The Sun. — 1821-09-12 (London, England)

THE TIMES.] The inquest sat again yesterday. Some witnesses were examined, but afforded nothing new. The coroner summed up, the Jury again separated, but will return their verdict, it is supposed, this morning.- We respect the office of Coroner, as we do every other whiell our ancient Constition has provided for the redress of wrong, the protection of life, and the defence of the subject against lawless force and outrage. The Coroner ought to have some general knowledge_of the criminal law. It is his-privilege and his duty to explain that law to the Jurors whom he has summoned, either at their first assembling, or after they have heard the whole evidence to which they can have access. The part of the law which the Coroner ought to expound is that which, concerns the subject matter of the inquest; but there his duty, and there his power, ends. Of the application of that law to the question which they have to decide, the Jury, and they alone, are to judge. We state this proposition distinctly, because some attempts have been made to deter the present Jurymen from thinking for themselves, and to lay them prostrate at the 'feet of the'Corouer. If  the Jury listen to such treacherous insinuations, they betray the most solemn of all trusts : the Coroner dictates the application of the law ; he, in fact, dictates the verdict ; and becomes at once both Judge and Jury.. If this be law, Mr. Adolphus and the Coroner might as well settle the business comfortably between them; and if they cannot quite agree, call in the Corporal of the Life Guards as an arbitrator. The Coroner has %taken, we perceive, a somewhat different view of the subject from ours. He seems, towards the close of his charge, to think that the firing was the beginning of the violence used by the soldiers. But the soldiers, according to the evidence of their own comrades, did " cut and slash and drive among the people," and that before the people had raised a single stone against them : whether they cut or bruised is less than nothing. They struck at the people—and is a brickbat more a weapon of offence than a heavy and naked sword ? " They cut and slashed"—these ara the very words of one of the soldiers, on his oath; and yet it is pretended that the Life Guards cannot be considered as using force until they began to fire ! Good God ! in what century are we living? Have we dropped back to the reign of Charles 11., when Sir Roger L'Estrange, a favourite court writer, put it on record, that "a citizen's skull is but a thing to try the temper of a soldier's sword upon ?"  [MORNING CHRONIeLE.] A Morning Paper, observing on the conclusions that have been drawn from the evidence on Haywood and Henchman, desires any Juryman, or other person, to ask himself what would have been the consequence had any individual soldier refused to force open the gates ? 64 lie would, " (it is added), " have been liable to be brought to a Court Martial and shot, and yet for obeying the same order he is to be hanged." Undoubtedly this presents, in a very striking point of view, the wickedness of placing the soldier under the necessity of committing either murder or disobedience of orders. The penalty being the same in either instance, it is not surprising that he should prefer the commission of that offence which is the least inconsistent with his professional habiti. But we really cannot perceive that the people have the more reason to be satisfied with the aifairof the 14th, because the soldiers were, by the wisdom of those that employed them, necessitated to commit a crime against their own laws or those of the nation.— Our commiseration is indeed excited for men placed in so cruel a dilemma, and our indignation the more strongly roused against those who so wickedly and wantonly placed them in it.  [