"Verdict-That the deceased died a natural death, by the visitation

of God.

"The jury added, We regret that there is no resident medical man to attend to the sick; and no place suitable for the accommodation of such persons.'

The last clause of this verdict is obviously not quite accordant with the evidence. The jury had not to regret that there was no place suitable for the accommodation of the sick; but rather that the place for their accommodation was applied to other purposes. They should therefore have said, "We regret that the beds in the infirmary intended for the sick, were let out at 2s. per night to the healthy prisoners, by which the sick were deprived of them."

On another inquest held in this prison, Mr. Shelton again resisted an inquiry which involved the management of the jail. The question was very likely irrelevant, and the insinuation conveyed, probably unfounded; but still we cannot help thinking, that it was resisted on a wrong ground. The deceased's complaint was consumption; and it was asserted that the prison had thirty gin-shops in it, which would certainly, if resorted to by the patient, be very likely to quicken the course of that disease; but Mr. Shelton declared, that the gin-shops had nothing to do with the death of the deceased; and refused to inquire into their existence.

"Mr. Shelton.-We are here to inquire into the cause of death, and not the management of the prison; the deceased had a right to drink spirituous liquors, if he could get them.

"Mr. Gilpin.-But the laws of the country forbid the sale of spirituous liquors in' a place of this description.

"Mr. Shelton.-I will not put your question; you must make your complaint elsewhere."

A man in a consumption may have as much right to drink spirits, as another in affliction has to pass a ball through his brains; but if a man in a state of despondency, shot himself; and it were alleged that pistols were let out in the prison for the accommodation of gentlemen who had a mind to commit suicide; surely, Mr. Shelton might think it not wholly foreign to the object of the inquiry, to ascertain whether such was fact.

This, it is true, is not so strong an instance as the other; but we observe in it a part of the grand system of narrowing investigation; and sorry we are to see, that it has been in some degree sanctioned by a very high authority. The case, to be sure, in which the doctrine we are about to quote was broached, was one of libel; and we know, that when the object is to coerce the press, all other considerations of policy are lost sight of. A newspaper was to be put in the wrong; to do this, it was necessary that a coroner's jury should be put in the wrong; and therefore, wrong they were made, ex cathedrà. The journal had merely reported the proceedings of an inquest; but the proceedings being pronounced irrelevant and injurious, the report was declared libellous. The action alluded to was East v. Chapman, tried in the Court of King's Bench; the libel, the following report published in the Sunday Times:

"On Wednesday an inquest was held before Thomas Stirling, Esq.

one of the coroners for Middlesex, at the sign of the Sovereign, in Taunton-place, Regent's Park, on the body of Maria Webb, only sixteen years of age. The deceased was a remarkably fine and handsome girl; and to her personal attractions were added great vivacity and a good disposition. She was the daughter of very respectable persons residing in the country, and was in the service of John Henry Buckingham, Esq. of Park-street, Mary-le-bonne. first taken was that of the brother of the deceased.

The evidence

"Mr. W. Webb, a cheesemonger, residing in Boston-street, who stated that the deceased was unmarried. She had been in good health previous to that day week. Her mistress sent for witness; he went to Park-street, and found deceased very poorly, complaining of violent pains in her back. Believing that she had caught cold, and that she did not require medical assistance, he returned home. In the evening deceased came to witness's house, and repeated her complaint, and witness's wife gave her a few drops of turpentine, and some gruel— the latter she took home with her. Witness was again sent for by Mrs. Buckingham, at ten o'clock at night. Witness found deceased sitting by the fire, still complaining. A surgeon was sent for, he took a little blood from her, and she was put to bed. It was suspected that she was with child, and going to miscarry; but on being questioned she denied it. Witness took her to his own house next morning, where the doctor continued his attendance, and she miscarried on Saturday morning, and died in witness's arms on Sunday evening. Some hours before she expired, she was sensible of her danger, and witness closely questioned her. She then said, that William East had been taking liberties with her, and had committed the act of violence. It appeared that a short time ago the deceased lived as servant to Mrs. East, who keeps livery stables near Finsburysquare, and that William East, who is her nephew, manages the business for her. The deceased further informed her brother, that during the absence one day of Mrs. East, William East rudely attacked her, and she locked herself in a room whither she had fled for refuge; after remaining there some time, she opened the door, thinking East was gone; but he instantly rushed into the room, and being unable to protect herself, he accomplished his purpose. He threatened her, should she make any disclosure of what had passed. She quitted her place in consequence.

"John Hoskins Shearman, of 20, Dorset-place, Mary-le-bonne, surgeon, and Mrs. Buckingham, corroborated the evidence of the first witness.

"The jury, after a short deliberation, returned a verdict-That she died, having miscarried.

"The jury warmly declared their sentiments as to the conduct of Mr. East, and expressed their readiness to assist, as far as possible, in any measures that might be pursued for the bringing him to justice."

The correctness of the report was proved in evidence, but nevertheless the Chief Justice in his charge to the jury said :—

"That the question for their consideration was, merely the amount

of the damages, and not whether they should find for the plaintiff or defendant; he reminded them, that counsel for the defendant had urged that the publication was a correct report of the trial before a coroner, and that the question was then raised, whether, as the record now stood, evidence could be allowed for the purpose of establishing the truth of the publication; the question was entirely novel; but upon the best consideration he was capable of giving the point, he still adhered to his opinion of its admissibility, not that it might govern the verdict, but that it might determine the amount of the damages. His lordship was further induced to admit it, being always inclined to receive evidence when offered, in the hope that it might prevent the parties from coming before him again; but the evidence in the present case, whether admitted under a plea of justification or otherwise, would not have sustained the publication, because it failed in one point, namely, that the evidence of Webb had been corroborated by other persons. Much had been said of the duty of editors. His lordship did not pretend to know the duty of editors, or whether it differed from the duty of other men-but this he did know, that it was the first duty of editor, printer, and publisher, to say nothing that could injure the reputation of any individual, unless he be prepared to prove the truth of what he puts forward; this was an important duty, to which all connected with the press ought carefully to attend. They should be cautious how they give circulation to that which, though false, would be readily believed. The manner in which it was published, often induced those who knew nothing of the circumstances to adopt it as true. The present case, his lordship remarked, afforded a strong proof of the great inconvenience resulting from the indulgence, on the part of those engaged in the administration of public justice, in any remarks not called for by the duty they were performing, no matter in what department they served; whether they presided as judges, or were assembled as a jury, they ought to feel the necessity of taking care that all they said or did was confined to the subject matter solemnly before them. They should abstain from offering any opinions as to facts into which it was not competent for them to inquire, and which did not form part of their investigation. If the jury, in the present instance, had not yielded to their feelings, this action would not have been necessary. Honest men, sometimes, did that which, upon sober and cool consideration, they would not wish to do. It was no part of their duty to inquire whether the young girl in question had been seduced by Mr. East. They had merely to say whether she came by her death through violence, or died by the visitation of God; and Mr. Stirling was, therefore, correct in refusing to investigate any other matters. could be of no benefit to publish her declaration, inasmuch as it would not be admissible evidence in any proceeding against the plaintiff; nor could any man have been put on his trial, on account of what she said. The law, it was true, admitted the declaration of a person who had met his death by violence, provided his declaration was made under the impression that he was then about to die. The publication, therefore, could not tend in any way to the benefit of society, or the advancement of public justice. His lordship concluded

lt

by observing, that it was the duty of the jury not to allow themselves to be betrayed into exorbitant damages, by any angry feelings which the evidence was calculated to excite."

If juries, in such cases as the above, were merely required or expected to find a verdict of suicide, this doctrine might be very sound; but while they conceive themselves bound to do more, we cannot but regard it, with all becoming deference to authority so high, as extremely questionable. The state of mind of the deceased previous to, or at the time of self-destruction is a customary inquiry; nay, the law renders it an essential one, as there is forfeiture of property to the king in cases of felo de se. In order to ascertain this fact, it is surely necessary to discover what causes of uneasiness, or distress of mind, may have existed; and this can hardly be done without involving, as in the above instance, the conduct of other partics. A trader commits suicide. What is more germain to the business of the coroner's inquest than to ask whether he laboured under pecuniary embarrasments? and thus the authors of them, if such persons there are, are necessarily implicated. It may appear in evidence, for example, that an individual for whom the deceased was bail to a large amount, had absconded, or that another had dishonourably failed to acquit himself of his obligations. Would the publication of these facts, explanatory as they would be of the action of the suicide, be deemed irrelevant and consequently libellous? It certainly would, according to the doctrine of the Chief Justice. Statements affecting the conduct of persons not before the court, whether strictly founded or unfounded, are certainly grievous to the parties; but it seems necessary to the business of justice, that they should be made in numberless different modes, and the pain to particular individuals is probably sufficiently compensated by the general advantage to the public. In inquests on suicides they might perhaps most safely be dispensed with, if the law of forfeiture did not exist, and the jury were not consequently instructed, that it is their duty to discover the state of mind in which the deceased committed the act; for while this investigation is expected of them, we do not see how they can avoid the inquiry which is pronounced irrelevant and injurious, nor how the press can give a faithful report of their proceedings without incurring the risk of libel. The doctrine of the Chief Justice is capable of a very wide application. If the report of irrelevant matter compromising the character of individuals is libellous, it is scarcely possible to give an account of a single trial without transgressing the law; and the legal reports, in their most grave and approved forms, contain a tissue of libel; the remarks of both barristers and witnesses being frequently at once irrelevant and defamatory.

If there is any thing certain in this world, it is that the Morning Chronicle is incorruptible. This being the indisputable fact, and its ability being as much beyond the reach of suspicion as its honesty, I look upon its criticisms on literary productions as perfectly oracular, and entitled to the profoundest respect. Whatever it says is right. Such being its authority, it is very fortunate for the public, that whenever a new work issues from particular presses, the Chronicle

publishes impartial paragraphs, of a dozen lines or so, about its every other day for months. Just now it is fully occupied with Vivian Grey. Thus saith the oracle:

"Vivian Grey is somewhat altered in spirit since last, in the triumph of his wit and satire, he passed over the London world of fashion. He comes forward now, more in sorrow than in anger, to review the follies and vices of high life, to paint lofty and original character, and to luxuriate among the whimsical fancies which a moody imagination conjures up. But his caustic vein is by no means dried up, though his bitterness does not flow so profusely: he still delights as much as ever to ridicule the blues and to laugh at coxcombs. The spirit of his wit, if not so abundant in quantity, is more highly rectified; and when he chooses to show its activity in occasional sketches of living characters, he proves, that, like a vitriolic acid, its solitary biting drops are sharper for their condensation."

The Chronicle had not exhausted its great mind in this effort; accordingly a few days afterwards it again girded itself up for critieism, and in a moment of leisure from pugilism and politics, the fancy and philosophy, thus held forth again on Vivian Grey. A sweeter piece of writing it has not been my happiness to see for many a day. How the Editor must luxuriate in the work he so eloquently commends.

"CONTINUATION OF VIVIAN GREY.-To readers of a higher order than the lovers of mere scandal, the volumes of Vivian Grey, which have just appeared, will come recommended by qualities which prodigiously outweigh all the commoner attractions of the first two volumes, heightened as they were by the exuberant wit, the occasional bursts of warmth and poetry, the felicitous and facile satire, and the bold and sketchy portrait painting of their brilliant author. Combined with all the gaiety and spirit-the rapidity and variety of the first series, the continuation displays powers of a much loftier order. The author's moralizing vein has more tenderness and solemnity in it-his pathos is deeper-his pictures of society are more finished-and his views of mankind and their affairs far more philosophical. In his generalizing mood, he throws out, with all the prodigality of excessive wealth, a profusion of bold and new ideas, expressed with incomparable neatness and brevity: as an example of which, we may refer our readers to the reflections which occur in vol. 1, p. 287.”

As I have not had time to read Vivian Grey, I rejoiced in the short cut thus offered to its beauties, and turned eagerly to vol. 1st, p. 287. What I found there, the reader shall see at the foot of the page.*

"The sudden departure of Baron Von Kenigstein (a diplomatist) from the baths excited great surprise and sorrow. - There must be something in the wind-perhaps a war. Was the independence of Greece about to be acknowledged, or the dependence of Spain about to be terminated? What first-rate power had marched a million of soldiers into the land of a weak neighbour, on the mere pretence of exercising the military? What patriots had had the proud satisfaction of establishing a constitutional government without bloodshed-to be set aside in the course of the next month in the same manner? Had a conspiracy for establishing a republic in Russia been frustrated by the timely information of the intended first consuls! Were the Janissaries learning mathematics!-or had Lord Cochrane taken Constantinople in the James Watt steam packet? One of these many events must have happened-but