Star.
London, England, 1821-09-12 00:00:00

to
go,
oi

a good deal of apparettt contradiction ; but when it
is recollected that the parties spoke only of what they
saw, and that many of them came up at different pe-
riods, the contradictions may be reconciled." He then
commenced the recapitulation, which he continued to
read till seven o'clock. At that hour, the Jury re-
tired for about half an hour to take some refresh-
vent. On their return, the reading of the evidence
was resumed. The whole of the evidence was gone
through by half-past nine o'clock, which was much
earlier than it was generally expected, considering.
that the depositions of not fewer than ninety.four
wit-
nesses weie to be read over. Towards the close of
the reading, the Coroner appeared not a little fa-
tigued from the exertion. As soon as he had con-
tluded the evidence, he thus addressed the Jury:
Now, Gentlemen, we have got through the evi-
dence, and it is necessary to consider what was the
order and course of the transactions which form the
subject of our inquiry. I perceive that you have all
taken full notes of the circumstances as they were
given in evidence ; and if, in the course of the re-
marks which I shall offer, I state anything wrong,
you will have it in your power to correct me. From
the cause I have just stated, it will not be necessary
for me to go into detail upon the whole of the case.
I shall take it up at the evidence of Sir Robert Baker,
who was present at a very early period of the Pro-
cession. From his evidence it appears, that he came
up to Kensington, and there he found that the Fune-
ral was obstructed in its passage. How, or by whom,
it is not necessary for us now to inquire. We do not
know the parties by whom it was made; but who-
ever they were, they most undoubtedly acted wrong.
It was acting wrong to obstruct the King's highway,
which, according to the evidence before us, we find
to have been the case for two hours. This was the
first of the transaction to which our attention has
been directed ; and upon it I must again observe, that
the conduct of those who caused the obstruction
was wrong. Sir Robert Baker joined the Procession
here. He was sent in consequence of the obstruction,
and of course he came with the view of giving the
aid of the civil power towards the removal of the ob-
stacles which were opposed to the Procession. When
he came, he found the passage shut tip, and he en-
deavoured, as we know, without effect, to carry the
Procession forward in the appointed route. In this
he was opposed by the people, who wished that the
Funeral should take another direction. The Horse
Guards joined then, and endeavoured to force the
way, but that was also found ineffectual. They were
pelted immediately by the populace, in such a man-
ner, that Sir R. Baker did not wish to continue the
attempt longer, as it was probable that a further np-
position of force would be productive of very serious
consequences. He therefore ordered the Funeral
to move on the other way. Notwithstanding the
repeated attacks made upon the soldiers in this
place, we find that no serious accident occurred.—
One man was hurt, but that not severely, and some
others got themselves covered with mud and chit in
the crowd, as might have been expected iii such a
place, and in such weather. The Procession then
moved on towards Hyde Park-corner, and on the way
we find that Sir Robert Baker was spoken to by sonic
persons who pointed out to him that it would be
dangerous not to allow the Procession to move on in
the line which the people seemed so much to desire.
All who know Sir Robert Baker, know that he is a
Gentleman of a mild temper. He is a man of a large
family of children, and he did not wish to see any
injury done which might in any way be avoided.—
When be came to Hyde Park-corner, be saw that the
passages leading off to the original route were blocked
up, and that it would be difficult to clear them. It
should be recollected here, that Sir Robert Baker did
not attend as the director of the Procession. He had
nothing to do with the original route. He was only
there to keep the peace; for if he had had the con-
duct of the funeral from the commencement, it must
be presumed that he would have joined it at a place
three miles farther back than that at which he first
met it. But though he had not the conduct of the
route originally, yet, seeing the obstructions which
were made to its going by the Park, or in any other
way than towards the City, and being spoken to by
some persons as to the risks which would attend its
passage by any other route, he did consent that it
should go by Carlton House, and down by that way
to the City. But the Gentleman who had the super-

intendance of great pat t of the funeral arrangements,
Mr. Chittenden, would not have it go by that way ;
and by his directions it was turned into the Park.—
Sir Robert Baker being at that time advanced into
Piccadilly, the Guards followed it in, believing, as
you have heard, that they were then following Sir
R. Baker. When it was found that it had gone into
the Park, the people, who expected that it would go a
different way, were very much disappointed ; there is
ao doubt about it. A great many of them followed
it through the Park, and many got round to the
other gate (Cumberland-gate) by different ways.—
There they endeavoured to shut the gates to prevent
the Procession from coming through, and the soldiers
ulto were stationed there endeavoured to keep them
open. Now, it appears to me, that the soldiers were
acting quite right in endeavouring to open the gate.
The Park is the property of the King as much as my
kase is mine; 'and a man's house being his castle, no
Person has a right to enter it without his consent.
—The Park is shut partially every night, and
14 person has a right to open the gates without the
unction of those whose duty it is to attend them. It
my man enters the house of another against his con-
sent, be must be considered as an intruder ; and as
lunch force may be lawfully used as is necessary to
expel him ; and if he resist, that force may be pro-
lursinned so as to overcome that resistance. This is
the law of the land, as it appears to me. The case,
take it, is the same with respect to the Parks, and
morel
conceive that the soldiers were fully justi-
fied in using force to keep possession and to have the
that
eontumed open. It should be remembered also,
they Were chosen promiscuously. They were
as Pan of the Guard, and not selected for the
occasion. They were acting in discharge of an im-
perative duty. They could not, therefore, be supposed
to have any malice against the immense crowd by
which they were Opposed. It is impossible, as it ap-
I,s to me, that they could have any malice afore-
Thought—any determined evil intention against the
!ries %silo might possibly obstruct them in the dis-
charge of their duty, and, Gentlemen of the Jury, such
motive most be proved to exist before they can be con-
wdered criminal for any of the.acts which they did ou

that occasion ; and here, Gentlemen, I will just read'
for you an extract from a work which I have got here.
It is a book, written on the subject of a Comner's
duty, by Umfreville. Speaking of the motives by
which parties might be influenced to the commission
of homicide, he mentions " envy, hatred, and ma-
lice;" and of these he says, " envy, hatred, and ma-
lice, are distinct passions of the human mind. The
first is to be grieved at the happiness of another.—o
The second is tra inveterata, which is the settled lia-
tred of one man against another, and to such a degree
as to carry a man to attempt the life of that, person;
and the third (malice) is a feeling from which he who
harbours it may be supposed to design to do ill to
some individual, by which he is guilty of a great
crime." I shall also read to you, Gentlemen, the
opinion of a very worthy man, my predecessor in
office, on the subject of malice in cases of homicide ;
he says, that " malice is not to -be viewed lightly;
that malice is a wicked, depraved, and malignant
spirit, or heart lost to moral duties, and violently bent
on mischief, and this is a passion from which, if death
ensues, the party inflicting it is guilty of felony without
benefit of Clergy ;" and he adds, that in all cases of ho-
micide a great allowance should be made for human
frailty. Now, Gentlemen, it will be for you to say, whe-
ther you believe that the soldiers who acted on the oc-
casion in question were influenced by such motives as
I have here read to you. The Guards are, I may say,
some of the bravest soldiers in the world. They
were drawn out to perform an irksome duty ; they
were there acting against their fellow-citizens, who
were, also, unarmed ; and can we suppose they could
possibly have been influenced by any malicious mo-
tive against them? They were kept at the gates to
do a duty which they were obliged to perform, and
in its performance they were most grossly insulted,
and most violently attacked. You have it in evi-
dence from a Gentleman, a Captain in the Navy,
that they bore the attack with the utmost patience
for a considerable time ; that in their whole conduct,
when thus exposed for a considerable time to insult
and injury, they acted humanely and bravely ; and
he further tells you, that when severely attacked,
they retired, rather than retaliate the injury they had
received. But when at last they did make an attempt
to defend themselves, and also to perform the duty
for which they were stationed at the gate, whit did
they do? Why, they sent forward two men to clear
the gateway. Surely, Gentlemen, if they were ac-
tuated by malice against the people, they would have
sent more than two men amongst them; and at length,
when more than that number acted, what was the in-

jury complained of as coming from them ?—that one
man was thrown down in the dirt. That was a circum-
stance which might have been expected on such a
day. It is natural that when persons place themselves
in such situations, they should meet such accidents.—
But, Gentlemen, it is said that only abusive words
were used. Words break no bones to be sure, but
stones do; and, Gentlemen, soldiers are as vulnerable
as others, and ought not, more than other subjects, to
be subjected to such attacks. That they were most
grossly attacked, you have it in evidence from several
witnesses. Yet, when so attacked, what did they do?
You have it in the evidence of one witness, that he
was pursued by a soldier—that he got into a cut de
sac, from which he could not escape, and yet the sol-
dier offered him no injury ; but when that witness
(Alexander) escaped unhurt, he, instead of being cured
of a wish to join the crowd again, returned and mixed
with them as soon as the soldier retired. You have

it also in evidence, that the deceased, instead of Teti-

ring when he saw the confusion, remained, clap-
ping his hands, and shouting out, "To the city I to
the city I" But, after all the attacks to which I have
before alluded, what did the soldiers do? Surely it
is impossible to suppose that if one hundred armed
men entertained malice against the people, they could
not have inflicted the most serious injuries ; but what
were the injuries ?—a cut umbrella, a cut drat, and
one man knocked down. This was the whole of the
injury proved up, to the time that they were obliged
to fire ; and what was the cause given for the firing?
You have it in evidence, that it did not commence
till after the attacks upon the soldiers with stones.
--You have it also proved, that not fewer than
thirty-seven of the soldiers were next day ordered
to the hospital, in consequence of wounds and bruises
they received, and that one horse had its neck cut.
It is also to be considered, that the men had not their
pistols loaded. They charged theth after they had
been attacked repeatedly;. but can it be imagined
that if they entertained malice against the people,
they would not have charged their pistols before they
were attacked? Much has been said about the Riot
Act not having been read ; but those who make such
observations do not- seem to understand the nature of
the Riot Act. The reading of the Riot Act, if it had
been read, would not of itself 'authorise soldiers to'
fire amongst the people, or to cut them down. I shall
read to you, Gentlemen, a part of that Act. The
Coroner then read some extracts from the Act, which
were in substance, 44 that from and after the 12th of
July, 1715, if any persons, to the number of twelve
or more, assembled' in a riotous manner, and did not
disperse within one hour after being ordered so to do
by any Magistrate, Justice of the Peace, or Sheriff of
a County (and, continued the Coroner, we find that
a Sheriff was present), it would be a felony without
benefit of Clergy ; and the Act empowered any such
Magistrates," &c. and they were (as well as all other
the subjects of the King whom they should call to
their aid) required to seize and apprehend all such
persons so offending, and to take them before i
Justice of the Peace to be dealt with according
to law ; which law declared the offenders to be
guilty of a felony without benefit of Clergy.—
The Act then gave the Proclamation which should
be read, calling upon the persons so assembled to dis-
perse, but no part of it mentioned any authority to
fire upon or kill the persons for not dispersing. The
circumstances which took place at Cumberland-gate
(continued the Coroner) must be looked at without
any reference to the Riot Act, the reading of which
would not alter the case as to the firing. fhe justice
of that rested upon other circumstances--and what
were they? You have it in evidence, that the sol-
diers were attacked in a most violent manner. Their
lives were in danger, and they were acting only in
self-defence, like all other subjects. No person will
deny that all subjects have a right to protect their
lives, and why should soldiers be excluded from
this rule ? Is it to be imagined that they were to
remain (even if the Riot Act had been read) for one
hour, exposed to the loss of life—that they were to