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

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS

We have a great dislike to whatever wears the appear-
ance
0f trickcrY, and we must own that there is something
Billeerly.like trickery in the treatment of the County Coroners,
,like the discussion on the amendments made by the
cm's on this Bill in the House of Commons, on Wednes-
day night, Mr. Warburton objected to that which. struck
oe;turttls7 clause, that all Coroners' Courts should be open
" The ground (said Mr. W.) on which the House
°I Lords thought proper to strike the clause out, was that,
in_ the opinion of their Lordships, Coroners'
Courts were
:rFade open courts
"P ,according to the present law.' Mr.
es said " he had introduced the clause in that House,
;led it was a,ereed to, and sent up to the House of Lords,
ii;here the clause was opposed as unnecessary, first by Lord
e eunlan, who, as Lord Chief Justice, was himself the chief
Coronere
of England, and who declared it as his opinion that
ners Courts were open. In that opinion the Lord
`' chancellor and other legal Lords agreed ; and the Hon.
1;t1 Learned Gentleman who held the office of Attorney-
,',,eneral previous to the present Attorney-General, as well as
Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin, concurred in the
d'a:lelieopinion. The doubt had arisen in consequence of a
e 'ion givon by the late Lord Tenterden, in the Oldham
ase, in 1819, on which occasion the Coroner had excluded
somepersons whom he considered improper, and Lord Ten-
le,rden held that lie had a right to do so. The House of
o,°.rdss was aware of this decision, yet they considered the
e unnecessary, as they still thought the Court an open
one, though the Coroner had a right to exclude improper
persons• In short, it was the universal opinion that the
urt was an open Court." There seemed, indeed, to be
no doubt whatever, in the opinions of the Lords, that Co-
snTrenee Courts were open ; but to make assurance doubly
e ie,r it
was thought advisable to demand a conference, in
i1(01e! to have the matter put to rest by statutory enactment.
Althorp said he thought " that the House of Lords,
e,„ 11e matter being represented to them in its proper light,
old yet alter the clause to meet the wishes of the Coin-
' and, therefore, he thought that the better course
•woeuld be for the House to disagree with the amend-
ent of the Lords.—(Hear, hear.) It was of im-
_rtanee that Coroners' Inquests should be open, and if the
quest
did not agree to the clause to that effect, then the
tenesticin must be again taken into consideration." The
ealeindment was accordingly rejected, a conference was de-
in ded and took place • and last night the subject. was
groundg ought under the 'consideration of the Lords. The
iinnof opposition to the clause at first was, that it was
Itlrece,es,sarY—Coroners' Courts were already open ; and
f -111)Ps, in simplicity of heart, believed that the clif-
Znee between himself and the Lords was merely ideal.
ease that after
ed, therefore (he said), this being the state of the
the b., at after the numerous debates which took place on
eute°olll--after the unanimous opinion given by the
ideal,
0110 ities, and seeing that the objection was merely
House would agree to the Bill as amended in the other
cis e se. Ideal ! no such thing, good Mr. Cripps. It was
Ive 'led that you should believe the difference to be ideal ; but
djuir matters came to the push, the Lordslet you see that the
lasteraee was any thing but ideal. The Lord Chancellor
Corn "t said " he was of opinion that in most cases the
ieigeetne_rs: Courts should be open to the public ; but cases
justice 'lse where such a course would defeat the ends. of
fore l--( Hear.) It was only a preliminary inquiry be-
be itne Coroner, and if the doors were not sometimes to
foret;i3:ed, the inquiry as to the offender would be useless,
of se who were suspected of the crime would be aware
fee eeesliseicions against them, and would take care to
.be
•ourtlf this clause was continued in the Bill,
doe -°r°ner would not have the power of shutting the
aon any occasion. The murderer might
sttnhttecort:;fatanttnetldlhleVewaCyhat an opportunity it would give him of hear-
suspicions were ; and if he thought they were
move might get out of the way. He should therefore
the ela resolution that their Lordships could not agree with
open ar,U3o of the Commons making the Coroners' Court an
e, dr Court, and then for the appointment of a Committee
With aw,"o the reasons of their Lordships in not agreeing
of wtitle Commons." Lord Wynford, the Duke
ee'Llugton, the Earl of Falmouth, the Duke
4 et
iinberland• all sang the same song. The
of argee
of Worcester alone took a different view
" had
question. " The greatest abuses," he said,
hew scnhetitries taken place in the Coroners' Courts ; and
eeteats of opinion with the House of Commons, that those
kilt: ought on all occasions to be thrown open to the
of ex beelf; however, the Coroner was to have the • power
ihtrode tiding the public, he trusted that a clause would be
of theneed to compel that officer to publish a special report
in Pri reaSnnS which induced him to carry on the inquiry
to the Vate We believe there can be but one opinion as
to the Veantage of having the Coroners' Courts open. A. s
formationanger of murderers availing themselves of. the in-
if ,
Purelythe Court were open, we believe it to be
ing C --sularY ; whereas the evils resulting from allow-
It is, °.r°nrs to exclude the public, are many and great.
the d in fact, notorious that nothing contributes more to
by eteetion of murder than the interest excited to a case
ereittnliitY: The whole population may be said to be
iestc" ny the publication of the report on the side of
lead 'et., and circumstances apparently the most trifling often
Dort turongh publicity being given to them, to the most imhe-
doo ant discoveries. But once allow the Coroner to shut t
ere I's of his Court when he sees occasion, and the public
see e
eientiTely at his mercy. One Coroner will never
le.asion to open his Court, while another will always
tl:re e'aus Court open. The decision of Lord Tenterden, in
againsse of the proprietor of The Manchester Guardian
thee t the Coroner of Oldham, places the Coroner above
Core
esi enge ; for, according to Lord Tenterden, though a
es,her or other functionary might err, he ought never to
the "e ; and if he were liable to be called to account for
h manner in which he exercised his functions, he might
is 4 a loss how to act. The decision of Lord Tenterden
eeu.nw sanctioned by the House of Lords. But what is
Aar 0°,7-this view is only produced as a dernier resource.
ete `'"APs and the other Members of the House of Corn-
erues Who took interest in the bill, have either been
are ngii an °uslY stupid, or been egregiously duped. Now we
hot a loss to see why a simple matter of this kind could
the 've been treated in a plain and simple manner. If
the Cods who guide the Peers really saw evils in opening
old oners Courts, why allow it to be believed that they
heeYa nisagreed with the clause in the bill of the Commons,
texseist,:cienlCoroners' Courts being already open, there was no
leleo'n declaring by a new law what was law already ?
lead .e thing, fill the minds of people with suspicion, and
to suspect improper designs where none really
• Morning Chronicle.
The B.
Bishop of Exeter's amendment, for the omission
t
till! Bastardy Clause of the Poor Laws Amendmen
13i,jas rejected last night by a majority of eleven. The
that Made an eloquent speech, and there is no question
,eitils? justice a bastard child ought not to be a burden
creel on the mother. That the change in the law
ee;re long, materially diminish the number of bastards
is , 1111 Y believe ; because at present a breach of chastity
inNr eftmended to the female as the surest means of obtain-
not a he b
'lot r and. At present, in the agricultural districts, it is
the ii?e,4.°ned disgraceful to a female to have a bastard ; and
thin lesn°l) of Exeter was probably not far wrong when he said
as Aemales who erred before marriage became generally
etil..unnd beesiv as others. Now that a breach of chastity
4 he i°3t o as the best means of obtaining
tishos and, the females who yield will probably, as the
tvheiep of Exeter observed, be more corrupt. Upon the
kar •' however, the good will greatly preponderate.
]'here will not be forced as they, are at present.
aleete
01 no need to add to the strong natural induce- '
a law Young persons to marry, the stimulus of
the s to young
the female to a departure from chastity as
that ttli"r,est means of obtaining a husband. While we admit
altoe,„e law will be productive of advantage, we cannot
Tee reconcile ourselves to a departure from the
doe, Pies of justice, from views of expediency. It certainly
lee rent unfair that a female should be debarred by the
totee°;_, England from all legal claim of and from the father
ovvQ,,.the support of their common offspring. The Duke
Parisof edieet_
n° ton proposed several clauses securing the relief
cilaribes from fathers, after the mothers shall become
heoertalnle to parishes. The mother is in no case to
like th the contributions of the father ; and something
peternit
principle of the Scotch law of evidence as to the
nient Y is adopted. The Duke of Wellington's amend-
they sere material improvements. We are mistaken if
hole snot tend materially to check the system of perjury,
antie;e° common with loose females. On the whole, we
great'ete much advantage to the community from this
clate,:naenge in our Poor Laws, against which so much
oetTr has been excited, sometimes from weakness, but
Cheeiziei.wo fear, from a much worse motive.—Morning
Lallle defeat which we hoped the whole of the new Poor
best,l;easure would have sustained by the rejection of the
t
oeetZeY,.clause last night in the House of Lords has no
against 4,, After an able speech from the Bishop of Exeter
the tiL that clause, and certainly an able one also for it by
mooTeeteesll°P of London the clause to the great regret of all
and we ,h
.ad almost'said
.to the shame of man-
t •nally carried by a majority of 11. Still the
0, the is not dependent on this clause ; it comes down
'hoo -omrnons again for the sanction or rejection of those
telles which have been made in the Upper House. And
efe'llitiarll;lo'eausethoe whole Bill has passed, if it do pass, will it be
eotpereateintne.xecution? We look with heavy hearts to its
The chancres which it will produce in what
kij,ll: ern-led social life —for the poor surely- make a part of
e;heth)Tc-•-er of the
most Fearful and ominous kind. The poor,
Nu, • nenne • d,aod
ho or in need of employment, are to be fed,
localtriarvis.ra used,by strangers. It is said that the aid of the
ee, eee and other residents of opulence, will be
Lake, o,_Lo Larry the Bill into full effect. Why, the Bill
waY Larry
the local magistracy and opulent residents

all their influence and power ; Government commissioners
work " over their heads," or in a manner totally distinct
from them ; the connexion between the poor and their
neighbours is broken,—the alien, the foreigner, comes in.
It is with pain that we cease to hope that the House of
Commons will reject so monstrous a Bill, or at least transfer
the final consideration from this closing session and a few
exhausted members, to a new session and a full house, after
the members shall have had opportunity to consult with
their constituents, and talk with their neighbours ; for it
must be recollected that no such measure as this was ever
expected or conceived as likely to be brought in at the
beginning of the session.—Times.
The Poor Law Bill, notwithstanding all the attempts
of a certain portion of the press, Tory and non-descript,
to destroy it, has, at last, all but passed the House of
Lords. The Bishop of Exeter's amendment on the bas-
tardy clause was negatived, and we are glad of it, in one
respect, and, in some measure, sorry in another. As a
matter of feeling we do not, and never did, like the origi-
nal clause in the Bill on this subject, and we trust that in
another Session it will be so modified as to meet the feel-
ings, as well as the principles, of all parties ; but, at the
same time, we are bound to confess that all the evidence,
both foreign and domestic reported by the Poor Law Com-
missioners, is in favour of it, and that we have advocated it
precisely on the same ground that a Jury would give its
verdict for, or against, a culprit. We have been guided by
the evidence ; but now that the Bill has been carried, we
think we may fairly enough, and without any imputation of
inconsistency, state that we think the clause may be most
beneficially altered. It is, of course, after this declaration,
unnecessary for us to add that we approve of the amend-
ment of the Duke of Wellington, which was carried, and
we hope will be made part of the Bill.—Morning Advertiser.