Sir C. Wetherell.—l slept in my apartments in St. James's
on the 31st of May, 1810. In the course 'of the night I was
awakened by a blow on my head ; it was between two and three
in the morning. I had been the evening before at the Ancient
Concert. The blow was struck on the right side of my head.
I was in a sort of half sleep, and my first impression was that
something had fallen on my head. It was repeated. One of
them made a very violent incision in my head. [His Royal
Highness then exhibited to the jury that part of his head which
was struck.] It produced an immense effusion of blood. I did
not see by what instrument it was done. There was a looking-
glass before the end of the bed, by which I distinguished a sabre
in the air. I made a dash at the person, and my thumb w'as
gashed in consequence. [His Royal Highness exhibited the
scar of the wound to the jury.] The sword was 17 Inches long
and 3 broad. I jumped out of bed and seized the sword. It
was impossible for me to distinguish whether I was attacked by
one or more persons. There was no light burning in my room.
I made my way to the door of the room, but in order to get to
my. servant's room I had to go through two others. While
going from one room to another I received several blows and
wounds from the sword, and it was at that time that I received
the cut in my side. I should have been absolutely demolished
had it not been for the fact that the doors received some of the
blows intended for my own person. I sent for Sir Ilenry Hal-
ford and for Sir Everard Home the instant I got down stairs.
I have applied to Sir Henry Halford to attend, but in conse-
quence of a domestic calamity he is unable to attend. I was on
the same evening removed to Carlton-house. I was in a state
of danger fur two months, and it was not till the• beginning of
August that I was able to leave the house.
His Royal Highness was then asked whether the statements-in
the libel were false or true ? But
The Lord Chief Justice said that it was not matter for the
present inquiry. The Royal Duke had already made an affida-
vit of denial, and the public time must not be taken up with
unnecessary repetitions.
His Royal Highness was then asked whether he made an
affidavit on the application for this criminal information, to
which he replied in the affirmative • and on being told that he
need not be further troubled, he bowed to the Court and with-
drew. , .. .
This closed the case for the prosecution. .
Mr. Daniel Wakefield, jun., who' appeared on behalf of
the defendant, lamented his inexperience, and the low station
he occupied at the Bar, as he had to compete with gentlemen
renowned for their talents and learning and acuteness. The
jury had heard the able speech of Sir Charles Wetherell, and
had listened to his observations upon the impropriety of pub-
lications of a libelous nature;, in these observations he fully con-
- cured, but he differed from him upon the propriety of bringing
forward defendants to answer for such libels, as proceedings of
that description 'only cansed the libel to be snore widely extend-
ed. He asserted that the jury were 'the judges of both law and
fact in a proceeding of that description, and that they were not
to return a verdict by. direction of the judge, but from the
opinions which they might entertain of the publication. He
then alluded to the trial of Queen Caroline, and contended that
the proceedings against her Majesty were injurious to society as
the accounts of her alleged crimes and vices were published by
the press, and the existence of such crimes and vices by those
means were made known to thousands and hundreds of thou-
sands who before never dreamed of them. As, however, his
Royal Highness had brought the defendant into Court, he must
ake the consequences, for what was " sauce for the goose was
auce for the gander." He concluded by remarking upon the