SECOND READING. (Hansard, 10 September 1887)

§ MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)
said, such a Bill could not be settled at that period of the Session. The Government admitted that it was an incomplete Bill, and the Lords had had plenty of time to make it a perfect measure. He complained of the Bill on the ground that it contained no provision for the fining of Coroners for neglect of duty. He noticed the other day that a Coroner had fined himself 40s. for neglect, and he thought some such provision should have been introduced into the Bill. The only other point he wished to refer to was the power given to Coroners to exclude representatives of the Press from their inquiries. This question was brought prominently forward some time ago in connection with a grave scandal that had arisen at Ipswich; and considering 215 the amount of interest evinced in that case he thought those who had framed the Bill should have given attention to this point. Coroners ought not to have such arbitrary powers, and in these days publicity was necessary to prevent injustice.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER) (Isle of Wight)
said, the question of fining Coroners and the exclusion of the Press from inquiries were foreign to the scope of the Bill, and he would not enter into that. As regarded the rest, most valuable work had been done by the Bill.

§ MR. HOWELL (Bethnal Green, N.E.)
said, he hoped the Bill would be passed, as it repealed many ancient and useless Statutes. When they consolidated the Statutes—and they had done something towards it—they would be able to understand the law. At present the most learned Member of the Bar—even the hon. and learned Member for Camborne—could not understand the Statutes.