The Sun.
London, England, 1841-05-06 00:00:00

of a fine for non-attendance, as in tbat case there would be
a power of appeal, but he could not agree to the ame►id-
ment.

Mr. PAKINGTON said he would recommend his
Hon. Friend to withdraw his amendment,
Sand instead of it
to raise the fine for nos-attendance from 40s. to 6/.
Mr. \YAK LE Y said he believed that coroners had
power to compel a. tendanc.s, if they had sufficient energy
of mind to exercise it; but as lawyers of repute had given
an opinion to the contrary, be approved of the proposal of
the Hon. Member for Droitsvicb. Ile objected to the
two last lines in the clause, which provided that the fine
imposed by the coroner might be appealed against at the
Quarter Sessi ms. If the coroners were enabled to inlet
a fine, the magistrates ought not to have the power.of remit-
ting it. The provisions of 6 George IY. had determined the
manner in which those fines should be enforced ; they were
similar to those in the clause, except that there was no
such proviso in that Act as the one to which he objected.
He beseeched the House not to undermine the authority
of the coroner by consenting to any such proviso.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL thought that every-
thing should be done that could be done to enforce the
attendance of witnesses in cases of murder. He had no
doubt but that the coroner already possessed sufficient
poser for that purpose, and he should rather leave the law
as it was without imposing any fine, for to talk of fining
or imprisoning a witness for a month who refused to give
evidence in a case of murder would bear no comparison
with the motives actuating persons to abstain from giving
evidence.—( Hear, hear.) He was not prepared
to state ail it means the coroner possessed for en-
forcir g attendance, but he was satisfied that
such:power did exist, and he thought it better to leave
the law as it was thin to fiz a maximum of puni,Liment
for non-attendance by this Bill.
Mr. GODSON said the coroner could indict a per-
son for refusing to give evidence, and he thought by im-
posing a fine it would be taking away that remedy. It
would be better to leave the law as it was.
Sir CHARLES BURRELL hoped that the Member
for Finsbury would explain in what this power consisted
of enforcing attendance.
Mr. WA KL E Y said if be found a witness was contu-
macious he should issue a warrant for hia apprehension,
and if when he came before the Court he should be in
contempt he should have no hesitation in committing him
at once, without waiting for an indictment.
Mr. JERVIS would have no hesitation in bringing
an action against a coroner who should so commit him

for contempt.—.(A laugh.) The question as to the
power of a coroner was of considerable doubt. There
was nothing new in giving the Quarter Sessions the power
of rrmittii g 6ces.
Mr. WAKLE Y would test the accuracy of the posi-
tion which he bad taken in the person of the Hon. and
Learned Member, if he would give him the opportunity.
If a party were in contempt before the coroner, the co-
roner, as the judge of his court, had the power of com-
mitting him.
Mr. GODSON thought it would be better to strike
the word " witness" out of the clause, and if that were
done the clause would 1)2 a most useful one.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL moved that the
clause be postponed. If the coroner had not the power
of sending for and compelling the attendance of witnesses,
it was one be ought to have by law, but he was fully of opi-
nion be already enjoyed it.
The clause was postponed.
Clause 15 was agreed to.
On clause 16 being proposed, which gave the power to
the coroner to appoint a deputy, on obtaining the assent
and certificate of two Justices o, the Peace,
Lord G. SOMERSET objected to the words, "being
a barrister or attorney." He moved that these words be
omitted.

Mr. M'LEAN did not see shy a coroner should not
have the uncontrolled power of appointing his deputy, on
being made responsible for the deputy's acts.
Mr. GODSON hoped the clause would not be amen-
ded at all, but omitted. Our liberties had been secured
by the non-appointment of any deputy to a judicial office
more than by anythiog else. Why? if any of the Judges
could not appoint a deputy, why should a Coroner ? If
he could not perform his duties he ought to resign.
Mr. WAKLEY was decidedly opposed to the amend-
ment of the Hon. and Learned Member for Oxford. The
question was, would they place county coroners in the po.
sition in which coroners fur boroughs mere, b r not. The
commencement of the clause stated that in case of ill-
ness or other unavoidable absence, the coroner might be
empowered," &c. &c. The coroners objected to the
word " unavoidable" being intro,iuced into the new clause.
It had given rise to great difficulties hitherto, and had
often defeated the ends of justice.
Mr. PAKINGTON suggested that he would withdraw '
the clause altogeth r, arid that his Hon. and Learned
Friend could give notice of a clause to be brought up on
the. Report.
Mr. MACLEAN agreed to that proposition.
Mr. WAKLEY adverted to the propriety of county
coroners being allowed to appoint deputies in such cases
as when twelve inquests occurred in one day, as happened
on one occasion in his (Mr. Wakley's) district, or where
inquests were to be held at places remote from each other.
.Ir. Gell, the coroner for the City of Westminster, ap-
pointed Mr. H ggs as deputy, for his district, and Mr.
Higgs, who was coroner in thief for the Duchy of Lan-
caster, also appointed a deputy for his disirict.
Colonel SIBTHORP said he thought that a coroner,
who had so many duties to attend to as the Hon. Member
fir Finsbury, ought not to have a scat in that House.
Mr. GODSON said the Hon. Member for Finsbury
had shown good ground why the freeholders of Middlesex
should petition for the appointment of fife or six additional
coroners. He thought allowing the coroner to appoint a
deputy would lead to abuse, and that be should either per-
form iht, duty himself or resign the office.
Lcrd GRANVILLE SOMERSET said he would
wi.hdraw the moti,o.

Sir C. BROOKE VERE objtcted to this clause bring
withdrawn.

Mr. PDX MA ULE thought the coroner should be
able to appoint a deputy in case of illness, cr other such
contingency, but not to the extent proposed by the Hon.
Member for Fin bury. He ( Mr. F. Maule) would pro-
pose to amend the clause by moving to omit the proviso.
After a very desu tory discussion, in which Lord Gran-
vil'e Somerset, Mr. Wakley, Mr. F. Maule, and several
other Members took part, the Committee divided.
llfe numbers were—
For the clause .

Against the clause
Majority against the clause —3
The clause was consequently struck out.
Clauses 17, 18, 19, and 20, were agreed to without any
division.

On clause 21 being put,
Captain HAMILTON moved that the travelling allow-
ance should be raised from 9d. to 18d., and not merely
to a shilling as proposed by the clause. lie did not think
that 18d. would be too great an allowance, considering
that coroners had to bear the expenses of post-borses.
Mr. GRANTLEY BERKELEY secondedtheamend-
ment.

Mr. GISBORNE was opposed to any attempt at
raising the mileage from 9d., which was the sum now
allowed. The expenses of coroners were already a great
burden en the county charges.
Lord G. SOMERSET said that a shilling would be
amply sufficient as an allowance to the coroners.
Lord DUNGANNON was in favour of the allowance
of IR. 6d. par mile.
Mr. F. MAU LE said that if the coroner wes to have
1. 6d. per mile, he should propose that that sum be paid
only for any distance beyond two miles from his
residence. —( Hear, hear.) place of
Mr. GODSON concurred in these views.
Sir R. INGLIS was opposed to any increase.
Mr. CHARLES DOUGLAS supported the suges-
tion of the Hon. Under Secretary. It went fully to meet
the wishes of the coronets with whom be had consulted.
Mr. W A KLEY was at a loss to understand what
the Hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford meant by
describing the office as one of professional advan-
tage. He ( Mr. Wakley) was a medical man.
Did the Hon. Member imagine be could pre-
scribe for the dead, or that he was to dis-
sect them ?—( A laugh.) Whenever an office was
in the gift of the Crown. they always heard from.
b th sides of the House of the necessity of paying the
officers well to secure efficient talent, but the rnon.eot they
came to c.insider the amount cf remuneration to be paid
to an 4 flicar appointed by the people, they became most
parsimoeious.—( Cries of •‘ Oh, oh I") It v, as the truth, and
it vsa, because the truth was painful to them that they
exclaimed against it. Toe coroner was the most ill- paic
officer in the hir gdotn. By giving only this inefficient
rate of mileage, taey were giving the coroner a direct
interest to neglect his duty, in cases of deaths from ne-
glect occurring at a distance from his residence, and
w. re impairing the efficacy of the office. He trusted that
the coroners would receive, in the other House of Parlia-
ment, that justice which was denied them here.
Mr. EVANS had never heard of an instance in which
an individual had complained of a coroner not perform-
ing his duty ; but he had heard many instances of
coroners holding useless inquests. The present
remuneration had been found sufficient to secure a choice
of competent persons for the situation, and he thought Lb*
proposition
of the Hon. Member for Worcesters Lire was a
very liberal one.
Captain HAMILTON found so many Members wero
in favour of the Is. 6d. a mile that be should certainly
press his amendment to a division.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw. The Com-
mitte divided, when there appeared—

Ayes 35
Noes 6B
Majority
During our absence from the gallery it was understood
that an amendment was proposed to the effect that is. 6d.
should be the amount of mileage paid to coroners. The
Committee divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment 5B
Against it 43
Majority ....
Mr. FOX M AUL E moved to add at end of the clause,
" Pio‘iied always that no charge for mileage shall be
n ade fltir any distance within two miles of the usual place
of aLode of such coroners."

Godson, M•. Wakley, and Mr. Pakington opposed
the motion.
Mr. 'MINES thought it would be better to insert the
word " additional" before " charge for mileage."
Mr. FOX M A ULE said Le had no objection to the
insertion of the word proposed by his Hoo. Friend behind
him.
The Committee then divided, when the numbers were—
For the clause 43
Against it . 33
Majority
The CHAIRMAN reported progress, and obtained leave
to sit again.
The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of,
and the House adjourned at Hal'-past One o'clock.
S p-

-T. _ ETERSBURGH, APRIL 24.—Thetiourna/
de St. Petersburah of this date contaihs the certmonies to
be observJd on ine marriage if the Grand Duke A.exan-
dtr and the Princess Mary, which is fixed for the 28th
cf this montb.—Excharge on London, 23d April, 38
11-16,