COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 16 July 1888)

§ THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY)
said, he understood that this Amendment had been proposed in conformity with a suggestion of the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Herschell). Since the noble and learned Lord made that suggestion a very important decision had been arrived at in "another place," and he wished to call their Lordships' attention to that decision in order that they might try to observe some similarity in their legislation. It had been decided in the House of Com- 1374 mons that the power of nominating a judicial officer, however ancient that power might be, and if it resided in a popularly-elected Body, ought no longer to reside in a popularly-elected Body, but ought to be confined to the Crown. He had nothing to say against that doctrine in the abstract, for it was, no doubt, a very precious doctrine that all judicial officers should be appointed by the Crown; but he desired to point out that on this point the decision come to in the House of Commons was parallel to the proposition originally made in their Lordships' House with regard to this matter—namely, that no antiquity should bar the application of a sound doctrine to a case, and that no popularity, even of a democratic character, which attached to the authority that possessed a right should be any impediment to the invasion of that right.

§ LORD HERSCHELL
said, he did not think that the cases to which the noble Marquess referred were entirely parallel to the case with which they were now dealing. He did not think a Coroner was, properly speaking, a judicial officer, whereas the work of the Recorder and Common Serjeant of London was strictly judicial, in that they had the power of trying prisoners and even of passing a sentence of penal servitude for life for offences committed in Surrey, Kent, and other places a long way outside the City of London. A Coroner had no power to deal with anyone, and a Coroner's inquisition had no more effect than a true bill found by a Grand Jury,

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
said, he did not understand how the noble and learned Lord would define a judicial officer. A Coroner, at all events, presided over a trial of an issue before a jury. He was at a loss to understand how the noble and learned Lord could say he was not a judicial officer.

§ LORD HERSCHELL
said, a judicial officer was one who delivered a judgment, and he did not think it could be said that a Coroner did that.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)
said, he did not understand how the functions of the Coroner could be excluded from the category. He could not agree that he was not a judicial officer, seeing that he was supposed to decide according to law.

§ LORD HERSCHELL
In what cases does he decide according to law?

§ THE LORD PRESIDENT of THE COUNCIL (Viscount CRANBROOK)
pointed out that the Lord Chief Justice was himself chief Coroner.