Lord Broughammoved the second reading of the Coroners' Bill.
The Marquess of Salisburyobjected to the imposition of any new charge upon the county rates. He thought that coroners were already sufficiently well paid, and that this fact was proved by the anxiety to secure the place which was always exhibited on the occurrence of a vacancy. In Middlesex, he was informed that the coroner had received no less than 1,118l. during one year, a sum which he thought ample. He objected to the bill and moved that it be read a second time that day six months.
§ Lord Beaumontthought that there was no reason for increasing the remuneration of coroners, at a time when the establishment of railroads afforded them increased facilities for travelling. It would be injudicious he must also say, to increase the charges on the county rates when the impositions on land were already so ruinous.
§ Lord Wharncliffethought that the bill could only be supported on the ground that coroners were not sufficiently paid. If such were not the case, why was the bill introduced? Gentlemen of the greatest respectability were always anxious to obtain the office, and he thought that no reason existed for any increased payment to them. He agreed that there were parts of this bill, that especially which prevented inquisitions from being quashed on points of form, to which he was prepared to give his assent; but as that portion was tacked to those clauses which gave the coroners increased payments, he must oppose the whole bill.
Lord Campbellthought, that the mere fact of an increased charge being imposed upon the county rate by this bill afforded no argument against it, provided the bill itself appeared to be useful, and coroners were inadequately paid. He confessed that the instance referred to by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Sailisbury) proved, in his opinion, how inadequate the remuneration of coroners was. The coroner for Middlesex had received only 1,118l., which included mileage. That surely was not sufficient remuneration to a gentleman who devoted the whole of his time to the duties of so responsible an office. He hoped that their Lordships would not sanction a system by which they put up judicial offices to a sort of Dutch auction, but would look rather to obtain competent men, than to secure a low rate of salary.
Lord Broughamreplied. The case of the coroner for Middlesex made out the case, and showed the necessity for this bill. Of the 1,118l. paid to that officer, 200l. were for mileage, and taking this at 4½d. per mile (for that was the rate of payment, 9d. per mile being allowed only one way on his journeys), it showed that be must have travelled from 12,000 to 13,000 miles in the course of the year. The effect of this bill would only be to replace the law as it stood antecedently to 1818. Before that time it was always understood that the coroner was paid 9d. per mile out and home, but then a decision of the Court of Queen's Bench had altered the interpretation of the law. He called upon the Mouse to give their assent to the bill.
§ Their Lordships divided on the question, that the word "now," stand part of the question. Contents 7; Not Contents 31: Majority 24.
| List of the CONTENTS. | |
| The Lord Chancellor | Viscount Duncannon |
| Maq. of Clanricarde | Lord Brougham |
| The Earl of Auckland | Lord Campbell |
| The Earl Fortescue |
Bill read a second time.
§ Bill put off.