The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1810-06-12

cidertal death, where TO other had 4 hand
in il as where mau falls from a horse or
cart. Could the coroner presume this !
| Thirdly, there is death by his own hands, rs
.Ieio &c Se-The coroner could not presume
any Of the above kinds of violept deaths, be :
| Cause the evidence contradcted all such
! presunptisns. What then will be his YER
| dict from necessity-we mean the necessity
of his duty 1t could only have been the
verdict he has instructed the Jury to pro
| nounce.-WILFUL MURDER, against a Ger
tain person unknown.
We do not mean, by these observations, to
accuse the life guardsmen. whoever they be,
OF twILFUL MURDER.-We are satisfied
that both the persons killed, the one in Lon
d'n, and the other in Westminster, lost their
lives by species of homicidc, which is far
from amounting to the guilt of wILFUL MIR
DER-But we will not say that the parties
killing them were blameless. or that they
ought not to be put on their trials-JYe think
they ought to be Brought forward, aud the
justice ofthe country should be satisfied by
their shelving, upon legal enquiry, that
they have a reasonable mitigation or de
fence.
If the coroner be right in the verdict he
has returned upon his inquest, the trial of
these men should be had at all events, andi
is for the honor of the army to which the &C"
cuSed belong, that they should be brought
forward /; otherwise whole regiment stands
attainted with the crime Of blood
The coroner and his jury have done their
duty, and we should have been better pleas
ed if the secretary of state had issued pro-
ciamaiion, Offering a reward for the appre-
hension of the accused, in order that they
might be brought forward forcibly, if they
would not come voluntarily, to clear and JUS
tify their act:
A defence indeed has been offered, that
the parties accused are not themselves, per.
maps, aware that they have committed any
crime-Each individual eXculpates himself;
lie may not, in fact. be able 10 appropriate
any guilt or fix upon himself as the crimil al
1t may be so-ro soldier may precisely
know whether it were his act or another.
This, however, is all conjecture-what
we have written, we have written in vindi
cation OF the coroner and his jury, who have
acted the parts of intelligent and honest
men upon this occasion, and deserve the ap
plause, rather than the censure, of all good
citizens.
Bu. it is said, if the soldiers be given up,
aud put on their trials FOR wilful murder,
the question of privilege will come inciden-
tally botore a jury. w':o may, perhaps,
acqult or condsfnn the parties accused, up
on the legality or illegally of the business
on which they werc called out to act,
according to their own notions of the mat
Ter.
1t must he observed. that there is a nigh
ty apprehension of a jury on the question of
Privilege; just as if these who determine
on the lives and properties of every indi-
vldual member, were unit to be trusted, in
cidentaily, With the question OF their privi-
leges. Is privilege, then, so subtle and
franglbie substance, that IL could not bear
the rough handling of twelve impartial
men?
The truth is, that the question of privi-
iege could not possibly come in issue on the
trial of the accused for the city homicide
the point being, in that case, whether the
soldiers were acting upon their seLf-defence
or no;--if they Justify ata!l, they must
justify, not as soldiers called out to sup.
press riot. for they cannot avail themselves
Of the justification, unless the rio. &c, had
been previously read, (Which in the city
itiwas not,) and they had been marshallcd
under the controul of the civil magistrate
Whatever defence they may use, if they
take their trials upon the accusation of muir
der in Westminster, (where perhaps they
nigh justify as q military body acting under
the contrOul of the magistrates to suppress
riots,) tits certain they cannot. as military
body, avail themselves of the same justifica-
tion in London.
On the city charge, the justification must
be, as in the case of homicide charged upon
any ordinary citizen, SELF defence. They
must prove that they acted purely in self
defence-that they slew the party to save
their own lives-no other plea can be re-
ceived.
The jury therefore would have to deter
mine the single point of the sufficiency of the
justification as self defence---they would
have nothing to do with privilege--,hat ques
ton we sincerely hope will come before them
in another shape.