§ DR. KENNY (Dublin, College Green) rose to move the Second Reading of this Bill. He said he should not occupy the time of the House beyond a brief explanation of the Bill which he might say met with the approval of all three sections of his colleagues in the Irish representation. Coroners in Ireland were not allowed to appoint a deputy. That privilege, was enjoyed only by one—himself. The Second Clause of the Bill gave power to any Coroner to appoint a fit person to act as deputy, and there was no reason why he should not appoint a properly qualified deputy as set out in the clause to act for him in the case of emergency. The Third Clause dealt with the salary and expenses of the Coroner. It was highly desirable that the system of paying Coroners by fees should cease. When there was a sudden death, the grief was more acute and the more they felt the intervention of the Coroner, and the Coroner in certain cases should be placed in a position to say there would be no advantage in holding an inquest. That was the law of this country, and he saw no reason why it should not be the law in Ireland. He might say in his own case in Dublin he was not paid by fees but by salary, and he believed he was the only Coroner in Ireland who was so paid. Section 4 of the Bill dealt with the question of mutual agreement as to salaries. The Bill would not have any effect in increasing salaries to any appreciable degree. The scale laid down was the average of the fees received in a certain number of years, and in that followed the English Bill. The next section gave power to local bodies to take into account certain circumstances with regard to the office and grant annuities on retirement. He thought that would meet with general approval. A Coroner was a non-removable officer, except under certain circumstances, and if he became old and his duties had to be done by a deputy, the local bodies were most anxious to be enabled to grant an annuity in such a case in proper circumstances. The Bill 639 had to do simply with Local Taxation, and there would be no dip into the public purse. The last section provided that the Bill should apply to Ireland alone. He begged to move the Second Reading of the Bill, which was generally desired in Ireland.
§ COLONEL WARING (Down, N.)seconded the Motion. There was one point in favour of the introduction of the Bill to which the hon. Member did not refer, and that was owing to the absence of the power to appoint a deputy the unpaid magistrates were called upon to do a most disagreeable duty. It had not happened to many of them, but he had been called upon six successive times, two of the cases being for murder and manslaughter. When the Coroner of the District or the adjoining Coroner could not discharge the duty then the emergency arose and two of the magistrates were obliged to act, which did not ordinarily come within their legal duties at all. The details of the Bill could be discussed in Committee. The main point was that there should be a deputy appointed and that the system of fees should be done away with.
§ SIR JAMES HASLETT (Belfast, N.)in a maiden speech, regretted that the first time he rose in the House should be to discuss the payment of Coroners, but a deep interest was taken in the question in the constituency which he represented. While he agreed in the main that there was necessity for some change he could not by any means agree with the general details of the measure as it was placed before them. It was given as a reason for the Bill that it was desirable to do away entirely with the foundation of payment of Coroners, namely, the number of inquests which may be held.
§ DR. KENNYsaid, there was no provision which said that. The Bill merely said the method of payment by fees was undesirable and that payment ought to be by salary fixed on an average of the fees received.
§ SIR J. HASLETTpresumed that the hon. Member was not aware that throughout Ireland, certainly in the community which he (Sir James Haslett) represented, salary was paid. That salary was fixed once every five years according to the Municipal Corporations Act. The amount of the payment per 640 head of the inquests was raised by the Act of 1881, from £1 to £2, but the mode of fixing the salary and the actual payment of the salary remained as before, based upon a calculation of the average extending over five years. This Bill proceeded on exactly the same principle and would in no way do away with the fixing of the salary, except that it might during the lifetime of an existing Coroner be a question of compromise with him for all time, but that would not operate as against the new Coroner, who had a right of appeal from the previous arrangement to a new arrangement which could be carried out by the Lord Chancellor who was the Chief Coroner. He thought this was an unfortunate mode of arriving at it, and while willing to entertain in the most friendly spirit any proposed alteration of the law, he must reserve to himself a right of independent action in relation to the means by which that change could be arrived at. There was a great deal of jumbled matter in the Bill, especially in relation to Clauses 3 and 4. He presumed that the Bill had been brought in by the Coroners' Association. It proposed that they should not reduce any of the salaries and that any possible change should be in an upward direction. That was a kind of Irish bargain—"We want more, we can't take less, and you shall not give us less." If there were diminishing districts and increasing districts, both sides should be weighed in the fixing of the salary, and therefore, the Bill was defective in this respect, and to some extent unjust in its operation. With regard to the proposal to appoint a deputy, he could say he had had a very considerable experience of the kind which his hon. and gallant Friend objected to. It had been his duty to hold a very large number of inquests, or rather magisterial inquiries. It was an unfortunate position for a magistrate to be placed in. The duty was one of the most painful which could be imposed upon him in his magisterial capacity. He did not think it should be competent for a Coroner, wholly independent of the authority which appointed him, to appoint a deputy.
§ SIR J. HASLETTthought that in this respect the Irish Act had somewhat of 641 superiority, namely that the appointment of a deputy should be subject to the control of the authority who appointed the Coroner and should be lodged with the controlling authority.
§ DR. KENNYsaid, that was not so. He was the only Coroner who could appoint a deputy. He appointed his deputy on the certificate of two magistrates. They certified that during his absence a deputy was necessary; but he was the appointor and the Corporation did not control the appointment. Of course, he always treated them with proper respect and submitted a proper person. If there was any objection against a certain man he would not appoint him.
§ SIR J. HASLETTwas afraid the hon. Member had not read the Act of Parliament to which he had referred. There was within it the power of appointing under certain conditions and certain circumstances. He spoke of the 3 & 4 Vic. [Colonel WARING: "What chapter?"] The Municipal Corporations' Act of Ireland, of course. The Bill actually dealt with the question of appointment, and said that that clause should be done away with and a new clause substituted, thereby showing that there was a power of appointment, though it was so limited that he did not think it had been exercised by any of the Coroners with whom he was acquainted. The next question was that of retiring allowances. That was purely a question of arrangement, but it did appear somewhat singular that the only power in the Bill was one of adding to salaries, and that in addition to adding to the income of the Coroner they were to give a retiring allowance, thus materially burdening taxation in what might be a comparatively restricted area. Personally he would much rather that the appointment and payment of a Coroner should be an Imperial matter. It was unfortunate that the question should be localised, and he would be very glad if it could be taken out of its local area and placed upon the Imperial Revenue and under Imperial control. He merely suggested this as a means of altering the present conditions, and he would give any assistance he could to further a Bill based upon reasonable lines. But the present Bill, he thought, would be 642 utterly unworkable and in many respects unjust to the constituencies in the areas in which the payments were made.
§ MR. T. HARRINGTON (Dublin, Harbour)said, the power of appointment to which the hon. Member had referred did not exist in the case of any Coroner in Ireland, except in the single case of the Coroner of the City of Dublin, and there was no doubt that that appointment was not in any way limited; entire discretion was left with the Coroner, provided a necessity for the appointment of a deputy arose. But he could not appoint a deputy at will; he could not delegate to others his duties at will; there must be some necessity for him leaving his district; he must be ill or absent for some reasonable cause. Subject to that limitation the Coroner for the City of Dublin had ample power to appoint a deputy and to appoint him under his own hand. As to the salary, the Bill provided that a fixed salary should be paid and that that salary should be based on an average of the sums received in the preceding three years. Then there was a power of appeal to the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland, not only on the part of the Coroner but of the authority who appointed him. If the parties came to terms he did not see why any difficulty, such as the hon. Gentleman had referred to, should arise. He thought, too, it would be seen that there was not now that great necessity for the appointment and control of Coroners by the Crown that existed some years ago, seeing that for years past the tendency had been for the Crown to conduct investigations quite independently of the Coroner.
§ THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,) Leeds, Centralsaid, the main objects of the Bill were, firstly, to give to Coroners the power to appoint deputies; secondly, to substitute fixed salaries for the present mode of payment, and thirdly, to give Grand Juries power to fix superannuation. To the first two of the proposals the Government raised no objection on principle. At the same time bethought it was only right to call attention to the fact that both the Government and the House were placed in considerable difficulty in judging of the details of a Bill of this kind, because it had only been obtainable a few hours. That, however, was 643 not the fault of the hon. Member who introduced it, and he only called attention to the matter to show that they must exercise some care when they come to the Committee stage. Again, they were informed by the Mover that this was a Bill promoted by the Coroners' Association. So far as he was aware, no memorial or petition had been addressed to the Government in favour of this Bill. He did not know what demand there might be for it, neither was he able to say what view the Grand Juries would take of it. He thought it only right that the Grand Juries should have time and opportunity for expressing their views on the question. ["Hear, hear !"] He noticed that the proposed power to appoint a deputy coroner extended to counties and boroughs, although the Irish Municipal Corporations Act already enabled coroners in boroughs to appoint deputies, who must be solicitors of the High Court. It was now proposed to give power to appoint any doctor, surgeon, barrister, solicitor, or justice of the peace.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that, so far as he was aware, he did not think the English Act had those restrictions, but it appeared to him to be desirable, though he gave no final opinion on the point, that when a deputy was appointed there should be some authority to check that appointment; and he would suggest, for instance, that that authority should be the Lord Chancellor of Ireland. Then as regarded the salaries to be paid to coroners. The hon. Member had called attention to the way in which those salaries had been fixed, and said it was not a Bill to increase coroners' remuneration, but it was only right to notice that the basis on which the salary was to be fixed was the average of the previous three years. That average was a minimum and not a maximum, and he should be disposed to suggest that there should be in the Bill some limit to a maximum as well as to a minimum average. Lastly, there was the question in regard to superannuation. He did not think it was a very common thing to give local bodies the power to award superannuation where the whole time of the official had 644 not been given to the office, and in this respect, also, the Bill might be amended. The hon. Member for North Belfast had also called attention to certain difficulties that might arise in the working of the Bill. It might be desirable—here again he was throwing out a suggestion rather than expressing a definite opinion—that it should be optional to the Grand Jury to adopt the Bill or not as they thought fit. [DR. KENNY: "It is so; the Bill is permissive."] The Bill was not permissive as regarded salaries, but only as regarded superannuation, and he thought it desirable to leave it optional with the Grand Juries to adopt the Bill as respected salaries also. This might get rid of difficulties in the Act in its application to some localities, such as Belfast. The conclusion he had come to was that, while the Government were not prepared to advise the House to divide against the Second Reading of the Bill, he would, nevertheless, suggest, in view of the fact that they had had very little opportunity of considering the Bill, and also that they did not know the feeling of the Grand Juries on the matter, that the Bill should be read a second time on the distinct understanding that the Committee stage should not be taken until a month had elapsed from that time. Would the hon. Member give an undertaking to that effect?
§ Bill read 2a.