1821.] Political Affairs in August. j 73 
The murders committed by the 
soldiery at Cumberland Gate, have 
chiefly absorbed the attention of the 
nation. The resort on such an occa¬ 
sion to the sword and fire-arms instead 
of the constable’s staff; and even the 
attempt to force the procession by vio¬ 
lence in a course so contrary to pub¬ 
lic wishes, have filled the nation with 
mingled indignation and horror. Of 
course, Coroner’s inquests were quickly 
assembled on the bodies of the deceased, 
and the proceedings before them have 
filled the newspapers and occupied 
public curiosity down to the time of 
our writing. 
On the 24th one of the inquests re¬ 
turned a verdict of wilful murder 
against oee of the soldiers of the Life 
Guards, but the assassin has neither 
avowed himself, been given up, or 
identified. The poor man it appears, 
was standing quietly with only two or 
three others near Tyburn Gate, and was 
deliberately aimed at by some wretch, 
who escapes for the present under the 
disguise of the uniform of his regiment. 
The other inquest being able to 
identify the beardless youth who held 
so delicate a command,-and who ought 
not from his tender age to have been 
entrusted with the use of murderous 
weapons, have had a more anxious and 
onerous duty to perform. Their pro¬ 
ceedings have been highly interesting, 
and no jury ever more patiently or 
honestly devoted their time to a simi- 
lar.investigation. When this article was 
written, seven days had been employed, 
and though baffled and insulted, the 
jury seem determined to persevere till 
they have satisfactorily identified the 
culprit. The relations of the victim 
authorised Alderman Waithman, the 
patriotic Sheriff, to conduct the enquiry 
in their behalf, and he has acquitted 
himself with his usual spirit, united 
with great ability and discretion. 
The homicides in this case are not of 
simple character, but seem to implicate 
authorities perhaps beyond the reach 
of law. The following questions on 
the subject present themselves: 
1st Quest. Who had the right to 
direct the march of the procession at 
the late Queen’s funeral ? 
Dr. Lushington and Mr. Wilde were 
her late Majesty’s executors, so con¬ 
stituted by virtue of a power given to 
all Queens of England by a statute 
passed in the year 1800 ; and this statute 
gave to the executors a presumptive 
right to conduct the funeral. 
Mr. Bailey, an undertaker, took the 
management of the funeral out of the 
hands of the executors, and directed 
the march of the procession in opposi¬ 
tion to the protest of those executors. 
Mr. Bailey was asked by the executors, 
by what authority he assumed to take 
the “management of the proceedings out 
of their hands?—in reply he produced 
a writing. 
Dr. Lushington, the executor, re¬ 
marked that that writing had no signa¬ 
ture : to which Mr. Bailey replied, he 
was aware of that, but that lie knew 
from whom the order proceeded. 
If the character of executors vested 
in Dr. Lushington and Mr. Wilde the 
presumptive right of conducting the 
funeral, this presumptive right could, 
not be taken from them by Mr. Bailey, 
without the production of a writing 
with a name affixed to it. On the view 
of that name, the executors might de¬ 
cide, whether they ought to yield to the 
demand; and if they thought that the 
demand had no just foundation, they 
would have known the person against 
whom they might claim redress for the 
unlawful interposition. 
When Mr. Bailey asked if the exe= 
cutors would resist by force, they an¬ 
swered that they would neither them¬ 
selves employ force or recommend it to 
others; they contented themselves with 
protesting against Mr. Bailey’s talcing 
possession of her Majesty’s remains, 
and directing the march of the proces 
sion differently from their wishes ; for 
they desired that the procession might 
proceed by the shortest and most direct 
way, through the city; that the citizens 
of the metropolis might have the oppor¬ 
tunity of paying that respect to the re= 
mains of her Majesty which had been 
voted by the corporation. 
Here a second question arises ; were 
the people guilty of an illegal act by an 
attempt to effectuate the wishes of the 
executors ? Those executors had the 
presumptive right to conduct the fune¬ 
ral, and the people were not guilty of 
an illegal act by aiding to effect the 
wishes of those executors, until Mr. 
Bailey had notified to them and to the 
people that he had been furnished with: 
an authority which superseded the right 
of the executors. Mr. Bailey declined 
to notify either to the executors or to 
the people the name of that person from 
whom he received such an authority 5 
how could the people be guilty of an 
illegal act by assisting to support the 
claim of the executors, when it was not 
notified 
