The Sun. — 1852-02-06 (London, England)

EVENING, FEBRUARY 6, 1852.  can be entertained. We shall quote from Mr. HERFORD'S letter on this part of the case :—" It is his judicial duty, upon notice that any person has come to an unnatural death, to issue his precept to the constable to return a competent number of good and lawful' men to appear before him, and make inquisition touching the matter. The jury appearing are sworn, and their charge is to inquire, upon view of the body—How and where the party came by his death ; and if any and who were there ? and who are culpable, and in what manner, either of the act or the force ? I: is necessary that the coroner should have before him and hear everybody who can give information material to the inquiry. He has further, as incident to his office, authority to order a postmortem examination of the body of the deceased." He has, therefore, an authority far greater than that of the magistrate, for he may order the exhumation of the body, and continue the investigation in the absence of any person accused, and the verdict thus returned will place the party inculpated on his trial before a judge and petit jury, though the grand jury had ignored the bills. He has thus not merely a power of committal like the magistrate, but his warrant is sufficient to ensure a trial at bar, and we have known oases where parties arraigned on the coroner's inquisiti on were convicted of manslaughter, notwithstanding the rejection of the bills by the grand jury. It is, therefore, of great importance to the due administration of justice that every possible assistance should be rendered " to the ancient tribunal which bath far more extensive powers than ordinary magistrates, who are not even authorised to order a post-mortem examination, and who are not bound to hear the evidence on the part of the accused. Looking, then, merely, to the protection of the accused, who (until duly convicted) must be deemed innocent, we say that this unseemly conflict, for which, by the way, the coroners are not in any degree responsible, should be brought to a close. Let us, following up the hints given by Mr. HERFORD, suppose a party, charged with, or suspected of, homicide, taken into the custody of the police, and by them brought before the magistrate. The coroner, assisted by a jury, is holding a bimultaneous inquiry. The accused is, however, by the new rule, prevented from appearing before the latter, and thus debarred from one of the supposed privileges of every Eoglidaman, that there shall be no secret examinations, so far as he is concerned, but that he shall have full opportunity of hearing and replying to everything that may be alleged against him. The coroner's jury, however, listen to evidence respecting matters of a very damnatory character. The accused ought to have it in his power to rebut or explain away the inferences fairly deducible therefrom ; but, thanks to Mr. MADDE, and such of his magisterial brethren as take the same view of the subject, the opportunity would be entirely lost. In his, compulsory, absence be may be not only subjected to incarceration, until delivered in due course of law, but also, necessarily, given in charge to a jury, the final arbitrators of his fate, although the grand jury may have thought the evidence insufficient to subject him to so serious an ordeal. In the satisfactory settlement of the question the community, in general, are seriously interested. It is essential to the protection and security of the subject that it should be set at rest. It merely requires that it should be calmly and seriously considered, in order to have it satisfactorily arranged. To all desirous of knowing the data on which it must be decided, we earnestly commend Mr. HERFORD'S dispassionate and able brochure.