The more we hear of the Road Murder the less The more we hear of the Road Murder the less credit do the measures taken for its discovery reflect upon our legal machinery. In spite of Sir FrrzRoY KxrLLY's assertion to the contrary fact after fact has been elicited since the inquest, each of which miight have proved material if investigated at that time, but now reveals itself too late to be used effectually. The last effort to reopen the inquiry has just failed. After the charges against two of the suspected parties had been dismissed by the magistrates, and a comnimission had been refused by the HlOME SEcRETARY, public expectation was centred on the motion for a writ ad melius inquirendum, as the one chance that remained of undoing past mismanagement and recovering the lost scent. The ATroRiNEY- GENERAL was able to avail himself of a teclnical objection to the inquisition on the ground that it was recorded on paper instead of parchment. Had sucl an argument prevailed to stifle the merits of the case the public would have been justly indignant; as it was, it was hailed as a fortunate coincidence, and few doubted that the rule for a new inquest would be made absolute. It is impossible to read the proceedings on the argument of this rule without perceiving that it was discharged for reasons scarcely less for- mal than those which had chiefly led to its beifig granted, but which were properly waived by the SoLierroR-GEzEU.nL on Vednesday. The extreme to which the "litigious" theory of our criminal law is carried is well illustrated by the fact that an inquiry involving considerations of public policy, and perhaps the detection or non-detection of a crime which half the country regards with un- paralleled horror and interest, is virtuaUy sacri ficed to tho obligation of protecting individual interests. "The QuEEX v. SYLVEsTEr" wastheilegfal title of the case. From the first it " assumed very "much the aspect of a contention between the "CRowN and the Coroner," being narrowed to the question whether the latter had been guilty of gross misconduct in the execution of his office; and this question was at last admitted to turn entirely on the omission to examine Mr. KENT. All this may be very right, and lawyers may prove in many dif- ferent ways that tho ends of justice could not otherwise be attained. WVe merely draw attention to the fact, that as the feelings of the Knamr family were alleged in the ATTORNEY-GERERgAI's affidavits to have had more weight with Mr. SyLvESTEBn than the paramount duty of discovering the murderer, so now the high interests of criminal justice become, from the legal point of view, altogether subordinate to the imputations on that gentleman's official character. Nothing can be more curious or more creditable to professional courtesy than the spirit in which the SoTAcrTox-GExNBR received Sir FIrzTo Vs sugges- tion, that "tho jury were exasperated in their " minds and had lost their reason and their facul- 1C ties, and fancied that tho Coroner had used "language which he never had used." Had the whole thing been arranged beforo it could not have gone off more amicably. The language re- ferred to was to the effect that the jury had nothing to do -with the perpetrator of tho murder, but should confine their N-erdict to the cause of death-language so flagrantly erroneous in point of law that the CurEr JUSTICE declared that the Coroner could not have used it " except from a cor- " rupt motive." Upon this vital issue of fact the SoLiciTon-GENERAL remarks, " It is true that 12 "jurymen, and eight others, making 20 ih all, "deposed to the fact of the Coroner having ' distinctly propounded that proposition ;" but Mr. PEACOCK, the foremani, " h gentleman " of education and a clergyman," had denied in general terms any attempt on the Coroner's part to "hinder inquiry as to theprobablo perpetrator," without contradicting, so far as wo know, the categorical statement of the 2( men; andso the charge was allowed to fall to the ground. To speak frankly, "There might have been such an amount " of confusion as might have affected both the ex- "pression of the Coroner and the apprehension of "the jury." To this "confusion" weprobablyowe the continued concealment of this deed of darkness, yet it appears there is no legal means of rectifying it. As to tho other imputations,--of partiality in not examining all the members of Mr. Kxrrs household except a boy and a girl, and in ex- amining these at home, and of neglect in not calling witnesses who were ready and willing to give evidence, as well as in slurring over the depo- sitions of those who were called,-the Coroner dis- poses of them by denying in terms almost every one of them, and in this it is fair to add he is sup- ported by the affidavits of several other gentlemen. The substantial defence is that, having obtained sufficient evidence, he could not have pushed the inquiry further without 9xamining suspected persons, and thereby prejudicing the course of justice, already endangered by the excitement of the neighbourhood. But, further, Mr. SYLVESTEn turns round upon tho jury and accuses many of them of expressing "very decided opinions that " the child had been murdered by some of the in- "mates of the house," "before any evidence was "given." This assertion, though not improbable in itself, does not strike us as by any means conclu- sive in the Coroner's favour; for it indicates a motive, such as might well have prevailed with an undecided mind, for shelving one part of the case prematurely, and thus encroaching on the functions of the jury. Those who took the pains to follow up any of the stories of mutilation so current during the late Indian mutiny will not be staggered by any de(gree of slipperiness in matters of fact. Where there is plenty of time to tone down written affidavits to a nicety, and no cross-examination is permitted, it is extraordinary how nearly statements may approach to being contradictory, without the least taint of perjury on either side. What actually passed at the Road inquest is now-thanks to the lawyers-as inscrutable as the mturder itself, and will probably remain so to the end of time. But t'here is one assumption which, inasmuch as it was not repudiated by the SoLcrcron-GzmmAr, and was apparently endorsed by the CiEnr JusrxcE, is a fair subject of criticism. It is, that when a strong sus- picion of criminality attaches to a limited number of persons, they are all to be treated as " suspected" and, therefore, exempted from examination. It was believed from the first that the murder must have been committed by somo member of Road- hill-house; ergo, Mr. KE-NT could not be put into the witness-box, though he tendered him_ self through his solicitor; none of the servants were called except the nurse and housemaid-a strange selection on this theory-and Sir Frrzaoy actually apologizes for the examination of CONSTAlicz and W.mrx&m Kx-cT, because "they had been spoken "of loudly in terms of execration as being the "murderers." If this doctrine is to prevail the policy of a murderer is clear. He has nothing to do but to get the witnesses of his crime hooted by a crowd, and he will not only divert sus- picion from himself but stifle the evidence against him at the inquest. That which constitutes the peculiarity of the Road murder is the strong presumption that it was committed by some mem- ber of a particular household, all of whom are stiU at large, and might have quitted the country months ago. It is thi3 whicll justifies the public demand for an exceptional inquiry; but it is this also, as it now turns out, whieh arrested the investi- gation before all the traces of guilt could have been destroyed, and which is now made the chief aru- ment against a new inquest. It is unconstitutional "to examine those among whom the guilt of "the crime necessarily rests to ascertain froni their "separate depositions which of them has committed "the crime." Perhaps so ; but let us remeniber that if the number of possible murderers is eircunm_ scribed, so is that of the witnesses whose evidence could throw real light on the crime; in fa ct, the two classes are co-extensive, and we submuit that tho Coroner was bound to regard such parties rather in the latter light than in the forner. It is procrastination which has defined the "sus- " pected" persons, while it has deprived Ius of the testimony of several whose innocence has long been all but established. It is true that whlere human life is at stake no delay can be too long: " De marl-le | hominis nulla est cunctatio longa." But this re- flection, while it may sustain the public in their determination not to leave this mystery unravelled, cannot console us for having lost the first aild best opportunity of probing it to the bottom.