The Sun.
London, England, 1832-06-21 00:00:00

CORONERS' BILL.

The House then resumed the consideration of the Coro-
ners' Bill.

Mr. CAMPBELL vindicated himself from the charge
of precipitancy in the conduct of the Go ne..al Registration
Bill; and observed, that it was a measure in which he had
no personal interest, and that he had been induced to in-
troduce it only in consequence of his conviction that if
adopted, it would prove a measure of great public utility.
After a short explanation from Sir E. B. StJODEN, and
a few words from Lord ALTHORP and Sir C.WETHERELL,
the House resolved itself into a Committee on the Coro-
ners Bill.

Mr. HUME thought it was of importance that Coro-
ners should understand the value of medical evidence, and
he should therefore propose that at the end of clause 8,
there should be inserted words by which it should be re-
quired, that before any man should be admitted to be a
Coroner, he should produce certificate of having attended
two courses of lectures on medical jurisprudence.
Lord ALTHORP said that men might he called on to
offer themselves for the vacant office of Coroner, who
had not anticipated that they should do so, and who,
though perfectly fit, from previous education as lawyers,
to fill the office, would not be able to produce the certifi-
cates required by the Hon. Member, and then who was to
act as the substitute, until these persons had qualified
themselves?

Mr. C. WYNN thought it unnecessary that the Coro-
ner should he a medical man, for that was the object of
this motion ; but he was clearly of opinion that it was ab-
solutely necessary for the Coroner to know the general
rules of the law of evidence.
Mr. O'CONNELL said, that when a case of a charge
of poisoning came h,fore a Coroner's Jury, the Coroner
could not properly direct the Jury as to the value of the
medical evidence give❑ before them, unless he had re-
ceived the instruction proposed by the Hon. Member fur
Middlesex. He should therefore support the amendment.
Mr. STRICKLAND observed that legal knowledge
was absolutely necessary for a Coroner, and he believed
that the profits of the office were in general much too
small to enable them to hope to obtain men to fill
it, who in addition to their professional education as law-
yers, had also obtained a knowledge of medicine. He
knew that there was a mistaken notion abroad as to the
profits of the office, because there had been a contest for it
once or twice; but he believed that those contests pro-
ceeded from very different causes, and he knew with re
spect to one of them—the most expensive that had oc-
curred—he meant in the county of Stafford—that it was
a contest between two political parties who wanted to try
their strength, and who gladly adopted the opportunity
off red them by the election of a Coroner. The expenses
of that contest were defrayed on both sides by these poli-
tical parties. lle should oppose the amendment.
Mr. FRANKLAND LEWIS should also oppose it.
He recollected an instance in early life when the greatest
inconvenience had occurred, because the Coroner was not
acquainted with the law ; and on that occasion the Grand
Jury were advised by the Judges then on the Circuit to
select a man who knew the rules of evidence, fur that
legal knowledge was absolutely necessary fur the situation.
Every subsequent event hid only confirmed hint in the
justice of that opinion. He thought the emoluments were
too small to require medical in addition to legal knowledge
in the candidates for it.

Mr. SCHONSWAR likewise opposed the amendment,
and expressed his belief that it was of the utmost import
ance that the Coroner should be acquainted with the law,
and be assisted by the evidence of medical men. There
could be no objection to that practice, for the expenses of
medical men on such occasions were always allowed.
Mr. HUME said, with regard to the observations as to
the small profits of the office, that when it appeared the
emoluments were not sufficient, they might be increased.
Medical education, too, might easily be had at the King's
College, or the London University.
Mr. BERNAL observed, that one of the effects of this
clause would be, that Coroners must absolutely be medi-
cal men. This must especially be the case in poor coun-
ties, where young men could serve their articles as at-
torney's clerks, without coming to London, and might fit
themselves in that manner to be attorneys and Coroners,
but they could only obtain this medical knowledge by
coming to London—an expense that would of course never
be incurred merely fur the chance of afterwards being Co-
roners.
After a few words from Sir R. Inglis, Sir C. Forbes,
Mr. Hunt, Mr. Crampton, Sir C. Wetherell, Mr. O'Con-
n,ll, Mr. Courtenay, and Mr. Crippe, the Comenittee
divided.
For the Amendment ll
Against it BO
Majority -60
Mr. WARBURTON then proposed an amendment, in
order to provide that all Coroners' Inquests should be held
in open Court, to which the public might obtain ad-
mission.

Mr. CRIPPS objected to the motion, on the ground
that inquest, were most frequently held in private houses,
from which the public could of right be excluded by the
proprietors.

Sir. O'CONNELL said, that if there were any obstacle
opposed to the publicity of an inquest, on the ground that
it was to be held in a private house, the coroner could ad-
journ to any other place. But now he had seen something
of private inquests, be could understand why so many per-
sons were desirous of becoming coroners.—(Hear, hear.)
Having the power to exclude witnesses and reporters,
they might expect to turn the office to account. To put
such a caw al bad been stated by the Hon. Member for

Preston, he would suppose that a man had died in
gaol—had been murdered in gaol—and such things
had sometimes happened—(Hear)—what secutity was
th, re that the coroner's inquiry would lead to a
full and fair investigation, if the inquest could be
held in secret ? In all such cases, the only protection
which the people could have was by the free admission of
the reporters for the public press. He looked upon the
impunity of those who were concerned in the celebrated
murders at Manchester to have been secured by the im-
perfection of the law respecting the Coroner's Court. The
highest Courts of Law were open, although in them there
was some guarantee for justice, in the education, experi-
c±nce, previous character, and responsibility of the Judge;
whereas, neither experience, nor education, nor any quali-
fication whatever was required in the coroner, who had the
power of deciding absolutely and in secret.—(Hear.)
Mr. STRICKLAND looked upon the motion as one
of the greater importance. He thought that publicity was
moat desirable in all cases of judicial inquiry, and especially
in those inquiries which, from their nature, were the most
likely, when conducted in secret, to give rise to painful
suspicions in the public mind. He should therefore sup-
port the motion.
Sir R. INGLIS would not consent to the coroner's
being deprived of the power of protecting persons who were
accused upon insufficient grounds from the injury which an
ex-parte publication might occasion. In extreme cases
the Coroner ought to have the power to exclude all who
were not concerned in the inquiry.
Mr. O'CONNELL said that it was only by a Judge-
made law of no longer existence than the last 16 years.
Mr. HUNT would not only support the motion, but he
had heard enough from the opponents of the motion, to re-
mind him of the expediency of inserting in the Bill a
clause to prevent the Coroner for Westminster from dis-
missing the Jury, which he might have called in the first
instance, and summoning another, in a case where a
murder had been committed in the Palace of St. James's.
--(Hear, hear.) For he knew of a case of that kind,
out of which had grown a prosecution for libel, which he
believed was now before one of the Criminal Courts. A
man was murdered in the Palace of St. James, and the
Coroner having called one Jury, dismissed it, and MM.
taloned another.—(Hear, hear.) The consequence was,
that the bloody and mysterious transaction had never un-
dergone a thorough investigation, for the person who was
principally implicated had never been examined.—(Hear,
hear.) He would appeal to the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer, whether (in the present times, when so much
was said by him and his friends of their regard for the
liberties of the people) that Noble Lord would con-
tinue to the Coroners the power of secret inquisition,
which they claimed, and which was little better than a
restoration of the Star-chamber ?—( Hear, hear.)
Sir CHARLES WETHERELL complained that the
Hon. Member for Preston had made a most uncalled-for
accusation against the conduct of the Coroner and Jury
who had investigated the case to which that Hon. Member
had alluded in a way which no one could misunderstand.
The Hon. Member had thought fit to state that the pers, n
principally concerned in a murder committed within the
precincts of St. Jones's Palace had not been examined on
the inquest. But the Hon. Member must be aware that
the principal person—that is, the man who was guilty of
the murder—had killed himself, and could not be examined
by the Coroner, otherwise than by the inspection of the
murdered body ; and from that and the other testimony, it
was plain that the man had cut his own throat. The
Hon. Member for Preston must have read the libel to
which he had alluded, and he ought not to have made him-
self a copyist of so scandalous a libel.—(Hear).
Mr. HUNT had read the libel as it appeared in the re-
ports of the Hon. and Learned Member's speeches.—
(Hear, and a laugh).
Sir C. WETHERELL asked what then was it that the
Hon. Member for Preston had dared to say ?
Mr. HUNT—Hear, hear.—(Laughter).
Sir C. WETHERELL would a,k again, what was it
that the Hon. Member for Preston had dared to state, in
allusion to the case in which the name of a certain Illus-
trious Person was implicated ?
Mr. HUNT—Hear, hear, hear.—(Laughter).

Sir C. WETHERELL would tell the Hon. Member
that his statement was not true,—(Hear, hear.) It was
not true that the Jury first summoned had been dismissed,
in order that another might be summoned. The law was,
that if a murder should be committed in the Palace, the
Jury must be taken from the King's domestics. But in
the case to which the Hon. Member for Preston had
thought proper to refer, a Jury of persons unconnected
with the Palace was summoned, in order to preclude the
;eat suspicion of partiality.—(Hear, hear.) Having
given that answer to the statement of the Hon. Member
for Preston, he must say that it was the bounden duty of
that Gentleman, as a Member of the House, to declare
that what he stated was inaccurate and untrue, and that
he (Mr. Hunt) had heen misinformed; for he (Sir C.
Wetherell) could assure the Hon. Member that it was
" physically demonstrated" upon the inquest to have been
impossible that the man had died by any other than his
own hand. " Face to face with Mr. Place"—(Laugh-
ter)—the Foreman of that Jury—the lion. Member for
Preston would not have dared to state what he had Mac.
curately and untruly stated in the House of Commons.--
(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member for Preston, were he
in the presence of any one of those Jurors, would rather
be in any other breeches than his own.—(Much laughter.)
The statement of the Hon. Member for Preston was so
audaciou., that no other man in the House would dare to
make it.

Mr. HUNT—Perhaps not.
Sir C. WETHERELL continued—No other Member
would have the temerity.—(Hear, hear, from Mr. Hunt.)
There was no more reason to complain of the privacy of
the Coroner's inquest, than there would be to accuse the
Grand Jury of conniving at the impunity of a murderer,
because they threw out the bills. In conclusion, he main-
tained that no reason had been given for altering the pre-
sent state of the law upon the subject in question.
Mr. HUNT, having male no attack upon any Mem-
ber of that House, had, however, very little difficulty in
accounting for the attack which had been made upon
him.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. and Learned Member
had, no doubt, professional reasons for driving hint to
this, that, and the other, which he well knew he could
and would do. The Hon. and Learned Member had
dared to accuse him of audacity ; but at the same time he
(Sir C. Wetherell) had not the audacity to say that the
inquest had been satisfactory. The Hon. and Learned
Member said that be (Mr. Hunt) had told untruths, but
at the same time had shrunk from meeting the most itn-
, portant fact, which be (Mr. Hunt) had stated, namely,
that the principal person, the Duke of Cumberland, the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman's client, had not been exa.
mined.—(Hear.) He would therefore still say that the
mysterious and bloody case had not yet been investigated.
He hoped that it would.—(Hear, bear.) The Hon. and
Learned Member had dared to say, in terms not the
most refined, that he (Mr. Hunt) would not dare to
say in the presence of Mr. Francis Place, that the
inquest had not been satisfactory. But the fact was,
that twenty years ago, four days after the murder, he
told Mr. Place what were his opinions upon the sub-
ject. From all that he hail heard from Mrs. Sellis, and
from the mother of the murdered men, respecting the ap-
pearance of the bed upon which Sellis was found lying,
the basin full of blood, and the razor (placed upon a bu-
reau at some distance from the bed), he thought it impos-
sible that, if all the evidence had been heard, any honest
unpacked Jury would have found the verdict which the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman so much relied upon. It
might be very well for the lion. and Learned Gentleman
to way, in that House, that the principal person had cut
his throat, but it was well known, that the person prin-
cipally accused in the opinion of the public had not been
examined.—(Cries of Hear, and Question.) The person
most implicated was still living.—(Loud cries of Hear,
and Question.)
Mr. CRIPPS said, that the policeman who first en-
tered the room acknowledged to him that he had, in a
moment of agitation, removed the razor from the bed to
the bureau.

Mr. ADEANE was desirous to put an end to a conver-
sation which had so little relevancy to the question. He
would oppose the amendment, because he thought it in-
expedient that the preliminary proceedings of such a court
as that of the Coroner should be made public without the
permission of the Judge.
Mr. O'CONNELL contended, that before the Coroner
there should be no secrecy whatever. The Grand Jury
was at present a secret tribunal, and that formed the best
possible reason why the Count of the Coroner should he
thrown open. He would take his stand upon the broad
principle that every Court of Justice ought to be open to
the public.

Mr. PORTMAN would support the clause contem-
plated in the Amendment of the Hon. Member for Brid-
port, but not on the ground taken by the Hon. and
Learned Member for Kerry. Ou the subject of the se-
crecy of Grand Juries, he had on'y to say, that if Grand
Juries ceased to be a close Court he feared that great-r in-
jury would arise than could be compensated for by any
advantage which publicity could insure.
Mr. WARBURTON said, that the question of the pub-
licity of Grand Jury proceedings was not before the
House. He should certainly take the sense of the House
upon his Amendment.
Mr. CRIPPS admitted the great v4lue of publicity,

generally speaking, but thought that a discretionary power
might safely be vested to the Coroner.
Mr. C. W. W. WYNN was also of opinion, that the
observance of secrecy, or otherwise, might safely be in-
trusted to the Coroner.

The Committee then divided—
For the amendment enjoying publicity
Against it 54
Majority —4o
On our re-admission, we found

Mr. F. LEWIS expressing a strong feeling of surprise
that his Majesty's Ministers bad taken no decided part in
the discussion of a question of so much importance, and
one brought under the consideration of the House at a time
when all the institutions of the country were undergoing
such extensive and fundamental changes. He really
thought it was the duty of the King's Government, pos-
sessing as they did the means of influencing a majority of
that House, to protect the country from such violent and
sudden changes as those which the Amendment then
agreed to had the effect of producing. Neither did he
think it was fair that the Law Officers of the Crown
should abstain from delivering an opinion upon a subject
of that importance, and one so intimately connected with
the administration of justice. He, and those with whom
he was in the habit of acting, looked with the most
feverish anxiety towards the progress of events; and re-
garded changes of that and a similar nature with minds
full of apprehension ; and they had therefore a right to
have their votes guided by the authority and judgment of
the Law Officers of the Crown, on a question involving
such an important change. The Coroner's Jury was one
of the oldest institutions of the country ; and he thought
that, when the nature and constitution of that institution
were invaded, the Leader of the Ministerial party in that
House—the Chief of the Government in that House—
should do something more than merely state his own in-
dividual opinion—(Cheers)—he should assume the re-
sponsibility of the measure, or oppose it altogether ; for it
was one of too much importance to be treated otherwise.
Lord ALTHORP was never more surprised in his life
than by the speech of the Right Hon. Gentleman who bad
just addressed the House.--(Cheers.) In the early
part of the present discussion he certainty had given
an opinion ; but he had done so merely in his in-
dividual capacity, nor did he feel himself called upon
to address the House in any other upon the present
occasion. If the Right Hon. Member desired to know
the grounds upon which he (Lord Althorp) supported
the proposition of the Hon. Member for Bridport, he
should state then to be, that he had always been of
opinion that all Courts of Justice should be open to the
public, and especially that every proceeding should be open
to the public which in►olved, or which had any tendency
to interfere with the liberty of the subject. After all, it
was a mistake to suppose that the present was any great
innovation—practically, the Court of the Coroner had
always been open, and it was surely not too much to sup-
port an Act of Parliament which merely went to declare
that to be the law which was in perfect conformity with
the acknowledged practice. Some cases bad been adverted
to in which it was stated that much difficulty and disad.
vantage had arisen from the disclosure of the facts ; but in
all those cases the facts had been published, and in every
one of them the publication proved advantageous. In
fact, experience had fully established the truth, that the
evil of admitting strangers to these Courts was much less
than the evil of their exclusion. Up to the present time
the right of their admission was doubtful, but it was now
proposed to place it beyond all doubt, and the proposition
had certainly received his support in his individual capa-
city, for he thought that no inconvenience of moment
would arise from it, and it might be productive of much
advantage. All this he thought himself fully at liberty to
do, and he knew not upon what authority it would be
inquired of him to make every question of that nature a
Government question.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL could not deny that he
had remained silent during the present discussion, for
having been kept away from the House by accident, and
coming in towards the latter end of the conversation, be
did not feel himself in a situation, otherwise in the busi •
ness of the House, than to give his vote, which he did

without the slightest hesitation, convinced as he had pre-
viously been, that in supporting the amendment, he could
not go wrong. He never for a moment doubted that the
Court of the Coroner should be an open Court. The
oath of the Coroner's Jury binds the Jury to no secrecy,
while that of the Grand Juror does ; then the inference
which he should draw from that, as a lawyer, was, that
the law of England did not authorize a Coroner to exclude
the public from his court; and as some uncertainty hung
about the matter, he could have no objection to a clause in
an Act which went to declare that to be law, which, as a
lawyer, he had always held to be law. There was no
Court in the country had the right to exclude the public,
and why should the Coroner's?
Mr. GOULBURN observed that the Noble Lord op-
posite, as well as the Hon. and Learned Gentlemen,
seemed to say, that no proceeding affecting the liberty of
the subject ought to be otherwise than public—why, then,
did not the Law Officers of the Crown state their opinion,
and the grounds upon which it rested, before they went
the length of impugning, as the Hun. and Learned Gen-
tlemen in effect did, the decision of the Judges ?
Lord ALTHORP explained. He contended that every
Court should be open to the public--not that every pro-
ceeding before a Magistrate should be made known to all
persons.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL thought that it would
not be decorous for him to take a part in their proceed-
ings, arriving, as he did, at so late a period of the debate.
Mr. O'CONNELL confessed that it did appear to him

the oddest charge that could possibly be broilgilt against
his Majesty's Ministers, that they had left the House to
its own unbiassed choice; the present Government, in
adopting that course, was certainly not imitating the
example of the Government to which the last speaker had
belonged. By a vote of the Court of King's Bench—it
could not be called a legal decision—they had declared
their opinion to be, that it would be more convenient to
leave the Coroner to himself asto the expediency of making
his Court open or closed upon any particular occasion ;
but now an Act of Parliament would put an end to that
piece of Judge-made law, leading the way to a better state
of things.
Sir R. INGLIS complained that the Ministers, on a
great constitutional question, had suffered the House to
come to a decision without favouring the House with their
opinions. He complained, too, of the Law Officers of the
Crown not having given an opinion previously. He was
surprised at hearing the opinion of the Solicitor-General,
when every Justice of the Peace could exclude every person
from his Court.

Mr. FRANKLAND LEWIS explained, that he had
complained of Ministers sitting and voting, and giving an
effective influence on this question, without having stated
their reasons for giving that support. If the doctrine of
the Solicitor-General were carried to the utmost extent,
it would get rid of the oath of the Grand Jury, and would
make the Grand Jury Court open. What, then, would
become of the Court of the Privy Council ? Was that also
to be an open Court ? He wished for time to deliberate
on the question further, as it was of great importance.
Mr. EASTHOPE thought, from what had passed, that
be bad voted for what was the law, and was, therefore,
much surprised to hear what had fallen from the Solicitor-
General.

Mr. WARBURTON was glad to learn from the Solici.
tor General that his amendment was consistent not only
with general reason, on which ground alone he had de-
fended it, but was also consistent with the old constitu-
tional law. There would be means for hereafter consi-
dering the clause, so as to prevent any surprise.
The clause was then read a second time.
Mr. BARING wished to ask, if an inquest was to be
held in a private house, was that house to be open to all
the blackguards of the street ? Would it be imperative on
the Coroner to open all the doors of the house to the public ?
Mr. O'CONNELL said, the Coroner was not bound to
hold the inquest in the room of the person. He wished to
know what was meant by all the blackguards of the street
The Courts of Chancery and of the King's Bench were
open.—were they intruded upon by all the blackguards of
the street ? The Coroner might keep order in his Court,
and exclude disturbers, just as well as the Lord Chancellor.
Mr. CRIPPS asked, would the clause not compel the
Coroner to open his Court, though he held the inquest in
a private room ?
Mr. O'CONNELL said, the Coroner might do that at
present, and might admit all the blackguards in the streets
if he pleased.
Sir R. PEEL said, if the Court were open, without
using the word blackguards, an inquest in a private house
might be attended by persons improper and disagreeable.
He wished to know, therefore, whether the view of the
body in a private house was not a judicial act, and ought
to be performed in public like any other part of the Coro-
ner's Inquest ?
Mr. PETIT was understood to say, that the visiting the
body could not be consideted as a judicial act at which the
public should be present. The visitation might take place,
though the inquest might be held in another spot.
Sir R. PEEL said a few words, insisting that the visi-
tation was a judicial act, at which the public, according to
this clause, would be entitled to be present.
Mr. O'CONNELL said, the public might undoubtedly
be present, but it was only part of the public which could
be conveniently admitted. The principle of the clause
was to take away from the Coroner the power of making
his Court secret and close.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL had nu other objeetii,ta