HL Deb 19 July 1844 vol 76 cc1072-3
The Duke of Richmond

, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said that though he had undertaken its management, there was a Clause in it which he meant to vote against in Committee. The Clause related to the travelling allowance for Coroners. Now that travelling had become so much cheaper in consequence of railroads, he could not see any ground for an increase of mileage to Coroners. If Parliament were of opinion that Coroners were not sufficiently remunerated, let them pay the necessary amount out of the Consolidated Fund. When he looked at the great increase which had lately taken place in the county rates, he objected to this additional charge being imposed upon them.

Lord Beaumont

said, that his objection to the Bill rested chiefly on the Clause alluded to by the noble Duke. It was his intention to have moved, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, but as the noble Duke had given notice of his intention to move the erasure of the Clause in question, he had not now the same grounds for opposing the measure. After the increase which had been made to the county rates, he did think it was monstrous to propose an increase of this kind. He would like to know whether the expulsion of the Clause could be effected without defeating altogether the Bill, (it being a sort of money clause) for he would rather that the Bill should be thrown out altogether than that it should pass with such a Clause.

The Duke of Richmond

could not answer the question of the noble Lord. For his own part, he should certainly move the expulsion of the Clause, because he would prefer that the Bill should not be received elsewhere than that it should be passed with this Clause. Let the other House throw out the Bill if they should think fit, or let them send up another Bill without this Clause.

Lord Beaumont

expressed himself satisfied with the course proposed to be taken by the noble Duke.

The Lord Chancellor

had no doubt that the omission of the Clause would cause the loss of the Bill. In his opinion it was one of those cases which the other House would consider as affecting its privileges.

The Marquess of Normanby

would not say that he would vote for the expulsion of the Clause, for he did not know upon what ground the addition to the mileage rested; but clearly the noble Lord had put his objection upon grounds which did not apply. His noble Friend said, that travelling was much cheaper now than it was formerly, because of the railroads. Undoubtedly it was so by railroad, to those who had need to transfer themselves over 200 or 300 miles in a journey; but he doubted whether it would be cheaper to Coroners, who had to travel not merely from one railroad station to another, but from one part of the country to another by the same mode of conveyance as formerly. He would, therefore, reserve his opinion of the Clause in question until he had further considered the matter.

Lord Wharncliffe

did not think that there would be any difficulty if they should throw out the Clause, whatever there might be in merely amending it.

Bill read a second time, to be committed on Monday.

House adjourned.