CORONERS' DEPUTIES BILL. (Hansard, 23 June 1892)

§ LORD HERSCHELL
My Lords, this Bill proposes that— Every coroner in a county or borough shall appoint, by writing under his hand, a fit person, approved by the Lord Chancellor, not being an alderman or councillor of the Council I who appointed the coroner, to be his deputy. To the appointment of a deputy in this way I take no objection; the only point that I raise is as to the authority that is to approve the appointment. It appears to me that, where the Council of a borough or county make the appointment of the principal, the Coroner himself, it would be better that they should approve of the deputy, rather than that the Lord Chancellor should. My Lords, if you trust them to appoint the principal, you can surely trust them to appoint the deputy; and I do not see any reason for bringing the Lord Chancellor into the matter at all. Objection is taken to this by some of the Councils, 1782 and I think reasonably. One objection which they take is that if the Deputy Coroner comes to be an applicant afterwards for the office of Coroner, the fact that he has been so approved may be raised and alleged as a reason for appointing him in the place of any others who are competitors with him. And I think the principle is an unsound one. I think that the person who appoints should be the person to approve the appointment of the deputy. I shall therefore move, as an Amendment, to leave out the words "Lord Chancellor" and insert the words "Council who have appointed the Coroner"; and then there is a consequential Amendment, to leave out the word "the" and insert the word "such."

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
My Lords, my noble and learned Friend was good enough to call my attention to this point the other day. I am sorry- to say that at that time I did not know anything of the history of the Lull; but I understand now that it was originally a Bill introduced by a private Member, and afterwards taken charge of by the Government. With regard to the Amendment that my noble and learned Friend has moved, I confess that I do not regard it as of great importance one way or the other; but I have ascertained that this matter was the subject of Debate in the House of Commons, and a Division was taken upon it; and I should be disposed to leave the Bill as it is, and not to accept the Amendment. The reason, understand, that was urged for the Amendment, was that where the Council of a borough appoints the Coroner, there is no such provision. The freeholders, as your Lordships are aware, originally had the appointment of the Coroner, until, under the Local Government Bill, the appointment was given to the County Councils. The question, as I understand it, in the House of Commons, was whether there should be a uniformity in practice, both in the counties and boroughs, and as to 1783 that whether the counties should conform to the practice in the boroughs, or whether the boroughs should conform to the practice in the counties; and it was determined that the approval should be by the Lord Chancellor. My Lords, I am sure the Lord Chancellor, either the present or any future holder of the office, is not anxious to increase the number of his responsibilities; but I think the objection taken by my noble and learned Friend is not a very sound one. I do not think that making the appointment subject to approval means a veto; it is not that the Lord Chancellor intervenes in the question of an absolute preference for this or that particular officer; it is that, if there is any objection to him, the Lord Chancellor ma}r exercise a veto. The words are "with the approval," I am aware; but one knows what that means; that is practically giving a veto if there is any objection. And, my Lords, inasmuch as the Coroner is a judicial person, I think, if any veto is to be exercised, it should be exercised by some person entrusted with judicial powers, and not a popular body. I therefore must say that I am not able to accept the Amendment of my noble and learned Friend.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
My Lords, I am rather surprised to hear the argument of my noble and learned Friend. It is no doubt a fair mode of putting the case to say that an officer, who is a quasi judicial officer, should be appointed by a judicial person.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
I did not say appointed.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
That his appointment should be approved,—that argument is worthy of consideration. But in this case I cannot see what force there is in it, because Parliament has decided that, not only the deputy, but the principal officer, who is a judicial, or quasi judicial, officer, shall be appointed by the Council; therefore the matter is decided in the very teeth of the principle which the noble and learned Lord wishes to apply to this case. I have always heard that it was a principle that the greater included the less; but in the present case the Lord Chancellor seems to think that the less is of more importance than the greater, because he 1784 argues that in the case merely of appointing a deputy you want the con firmation of a high law officer, and not in the case of the Coroner him self. I see no object in the Lord Chancellor confirming in this case; he is less able to judge whether the deputy is a fit person than the County Council, because he cannot know the qualifications of the different people in the county likely to fill the office so well as the Council. There fore, why should we go out of our way to give to the Lord Chancellor a troublesome duty, which is not in the slightest degree necessary, and to take away from the counties that which seems an obvious part of their business; and why we should put this slight upon them I am unable to conceive.

§ LORD HERSCHELL
My Lords, my noble and learned Friend is under a misapprehension, I think, in one respect. He said that there was a discussion in the other House on this point.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
So I was told.

§ LORD HERSCHELL
But I am told that the proposition for the insertion of "the Lord Chancellor," and insisting upon it, came from the Government, and, as I am further told, under the impression that the Lord Chancellor insisted upon it. So far as the Home Office were concerned, I am told that they were quite prepared to put it in the way I suggest, but they said they could not, because the Lord Chancellor insisted that the appointment should have his approval. Therefore I do not think it would be found that there would be the slightest difficulty in the other House in accepting my Amendment.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
All I can say is that the Lord Chancellor never heard of it till my noble and learned Friend was good enough to call my attention to the fact. But if it is the fact that the Government supported it in the other House, I must say at once that, without consulting them, I cannot express their opinion upon the point.

§ LORD HERSCHELL
Perhaps if I put the Amendment off till the Third Reading, my noble and learned Friend 1785 would inquire if that is so, and then, if there is no objection, except the supposed objection from himself, perhaps we might amend the clause at that time.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
I have no objection to put it off for the Third Reading, and in the meantime I will inquire. Speaking for myself, I must say that I regard with very great jealousy Bills being introduced by private Members and afterwards adopted by the Government without sufficient knowledge.