The Sun. — 1833-06-13 (London, England)

SOLICITOR-GENERAL said, as he had been attacked for the share he had taken in this subject, he was anxious to vindicate himself. The petition of the jurymen was entitled to the greatest respect, but he regretted that such a discussion should be brought on so very inopportunely. There were various trials to take place arising out of this transaction ; in the course of a fortnight one man was to be tried for his life on a bill of indictment which had been found by the Middlesex Grand Jury, and there were other trials for misdemeanours, in which both the law and the facts must be investigated.—(Hear, hear, hear.) He had a very high estimation of the superintending power of that House where there was a failure of justice, when judges misconducted themselves, or where Government had been guilty of any misconduct, and then let Government be im. peached before the House; but it was inexpedient to appeal to that House on the law or the fact,—those ought to be tried by the ordinary Courts. The petitioners complained on two grounds—first, that a slur had been cast upon them; and secondly, that the trial by jury had been brought into discredit by the inquisition being quashed. Now, in fact, no slur whatever was cast on the jury. When he applied to the Court of King's Bench to quash the inquisition, he distinctly expressed his sincere respect for the Jury, and for the intentions by which they had been actuated. This case was spoken of as if it were unusual for the Court of King's Bench to set aside the verdict of a jury. He would say that such occurrences took place at least 50 times a year, and not only were the verdicts of juries set aside, but also the judg. meats of the Courts, and even the unanimous judgment of the judges, upon appeal to the House of Lords. It was no slur, then, upon the jury on this inquest that the verdict had been set aside.—(Hear.) This could not bring the trial by jury into disrepute ; but the improper findings of juries unchecked by a higher Court, would have a direct tendency to bring the trial by jury into disrepute. The verdict was contrary to law, and it was the bounden duty of his Majesty's legal advisers to move that it should be quashed. The Hon. and Learned Member for Bath, however, sets up his knowledge in those matters in opposition to that of the Learned Judges, and, he believed, of every lawyer in that House. He had been surprised to see the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin stand by, when the judgment of the King's Bench was impugned. He would tell the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath, that it was not for any informality that the verdict was set aside, but because the finding of the Jury was in opposition to the evidence. The Hon. and Learned Member then went on to argue that the jury could only have found a verdict of justifiable homicide, if the evidence had shown that Robert Cully had attacked some person, and that that person could only escape from being slain by slaying his aggressor; this, lie contended, the evidence by no means evinced. After commenting on the special finding of the jury, which he also contended was not such as the case warranted, the Hon. and Learned Member said that the most mischievous consequences might arise from such observations as were made by the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath and the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin, during the time the jury was sitting. The Hon. Member for Dublin had laid it down as a law, that no public meeting could be dispersed without the previous reading of the Riot Act. This he (the Solicitor-General) had protested against at the time, and he niev argued that it was not necessary that the Riot Act should be read previous to the dispersing of an illegal meeting, as a magistrate or constable was quite competent to the dispersion of the meeting. The Riot Act having been read, any person remaining on the ground for one hour afterwards, commits an act of felony; and that was the intended opera.