Star.
London, England, 1819-10-06 00:00:00

the power. The first opinions have been taken, and
I pledge My own opinion professionally as a Barris-
ter to the same point.
Answer—Well, Sir, I am not in a situation to dis-
pute that point with you; bet as you have done me
the honour to address me, I ask you for your pro-
fessional judgment on the other point, whether, grant-
ing the power to prevent note-taking, such a restraint
is wise, or calculated to do good; it being, as I have
stated, impossible to give so correct a report from
memory as from notes?
Mt. ASHWORTR—Yon know that it is even sald,
that should not be published at all, at least
till final reports
are had.
Answer—Allowing that, Sir, will not the additional
lapse of time make it still more necessary to publish
from notes rather than from memory?
.Mr. Asnworrn—l really conceive I have nothing
to do with a question which is between the Coroner
and you : he has the power ; and it is your business,
as it is mine, to submit here to his decision.
The politeness and the apparent tone of regret at
what had taken place which accompanied this re-
mark, prevented the person addressed from asking
why Mr. Ashworth, if he bad nothing to do with the
question, had interfered with his opinion ? The Gen-
tleman spoke, however, to the Coroner once more—
" Allow me, Mr. Coroner, to repeat my very short
observation I again appeal to you, whether the ends
of justice are more likely to be attained by an imper-,
fect report from memory, or by a full distinct tran-
script from notes written at the timer
The Coroner, like, Mr. Ashworth, had the appear-
ance of regretting the prohibition, but did not see
how he could -well retract: he hesitated for a minute,
and then said—" Sir, I have taken opinions on the
subject : I have the power, and I must restrain note-
taking."
The Gentleman, feeling that it would be improper
to interrupt business any farther, bowed, but re-
mained in Court.
Mr. AMIWORTM, in continuance of his speech, de-
precated the ex-parte publications which had gone
abroad upon-the subject of this Inquest, and espe-
cially in the groundless charges which had been pro-
pagated against the character of some of the most
respectable inhabitants of Manchester—Mr. Birley,
for instance, had the imputation of cutting and maim-
ing, if not of murder, cast upon him, although he
(Mr. A.) was prepared w ith ample evidence to shew
that that respectable Gentleman had not directed his
sward against any human being throughout the 16th
of August.
" Then," said the Reprrter of the Morning Chro- ,
nide, addressing himself to the Coroner, " is it not
due to public justice, as well as the private charac-
ter of this individual, to let us take notes of the evi-
dence in exculpation, which the Learned Advocate
proposes to bring forward ? As the evidence for the
accusation of this Mr. Birley and others has been so
fully made public, would it not be fair, Sir, to al-
low any evidence that can be adduced in their vindi-
cation to be published also? and this the public jour-
nals cannot do unless you allow us to take notes."
CORONER.—.-I am determined not to allow either
you or Ne-Times to take any notes.
Mr. Asnwoarn, after expressing his approbation
of the order issued by the Coroner, to prevent the
publication of the evidence taken upon this Inquest,
pursued his argument :—Great pains had, he ob-
served, been taken to saddle all the injuries resulting
from the dispersion of the Meeting of the 16th of Au-
gust upon the Manchester Yeomanry, as if that Corps
alone interfered to produce the dispersion. But he
could state, from his own personal knowledge, that
there were several military bodies on the field, en-
gaged in dispersing the Meeting, as well as the Corps
alluded to. He did not, however, think that the con-
duct of that Corps, or of the several bodies with which
it co-operated, could properly be brought into dis-
cussion before that Court, unless the person who gave
John Lees the blow, that blow to which his death was
attributed, were actually identified. Some individual
or individuals must, he contended, be pointed out as
the assailant or assailants of the deceased, and so a
distinct charge established, before evidence could be
gone into with respect to aiding and abetting the
attack. For it could not follow, that because the
Magistrates ordered a military force to disperse the
Meeting alluded to, that any act done besides the ob-
ject of that dispersion, which he maintained to be
quite a legal object, could be said to implicate the
whole body acting in pursuance of the orders of the
Manchester Magistracy. How, for instance, could
lie legally hold or rationally maintain, that mili-
tary men scattered throughout the wide area of
Saint Peter's-field, should be deemed responsible
for every unauthorized or violent act done imme•
dtately near the hustings, where John Lees was
stated to have received his mortal wound ? The
idea was, indeed, quite preposterous, and yet that
appeared to be the idea of the Learned Gentle-
man on the other side, when he urged his very
broad doctrine with respect to principals and acces-
saries in murder. The Learned Gentleman was,
however, egregiously mistaken in his views of the
law. For a body of persons, engaged in the pursuit
of one common object, could never fairly or legally
be held answerable for what any one or more of that
body might happen to do, independently of that ob-
ject. Therefore, it could never be maintained, that
because the Manchester Yeomanry were, along with
other military bodies, engaged in accomplishing the
object of dispersing the Meeting at St. Peter's-field,
that they, or any part of them, were to be implicated
in the crime of taking away the life of John Lees,
which was the subject under investigation, except the
individual or individuals who actually attacked
-the
deceased, or those who were immediately present
aiding or abetting that attack. No evidence, then,
%vac, in 'his opinion, admissible upon this inquiry,
which did not directly apply to the individuals en-
gaged in that attack ; and as to the admissibility of
evidence, of that he thought the Coroner was the sole
and exclusive judge. to guard, then, against the
intrusion of irrelevant and inadmissible evidence, as
well as to save the time of the Court, he recom-
mended that before any witness was, in future,
brought forward for examination, a written state-
ment should be laid before the Coroner, of the points
which the witness proposed to prove.
Mr. HARMER observed, that although the Learned
Gentleman had spoken for above an hour, he had not
quoted a single case in support of his view of the law
with respect to principals in murder. The Learned
Gentleman had gratuitously stated that the Magis-