HC Deb 20 June 1832 vol 13 cc921-38

The House then reverted to the Order of the Day for the re-committal of the Coroners' Bill.

Mr. John Campbell

rose to vindicate himself from the charge of precipitancy in the conduct of the four Bills alluded to by his hon. and learned friend; and observed, that they were measures in which he had no personal interest, and that he had been induced to introduce them only in consequence of his conviction that they would be of great public utility. He must say, that no Bill could have been proceeded with in a more deliberate manner.

The House went into a Committee.

On coming to Clause 8,

Mr. Hume

said, he thought it was of importance that Coroners 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 required that before any man was admitted to be a Coroner, he should produce certificates of having attended two courses of lectures on medical jurisprudence.

Lord Althorp

said, that men might be 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 certificates required by the hon. Member, and then who was to act as the substitute, until these persons had qualified themselves? However practicable such a plan might be in the metropolis, it could not be carried into execution in the distant parts of the country.

Mr. C. W. Wynn

thought it unnecessary that the Coroner should be a medical man, for that was the object of this Motion; but he was clearly of opinion, that it was absolutely necessary for the Coroner to know the general rules of the law of evidence. He was ready at once to say, that no knowledge could be misplaced in a judicial officer of this kind, and that if the Coroner was acquainted with medical jurisprudence, he might discharge his duties in a better manner; but that knowledge was not, like a knowledge of the law, actually necessary to the discharge of the duties of his office. If it was necessary, as the hon. member for Middlesex seemed to presume, that a Coroner should have medical knowledge, the same argument would apply with equal, if not greater force, to the Judges, who ought not, therefore, to be appointed, without proof of having received similar medical instruction.

Mr. O'Connell

said, that when a case of a charge of poisoning came before a Coroner's Jury, the Coroner could not properly direct the Jury as to the value of the medical evidence given before them, unless he had received the instruction proposed by the hon. member for 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 obtain men to fill it who, in addition to their professional education as lawyers, 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 proceeded from very different causes, and he knew with respect to one of them—the most expensive that had occurred—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 offered them by the election of a Coroner. The expenses of that contest were defrayed by them. He should oppose the Amendment.

Mr. Frankland Lewis

would 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, for that legal knowledge was absolutely necessary for the situation. Every subsequent event had only confirmed him 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. Besides this, two courses of lectures would give the student but a very superficial knowledge, more likely to mislead him into a false opinion of his own knowledge, than to give him much valuable information; and by the advance of science, that which he learnt at one time would, perhaps, be superseded in ten years afterwards; so that, in fact, the result would be, that none but a thoroughly educated medical man would be fit for the office. Now, it seemed to him more important for the medical man to state his evidence as a witness than to lay down the law as a Judge; and he should, therefore, oppose the Amendment, which would lead to the opposite course.

Mr. Schonswar

likewise opposed the Amendment, and expressed his belief that it was of the utmost importance 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. If the Coroner were to be taken from the medical profession, so much would the duty of a Coroner interfere with a medical man's practice, that none who were at all eminent in their profession would think of undertaking the office. The medical candidates would generally be men who were not particularly successful in their professions.

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 medical men. This must especially be the case in poor counties, where young men could serve their articles as attorney's clerks, without coming to London, and might fit themselves in that manner to be attorneys and Coroners, but they could only obtain medical knowledge by coming to London, an expense that would, of course, never be incurred merely for the chance of afterwards being Coroners.

Sir Charles Forbes

said, that in India a surgeon was attached to the office of Coroner, whose duty it was to attend all inquests.

Mr. Hunt

recollected, when all the Coroners of Wiltshire were medical men. In his opinion, a man of plain common sense would be better than either a lawyer or a medical man. The manner in which Coroners performed their duty wanted revision, for he knew an instance of a man being murdered in gaol by the Gaoler; the Coroner held an inquest on the body in the prison, and, by carefully excluding all witnesses, brought in a verdict of accidental death.

Mr. Crampton

admitted, that the knowledge required by the hon. member for Middlesex was desirable, but he thought the best way to secure the election of a proper person was, not to hamper the office with too many conditions.

Sir Charles Wetherell

hoped that the hon. member for Middlesex would also move, that those who produced a certificate of having attended two courses of lectures, should also produce a certificate of having understood them. If the Amendment were agreed to, it ought to be carried further, and no Judge should be allowed to try a man for murder who had not received a medical education.

Mr. O'Connell

thought, at least, the certificate of having two courses of lectures was quite as useful as a certificate that a man had eaten thirty-six dinners as the qualification to become a Barrister.

Mr. Courtenay

admitted that it would be desirable for a Coroner to be a man of eminent abilities, to decide between the conflicting medical testimony which might be produced before him; but, if he were only to have a smattering of knowledge, he had better be without it. Medicine, it was well known, was divided into schools, and the members of the profession embraced rival theories. On that account, he was convinced, as they could not have eminent medical men for Coro- ners, that lawyers would be better able than half-instructed medical men to decide between conflicting testimony, and to charge the Jury properly.

Mr. Cripps

could not consent to the Amendment. If the Coroner were a legal man, he could call a medical man to his aid; but, if he were a medical man, he did not know how he could summons a legal man to assist him.

The Committee divided on the Amendment:—Ayes 11; Noes 80—Majority 69.

List of the YES:
Bulwer, H. L. O'Connell, M.
Evans, Colonel Stephenson, W.
Ewart, W. Warburton, H.
Hunt, H. Wood, Alderman
James, W.
Morrison, J. TELLER.
O'Connell, D. Hume, J.
Mr. Warburton

rose to propose the insertion of a clause, declaring that all inquests should be public. He said that he never heard of an instance of an inquest having taken place privately, which had not given rise to greater excitement, dissatisfaction, and suspicion, than had ever arisen from a public inquiry. In the words of a great man lately deceased, "publicity is the soul of justice." The necessity for making Coroners' Inquests matters of publicity, in a country where almost all the proceedings of criminal justice were conducted openly, was so manifest, that He felt it quite unnecessary to say any thing more in support of his proposition. He would therefore move the insertion of the following clause:—"Be it enacted, that any Inquest upon the body of any person shall be held in open Court, and that the evidence of witnesses and the charge of the Coroner be delivered in open Court, and that all proceedings be carried on in open court, with the exception of the deliberation of the Jury, if they think fit to retire."

Mr. Cripps

said, it would be extremely inconvenient to have inquests held in open Court in private houses. The feelings of the family of a man who had destroyed himself, would be wounded, by having a crowd of curious persons assemble in their house. He could riot see how this objection could be surmounted; but, if it could, he would not object to the clause.

Mr. 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 adjourn to any other place. Having seen something of private inquests, he could understand why so many persons were desirous of becoming Coroners. Having the power to exclude witnesses and reporters, they might expect to turn the office to account. To put such a case as had 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!—what security was there 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 of 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 imperfection 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, experience, previous character, and responsibility of the Judge; whereas, neither experience, nor education, nor any qualification whatever was required in the Coroner, who had the power of deciding absolutely and in secret.

Mr. Strickland

said, that in several instances that had come under his own observation, in which private inquests had been held, the greatest public excitement had prevailed; and he thought that the time had arrived when the House should decide—aye or no—whether Coroners should have the power of excluding the public from their Courts. He would support the proposition of the hon. member for Bridport, because he believed that no inconvenience, but much benefit, would result from it.

Sir Robert Inglis

thought, that Coroners should possess the discretionary power, which they seldom exercised except in extreme cases, of excluding the public from their Courts. It sometimes happened that the publication of the evidence taken before a Coroner facilitated the escape of a prisoner, and in other cases it operated to the prejudice of a prisoner, by creating an unfavourable impression against him previously to his trial. What was meant by publicity was, that reporters should be present to send forth to the world every thing which occurred before the Coroner, and to that he decidedly objected, for the reason which he had stated.

Mr. O'Connell

observed, that prisoners might adduce evidence in their favour at inquests. A verdict of murder given by a Coroner's Jury was as likely to prejudice the minds of the public against a prisoner as the publication of the evidence on which the verdict was founded. The law which gave the Coroner the right of excluding the public was of very recent date. It was only known to the profession within the last fourteen or fifteen years. It was new, and Judge-made law.

Mr. Hunt

said, that the objection which the hon. member for Oxford made to the publication of evidence before Coroner's juries might, with equal justice, be urged against the publication of proceedings in police-offices. It was notorious, however, that the latter, in many instances, led to the apprehension of criminals. He had lately seen a report of some proceedings which took place upon an application against an individual for making some observations upon an inquest which was held in a palace in this country. He hoped a clause would be introduced into the Bill to prevent a Coroner, when murder was committed in a palace, from getting rid of the first Jury summoned to inquire into it, and summoning another which was packed. That dark and bloody transaction had never been fully cleared up yet, because the principal person engaged in it was not examined before either Jury. That transaction must yet be inquired into, if there was any justice in the country. The right of excluding the public from Coroner's Inquests was first assumed, twelve years ago, at Manchester. He would appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in times like these, he would allow the law to remain as it was. In fact, a Coroner's Inquest, as the law now stood, was little better than the Star Chamber or the Inquisition.

Sir Charles Wetherell

said, that since he had been a Member of that House, he had never heard any subject more improperly introduced than the topic which the hon. member for Preston had dragged into the discussion. The hon. Member had thought fit to state that the transaction to which he alluded had not been examined into. He would tell the hon. Member, that it had been inquired into, and he would further tell him, that if he had read over, as it appeared he had, the pages of the abominable libel which had recently come under the notice of a Court of Justice, he ought not to have repeated any of its intolerable atrocities in that House. If the hon. Member permitted himself to allude to it, at least he ought not to have been the copyist of the infamous language of an infamous libel.

Mr. Hunt

had read the libel as it appeared in the reports of the hon. and learned Member's speeches.

Sir Charles Wetherell

asked, what then was it that the hon. member for Preston had dared to say? [hear, hear,] He would ask 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 illustrious person was implicated? The hon. Member had dared to say that, on the occasion to which he referred, and with respect to a transaction in which the name of an illustrious individual was implicated, the Coroner discharged one Jury, and summoned another, which was a packed one. The hon. Member asserted what was untrue when he made that statement. The hon. Member had made use of language almost as libellous as that which was at present in the course of prosecution, when he talked of a murder having been committed in the royal palace. The first Jury was dismissed because it was composed of the servants employed in the palace, and a second Jury was convened from the parish at large, in order that there might be no suspicion of partiality. When a Member of that House made a statement implicating the character of another man, and was informed that it was not correct, it was his bounden duty, as a gentleman, an honest man, and a Member of Parliament, to rise and say that he had not intentionally, but inadvertently, stated what was not true [hear, hear]. The House cheered, as if to call upon the hon. Member to rise and make that declaration. There was not a particle, or a speck, or atom of truth in the statement made by the hon. Member. The hon. Member said that the principal person in the transaction was not examined before the Jury. Undoubtedly, the unfortunate man who put an end to his existence, and who, he supposed, was the person designated in the slander of the hon. Member, was not examined. The hon. Member spoke of a "bloody transaction;" certainly, suicide was a bloody act. If the hon. Member had, as he ought to have done, read over the accounts of the investigation before the Jury, he would have found, that it was a matter of physical demonstration, that the unfortunate individual, whose death was the subject of investigation, fell a sacrifice to a suicidal act. This fact did not depend upon the opinion of any person, but was a matter of demonstration to those who examined the body and the apartments. The Jury were unanimous in their verdict. The hon. Member was pleased to say, that the Jury was packed. Did he know of whom that. Jury was composed? The hon. Member might know Mr. Place, who was a public-spirited man in Westminster, and was the Foreman of the Jury. The hon. Member would not have dared to state before Mr. Place one-tenth part of what he had stated in that House; or, if he had, he would have been desirous that any person should stand in his coat and waistcoat rather than himself. He was quite sure that the hon. Member would not have dared to tell Mr. Place what he had untruly stated in that House—namely, that the Jury was packed by the Coroner, in order to prevent justice being done in that as in other cases. He hoped the hon. Member would recant the false statement which he had audaciously made, and which no other man but himself in the House would have had the temerity to make. With respect to the Motion before the House, he would certainly oppose it. He believed that no abuse resulted from the holding of inquests privately, any more than in the case of Grand Juries.

Mr. Hunt

said, that the hon. and learned Member had complained of him for attacking other persons; but he thought that he had a right to complain of the attack which the hon. and learned Member had made upon him. The hon. Member had spoken of his having dared to do this thing, and of having had the audacity to do the other thing, though, to be sure, according to the usual parliamentary courtesy, he had acquitted him of intentionally stating an untruth. The hon. and learned Gentleman had accused him of quoting from a libel. He had never read any part of that libel, except what the hon. and learned Member had himself read in Court upon affidavit. He, how- ever, had stated a fact, which the hon. and learned Member, with all his audacity, had not dared to answer. He stated that the principal person concerned in the transaction to which he alluded, had not been examined before the Jury. To that statement the hon. and learned Gentleman shrunk from replying. The Duke of Cumberland was not examined, and therefore he said, that it was a mysterious and bloody transaction. He had made no accusation against any person but the Jury, for not having done their duty. The hon. and learned Member said, that he (Mr. Hunt) would not dare to state to Mr. Place what he had stated to the House. It happened, however, that he made the same statements to Mr. Place, years ago, four days after the Jury found their verdict. At the time the event occurred, he saw Mrs. Sellis, and the mother of Mr. Sellis, and communicated with them on the subject. He did not hesitate to say that, looking at the situation in which the body was found in bed, the marks of blood, the position of the basin and the razor, it was impossible for any man of common sense to believe that the man could have cut his own head off. That was his opinion, and he had the audacity to state it. No doubt the hon. and learned Member believed what he had stated to be true, but he had been instructed as to only one part of the case. The transaction was one which must be investigated yet. The hon. and learned Member, with some ingenuity, said, that the principal person engaged in the transaction could not be examined, because he had cut his throat. That was only an attempt to mislead the House; for the hon. and learned Member knew that he could not allude to that unfortunate individual.

Mr. Cripps

said, that he could state a fact which had removed the impression that had, in the first instance, been made upon his mind by the position in which the razor was found. It would be recollected that the razor was found upon the bureau: and it was surmised that it was impossible that it could have been placed there, if the man had destroyed himself. As he lived in the neighbourhood where the transaction took place, he went early in the morning and mentioned the circumstance of the razor to a Bow-street officer who was on duty at the palace. The man's answer was, "God bless me, I am sorry to hear that any such reports should get abroad, for I myself took the razor up unconsciously, and placed it upon the bureau. I was blamed for doing so at the time, and I am sorry that it has produced a false impression."

Mr. Adeane

said, he was sorry the Committee had been led away from the subject before it, by the consideration of a topic calculated to excite painful feelings in the breast of every man. He should state his opinion, that though publicity was a leading feature in the English law, yet there were exceptions to every rule, and he saw no reason why the existing exception should not continue in existence. An inquest was not a final inquiry, but only a preliminary proceeding.

Mr. O'Connell

contended, that there ought to be no secrecy before a Coroner, for it was a Court of Inquiry, and, like every Court of Justice, that Court ought to be an open one. Publicity was a great corrective of abuse, which otherwise would creep in were Courts kept closed.

Mr. Portman

supported the clause as proposed by the hon. member for Bridport; but he could never agree with the doctrine which had been advanced, that the Grand Jury Court ought to be an open one. At the same time, he was anxious that all Courts of Justice, save that, should be open; for the greatest possible benefit had occurred from such a course being acted upon in this country.

Mr. Warburton

said, that the question respecting Grand Juries, which had been introduced, was not properly before the Committee. From the importance of the subject, he certainly should press the clause he had submitted to a division.

Mr. Cripps

said, he did not wish to have the public excluded from the investigation before the Coroner, but as the Judges had declared the Court to be a close one, and to be opened only at the discretion of the Coroner, he was desirous of having the law in that respect left as it now stood.

Mr. C. W. Wynn

argued in favour of the principle of open Courts of Justice, but as the Judges of the land had declared that the Coroner's Court was not an open Court, he thought it better that the law of the land should remain as it now stood, leaving the Coroner a discretionary power.

The Committee divided on the Amendment:—Ayes 94; Noes 54—Majority 40.

List of the AYES.
Althorp, Lord M'Leod, R.
Baring, F. B. M'Namara, Major R.
Berkeley, Captain Morrison, J.
Brougham, J. Mullins, F.
Brougham, W. Musgrave, Sir R.
Bulwer, H. L. North, F.
Burrell, Sir C. Nugent, Lord
Chichester, A. O'Connell, D.
Chichester, J. P. O'Connell, M.
Copeland, Alderman O'Conor, Don
Creevy, T. Paget, T.
Curteis, H. Paine, Sir P.
Denman, Sir T. Pelham, Hon. A.
Evans, W. B. Penleaze, J. S.
Evans, W. Petit, L. H.
Evans, Col. De Lacy Petre, E.
Ewart, W. Ponsonby, Hon. G.
Fazakerly, J. N. Portman, E. B.
Fergusson, General Power, R.
Folkes, Sir W. Ramsden, J. C.
French, A. Rider, T.
Gisborne, T. Rooper, J. B.
Gordon, R. Russell, Lord J.
Grattan, J. Russell, R.
Grattan, H. Scott, Sir W.
Guise, Sir W. B. Sheil, R. L.
Handley, F. Strickland, G.
Harvey, D. W. Stuart, Lord D.
Heneage, G. F. Tennyson, C.
Heywood, B. Thicknesse, R.
Hodges, T. L. Thompson, P. B.
Horne, Sir W. Throckmorton, R. G.
Hoskins, K. Tomes, J.
Howard, P. Townley, R. G.
Howick, Lord Tracey, H.
Hughes, Hughes Tyrell, C.
Hume, J. Venables, Alderman
Hunt, H. Vernon, Hon. G.
James, W. Villiers, H.
Jephson, C. D. O. Vincent, Sir F.
Johnstone, Sir J. Walker, A. C.
Kenyon, C. Warre, J. A.
King, E B. Wason, R.
Labouchere, H. Watson, Hon. R.
Lambert, H. Webb, Colonel
Lawley, F. Wellesley, Hon. W.
Leigh, T. Weyland, Major
Littleton, E. White, H.
Loch, J. White, S.
Marryatt, J. Williams, A. W.
Mangles, J. Wood, Alderman
Mayhew, W. TELLER.
M'Kenzie, S. Warburton, H.

On the clause being put as amended,

Mr. Frankland Lewis

expressed a strong feeling of surprise that his Majesty's Ministers had 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, possessing 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 so much 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 regarded 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 individual opinion; he should assume the responsibility 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 had just addressed the House. In the early part of the present discussion he certainly had given an opinion; but he had done so merely in his individual 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 them 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 involved, 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 surely was not too much to support 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 had been adverted to, in which it was stated that much difficulty and disadvantage 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, for the first time, proposed to place it beyond all doubt, and the proposition had certainly received his support, in his individual capacity, 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 required 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, he did not feel himself in a situation to do more than to give his vote, which he did without the slightest hesitation, convinced as he had previously been, that in supporting the Amendment be 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 Juror to no secresy, 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 authorise 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 the law which, as a lawyer, he had always held to be the law. There was no Court in the country had the right to exclude the public, and why should the Coroner's?

Mr. Goulburn

said, that it was incumbent on the law officers of the Crown to give their opinion upon the doctrine put forth by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—namely, that all Courts, the proceedings of which tended to take away the liberty of the subject, should be open to the public—a doctrine which be would maintain was contrary to the established practice of the country. He felt himself called upon to complain of the declaration made by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (the Solicitor General), respecting the power of the judicial authorities, put forward as it had been at the termination of a Parliament, and near the season of the elections—perhaps with a view to them.

Lord Althorp

had not used the expressions attributed to him by the right hon. Gentleman. He had not stated that all Courts should be open which had a tendency to take away the liberty of the subject (for that would include the proceedings before Magistrates); but he had said, that, in his opinion, those Courts should be open which had the power to deprive the subject of his liberty.

The Solicitor General

thought that it would not be decorous for him to take a part in their proceedings, 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 brought 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 right hon. Gentleman 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, as to 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 Robert 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.

Lord Eastnor

thought, from what had passed, that he had 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 Solicitor General, that his Amendment was consistent, not only with general reason, on which ground alone he had defended it, but was also consistent with the old constitutional law. There would be means for hereafter considering the clause, so as to prevent any surprise.

Mr. Baring

said, he was not aware of any abuse having taken place which called for this change. He was anxious to know whether, if this became law, it would be imperative upon the Coroner to throw open the doors of any house where a catastrophe might occur, and let all the blackguards in the street have entrance?

Mr. O'Connell

said, that if the hon. Gentleman had been present at the early part of the Debate, he would have heard it fully explained, that it was only necessary for the Coroner and Jury to see the body, but not to hold the inquest in the same house. The Judge of any Court had power to exclude any improper person or persons who might interrupt the proceedings, and the Coroner would have the same power. He did not know what was meant by "all the blackguards in the street," but he would remind the hon. Gentleman, that the Coroner had, at present, power to admit "all the blackguards in the street" to his Court.

Sir Robert Peel

said, he was sure that by using the terms "all the blackguards in the streets," his hon. friend did not mean to cast an imputation upon those who were in the habit of attending Courts of Justice, but merely that, if the public at large were to be admitted into any house where a sudden death might occur, it would be impossible to exclude persons whose presence might be extremely offensive to the feelings of the survivors. It was true that the inquest might be held elsewhere than in the house where a death took place; but then, as the view of the body was a judicial act, and one which, he conceived, was the most important part of the proceeding, it appeared to him, that if the principle were adopted of admitting the public to the Coroner's Inquest, they would have an equal right to be present at the whole proceedings. He wished to be informed whether such would be the effect of the present measure?

Mr. Pettit

said, as he understood it, the Jury would view the body for the satisfaction of their own consciences and understanding, at which process it was not necessary that the public should be present, and that they would then retire to the place which was fixed upon for the holding of the inquest, to which the public would have the right of admission.

Mr. O'Connell

said, it seemed to him that there would be no doubt upon this point. The public would have a right of admission; but the public were only as many as could be conveniently and decently accommodated.

The Attorney General

said, that the hon. Baronet had pointed out what certainly might be some inconvenience attending on the re-establishment of what he believed to be the ancient law. His opinion was, that the Coroner's Inquest should be perfectly open; that the witnesses should be examined publicly, and all the proceedings take place without any appearance of secresy. He looked upon Coroners' Inquests as a kind of advertisements, calling upon all who could give any information to come forward. It was not to be supposed that the public would be likely to rush into the chamber where a dead body lay, in order to wound the feelings of a family; but, if anything of the kind were likely to occur, the Coroner had power to employ a sufficient force to prevent such a brutal incursion, and to remove the body. He was sure the benefit which would arise from the protection of human life would amply counterbalance any trifling inconveniences which might arise from the measure.

Mr. John Campbell

said, that for the sake of individuals and the public, it was of the last importance that there should be no appearance of secresy in the proceedings of Coroners' Inquests. The Court of King's Bench had decided that Magistrates sitting at Petty Sessions formed an open Court, and that the public were entitled to admission—blackguards and all.

Mr. Hunt

expressed his satisfaction at hearing the Attorney General's confirmation of the old law of the country.

Mr. Freshfield

said, that if Coroners' Inquests were not, by the law as it at present stood, close Courts, abundant opportunities had offered for trying the question, as any party who was removed might have brought an action for the removal. The Judges had twice decided that they were close Courts, and he thought that House ought not hastily to overthrow their decision.

Mr. Hume

protested against the doctrine that the House was to be bound by the decisions of Judges. It was the duty of the Judges to execute the laws—that House was to make them.

Clause added to the Bill.

On the suggestion of Mr. O'Connell, a clause was added, declaring that the Bill should not extend to Ireland or Scotland.

The House resumed, and the Report was brought up.