OPENING OF THE CORONER'S COURT. (Hansard, 6 August 1834)

§ Mr. Warburton
hoped that one of the Amendments made by their Lordships would not be agreed to. The House of Commons, in passing this Bill, inserted a clause, enacting that the Coroner's Court should be an open Court. In the House of Lords that clause had been struck out, upon a statement that the present state of 1009 the law was, that the Coroner's Court was an open Court. Great doubts had been entertained upon that point; and in a very celebrated law treatise it had been laid down, that the Coroner's Court was not an open Court. The Attorney and Solicitor General, however, had stated in that House, that the Coroner's Court was an open Court. He should, therefore, move, "that this House disagree from the Lords' Amendment on this subject."

§ Mr. Cripps
said, that when he first brought in this Bill he had divided the House against the Amendment of the hon. member for Bridport, which declared these Courts to be open Courts. He had subsequently made inquiries how the Coroners in different parts of the kingdom acted upon this point. He found that they almost universally considered their Court as an open Court. He, therefore, began to consider the Amendment of the hon. member for Bridport right and fair; and on bringing in the Bill in the present Session, he had introduced a clause declaring the Coroner's Court an open Court. The Bill had gone up to the Lords with that clause inserted in it; considerable debate had taken place thereon; and it was then stated by Lord Chief Justice Denman—himself the principal Coroner of England—and also by the Lord Chancellor, that there could be no doubt but it was an open Court. The former Attorney General had also given an opinion in accordance with that of those high legal authorities. The hon. and learned member for Dublin had also maintained the same opinion with great force and at great length. A doubt on the subject had arisen in consequence of an opinion given by Lord Chief Justice Tenterden on the Oldham case. The House of Lords was aware of that opinion; and it considered the opinion of Lord Tenterden as worth more than those which had recently been stated to it. Now, every Coroner who had been examined by the House of Commons' Committee had stated, that he considered his Court an open one; but that he held himself at liberty to dismiss any obnoxious person. The clause was, therefore, struck out by the Lords. He hoped, therefore, that after the investigation which had taken place, the House would agree to the Bill as it now stood.

Mr. Tennyson
thought it would have been better to make this a declaratory, instead of an enacting clause. It would, 1010 no doubt, have been desirable, that the Lords should have retained the clause either as a declaratory or an enacting clause in the Bill; but, under the circumstances, as the House could not of course restore it, they had no other remedy than to ask for a conference with the Lords, and endeavour to induce them to withdraw their amendment, which he hoped they would consent to do. If they did not, the Bill must be lost. He could mention the name of Mr. Farren as a Coroner, who insisted upon his right of admitting or excluding the public according to his discretion.

§ Mr. Potter
said, that Mr. Farren, the Coroner, of Rochdale, had for many years exercised the power of excluding the public from his Court. The editor of one of the Manchester newspapers had determined to try the right. He was turned out of the Court, and he brought the question before the King's Bench. It was tried, he believed, before Lord Tenterden; and the Judge ruled, that the Coroner's Court was not an open Court. It was of the utmost importance, therefore, that the point should be settled. He could mention another circumstance of great importance connected with the jurisdiction of Coroner. Mr. Farren, whom he had already alluded to, and another Coroner in Lancashire, were in the habit of sending substitutes to act for them instead of holding inquests themselves. He knew a Coroner in the great town of Manchester to have sent his brother (a publican, the hon. Gentleman was understood to say) to hold an inquest in his place. Thus very inferior persons might be employed to discharge those important functions. Another very striking case would prove the necessity of having the Coroner's Court open. A child was burnt to death at Bury in the course of the spring. The Coroner being sent for, held an inquest, and a verdict of accidental death was returned. The neighbours, however, had some suspicions: an inquiry was set on foot, the body was disinterred, and it was found that the father had destroyed his own child by setting fire in some manner to the clothes in the cradle. From that day to this he absconded. These circumstances showed how important it was, that the Coroner's Court should be an open Court; and he hoped the House, even at the risk of losing the Bill, would restore the clause.

§ Lord Althorp
said, he believed there was no real difference of opinion as to the propriety of the Coroner's Court being an open one; and, therefore, he could hardly conceive it possible that the Lords would not agree with that House when it stated its opinion, that this clause ought to be inserted. If he felt that, by agreeing to the Motion to dissent from the Lords' Amendment, the Bill could not be carried, he would not give it his support; but he thought, that the House ought certainly to state to the Lords, that it disagreed with their Amendment, because the case stated by the hon. member for Wigan, of a Coroner who did persevere in excluding the public from his Court, showed that some legislative interference was necessary. Having always supported the principle, that those Courts ought to be open Courts, he thought the best course he could pursue, in order to support that opinion, was to disagree with the Lords' Amendment, because he could not believe that in that case the Lords would insist upon their Amendment. If they did, the question must again come under the consideration of the House.