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

SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that the inquisition containing the clause referred to had been signed by all the Jury, and it was therefore to be taken for granted that they were acquainted with its contents. Mr. O'CONNELL continued—lt was impossible that their attention could have been called to such a clause. They must indeed have been insane if they could have found that the man was, in the peace of God and of our Lord the King, in the exercise of his duty, and was slain justifiably but it was the duty of the Coroner to have apprised them of it, and shown them that their two findings were inconsistent; but that did not disparage the verdict of the Jury. A goad deal had been said about the meeting having been illegal, and he would admit that it had been called for an illegal purpose. The law in reference to illegal assemblies consisted of three parts-as it respected a riot, a route, and an unlawful assembly. A riot might consist of any three or more persons, who were engaged with force and violence breaking the peace. (Hear, hear.) In a case of that description every man was a constable, and could arrest the rioters. A route was defined to be an assembly, intending to carry an illegal object by violence ; and the third case was, when there was an illegal object, but no force or violence intended. Of this last character was the meeting in question.— (Hear, hear, hear.) On information, a Magistrate's warrant might have been procured, and they might have been arrested ; but what was the evidence ? As far as appeared by the reports, the conventionalists used no violence. The evidence went to prove first of all an attack by the police on the flags and banners. There was no evidence to show that they had been impeded in any attempt to arrest any of th e meeting, but evidence on the other side to prove that the rush at the flags was accompanied by promiscuous and inhuman assaults on the multitude, brutally beating them, and the blood was seen streaming at every side from their blows.—(Hear, hear,) The law applicable to such a case was, that on the warrant of a magistrate, there should have been arrest. There was no arrest—there was no attempt to impede the arrest, but on the contrary, without notice, without warning the people, certainly an assault was made, beating them to right and left, following women and men who were unprotected and unarmed up the stairs, where they fled for refuge. With these facts before them, it was impossible the Jury could have come to any other verdict.—(Hear, hear.) The true and legal meaning of justifiable homicide was, where a man, who was pursued and attacked by another, retired as far as be could, and tried to escape but could not, that then he turned round and killed the man who would have killed him, and caused death in order to save his own life.— (Hear, hear, hear,) Now the jury had found--he would leave out of view at present what was said about the Riot Act and about the conduct of the Government; but they found that the conduct of the police was brutal, ferocious, and unprovoked by the people. Now, if such was the case, he would defy any lawyer to say that a verdict of any thing but justifiable homicide could have been returned. Sir GEORGE GREY said the Learned Solicitor. General had assumed all these facts in his application to set aside the verdict.  Mr. O'