The Sun.
London, England, 1852-02-06 00:00:00

opinion to which the Noble Lord has referred to the
French Ambassador on the 31 of December ; but,"
said Lord PALMERSTON, " was I the only member of
the Cabinet who did thus express an opinion on
passing events ?—(Hear, hear.) lam informed that
on the evening of that very day, and under the same
roof as I expressed my opinion, the Noble Lord at
the head of the Government, in conversation with the
same Ambassador, expressed his opinion.—(Hear,
and laughter.) I cannot tell what that opinion
was, but from what has just now fallen from the Noble
Lord this evening, it may be assumed that that
opinion was not very different even from
the reported opinion which I am supposed to have
expressed.—(Cheers.) Was that all ? On the
Friday, and in the Noble Lord's own house, I have
been informed that the French Ambassador met the
Noble Lord the President of the Council and the
Chancellor of the Exchequer.— (Loud cries of
hear.') The Noble Lord again expressed
an opinion—(Hear, bear)—and the President
of the Council and the Chancellor of the
Exchequer also expressed an opinion—(Cheers and
laughter)—and be it remembered, that the charge
was not the nature of the opinion, for the Noble Lord
distinctly told me, You mistake the question be-
tween us; it is not whether the President was justi-
fied or not, but whether you were justified in expres-
sing an opinion on the matter at all.'—(Hear. hear.)
I believe that the Noble Lord the Secretary of State
for the Colonies did also in those few days express an
opinion on those events, and I have been informed also
that the then Vice-President of the Board of Trade, and
now the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, also
expressed his opinion.—(Cheers and laughter.) Then it
follows," said the Noble Lord, with a delightful ap-
preciation of the reductio ad absurdum, " that every
member of the Cabinet, whatever his political avo-
cations may have been—however much his attention
may have been devoted to other matters—is at
liberty to express an opinion on passing events
abroad, but the Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs, whose peculiar duty it is to watch those
events, who is un fit for his office if he has not an
opinion on them, is the only man not permitted to
express an opinion—(Hear and laughter)—an.id
when a Foreign Minister comes and tells him that
he has news, he is to remain silent, like a speech-
less dolt, or the mute of some Eastern
Pasha.—(Cheers and laughter.)" The deduction
is in every respect too extravagant to admit of one
moment's doubt as to the triumphant and undeniable
completeness—as far as it goes—of Lord PALMERS
TON'S explanation. As far as it goes, we repeat, be-
cause we cannot believe for an instant
that the debate of Tuesday evening comprises the
whole of the motives and the reasons for his
dismissal which might, but for insurmountable ob-
stacles in the way of official etiquette, have been re-
vealed. The defence put forward upon that occasion
by the late Foreign Secretary himself; we believe in
our hearts to have been crippled, and abbreviated,
and restricted within very narrow limits by the Noble
Lord's known allegiance to the first principle incul-
cated by our national Constitution. This, we doubt
not, will be long remembered to his honour, not only
by his fellow-citizens, but in like manner also by his
SOVEREIGN : and though we regard him as culpable,
as glaringly culpable, in one part of those transactions
—as culpable in forgetting the dignity of his office and
in forgetting the dignity also of his own elevated re-
putation in statesmanship—we mean, by not baying
at once sent in his resignation on the 14th of
December, immediately on the receipt of the
peremptory and overbearing letter addressed to
him by Lord JOHN RUSSELL—we feel assured that
the popular sympathies must still remain on the
side of Lord PALMERSTON, a statesman " more sinned
against than sinning," and one who, by a splendid
career of forty years' duration, has earned for
himself the glory of being, to England, among the
number of her most chivalrous and patriotic Admi-
nistrators.

We trust that the questions at issue between the
magistrates and coroners in some :few districts may
be speedily set at rest, and that if the existing law be
not sufficient for that purpose, an adequate legislative
remedy may be promptly applied. Great inconve-
nience has occasionally been sustained through the
absurd jealousy entertained by some justices, which
has led them to cast impediments in the way of the
due discharge of the constitutional functions of
officers of at least equal jurisdiction with them-
selves. It is, indeed, difficult to conceive
why persons, whose sole object should be the promo-
tion of the ends of justice, should thus wantonly and
unnecessarily interfere with the proceedings of (we
will not say a rival, but) a co-ordinate authority,
We, however, find that there has beer, and still is,
:n some districts, such improper interference, and
that it has recently been carried much further than at
any former period. It therefore becomes our
duty to examine how far the obstructive
and vexatious conduct of the magistrates is jus-
tified by law, and to point out the possible con-
SE quences of such impolitic conduct on the part of
these justices, and in so doing we are greatly assisted
by a very able pamphlet,* in which the points in dis-
pute are clearly and distinctly explained, and
convincing arguments brought forward in favour of
the writer's views. Indeed, we have but one fault to
find with Mr. HERFORD'S exceedingly temperate and
admirable letter, viz., that he does not press the matter
by any means so far as he legitimately might on be-
half of himself and his brother coroners throughout
the United Kingdom. He is, however, manifestly
desirous of having the vexata quastio amicably ar-
ranged; he has therefore avoided pressing any argu-
ment beyond the point at which it must command
the assent of all unprejudiced persons.
We may here, for the information of those who are
not acquainted with the case, briefly explain the
nature of the controversy. Some years since a
magistrate, for what reasons we shall not attempt to
explain (it is not Parliamentary to impute motives).
deemed it expedient to lend no assistance to the coroner,
who was at that very time holding his inquisition on the
body of a person supposed to have met his death by
unfair mean.. The alleged murderer was com-
mitted for trial, and when required to be brought
before the coroner and the jury impannelled to decide
on the means by which the deceased met his death,
the answer was that the prisoner was in Newgate,
awaiting his trial. The final committal was an un-
fortunate contre temps. The sessions at the Central
Criminal Court had already commenced, and Lord
CRANWORTH (then Baron ROLFE), to whom an appli-
cation had been preferred for a habeas corpus to bring
up the prisoner before the coroner's jury, considered
that, " although they had a right to have the prisoner
before them, he had no power to order the removal of
a prisoner who was liable to be tried any day." 'There,
however, the prisoner had been finally committed for
trial, and the criminal sessions were actually going on.
At Manchester, however, the Justice usually offi-
ciating in the Borough Court (Mr. MAUDE) has as.
Burned an aspect of greater hostility to the coroner's
authority. Others have, by refusing to delay the final
committal, avoided granting the requisite facilities to
coroners, but it was reserved for Mr. MAUDE to take a
step in advance, and (we believe for the first time) r o issue
an order to the police not to bring before the coroner
any persons in their custody suspected or charged
with felonious homicide. This is " taking the bull
by the horns" with a vengeance, and forcing on the
conflict of authority so greatly to be deprecated.
The magistrate chooses to adi the legislative to the
executive and judicial functions, and ex mere motu
to supersede one of our most ancient offices—an office,
too, be it remembered, not appointed to by the Crows,.
The coroner is, indeed, the only magistrate who is
p, pularly elected—the representative of a large con-
oes not hold his office merely
stituency—and he d
se tene geserit; or, in other
during pleasure, but dum
words, he is irremovable, except in case of incapa-
city, extortion, neglect, or misbehaviour.
There are many important duties annexed to the
office to which we need not at present allude ; such
as the inquiries into " fires," " treasure trove," Sze.,
and also the execution of writs when the sheriff is
a party to the suit ; and the returning of the jury -
panel, if the sheriff be in any
way interested in the
cause, or related to plaintiff or defendant. The prin-
cipal duty, however, is the holding of inquiries
'• super visum corporis" as to the cause of the death
of any person, tespecting which any reasonable doubt

Letter from the Coroner to the Council of the Bo-
rough of Manchester on the subject of the Report of
the Watch Committee in relation so Coroners' 11194610."