The Sun. — 1860-07-18 (London, England)

BILL. Mr. COBBETT, in moving the second reading of this bill, said that he hoped hon. members would accede to his proposition, and also allow the bill to be committed pro forma, when he would move some amendments. The committee who had sat on this question recommended that coroners should be paid by salary instead of fees, for which his bill provided. The chief circumstance which had prompted him to bring forward this question was the great increase of the crime of infanticide, which he considered the inquisition of a coroner was calculated to arrest. He had seen a great deal of the effects produced by the coroners' court in checking other descriptions of murder. He considered that a coroner and his jury were the best possible courts from their knowledge of the locality where a murder was committed ; and he believed their abolition would be a great injury, and that would be the result if other counties followed the practice of Durham and other places. The magistrates in these latter counties had refused coroners their fees on the ground of the in-1 crease in the number of inquests of late years. But this ' increase did not arise from malversation of funds or any misconduct on the part of coroners, but entirely to acts of legislation. In 1836 an act was passed giving coroners power to hold post-mortem examinations, which had been the means of bringing to light some of the foulest murders that had ever been committed. The Legislature had also passed the Inquisition Act, and the coroner was obliged to pay the surgeon who inspected a dead body 12 25.; a surgeon who attended as witness, .C 1 Is. ; and consequently his expenses were increased. Having mentioned several cases of death of a suspicious character in which coroners refused to hold inquests because they had no security of receiving their fees, he concluded by again appealing to the house to read the bill a second time.  Mr. DEEDES seconded the motion, but expected that there would be some amendments agreed to in committee. Sir G. LEWIS said that all persons were agreed that the disputes between magistrates and coroners in reference to the question should receive a satisfactory solution. Having adverted to his own bill on the subject by which he proposed that matters of differences should be adjudicated on by the Court of Queen's Bench, he said the present bill was in accordance with the recommendation of the Select Committee to whom the question had been referred. He did certainly entertain some doubts as to the advantages that would accrue from the payment of coroners by salaries. However, he had no objection to the bill being passed provided it was made harmonious with the whole system, and he thought some power should be given to the Crown to discharge a coroner when unfitted for, or neglectful of, his duties. He considered also that the election of coroners should be transferred from the freeholders to the Lord-Lieutenants of counties.  Lord H. VANE supported the bill, but objected to the change in the parties electing coroners.  Mi.: E. JAMES entertained the stone opinion as the noble lord, but had no objection to the Lord Chancellor having power to remove an incompetent coroner. Mr PHILIPS and Mr. FARRER expressed themselves to the same effect.  Mr. W. SMITH also objected to the transfer of authority in the election of coroners, but he admitted that the present system required amendment, as it enabled many fictitious votes to be recorded, and the election could only be set aside by a quo warranto of the Court of Queen's Bench. They would have a very large constituency if they authorised freeholders on the Parliamentary register to elect a coroner, which would only exclude the 40s. freeholders.  After a few words from Mr. J. Locke, Dr. Brady, Sir W. Miles, Captain Stewart, Mr. Ridley, and Mr. Humberstone, the bill was read a second time, and committed pro forma. The house then resumed.,  The order for the second reading of this bill was discharged.