Chapter II: Death and Burial6

The office of the coroner dates back for many centuries, but it has never grown to much importance, despite the blazing interest which sometimes attaches to it during the preliminaries leading up to a notorious murder trial. The coroner may be any one of a great variety of things from a barrister to a doctor, from a solicitor to a man who can just read and write. It is this variation in qualification which has perhaps helped to prompt the persons responsible for the introduction of the new Bill--The Coroners’ Law and Death Certification (Amendment) Bill.

Too little regard is paid to death by most people, beyond the matter of testamentary disposition, and even that is often neglected. Death deserves as much consideration as life itself, and to neglect its contemplation exhibits a certain want of foresight. It may be that from time immemorial it has savoured of supernatural association, but after all it is the most ordinary incident of nature to which we are subject. One has no hesitation in giving the laws relating thereto the advantage of publicity, for the simple reason that they should be no less interesting than intimate essays on the rules regulating divorce, or marriage, or any other peculiarly human question.

Some estimate of the purpose of the new Coroners’ Bill, will be found in the following _Memorandum_:

“This Bill, which does not apply to Scotland or Ireland, is intended to remove certain anomalies in the law relating to coroners and inquests, and to the certification of deaths, disclosed by reports of several committees during recent years.

“The Coroners’ Act, 1887, did little more than codify the principal features of the law and practice of coroners, which had become confused and complicated by numerous statutes dating from the reign of Edward I. In 1893 a Select Committee was appointed to ‘inquire into the sufficiency of the existing law as to the disposal of the dead, for securing an accurate record of the causes of death in all cases, and especially for detecting them where death may have been due to poison, violence, or criminal neglect.’ The report of that committee indicated the urgent necessity for reform. The Inter-Departmental Committee on Physical Deterioration which sat in 1903 also directed attention in their report (_vide_ Bill) to the dangers incidental to the defects in the law relative to the registration and certification of deaths and recommended the registration of still births.

“The law relating to coroners is not adapted to modern necessities; its administration is costly to local authorities without securing efficiency in results.

“In December, 1908, a Departmental Committee of the Home Office was appointed to inquire into the law relating to coroners and coroners’ inquests, and into the practice in coroners’ courts.

“The provisions of this Bill are intended to give effect to many of the recommendations of the Departmental Committee of 1908, and of the Death Certification Committee of 1893.

“The report of the Departmental Committee drew attention to anomalies existing in the appointment of coroners in certain ‘franchise districts’ in the qualifications required of coroners, the conditions of their appointment, the mode of their remuneration, the provision of deputies, the areas of jurisdiction, etc.

“The law does not at present contemplate inquiry by a coroner except in view of a subsequent formal inquest, nor can he order a _post mortem_ examination except in a case of inquest. The coroner’s officer, to whom important duties are confided, is an official unknown to the law. The viewing of the body by the jury is still compulsory, though no longer deemed necessary in all cases. Attention was also directed by the Committee of 1908 to the need for better provision in regard to skilled medical investigators and to the remuneration of medical witnesses.

“The Departmental Committee recall the findings of the Select Committee on Death Certification of 1893, which have not hitherto been the subject of legislation, as bearing directly on the functions of the coroner. Thus at present the law does not require a certificate of death to _certify as to the fact of death_,[7] or as to the identity of the deceased, but merely the cause of death. They further state that ‘it is no fault of the law if premature burials do not take place. _The present law of death certification offers every opportunity for premature burial and every facility for concealment of crime._’”[7]

With allusion to premature burial and concealment of crime, the _Memorandum_ attached to the new Bill comes to an end. The Bill itself settles down to deal with “Coroners.”