left the abbey. Henry VI. was twice crowned while he was still a child, first at the abbey at Westminster, after wards at Saint Denis near Paris. Representations of the two ceremonies are to be found in Strutt's Manners and Customs. The coronation of Richard III. has also been very fully recorded. It does not differ materially from the instances already given. The directions followed, both in these cases and subsequently, are taken from the Liber Regalis, in the archives of Westminster Abbey; nor, indeed, from the nature of the case is there much room for variety in essentials. The anointing and crowning may be accompanied by circumstances of more or less magnificence, but the acts themselves are likely to be done in much the
same way at one time and at another.
Coronation Oath.—The imposition of some form of coronation oath appears to be as old as the ceremony of coronation. It is natural enough that, at the commencement of each new reign, the king and people should mutually give and receive pledges from each other, the people promising obedience to lawful commands, the king binding himself to act with justice and to observe the established laws. There are informal traces of this to be found in abundance in the histories of the Jewish kings. It was still more regularly the case among the tribal chiefs who broke up the western Roman empire, and established themselves upon its ruins. Hereditary title was far from absolutely recognized, and the will of the people had a most potent influence in determining the succession. There was thus room for something like an express bargain, the new chief or king receiving his dignity on conditions which his people imposed upon him. The custom thus established continued after the rules of succession had become settled. The election to the imperial office was marked in the same way. Before the time of Charles V. a verbal promise had been thought sufficient, but on Charles's election a formal “capitulation” of rights and liberties was drawn up in writing by the German electors, signed by the new emperor's ambassadors, and solemnly confirmed by himself on his coronation at Aix-la-Chapelle. From that time forward the same conditions were observed at each election, the attacks by Charles V. upon the rights of his German subjects not having convinced them of the intrinsic worthlessness of agreements of the kind. We have seen already the form of coronation oath prescribed to William I. of England, and we know, too, the amount of regard he paid to it. Richard I. was sworn to keep the holy ordinances of God, to exercise justice, to abolish grievous laws, and to put in practice all laws that were good. The Liber Regalis prescribes a series of similar oaths. The king is to grant and to confirm the laws and customs of his predecessors, and especially those of the glorious king Saint Edward. He promises peace and agreement to God, the holy church, and the people, and swears further, with a vast amount of verbiage, to maintain law and justice, to uphold customs, and to perform rightly all the other duties of his office. The modern form of the coronation oath dates from the coronation of William and Mary in 1689, with some slight necessary alterations and additions made afterwards at the Unions with Scotland and with Ireland. The oath, in 1689, was made at every point more precise and explicit than before; and, in particular, there was added an express engagement on the part of the sovereign to maintain “the laws of God, the true profession of the Gospel, and the Protestant reformed religion as it is established by law.” It provided, further, that the king should preserve to the bishops and clergy, and the churches committed to their charge, all their actual and future legal rights and privileges. Its intention, as the debates at the time prove, is to restrain the king in his administrative, not in his legislative, capacity. It binds him to observe the established law. It does not and cannot bind him to refuse his assent to all subsequent changes of the law in ecclesiastical any more than in civil matters. The point, obvious enough in itself, deserves notice chiefly because the opposite view was taken by George III., fatally for Pitt's project of Catholic emancipation, a measure of relief to which it is difficult to see how the coronation oath, whatever force is given to it, could with any reason be thought opposed. In connection with the subject of coronation, see also Crown.
CORONELLI, Vincenzio (1650–1718), an Italian geographer, was born at Venice. Having by his skill in mathematics become known to the Count d'Estrées, Coronelli was employed by the count to make globes for Louis XIV. In 1685 he was appointed cosmographer to the republic of Venice, and four years afterwards public professor of geography. He founded an academy of cosmography at Venice, and died in that city in 1718. He published about 400 geographical charts, an abridgement of cosmography, several books on geography, and other works. See Tiraboschi, Litteratura Italiana.
CORONER, an ancient officer of the common law, so called, according to Coke, because he had principally to do with pleas of the Crown. The lord chief justice of the Queen's Bench is said to be the principal coroner of the kingdom, and may in any place exercise the jurisdiction of the coroner. The duties of the office are now practically confined to holding inquests in case of violent or sudden death.
The office is and always has been elective, the appointment being made by the freeholders of the county assembled in county court. By the Statute of Westminster the First it was ordered that none but lawful and discreet knights should be chosen as coroners, and in one instance a person was actually removed from office for insufficiency of estate. Lands to the value of £20 per annum (the qualification for knighthood) were afterwards deemed sufficient to satisfy the requirements as to estate which ought to be insisted on in the case of a coroner. The complaint of Blackstone shows the transition of the office from its original dignified and honorary character to a paid appointment in the public service. “Now, indeed, through the culpable neglect of gentlemen of property, this office has been suffered to fall into disrepute, and get into low and indigent hands; so that, although formerly no coroners would condescend to be paid for serving their country, and they were by the aforesaid Statute of Westminster expressly forbidden to take a reward, under pain of a great forfeiture to the king; yet for many years past they have only desired to be chosen for their perquisites; being allowed fees for their attendance by the statute 3 Henry VII. c. 1, which Sir Edward Coke complains of heavily; though since his time those fees have been much enlarged.” The mercenary character of the office, thus deprecated by Coke and Blackstone, is now firmly established, without, however (it need hardly be said), affording the slightest ground for such reflections as the above. The coroner is in fact a public officer, and like other public officers receives payment for his services. The person appointed is almost invariably a qualified legal or medical practitioner, the duties of the office being supposed to require some acquaintance with the learning of both of these professions. The property qualification appears to be virtually dispensed with, the county being liable for any peaalties that may be incurred by the coroner. The appointment is held for life, but is vacated by the holder being made sheriff. He may also be removed by the writ de coronatore exonerando, for sufficient cause assigned, as, for instance, that he is engaged in other business, or in capacitated by old age or sickness, &c. By 23 and 24 Vict. c. 116, the lord chancellor may remove any coroner for “inability or misbehaviour in his office.”
