The Sun.
London, England, 1834-08-09 00:00:00

SOUTH AUSTRALIAN COLONIZATION BILL

The Marquis of CLANRICARDE presented a petition in
favour of this Bill.
The Marquis of SALISBURY would take the opportunity
of the noble Marquis presenting the petition to state that the
Bill had only just been put into the hands of their Lordships,
and he therefore trusted that the Noble Marquis who had the
charge of the Bill would consent to the second reading being
postponed until Monday or Tuesday next.
Lord Ellenborough, the Earl of Falmouth, the Duke of
Wellington, and Lord Wynford, thought the second reading of
the Bill should be postponed until next week.
After a few observations from the Marquis of LANS-
DOWNE,
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE postponed the order of
the day for the second reading of the Bill until Monday next.
The petition was then ordered to lie on the table.
COUNTY CORONERS' BILL.

The L ORDCHANCELLOR wished to draw their Lord-
ships' attention to the result of the conference between their
Lordships and the House of Commeffis on the amendments
proposed by their Lordships to the Bill. As the point was one
of great importance, he could not but consider it his duty to
bring the subject further before their Lordships. He depre-
cated anything like a difference of opinion between the two
Houses of Parliament ; but upon the best consideration he
could give the subject, he was clearly of opinion that the course
their Lordships had adopted in amending the clause
introduced by the House of Commons into the Bill
was the right one, and he (the Lord Chancellor) thought,
if he had an opportunity of stating his reasons for that opinion
before the House of Commons, that they would arrive at the
same conclusion. He was sure that in proposing that clause
they had not before them a full view of the subject. He per-
fectly agreed that a Coroner's Court ought generally speak-
ing, in almost all cases, to be an open Court; that
it ought to be so in 99 cases out of 100 ; but he was equally
agreed that there might be cases in which it ought not to be a
public Court. In stating that, he alluded to cases where with-
out the probability of furthering the ends of justice, matters
were exposed to the public which decency would not
allow to be revealed. No Courts, certainly, were
more public than the Courts of Chancery and the
Ecclesiastical Courts, but in cases where public decency was
outraged, it was the practice always of the Judges of those
Courts to hear the cases in private. In the next place, the
Coroners' Court was not a Court of final resort, and the
greatest injustice might be therefore done in keeping it
open in any instance. It was like a Police Court—
that, it was true was usually open, but in many instances
it was closed, because the keeping it open might de-
feat the very end for whick it was established. If the
examination of particular individuals in many cases were made
public,' the party committing the offence might know what
course to pursue to prevent being taken, whereas, if the in-
dividual examined had been kept secret, the culprit might be
taken unawares, and justice might be got at. If the
present clause was permitted to remain in the Bill, the
coroner could not keep the door of his court shut upon
any occasion, and the man who had committed murder
might by that means escape. Under such circumstances, he
would first of all move that the House should not agree to the
clause introduced by the House of Commons, and he would
follow that up by a motion for the appointment of a Committee
for the purpose of drawing up the reasons why the House did
not agree.
Lord WYNFORD fully concurred in all that had fallen
from his Noble Friend on the woolsack.

The Marquis of WESTMINSTER thought it desirable
that both Houses should come to some understanding without
rejecting the clause. He thought that although the Court
was described as an open Court, the Coroner might have
power to close it when occasion required, making a special
report, to be communicated to the public through the public
Press, of his reason for doing so. The House of Commons
might be a little sore upon the subject, and upon the
conduct of their Lordships towards the other Bills which
they had sent up for their concurrence, as there was scarcely
a Bill which had come up from them that had not either been
thrown out or altered.—( Cries of " No, no.") With respect
to the Dissenters' Bill, that had been agreed to by a large ma-
jority of the other House, but their Lordships had thought proper
to throw it out. He was the last man in the world to wish
their Lordships to abandon their privileges, but he thought it
would be better to come to some such understanding as he had
pointed out.
The Duke of WELLINGTON said he must express the
regret he felt upon hearing the observations that had fallen
from the Noble Marquis. That House was an independent
House of Parliament, and had a perfect right to reject any
Bill which came before it, if their Lordships conceived that it
deserved it ; and in so doing he did not see that the other
House had any right to feel offended. He must protest most
strongly against the principle contained in the few remarks
that fell from the Noble Marquis.
The Earl of FALMOUTH was most surprised to hear
them, and was obliged to add his protest to that of the Noble
Duke.

The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that allusion having
been made to the Warwick Bill, he would take that oppor-
tunity of noticing a most false statement that had been made
with respect to his conduct upon that Bill : it was stated and
put forth to the public as if he had been the means of
rejecting that Bill, when, as their Lordships knew, he had
done no more than his duty upon the occasion—he had summed
up the evidence, and as his duty dictated, he had stated his
opinion that the evidence laid before the House did
not justify or bear out the preamble—he had fearlessly
done his duty upon that occasion, and notwithstanding
such attacks, he would do so again. It was most strange how..
ever, that one very material fact was omitted (he would not
say wilfully, though it was very like it, because the accusation
was founded upon the omission) which was that his Noble
Friend who had the conduct of the bill in the absence of Lord
Durham was present, and not only seconded his motion, but
stated that he perfectly concurred in every word that
had fallen from him (the Lord Chancellor)—that fact,
however, was most carefully suppressed, and that for the
purpose of stating that he had thrown out the Bill for
the purpose of spiting Earl Durham, who it was almost need-
less for him to say, was one of his oldest friends, both political
and personal—it was altogether most absurd.
The Duke of CUMBERLAND complained of such re-
marks, coming from the Noble Marquis, because he (the Duke)
had attended the House every day. when the Bill was before it,
and he had no recollection:of seeing the Noble Marquis even
one day.
The Marquis of WESTMINSTER denied that he had
made any reflection upon any one individual, but considered he
had a perfect right to allude as he had done to the rejection of
former Bills. All he had meant to say was, that it was pos-
sible that the House of Commons might feel sore upon the
occasion, and he implored the House, if possible, upon that
Bill, not to widen the breach.
The Committee was then appointed, and the subject dropped.