The Sun.
London, England, 1821-08-25 00:00:00

THE LONDON JOURNALS.

DAILY EXTRACTS FROM THE MORNING PAPERS,
August 25.

[THE TimEs.l
At a late hour last night we received the con-1
eluding accounts from the Inquest which sat on
the body of George Francis. The verdict which
they have brought in is " PVilful, Murder against
'a Life Guardsman unknown." With pain we
record this afflicting verdict, because it gives us
deep concern that a British soldier should, on the
oath of 14 respectable,citizens, deserve to be
charged with such a crime. Whether the same
anxious and disgraceful efforts will be made to
screen the criminal from public justice, as before
the nature of his offence was determined by the
voice of a tribunal recognized by the laws and
Constitution of England, a day or two perhaps
may decide. No blame can be thrown upon the
respectable portion of the Press, at least, for any
attempt on its part, to bias, corrupt, or inti-
midate the Jury. The verdict is as it ought
to beL---their own. In spite of all the re-
proach and impatience man:fested, the In-
quest listened to and weighed the evidence -;
they heard all that could be told of the origin,
progress, and dreadful results of the attack made
(as they have now most solemnly decided) on
the people. The principal circumstance in the
great mass of testimony delivered on this Inquest,
to`which we feel it necessary to turn the atten-
Gott of our readers, is this :—That although
stones and brickbats were flung by the people
before the firing, none were thrown until after
the soldiers had been seen by a crowd of wit-
nesses cutting at the people with their swords.
The above fact is of prime importance, because
it ascertains the authors of the original aggression.

[MORNING CHRONICLE.]
The- proceedings of yesterday, at the inquest
on the body of Richard Honey, offered the most
convincing proof how much better the ends of
justice would have been answered, by the ad-:
mission of the Jury into the Barracks along with
.the witnesses, than by their exclusion. The Jury,
instead of seeing themselves what really took
place, the looks of the witnesses, the decision or
embarrassment of their manner, the observations
made by them in identifying any individual, and
the tone of certainty or hesitation in which they
were delivered, were obliged to content them-
selves with such selections from his meagre notes
as Mr: Stafford, the Chief Clerk of Bow-
street, chose to communicate to them. This
is contrary to the spirit of the English
law, and the uniform practice of our Courts,
in which the best evidence of any thing which
can,possibly he obtained, is always taken in pre-
ference. it would not he more absurd to appoint a
Clerk or other officer of a Court of Law, to take
the evidence, and report his impression of it to
the Jury, than it was to make Mr. Stafford the
medium of communicating to .the Coroner's
Jury, the important part of the evidence given
in the Knightsbridge Barracks. Mr. Stafford had
made some memoranda in pencil to assist his me-
mory, but he could not swear to the exact
words, nor could he part with his book, and lie
briefly described his impression of the manner in
which the witnesses pointed out individuals.
The Foreman with great good sense observed to
the Coroner—" It is evident now that it would
have been of great moment if the Jury had been
present at the inspection ; much time would have
been saved to you and the Jury, as well as sa-
tisfaction given to the public."

[NLw TIMES.]
One of the Coroner's Juries has returned a
verdict of Wilful Murder against a Life Guards-
man unknown. This event was to have been an-
ticipated from spirit w hich has been but too
evident in these proceedings. For our own part,
we have most cautiously abstained from any remark
~tihatever on the evidence, while the inquiry was
pending ; but now it is over, we must say that,
in our opinion, a clearer case of justifiable homi-
cide, upon the evidence, never was shewn. And
we think the Jurors would so have found it, if the
Coroner had clearly explained to them what
justifiable homicide is, and how the facts deposed
to bore upon that point. It is distinctly
laid down, that "in case of a riot or re-
bellious assembly the officers, in endeavouring
to disperse the mob, are justifiable at Common
Law in killing them, if they resist."—(l Hal.
P. C. 495.-1 Hawk. P. C. 161.)—0f course it is
not to be understdod• that men are to be killed
wantonly, even in a riot; but where the riot
cannot 1.;,. otherwise suppressed, or where, in at-
tempting to suppress it, the officer (by which we
understand any person civil or military authorised
and directed to assist in keeping the peace and
preventing a forcible crime) is himself placed
in hazard of his life, there, both for the ad-
vancement of public justice, and for self-de-
fence, the homicide is justifiable. Nay, this prin-
ciple is carried so far, in our law, that if a stranger
interpose to part the combatants, in a common
affray, giving notice to them of that intention,
and they assault him, and in the struggle he
happens to kill one of them, this is justifiable ho-
micide ; and the reason given for it is remark-
able : " because it is every man's duty to inter-
pose for the preservation of the public peace."

[MORNING POST.]
The Jury sitting on the body of Geo. Francis,
who lost his life when a brutal attack was made
on the Military, have brought in a verdict of
" Wilful Murder against a Lifeguardsman to
them unknown." When we call to mind the
disposition which they evinced in the course of
the proceedings, it would be affectation in us
to say that we are surprised at the result. But
if we do not experience surprise, we feel both
regret and alarm. For we think that after such
a verdict as the present, so much discredit will
be thrown upon an Institution which had hitherto
been considered as the safeguard of life,
property, and liberty, that in future it will
lose both its dignity and efficacy. At this
moment, however, our immediate attention is
called to the extraordinary charge which was deli-
vered by the Coroner last night to the Jury, sit-