The Sun.
London, England, 1841-05-06 00:00:00

MORNING EDITIOI4.'

general principle fa the application of the funds, and
therefore none bad been applied.
Lord MAHON had observed that in the sa'e; ordered
by the Commissioner in this country in our Australian cola
nies, there was none ordered for sale in Van Diemen's Land.
He wished to know whether it was intended, or was it Any
mistake ?
Mr. V. SMITH said, when the lands were advertised,
there was not considered to be enough ready for sale to
make it worth employing an agent in this country. It
was more than probable that some would appear for sale in
next advertisement.
After a conversation relative to the Orders of the House,
Mr. KELLY gave notice that to-morrow he would
move that Sir Thomas Cochrane have leave to bring up
the Report of the Committee on the. Ipswich Docks Bill,
the Chairman having without notice postponed it till Friday.
COUNTY CORONERS' BILL.
On the motion of Mr. PAKINGTON, the House
webt into Committee for the re-consideration of the
County Coroners' Bill, Mr. FRESSIFtELD in the Cia'r.
Clause I was agreed to. •
On clause 2 being proposed,
Mr. WAK LEY said that the clause provided that Jus-
tices of the Peace should meet in Session fur the purpose
sf dividing the counties into districts. He thought
it would be but an act of courtesy if the Honourable
Gentleman (Mr. Pakington) proposed in his Bill
that before eount;e3 could be divided into districts coroners
should receive intimation of what the justice; intended
doing. He (Mr. Waklev) was aware.that in arguing the
case of the coroners against the justices in that House,
there were fearful odds against him. It was ex-
traordinary that justices of the peace without giving
notice to the coroners of what was to be
done, should consider that they had the power
to decide what was more convenient for the public
than the coroners themselves who had been acting in those
districts for many years. Several coroners loudly complained
on this subject, and considered they were most unfairly
treated. If the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Pakington) would
intimate that the Coroners should be adequately pro•
tected he (Mr. Wakley) would not trouble the
House with the proviso which it was his intention to move
to the 2d clause. But if the Hon. Gentleman should not
give Buchan intimation he ( Mr. Wakley) should be obliged to
put the House to the inconvenience of moving such a proviso.
The Hon. Gentleman then read a note from a coroner in
Gloucestershire, to show the injurious effects of the clause
upon the interests of the coroners. The note com-
plained of the injustice of putting coroners
who had been at great expense in obtaining liege district,
on account of the larger emolument arising therefrom,
on a level with coroners of small districts who had
been at little or no expense or trouble in obtaining
those districts. The Hon. Gentleman prceeeded to say
that some compensation ought to be made to suck
coroners. He ( Mr. Wakley) was desirous that
the House should not interfere with the pre..
sent management of counties when the counties
had been divided into districts for a long series of
years, and if the Hon. Gentleman should state that that
were his opinion be (Mr. Wakley) would not trouble the
House wiJi the proviso be bad mentioned.
Mr. PAKINGTON was not aware of the nature of the
amendment which the Hon. Gentleman meant to propose.
Mr. WAK LEY said that the proviso was to the
effect that due notice should be given to the coroner
of the intention of the justices to make any division of
counties, and that the coroner should be heard at Sessions
either by himself or by counsel for or against such division-
Mr. PAKINGTON had no objccion to the introduc-
tion of such a proviso.
Mr. BA RN EB Y wished the Hon. Member would with.
draw the words "or Counsel."
Mr. WA KLEY could not withdraw the words, be-
cause the coroners were perfectly incompetent to defend
themselves when brought into contact with the Justices......
(A laugh.)
The proviso was then added to the clause, and the clause
with the addition, was then agreed to.
Oa clause 3 being proposed,
Mr. BA RNEB V said, that the clause proposed to make
it incumbent on very coroner to reside within the district
for which he acted ; but if a coroner resided in a
town which had a right of holding Quarter-sessions, he
could not be, strictly speaking, residing within his
district. Now he thought that such a ; revision would
press hardly upon sonic coroners, and therefore he wished
to see some words introduced, giving to the justices
the power of giving leave to the coroner to reside out of
his district, in some cases, as they tray see fir.
Mr. PAKINGTON would accede to the introduction
of some such provision.

Mr. WAKLEY objected to giving the justices
such power. They were constantly boasting of the
necessity of having the judges independent, and h,re
they were proposing to make the coroner, who was a
Judge, dependent upon the Magistrates. It would be impos-
sible for him to do justice if he were placed in 'niche situation.
Nothing could be more unfair than the manner
in which ccronees were elected; and he rejoiced
that the Hon. Member had brought the subject before
the House. What be complained of was, that
that 13111 left the justices to deal with the present coro-
ners as they thought fit. He should, therefore, move that
the bill should not extend to any county which was already
divided into districts without the content cf the coroner&
of the said county, who had filled that cffice for a given' number of years_

Mr. PAKINGTON thought the justices would not
have any undue power over the coroners, nor any power
that must not he given to somebody. He thought, then-
fore, that the (Buse con aired noti.ing unreasonable.
Sir G. STRICKLAND approved of the amen lment.
The House should nut give to justices of the peace the
power of cutting coroners out of the practice which they
now enjoyed.
Mr. O'CONNELL said that be did think there was a
great objection to the clause in its present shape. Coro-
ners had now a vested pecuniary interest in certain dis-
tricts; and why should a change be made to tin it detri-
ment at the caprice of the justices of the peace ?
The words wheat it was thought " proper and conve-
nieht" %ere, no doubt, introduced into the clause, but that
still left the matter to the discretion of the Magistrate a.
He did not approve of such a principle ; and be believed
that no Bill had been ever brought into that House which
took away a vested interest without some adequate com-
pensation.
Mr. WA RBUR TO N said the effect of the clause would
be to give an arbitrary power to the Magistra'es to alter
the districts of coroners without giving any compensa-
where such alterations were made. In the case
of the Criminal Justice Bill, the coroners who
might be affected by the justices on that Bill, would
receive corni:ensation, and they would be equally entitled
to it in the case wider consideration.
Mr. •F. MA ULE said, he thought that this clause dealt
somewhat hardly with coroners, and as he objected to
plafling more power in the hands of the Magistrates, be
should vote for the amendment of the Hon. Member for
Finsbury. _ _

Aftera. '..ew words from Mr. Ht ME and Mr. anRA-
11ANI, in opposition to the clause,

Sir R. PEEL said he had always been in favour of
allowing fair compensation wheneser the House was
making important and e%tens:ve refcres. He did nut
think that a measure of public convenience ougtt to give
way to vested interests. But neither did be thillt that
vested interests shonld be interfered with, without com-
pensatien _..._( Hear, hca,.) It was net advisable to mP.ko
the coroner subordin:ite to any other 111,,gistrate, or
otherwise to disturb the relation or reduce the dignity of
that ancient office. If this measure would greatly dimi-
nish the emoluments of the coroner, the House was
bound in common justice, and by its own precedent its
the Bill of last year relating to the county of Chester,
to give him compensation.

WAK LE Y thought what the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman had said would have great weight both in the
House and out of it. With regard to at hat the Right
lion. Gentleman had said of the division countie3, &e..
he (Mr. \Vakley) had only spoken of counties that had
been divided for years, and he asked the Right Hon.
Gentleman if he could have a comity so divided in which
the business was: badly done. Where there were excep
bons, the law might be applied to them.
After a few words from Sir T. F.GERTON,
Mr. BARNEBY moved after the word "twenty :me,"
to inset or within three miles thereof."
Mr. HUME thought the irtroduc•ion of those words
would merely add to the evil. It wai exceedirgly de-
sirable that Ciironers should reside within their districts.
Mr. 13ARNEBYsaid that he thought there was weight
in the ohjecttons of the Hon. Member for Finsbury to
giving additional power to Ju,tice3, and at the same time
that the cases to which he had before alluded to should be
provided for.

Mr PAK INGTON thought then was some fora) in
the objections of the Hon. Member for Kilkenny, and pro.
posed that instead of the amendment of his Hon. Friend,
the words to he introduced should be, or in , ome city or
borough adjoining thereto. He thought l'ac Hon. and
Learned Member for Dublin must be and ;.r some n"',ere
take
when be talked of vested interests. Ye'. he
thought there
was so much force in wha: had faller, from his Right Hen.
some future stage of
Friend, that he should not object M
the Bill to introduce a clause grinting compensation.
the MI.
theta by th
Mr. WAKL E Y objected, on princ
gistrates the power proposed to be given
ensat,on \V ail
13ill. The Coronors d,,d not want p
not be interfered. 6--
with
had b en elected by the people.
they desired was that, they
sb"'lde olf" the unctions of that
by the Magistrates ',ll their exercts, ,
elc toft giving
o.
ancient cffice, to'which they
been supposed, that the Lord
The law was not, as had . .
Chancellor c,ould interfere inGtneenearpapotintmeot of coroners.
He would r;t,fy the Attorney-General .1. o produce four in-
stances is the COUP'S(' Of iihvetre ,Twere two. cases on record in
had 1-.,een assumed.
where large. districts were completely
whitdi the Lord Chancellor had so interfered, but these
rones;
and even in those cases the propriety
ithout a co
of the conduct pursued had been questioned. He (Mr.
wi,kicy) doubted whether the precedents would ever again.
duties
should
extend
during would o
au l
certain
ro
tbaaeinnyt theoiv:rni c.._
were extreme cases,
nob
effe
nothingretc'ewtlihtnhowatheda .1
d
barged
ipnr proviso ies
his
Acti
sl te
bet of years past.
Mr. b'CON NE L L said that whether or not the Lord
Chancellor hod the power il qu,stion in ext•renie cases,
the interest of t,e coroner would no less be v. vested one.
Sir E. PE E L thought that no public r.licer had a tight
to Cl tito protection ip, the exclusion o'i a measure which
might be considered as a public itopro.voment. He had a
ri,: tit to cxp,ct that Lis loss would be compensated fur,
but not that he should prevent a legislative enactment.
Major AG L 10NB Y agreed with the Right Hon. Br-
ronot He should advocate compensation, but not the re-
jection of a measure enacted fur the general good.
Mr. PA KINGTON had no objection to the introduc-
tion of a clause glutting compensation; and on a future
ocCasiJn ho would take the opportunity of dAng so.
Mr. WA KL E Y then consented to withdraw his ameae..
mend, and it was withdrawn accot.ding!y.
The clause, in 0r204 to ascerta-n the result uf the re.
commendation of the Right Hon. Baronet the, Member for
Tamworth,, cLuse 5' was then proposed.
clauseri-as agreed to.
Colonel T. WOOD Q.b:!e et
tt,f, :
ii.el:ussleig6hbt
eing discussion,p ropo F?
tie
td to tha confining the hat,