to grow, upon an average, a certain quantity of produce, the value of such proportion of that produce as may be agreed upon shall be paid to the landlord as rent. But as the prices of all produce are liable to considerable variation, and as the profits arising from the land must generally be mainly dependent upon the prices for which the produce is sold, it is supposed to be equitable to the farmer that the money value of that portion of the produce which he pays as rent should be calculated so as to vary with prices, instead of being determined by any arbitrary or unvarying standard. And it is undeniable that with long leases a corn-rent is a security against the growth of any serious disproportion between the rent originally agreed upon and the actual value of the produce of the land. If the farmer, under the security of a long lease, lay out capital upon the land and thus increase the quantity of produce, he derives the entire benefit arising from increased production, as the quantity to be paid as rent has already been agreed upon; and he is secured against loss caused by a fall in prices, as the amount of his rent is governed by prices.

For the purpose of assessing a corn-rent the average price of wheat alone, or of wheat and other grain, is taken-sometimes for the last year, and sometimes for a certain number of years. If the price for one year only be taken, the results to the farmer may be thus stated :When prices are low from a limited demand for produce, his rent is reduced; and when they are low from increased production, his rent is still reduced, although he has more produce than usual to sell. When prices are high from an increased demand, he has more rent to pay, but the remunerative prices enable him to pay it easily; but when an advance of prices is caused by scarcity, his rent is raised, while the high prices may be counterbalanced by the diminished quantity of produce which he has to sell. Thus in three cases out of four a corn-rent is favourable to the farmer; and even in the fourth case he is secured from loss by its favourable operation in other years. In some leases also a further advantage is given to him by fixing a maximum price: and thus if prices should happen to rise beyond that point, he derives the whole profit accruing from the difference. Under this system of annual averages, so advantageous to the farmer, there is a certain degree of unfairness to the landlord, which is sometimes corrected by assessing rent upon the average price of different kinds of produce for a certain number of years; by which means a just proportion is maintained between the money-rent and the average annual value realised from the land. It is upon this principle that the tithe rent-charges are calculated, from the average price of grain for seven years [TITHES]; and corn-rents are sometimes regulated by the scale of average prices published annually for the purposes of the Tithe Commutation Act. In Wiltshire some farms are let in this manner, but their number is inconsiderable. The rent of grazing and dairy farms cannot be regulated by the ordinary system of cornaverages; but in some of the dairy farms of Cheshire the rent is determined by the average price of wheat and of cheese. In many parts of the south of Scotland corn-rents are paid according to the fiar prices of corn, as determined in each county by a jury summoned by the sheriff for that purpose.

The principle of a corn-rent is by no means of recent origin; for by an act 18 Elizabeth, § 6, it was required that in all future leases granted by the colleges in the universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and by the colleges of Winchester and Eton, one-third part at least of the old rent shall be reserved and paid in good wheat at 6s. 8d. the quarter or under, and good malt at 5s. the quarter or under: or shall be paid in ready money after the rate of the best wheat and malt sold

at the nearest market.

(Journal of the Royal Agricultural Society, vol. v. pp. 84, 177; see also Index to Report on Agricultural Distress, 1836.)

CORN-TRADE, ANCIENT. The production of corn, one of the chief necessaries of life, and its commercial exchange, have been a subject of the first importance in all ages. It is proposed here to state briefly the general nature of the trade in corn among two of the states of antiquity to whom we are mainly indebted for our knowledge of the economical condition of ancient times. There are few important political questions at the present day to which we cannot find something similar in former times; and the blunders of ancient legislation may still be instructive to modern statesmen.

Athenian Corn-Trade.-The small and comparatively barren territory of Attica did not produce sufficient corn for the consumption of the inhabitants. Corn was brought into the Piræus, the port of Athens, from the countries bordering on the Black Sea, Syria, Egypt, and other parts of Africa, and from Sicily. Demosthenes asserted (B.C. 355) that the Athenians imported more grain than any other people (Against Leptines,' c. 9). But the trade in corn between Greece and the Black Sea was of some magnitude at a much earlier date. In B.C. 480, Xerxes, while at Abydos, on his way to the invasion of Greece, saw the corn-ships that were sailing from the Black Sea and through the Dardanelles and carrying corn to Peloponnesus and Ægina. (Herodotus, vii. 147.) Some parts of the country on the coast of the Black Sea now export grain, and probably have exported grain ever since the time of Xerxes.

The importation of grain into Attica was a matter that was protected and regulated by the state; and instances are mentioned of armed ships convoying the corn-vessels from the Black Sea to the Piraus. The exportation of corn from Attica was forbidden; and only

one-third of the foreign corn that was imported into the Piræus could be re-exported to other countries: this law as to importation was enforced by the overseers of the harbour. The law interfered with the trade in corn in other ways also, with the intention apparently of keeping prices low but with what success it is easy to conjecture. Engrossing or the buying-up of corn was a serious offence: a man could not purchase more than fifty loads (called popuoí). The amount of these loads cannot be exactly ascertained, nor is it material: the principle is clearly shown by the limitation. The penalty for violating this law was death. Boeckh (Public Economy of Athens,' Eng. trans.) states the law thus: "In order to prevent the accumulation and hoarding of corn, engrossing was very much restricted; it was not permitted to buy at one time more than fifty such loads as a man could carry." According to this a man might buy fifty loads as often as he pleased at different times. But the meaning of the passage of Lysias is that a man must not buy up corn so as to have on hand more than fifty loads at a time. This interpretation is consistent with the Greek, and the other is not; and it is not open to the same kind of objection that Boeckh's interpretation is.

The absurdity of the Athenian legislation on the trade in corn appears from a speech of Lysias against the corn-dealers (Karà Tv TOTWAV). The corn-dealers were generally aliens, and their business made them objects of popular detestation: it was alleged that they bought up corn, and refused to sell it when it was wanted, and thus compelled the buyers to pay them their own price. Yet it is stated by Lysias that the law was, that a dealer must sell his corn only one obolus dearer (the medimnus ?) than he bought it. Thus the law attempted to fix the maximum profit of the dealers. But they evaded the law, according to the same authority, by selling it a drachma (six oboli) higher on the same day: the meaning of the orator here is not quite clear. The orator states that the hope of great gain made the dealers run the risk of the extreme penalty of the law. He urges the court which was then sitting for the trial of some of the corn-dealers whom he was prosecuting, to enforce the penalty against them, and so make them mend their manners; and he represents both the consumers and the importers of corn as suffering from the combinations of the dealers. A more signal instance of absurdity and commercial ignorance is not extant than this oration.

To carry the laws as to the sale of corn into effect, the Athenians had corn wardens (σTopúλakes) who kept an account of the corn that was imported, inspected flour and bread, and saw that they were sold of the weight and at the price fixed by law.

Various enactments were made with a view of securing a supply of corn; such as that no money should be lent on a vessel which did not bring back to Athens a return cargo of goods, among which corn was mentioned; and that no person living in Attica should import corn to any place except the port of Athens. The interest of individuals, and ultimately the real interests of the community, were thus set in opposition to the supposed interests of the state, and evasions of the laws are often spoken of. Individuals attempted what they will always do, to sell their grain at the dearest market. (Xenophon, Econom.,' c. 20.)

There were public corn-warehouses at Athens, in which corn was lodged that had been purchased at the expense of the state, and sometimes, as it appears, by private contributions. There were officers appointed to purchase the corn (corn-buyers, σirŵvai), and persons to give or measure it out (àπodéктai). Corn so purchased was probably sold to the people at a low price, and sometimes also there were gratuitous distributions of it, as at Rome; and occasionally, as at Rome also, presents of grain were received from foreign princes or rich persons, and distributed among the people gratis.

This subject has been investigated by Boeckh, 'Public Economy of Athens,' translated by Mr. (now Sir) G. C. Lewis, 2nd edition, revised, 1842; and these remarks are mainly founded on what is said there. The subject is curious, but unfortunately we must collect our information mainly from detached passages of the Athenian orators, who deal largely in falsehood and exaggeration, and it is not possible to arrive at certainty on some points.

Roman Corn-trade.-What we know of the ancient corn-trade of Italy mainly relates to the city of Rome. From an early period it belonged to the administration to see that the city was duly supplied with grain. The immediate neighbourhood of Rome did not supply the wants of the city, and grain was imported into Rome from the country of the Volsci and from Cumae soon after the establishment of the consular government. (Livy, ii. 9.) An importation of corn from Sicily is mentioned by Livy (ii. 41) under the year B.C. 486. As the Romans extended their empire, and provincial governments were formed, such as those of Sicily and Sardinia, supplies of grain were got from foreign parts. After the conquest of Sicily, the proprietors were allowed to keep their lands on condition of paying a tenth of the produce to the Romans, according to the system which had been established by King Hiero. Sardinia, after the conquest, paid the same. (Livy, xxxvi. 2.) The mode of proceeding, as to the tenths in Sicily, was this: the cultivator gave notice of what quantity of land he intended to sow, and an entry was made of it. The Roman state took the tenth of the produce in kind, which the cultivator was bound to convey to some port in Sicily, where it was embarked for Rome. All the wheat produced by the tenths was entered in the public books,

and it was all conveyed to Rome or to the armies which were serving in parts remote from Rome; this at least appears to have been the general rule. Sometimes two-tenths of the produce were claimed by the Roman state (Livy, xxxvi. 2; xxxvii. 2), but in this case the second tenth was paid for out of the Roman Aerarium. Presents of grain from foreign states and princes were sometimes made to the Romans. (Plutarch, 'C. Gracchus,' c. 2.) Thus it appears that the state undertook to provide the chief supply of grain for the city: the grain was sometimes sold, and sometimes distributed gratis among the poor, a practice which became common under the late republic. Besides these distributions of corn at the public expense, the wealthy Romans who sought popularity sometimes made like distributions of corn among the poorer citizens, as M. Crassus the Rich did in his consulship. (Plutarch, 'Crassus,' c. 2, 12.)

It does not appear, then, that the chief supply of corn for the city of Rome during the republic was furnished in the regular way of trade. It was the business of the state to keep the proper supply of corn for the city in the public warehouses; but the supply was not always equal to the demand, and it also often happened that many people could not afford to pay the price. Scarcity was not uncommon both under the republic and the empire.

In Livy (iv. 12) we have a notice of the creation of a Præfectus Annonæ, or superintendent of provision, L. Minucius, B.C. 440, in a season of scarcity. He exercised his office in an arbitrary manner, by compelling persons to state what corn they had in their possession, and to sell it; and he endeavoured to raise a popular clamour against the corn-dealers, if Frumentarii here means private dealers. Cn. Pompeius Magnus was intrusted with the superintendence of provision for five years. (Cicero, Ad. Attic.,' iv. 1.) Augustus, at the urgent importunity of the people, took on himself the office of Præfectus Annonæ, such as Pompeius held it. (Dion. Cassius, liv. 1.)

Under the early republic many parts of Italy were well cultivated, and Rome, as already observed, derived supplies of corn from various parts of the peninsula. But the civil wars which devastated Italy near the close of the republic were injurious to agriculture. Murder and proscription thinned the numbers of the people, and life and property were insecure. Many of the lands changed owners, and the property of those who were cut off by violence fell into the hands of others, and chiefly of the soldiers. These and other causes made Italy less productive about the time of the Christian era than it had been some centuries earlier. Even under the peaceable administration of Augustus, 60,000,000 modii of wheat were annually imported into Italy and Rome from Egypt and the Roman province of Africa. The modius is estimated at 1 gallon and 7.8576 pints, English measure. But this did not prevent scarcity: there was a great famine at Rome in the latter part of the administration of Augustus. (Dion Cassius, lv. 26; Vell. Paterc., ii. 104; Suetonius, Augustus,' c. 42.) The general administration of Tiberius, the successor of Augustus, is commended by Tacitus. ('Annal.,' iv. 6.) He endeavoured to secure a proper supply of corn by intrusting to the Publicani the management of the tenths of grain from the provinces; but there was a great famine in his time, and the high price of grain almost caused an insurrection. The emperor showed that he had not neglected this important part of the administration he published a list of the provinces from which corn was brought, and he proved that the importation was larger than in the time of Augustus. (Tacit., Annal.,' vi. 13.) Again, under the administration of the Emperor Claudius, a famine in Rome occurred. (Tacit., Annal.,' xii. 43.) Tacitus observes, that during the scarcity Claudius was assailed with menaces while he was seated on the tribunal in the forum, and he only escaped by the aid of his soldiers. He adds that there were only fifteen days' provisions in the city; and "formerly Italy used to export supplies for the legions to distant provinces; nor is Italy now barren, but men prefer cultivating Egypt and Africa, and the existence of the Roman people is intrusted to ships and the dangers of the sea." Claudius subsequently paid great attention to the supplying of Rome with corn. Under Nero, the successor of Claudius, there was a famine at Rome. (Suetonius, 'Nero,' c. 45.)

The comparison of ancient and modern prices of grain is a difficult subject, and the results hitherto obtained are not satisfactory. It is also necessary to be careful in considering the circumstances when any prices are mentioned. P. Scipio on one occasion (B.C. 200) sent a great quantity of corn from Africa, which was sold to the people at four ases the modius. (Livy, xxxi. 4.) In the same book of Livy (c. 50) another sale is mentioned at the rate of two ases the modius. But on these, as on many other occasions, these prices were not the market-prices at which wheat would have sold, but they were the lower prices at which the state sold the grain in order to relieve the citizens. Rome, both under the republic and the early empire, suffered occasionally from scarcity or from high prices of grain. It is possible that a supply might have readily been procured from foreign parts if there had been a body of consumers in Rome to pay for it. But the export of grain to Rome was not a regular trade; it was, as above explained, a system by which the Romans drew from their provinces a contribution of corn for the consumption of the capital, and it was not regulated by the steady demand of an industrious class who could pay for it. The reign of Tiberius appears to have been a period of scarcity; the complaints were loud, and the emperor fixed the price of corn in Rome, and he ARTS AND SCI. DIV. VOL. III,

promised to give the merchants a bounty of two sesterces on the modius. This seems to mean that the emperor fixed the prices for all grain, including whatever private merchants might have; but to make them amends for any loss, he paid them part of their prices out of the treasury. After the fire at Rome, in the time of Nero, Tacitus speaks of the price of corn being lowered to three sesterces the modius. The Emperor Diocletian, by an edict, fixed the prices of all articles through the Roman empire. The reason for this measure is stated, in the preamble to the edict, to be the high market-price of provisions, which is attributed to the avarice of the dealers, and was not limited even when there was abundance. (Inscription of Stratoniceia; see an Edict of Diocletian, fixing a maximum of prices throughout the Roman empire, A.D. 303, by Colonel Leake, London, 1826, 8vo.) It does not appear whether the grain which was brought to Rome from the provinces was brought in public ships, or in private ships, by persons who contracted to carry it. There seems, however, to be no doubt that there was also importation of corn by private persons, and that there were no restrictions on the trade, for the object was to get a full supply. A constitution of Valentinian and Valens (De Canone Frumentario Urbis Romæ,' Cod. xi., tit. 23) declares that merchants (nautici) were to make a declaration of the grain which they imported before the governors (of provinces) and the magistrates, and that they had only good corn on board; and it was the business of the authorities to see that the grain was good. The provisioning of Constantinople, Alexandria, and probably other great cities, under the later empire, was subject to regulations similar to those of Rome, and there were public granaries in those cities.

It is almost impossible to collect from the scattered notices in the Roman writers a just notion of the nature of the trade in grain. So far as concerns Rome, we can hardly suppose that there was a regular trade in our sense of the term. The chief supply of grain was provided by the state. That which is best left to private enterprise was undertaken by the government. It is true that the condition of Rome was peculiar under the late republic and the empire. The city was full of paupers, who required to be fed by occasional allowances of corn. The effect, however, of the state purchasing for the people was not a certain supply, but occasional scarcity. Whether a state undertakes to buy for the people what they want for their consumption, or regulates the trade by interfering with the supply, is immaterial as to the result. In either case the people may expect to be starved whenever corn is scarce. The Roman system was to import all that could be got into Rome, but it was not left to private enterprise. There was no exclusion of foreign grain in order to favour the Italian farmer; nor can it be said that the Italian farmer suffered because foreign grain was brought into Rome and other parts of Italy; he could employ much of his land better than in growing corn for Rome and sending it there. Corn came from countries which were better adapted to corn-growing than many parts of Italy; and besides this, the transport of grain from many foreign parts to Rome, such as Sardinia, Sicily, and the province of Africa, would be as cheap as the transport of grain by sea from the remote parts of Italy, and much cheaper than the transport by land. The essay of Dureau de la Malle, 'De l'Economie Politique des Romains,' and the treatise of Vincentius Contarenus, ' De Frumentaria Romanorum Largitione,' in Grævius, 'Antiq. Rom. Thesaurus,' vol. viii., contain most of the facts relating to the supply of corn to Rome; and both have been used for this article.

CORNET, a commissioned officer in a regiment of cavalry. He is immediately inferior to a lieutenant, and his rank corresponds to that of an ensign in a battalion of infantry.

The word is derived from the Italian cornetta, signifying a small flag; and hence, both in the English and French services during the 16th and 17th centuries, it was applied not only to the officer who had charge of the standard, but to the whole troop, which seems then to have consisted of a hundred men and upwards, and to have been commanded by a captain.

CORNET, a shrill wind instrument formed of wood, which seems to have been known from the earliest times, and continued in use until the latter part of the 17th century, when it was laid aside for the oboe. In the 'Musurgia' of Luscinius is a rude wood-cut of the cornet; but it is represented in a more satisfactory manner in Mersenne's 'Harmonie Universelle,' from which it appears that the instrument was blown by a mouth-piece, and that there were treble, tenor, and base cornets. The compass of the first was from A, the second staff in the treble, to E in alt. The last was bent in rather a serpentine form, and reached nearly five feet in length, therefore was deep in tone.

CORNET-STOP, in the organ, is an imitative treble-stop, consisting of five ranks of pipes, in organs on a large scale, each key of the instrument causing all the five pipes to sound at once. These are tuned to a given note, its octave, twelfth, fifteenth, and seventeenth, though the whole together produce the effect of a single note. This is a harsh stop, and is now used only in union with others; but formerly, compositions called Cornet Pieces, were written exclusively for it; these have been proscribed by an improved taste in organplaying.

CORNICE. [COLUMN.]

CORNIN. A bitter crystallisable matter, found in the bark of the root of the Cornus florida.

CORNS are in the first instance merely thickenings of the cuticle,

English coronations since the time of Edward III. is the Liber Regalis' deposited in the archives of the dean and chapter of Westminster, and kept with a religious care. It is supposed to have been written for the particular instructions of the prelates who attended at the coronation of King Richard II. and his queen. Copies of this manuscript, without its illuminations, are preserved in one or two of our manuscript libraries. The substance of the ceremonial directed in it is abridged in Strutt's 'Manners and Customs,' vol. ii. CORONER. The coroner (coronator) is an ancient officer by the common law of England. The name is said by Lord Coke to be derived " a corond, because he is an officer of the crown, and hath conusance of some pleas which are called placita corona.' In this general sense the chief justice of the Court of King's Bench is by virtue of his office the supreme coroner of all England, and may, if he pleases, hold an inquest, or otherwise exercise the office of coroner, in any part of the kingdom. Lord Coke mentions an instance in which Chief Justice Fineux in the reign of Henry VII. held an inquest on the body of a man slain in open rebellion, 5 'Reports,' 51. In this sense also, the Master of the Crown Office in the Court of King's Bench, is styled the "coroner or attorney for the king;" his business being confined to pleas of the crown discussed in that court. But the officers now usually understood by this term are the coroners of counties, who are of high antiquity, being said in one of the most ancient treatises on the common law to have been ordained together with the sheriffs to keep the peace of counties when the earls gave up the wardship. (Mirror,' c. i. § 3.) In early times too, the office appears to have been one of great estimation; for by the statute 3 Edw. I. c. 10, they are required to be knights, and by the 28 Edw. III. c. 6, they must be "of the most meet and most lawful men of the county." By the 14 Edw. III. st. 1. c. 8, "no coroner shall be chosen unless he have land in fee sufficient in the county, whereof he may answer to all manner of people." No peculiar qualification is now required, though Serjeant Hawkins seems to express an opinion that the persons chosen, though not knights, must be "of good substance and credit." (Hawkins's 'Pleas of the Crown,' book ii. cap. 9.) Most commonly there are four coroners in each county; but the number varies according to the usage of different counties. There have been recent instances in which, upon a representation made to the lord chancellor by the magistrates, that the existing number of coroners was insufficient for the business of the county, writs have issued for the election of additional coroners. (See 3 Swanston's 'Reports,' 181.) Coroners of counties are elected by the freeholders in the county court, in the same manner as sheriffs and conservators of the peace formerly were; the election takes place by virtue of an ancient king's writ, De Coronatore Eligendo, returnable in chancery. The 58 Geo. III. c. 95, which made provision for conducting the election of coroners similar to those then in existence for the election of knights of the shire, was repealed in 1844 by 7 & 8 Vict. c. 92, which substituted other regulations on the ground that the former mode of election was inconvenient and attended with great and unnecessary expense. This Act applies only to county coroners, and the coroners of the city of London and borough of Southwark, of the Queen's household and the verge of the Queen's palace, and Admiralty coroners, are specially exempted. Counties may be divided by the justices into two or more districts for the purposes of this Act, and alterations may be made in existing divisions. The justices, in making such divisions, are in the first place to petition her majesty, and notice is to be given to each coroner by the clerk of the peace of the time when the justices will take such petition into consideration. Any coroner of the county may present a petition to her majesty touching the proposed division or alteration of districts. Her majesty, with the advice of the privy council, may order that such county shall be divided into so many districts as may be considered convenient, and determine at what place within each district the court for the election of coroner for such district shall be held. The justices are to direct the clerk of the peace to make out a list of the several parishes, townships, or hundreds in each of the coroner's districts into which the county is divided, specifying the place within each district at which the court for the election of coroner is to be held, the place or places at which the poll is to be taken, and the parishes or places attached to each polling place. The justices may then assign one district to each coroner; and whenever a vacancy occurs, the election is to be made in the manner prescribed by the Act. The coroner must reside in the district for which he is elected, or in some place wholly or partly surrounded by such district, or not more than two miles beyond its outer boundary; the election must be made in the district; and the coroner chosen by a majority of persons duly qualified who shall reside in such district; no voter can poll out of the district where his property lies. Within not less than seven or not more than fourteen days after the sheriff shall have received the writ De Coronatore Eligendo, he is required to hold in the district for which a vacancy has occurred a special county court for the election; and if a poll be demanded, it may be kept open for two days, eight hours each day, from eight o'clock in the morning. The sheriff is to erect polling booths; poll-clerks are to be sworn; and an inspector of poll-clerks is to be appointed on the nomination of each one of the candidates. Electors may be required by or on behalf of any candidate to make oath respecting their qualification. The result of the poll is to be declared by the sheriff. The coroner, although elected for a

district, is to be considered as a coroner for the whole county; but he is only to hold inquests within his own district, except in case of the illness or unavoidable absence of the coroner for another district; and his inquisition must certify the cause of his holding such inquest. Coroners in counties are elected for life; but if they accept an office incompatible with the duties, such as that of sheriff, or dwell in a remote part of the county, or are incapacitated by age or infirmity, they are removable by means of the writ De Coronatore Exonerando; and by the stat. 25 Geo. II. c. 29, § 6, they may be removed upon conviction of extortion, wilful neglect of duty, or misdemeanour in their office. The great seal has authority however, independently of the above statute, to remove coroners for neglect of duty. (1 Jacob and Walker's Reports,' 451.) By the stat. 7 & 8 Vict. c. 92, coroners are prohibited from acting professionally in any case in which they have sat as coroner.

At common law the coroner had authority to hear and determine felonies; but his powers in this respect were expressly abrogated by Magna Charta, cap. 17. The most usual duty of a coroner is that of taking inquisitions of death; and though his duties, as well as his authority in this respect, are said to have existed at common law, they are declared by the 4 Edw. I. stat. 2, commonly called the statute De Officio Coronatoris. By the directions of that statute, "the coroner, upon information, shall go to the places where any be slain, or suddenly dead or wounded, and shall forthwith command four of the next towns, or five or six, to appear before him in such a place; and when they are come thither, the coroner, upon the oath of them, shall inquire in this manner; that is to wit, if they know where the person was slain, whether it were in any house, field, bed, tavern, or company, and who were there; who are culpable, either of the act or of the force; and who were present, either men or women, and of what age soever they be, if they can speak, or have any discretion; and how many soever be found culpable, they shall be taken and delivered to the sheriff, and shall be committed to the gaol; and such as be found and be not culpable, shall be attached until the coming of the judge of assize." And it is declared by the same statute, that "if it fortune any such man be slain, which is found in the fields or in woods, first it is to be inquired whether he were slain in the same place, or not; and if he were brought and laid there, they should do so much as they can to follow their steps that brought the body thither, whether he were brought upon a horse or in a cart. It shall also be inquired if the dead person were known, or else a stranger, and where he lay the night before." It is declared also by the same statute, that "all wounds ought to be viewed, the length, breadth, and deepness; and with what weapons; and in what part of the body the wound or hurt is; and how many be culpable; and how many wounds there be; and who gave the wound." In like manner it is to be inquired by the coroner "of them that be drowned, or suddenly dead, whether they were so drowned or slain, or strangled by the sign of a cord tied straight about their necks, or about any of their members, or upon any other hurt found upon their bodies. And if they were slain, then ought the coroner to attach the finders and all other in the company." The provisions of this ancient statute are still in force, and are to be followed by coroners in all their particular directions as nearly as possible at the present day in inquisitions of death. In case of a death happening upon the high sea, inquisitions are taken before the Admiralty coroner, who is appointed by the king or the Lord Admiral; and the county coroners have in such a case no jurisdiction. The inquisitions taken before the Admiralty coroner are returned to the Commissioners of the Admiralty under stat. 28 Hen. VIII., c. 15.

The coroner has authority to assemble a jury by means of a precept to the constables of the hundred or adjoining township, and under the 7 & 8 Vict. c. 92, jurors and witnesses who neglect to attend an inquest may be fined any sum not exceeding 40s. The power, however, of punishing witnesses who refuse to give evidence for contempt of court, and the right to exclude persons from his court, are incidents of his office. When the jury are assembled, they are charged and sworn by the coroner to inquire, upon view of the body, how the party came by his death. The jury are, by the 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 86, amended by the 21 & 22 Vict. c. 25, to inquire into the particulars required for the registration of deaths, and the coroner informs the registrar in writing of the finding and other particulars, and in case of a dead body being found exposed, he must give notice to the registrar. By the 18 & 19 Vict. c. 108, he must also give previous notice to the secretary of state, of inquests on deaths from accidents in coal mines. The coroner has no authority to take an inquisition of death, except upon view of the body by himself and the jury; and if he does so, the inquisition is wholly void. (Rex v. Ferrand, 3 Barn. and Ald. Reports,' 260.) If a body liable to an inquest has been buried before the coroner has notice of the circumstances of the death, he has authority to cause it to be disinterred for the purpose of holding the inquest, provided he does so within a reasonable time. By the stat. 7 Geo. IV. c. 64, § 4, which repeals an ancient enactment on this subject, it is provided that "every coroner, upon any inquisition before him taken, whereby any person shall be indicted for manslaughter or murd r, or as an accessary to murder before the fact, shall put in writing the evidence given to the jury before him, or as much thereof as shall be material; and shall have authority to bind by recognisance all such persons as k..ow or declare anything material touching the