COUNTY CORONERS. (Hansard, 10 June 1835)

§ Mr. Fox Maule
said, he had no objection to the Bill being read a second time if the hon. Gentleman would postpone the Committee, in order to allow time for the consideration of several alterations which he should feel it his duty to propose, on the subject of County-rates. These alterations could not be taken into consideration till after the Report of the Committee to inquire into the subject had been laid on the Table.

Mr. Blackburne
had a great objection to one Clause of the Bill. The Clause to which he alluded would disfranchise the whole of the freeholders of counties who were not possessed of freeholds to the amount of 40s., and would give to all those who were now the electors of Members of Parliament in counties, the right which formerly belonged to the entire body of the freeholders. On what principle was it, that without giving them a bearing—without notice even, these freeholders should be deprived of the right they possessed of voting for Coroners? The preamble of the Bill stated, that whereas such elections were made with much riot and confusion, and were attended with great and unnecessary expense. Now he doubted not they were attended with unnecessary expense; but he never in all his experience knew of any rioting at elections for Coroners. It should be known that by this Clause the 50l. tenants-at-will would be brought into play. Coroners in counties were the persons to whom the poor looked for protection, and it was most unjust to deprive them of the franchise, and transfer it to another class. But there had been great and unnecessary expenses, forsooth, at the elections. Whose fault was that? Was it not the fault of the 625 candidates themselves? The very individuals who had incurred the great and unnecessary expense, would make it appear that they had not sufficient remuneration, and by this Bill proposed to increase the rate of mileage. He therefore moved that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

Sir George Strickland,
notwithstanding the warmth and zeal of the hon. Member who had just sat down, must give his cordial support to the general and leading principles of so useful and wise a measure. The objection made by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Blackburne) might be taken into consideration in Committee. Besides the hon. Gentleman had not stated the principles of the Bill fairly. He had omitted to state the abuses of the present system. In the county of York, in particular, the office of Coroner had become a property, and it was there a saying that a Coroner was returned by one or two persons. No man would be more ready than himself to endeavour to avoid the disfranchisement of those persons alluded to, but he really thought that Clause was a subject for consideration in Committee. With regard to the ninepence a mile that had been mentioned, he believed that the fair construction of the Act of Parliament which gave that amount for travelling expenses would make it amount to the same as it was now proposed to make it. The ninepence a mile having been considered to be ninepence to a place and from a place, and the present Bill only expressed what the previous Act intended. He would remind the House that this necessary measure had now been before it for no less a term than five years.

The Solicitor-General
said, that the last day of the last session a Bill similar to the present had been thrown out of that House after having passed the House of Lords, in consequence of some amendments having been made. With regard to the clause which might be considered harsh in its operation, namely, that which disfranchised the poorer freehold voters, it might be easily altered in Committee, and he for one would concur in such alteration. The present Bill for the first time gave the power to a Coroner of registration of all those who came to an untimely end; to order the opening of a body when considered necessary; and authorise the payment of a medical man for the purpose The Court of the Coroner was also to be 626 an open Court, as had been provided by he Bill of last session. He trusted the hon. and learned Gentleman would withdraw his amendment.

§ Mr. Jervis,
while he adopted the principle of the Bill, thought that some amendments might be necessary. He thought that the office of Coroner should be more open to competition, and not left, as at present, to be occupied only by medical men and lawyers. It was also important to the country at large that the Coroner's Court should be an open Court, for which reason he should give the Bill his support. He should, however, oppose in the Committee that Clause which proposed the disfranchisement of the lower class of freeholders, in regard of voting at the election for Coroner.

Mr. Blackburne
consented to withdraw his Amendment, reserving to himself the right of opposing any obnoxious clauses in the Committee.

§ Mr. Wakley
considered the Bill a compound of good and evil, and although he was disposed to give it his support in its present stage, it still required great alteration in the Committee. The great advantage which it would confer was said to be, that it declared the Coroner's Court to be hereafter an open Court. Now, how did it provide for that? Why thus—"And be it enacted, that every inquest to be held before any Coroner upon the body of any person shall be deemed to be an open Court, and the evidence of the witnesses, and the charge and direction of the Coroner, shall be delivered in, and all the proceedings shall be carried on in open Court; but nothing herein contained shall extend, or be construed to extend, to limit or control the power and authority of the Coroner to preserve order in the said Court, when in the judgment of the said Coroner the ends of public justice may require the exclusion of such persons from the said Court. ["Read on, read on."] "Provided," the Bill went on to say, "that in all cases where the Coroner shall make use of such authority, he shall, as soon as may be after such exclusion, report the same to the Lord Chief Justice of his Majesty's Court of King's Bench, and also to his Majesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department, together with a statement of the circumstances which induced the said Coroner to require such exclusion, and provided that the Coroner shall transmit to the Lord Chief Justice 627 of the King's Bench and to the Secretary of State for the Home Department an account of the circumstances of the case which demanded exclusion." But by that provision, the mischief might be done, and then, the means of redress were out of reach. He was inclined, however, to believe that there was so much good in the Bill that they ought to allow it to be read a second time. But it was impossible that the Bill should ever pass, giving as it did only to the persons who had the right of voting for the election of Knights of the Shire, the right of electing a Coroner. He knew many cases in which the one qualification no way implied the possession of the other; and where, if the parties were not registered for the borough election by the Bill now proposed, they would be disfranchised; now that could not be the intention of any hon. Member. He therefore trusted that before the Bill was brought forward in Committee, the hon. Member (Mr. Cripps) would see the propriety of making such alteration in it, as would have the effect of introducing those voters into it which were admitted before. The Bill did not, he would observe, multiply the Coroners, it only authorized the Magistrates to divide the county, in such a manner as would best promote the ends of justice; such a power they ought to have; and he was glad the Bill gave it to them. The hon. Member would, he trusted, make the alteration which had been suggested to him.

The Attorney General
said be felt himself responsible for that particular clause as it now stood, having been induced so to draw it up as, if possible, at once to secure the important object of publicity, and obviate the objections to that principle which seemed to be felt in another place. When duly considered, he had no doubt it would receive the approbation of that House and the public. The Coroner's Court was now considered by many persons an open Court, but by others it was asserted that the Coroner might capriciously, without assigning any reason whatever, turn out those who attended for the public press, or who were anxious to see that justice was properly administered, and sit with shut doors. Now, this Bill declared that the Coroner's Court was an open Court, where the justice of the country should be administered openly before the country. At the same time it gave the Coroner a power, which he 628 (the Attorney General) thought he ought to possess, of ordering certain individuals in certain cases to withdraw. For instance, on an inquisition for murder it was quite possible that the guilty person might be present, and after hearing the evidence he might abscond. But this power was to be enjoyed under great responsibilities. Immediately afterwards, the Coroner was bound to transmit a statement to the Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench and the Secretary of State for the Home Department of what had transpired, and the reasons which had induced him to clear the Court. His conduct might be publicly canvassed, and if he acted capriciously or from corrupt motives in any case, he would be amenable to the ordinary Courts of justice, or at the bar of that House. He thought the clause was the object which those who maintained the opinion that the Coroner's was an open Court had in view, and he trusted the Bill would experience no interruption in the present instance, but would be suffered to go into a Committee of the whole House, where it might be more conveniently, and at leisure, examined in detail.

§ Mr. Pease
declared, if the disfranchisement clause were not abandoned, he should vote against the Bill on the third reading.