The National Register.
London, England, 1821-07-08 00:00:00

MURDER BY SOLDIERS.

On the Jury returning a verdict of " Wilful
Murder" against the soldiers engaged in the riot
and attack upon William Cogle, since dead of his
wounds, that they (the Jury) requested Mr.
Gell, the coroner, to address a letter to his Royal
Highness the Duke of York, representing to him
the conduct of the foot guards, on the two last an-
niversaries of the battle of Waterloo, and request-
ing that some steps might be taken to prevent the
like occurrence in future. Mr. Gell accordiegly

addressed a letter to Sir Herbert Taylor, the mili-
tary secretary to his Royal Highnessthe Duke of
York, to which he has received the following most
gracious answer:—
" Horse Guards, June 29, Mi.
" Sir—l have had the honour of laying before the Commander
in Chief your letter of the 21th instant, and I ant directed to
convey to you his Royal Highness's thanks for the terms in
which you have communicated to hint the sentiments of the .Jury
who were summated to inquire into the cause of the death of
W. Cogle, and who returned a verdict of " Wilful Murder"
against 111•Carthy and four privates of the guards, and ether
soldiers unknown.
" His Royal Highness requests that you will assure the Jury
that he is sensible that they have conscientiously and torrecny
discharged a painful duty, of which no person can lament the
necessity more sincerely than lie dots, and that lie is obliged to
them for calling his attention to the circumstance.
" His Royal Iligline-s has ever felt must anxious to chtck
any excesses committed by the soldiers, and to enforce orderly
and peaceable conduct in their inteicourse with all classes of
his Majesty's subjects. He deeply regrets the melancholy
effects of their disorderly proceedings upon the anniversary of a
day so honourable to his Majesty's arms ; and he trusts that you
and the jury will give him credit for it sincere disposition to use
his best endeavours to prevent a recurrence of such excesses in
future. He does not wish to offer any excuse for them on this
occasion; but he cannot help observing, that the mischief may in
great part be ascribed to the fortuitous circumstance of two bat-
talions of the foot-guards, which had fought at Waterloo, being
at the period of the two last anniversaries distributed in quarters,
and not placed in barracks, where they would have been snore
within the reach of due and close controul.
" I have the honour to be, &c.
" IL TAYLOR.
" T. H. Gell, Esq. Coroner, &c."

In future, it is understuoti that on the nnnivcrssury
of the battle of Waterloo the soldiers will he re-
strained, in a commemoration of the memorable day
to barracks, or under the immediate observation of
officers apointed for the purpos.:

On Monday se'nnight a favourite b 1 mare,
the property of Mr. Humphreys, of Coed, Carina! -
tlicnsiiire, foaled four colts ; and what makes this
instance of profusion in nature more extraordinary,
they were tall cl a brilliant jct black, the dam being
a bright bay.

IMPORTANT QUEITION RELATIVE TO THE
TRIAL SY JURY.

• HOUSE OF LORDS, JULY 2.
WOLFS, AFPSLLANT.
The appellant in this case was one of the parties who,
together with Kinnear and others, was indicted and
convicted iu the Court of King's Bench about a year and
a half ago for what was at the time termed the Com-
mercial conspiracy. In the course of the trial, it will be I
remembered, the court adjourned, and the jury, by the
direction and permission of the court, were allowed in the
interval to go at large. This separation of the jury was
subsequently made the ground for an application for a
new trial, in support of which some attempt was made
to chew that one of the jurymen hail beets tampered
with, but it failed, the party who had sworn the affi-
davit not being to be found u described ; the applica-
tion, however, was refused, upon the ground that no
proof had been given that ally injury had been sustained
by the party in consequence of the jury having separated, '
thus leaving the question of law, whether or no the
jury could legally be allowed to separate before verdict
given in a criminal case, wholly untouched. k writ of
error omens notes was subsequently obtained, arid the case
heard before the judges, who delivered the judgment sub
silent* as it is termed i. e. without assigning their
reasons, affirming the previous decisions in the Court of
King's Bench, refusing the new trial. In this manner
the case came on by writ of error in the House of Lords,
on Monday, for the reversal of the whole proceedings
upon the asAiniption of the illegality of the separation of
the jury.
After hearing the aratiments of counsel on both sides,
The Lord Chancellor took a view of the proceedings
its the case and remarked upon the circumstance that the
new trial had been refused upon the ground, as appeared
ft um the opinions expressed by two of the judges, whose
speeches he quitted, that no injury had beets sustained,
as no proof had been given that the jury had been tam-
pered with. Without meaning the slightest disrespect
to the learned judges who had expressed this opinion,
he must be permitted to differ from their reasoning, as he
could conceive the possibility, and even the probability,
of the party's having actually sustained injury without
the capability of even knowing the tact, and still less of
being able to give it in proof. Au individual might
tamper with a juryman without the fact being known
to any one hut themselves; and as such tampering was
in law a misdemeanour, boils in the juryman and the
person tampering whit him, they would no doubt, as
%vas their interest, take every precaution that the fact
snoold not be disclosed. The question of law had been
avoided altogether in the decision of the court against
granting a new trial. To obtain the decision of the
court upon this point recourse had beets had to the writ
of error vorans nobis, but the judges had in that case de-
livered their judgment sub silentio ; their lordships were
therefore lett without any opinion whatever of the
judges upon the law of the question. In the present case,
through the adoption of this practice, their lordships
were called upon not to reverse or confirm a judgment
in law delivered in the courts below, for no opinion on
the law had been given by the judges, but to decide the
question of law themselves. This he considered was not
within the province of that house, as the high court of
appeal, and would amount to the making of a law ikon
the subject, which, in that house, as one branch only
of the legislature, would be an assumption of unconsti-
tutional authority. He telt it therefore of the greatest
importance, and absolutely necessary, before their lord-
ships could decide this question, that the judges should
be called upon to give their opinions whether or no it was
legal to permit a jury, sworn to try a cause, to separate
before verdict given ; and he wished it to be understood,
that in eery case of appeal before that house, where
the judges had omitted giving their opinions upon
the law of the question below, he should move that they
be called upon to deliver them its that house. His lord-
ship concluded by moving, that the 12 judges be directed
to attend that house on Friday next, at 12 o'clock, which
was ordered accordingly.