, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, it was identical with the one which passed a second reading last Session, and which enacted that coroners should be paid by salaries and not by fees. It might be described as a measure for improving the administration of justice in Ireland and raising the condition of the coroners in that country, which was at present unfair to themselves and injurious to the public interests. They were at present paid by fees instead of salaries, while in England the coroners had, since 1860, been paid by salaries in the place of fees. The coroners of Ireland were, in fact, the only judicial persons who were at the present moment paid by fees; and, as it might be said that they held inquests unnecessarily for the sake of the fees, they wished to be protected against such an imputation. The Select Committee who sat on the Grand Jury Laws in 1868 recommended that the coroners should be paid in future by salaries upon an average of the duties they had performed for the last five years. The Irish coroners were willing that this recommendation should be carried out, but not upon the basis of the present miserable scale of payment. The fee for an inquest in Ireland was only £1 10s., although in many cases the coroner had to travel long distances, and although the inquest might be protracted over one, two, or three days. Living was more expensive than it was when these fees were originally fixed, and the keep of horses had also greatly risen. It was therefore proposed that in fixing the payment by salaries the expense of holding the inquests during the last five years should be taken at £2 10s., instead of £1 10s., together with the average of all allowances actually received by each coroner during the same period. That would give each Irish coroner, on an average, a salary of £83, and not more than £100 in any case, which was not unreasonably high, considering that the English coroners received, on an average, from £200 to £500 a-year, and that the Middlesex coroner received £2,000 a-year. If there were any reason to complain of inefficiency on the part of coroners in Ireland it must be attributed more to the law than to themselves, for there was now no qualification required for the office—anybody might, in fact, fill it. He therefore proposed that magistrates might be coroners, as they could not always obtain the assistance of professional men, and accordingly after the passing of the Act no person was to be appointed to the position unless duly qualified to practise medicine or surgery and registered under the Medical Act, a barrister-at-law, a solicitor or attorney, or a justice of the peace of five years' standing. The Bill further provided for the production of prisoners on remand, and that the election of a coroner should be concluded in one day, and not, as at present, continued for two days. He believed that this measure would tend to improve the administration of justice in Ireland by raising the condition of coroners, on whom a great responsibility was cast in elucidating the truth and administering the law. The Bill gave coroners power to appoint deputies, a privilege which existed in the boroughs of Ireland and in all the districts of England; but he thought coroners should not be Government officers, as they had sometimes to decide questions which arose between the Crown and the subject. It also proposed to grant superannuation, because men remained in the office longer than they could properly perform the duties of it; but it would be limited to two-thirds of the salary when the coroner had attained 70 years of age, and be paid only after 20 years' service in the office. They could, however, claim such superannuation earlier if they were, according to satisfactory medical testimony, incapacitated by reason of infirmity or illness. He believed the measure was almost universally approved by the Irish Members, and he trusted the Government would allow it to be read a second time, on the understanding that in Committee whatever Amendments were suggested would be fully considered and most likely carried out.

seconded the Motion, expressing a hope that the measure would meet with a better fate than that which befel a similar Bill introduced last year. Should the Government wish to oppose the Bill, he hoped they would defer doing so until it was in Committee.

differed in many respects as to his view of the Bill from the two hon. Gentlemen who preceded him. He did not rise for the purpose of moving the rejection of the second reading; but he believed that a considerable number of the Irish Members were either not aware of the provisions of the Bill or were satisfied that no necessity existed for its enactment. Instead of being a Bill for the better administration of justice, the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Vance) would have more correctly described it as a Bill for doubling or trebling the salaries of the coroners in Ireland. He confessed he was one of those who thought that in the present day the coroners might be dispensed with altogether, and assuredly if such an institution did not now exist no one would think of establishing it. The whole strength of the argument in favour of this office lay in its antiquity, and one of the chief features connected with this antiquity was that of unrestrained popular election. Coroners were elected by the ratepayers of the county, a popular body, very much as seats in that House were filled up, not on account of particular fitness for the duty, but by reason of some popular motive, and the choice of the electors was not confined, as was proposed in this Bill, to doctors, lawyers, or retired magistrates. He doubted much whether these technical qualifications would improve the state of things, and they seemed to him inconsistent with the idea of free popular election, which more generally turned upon questions as to a man's politics—whether, for instance, he was a Home Ruler or an Orangeman—rather than upon his technical fitness. His experience did not lead him to the belief that every man who was called to the Bar really knew law, and he doubted whether a qualification which was possessed by every briefless barrister would add to the strength of the office—so long, at least, as the election depended upon politics. If the hon. Member for Armagh allowed the law to remain as it was, and did not ask to have it amended, no person, perhaps, would stand up to propose the abolition of the office; but he objected to being asked to give local bodies the power of doubling or trebling, or it might be quadrupling by way of fixed salary, the rate of remuneration which had been paid for so long a period. In country districts he considered that the duties of coroner could very well be undertaken by the resident magistrates, or by two justices of the peace, who now were empowered to act in the absence of the coroner. His main objection to the Bill was the proposed increase of remuneration, and consequent increase in the rates. At present, no coroner could under any circumstance receive, no matter what amount of work he performed, or how many inquests he held, more than £100 a-year; but under the 4th clause of the hon. Member's Bill the Grand Jury were called upon to sanction a minimum increase by 75 percent of each coroner's remuneration, and as much more as they liked. There was really no restriction placed on their liberality. The first Grand Jury, too, that was empannelled after the passing of the Act was to settle the salary for ever in each respective county. Besides these, he had other very strong objections to the details of the Bill, which were very clumsily drawn out; and especially he considered that it would be very objectionable to reward a coroner, who had perhaps during the last five years been holding many unnecessary inquests, by fixing his salary at a higher figure than the salary of the coroner who had conscientiously done his duty.

hoped that the Bill would be read a second time without a division, although there, no doubt, were matters in it which would require much consideration in Committee. He did not agree that the office of coroner should be abolished. It was an office of great antiquity, and was admirably adapted for the duties it had to perform, and he doubted if it would be possible to create a new officer exhibiting the same dignity and independence as that apportioned to the office of coroner. Although in Scotland the functions of coroner were discharged by the Procurator Fiscal, who was a most important officer, yet he certainly thought that it would be unsatisfactory to mix up the duties of stipendiary magistrate and coroner—unsatisfactory as regarded the duties of both of those offices. The matter should receive very careful and serious attention before any change was made in the office of coroner. The coroner was elected by the freeholders, and he was the representative of the people by virtue of the Queen's writ. As to the qualification for the office, anyone might be elected; but it was always supposed that no one would be chosen who was not fit for the office. The position of coroners in Ireland would be somewhat raised by this Bill, and it was a mistake, he considered, to make their salaries depend upon the number of inquests held in a given number of years, for the number of inquests did not depend upon the coroner himself, but upon mere accident; one year there might be a large number of accidental deaths in a certain district, whilst during the next year there were none at all. The salaries should be paid on the principle of a sufficient salary, with a view to securing the services of respectable, independent men, suitable for the performance of the duties of the office. He trusted his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General for Ireland, when the Bill went into Committee, would consider, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, what salary was likely to secure an efficient person. On the whole, he (Sir George Bowyer) considered the Bill as one which deserved to be read a second time.

expressed his general concurrence in the views expressed by the hon. Member for Roscommon (The O'Conor Don). He did not understand the hon. Member to propose the abolition of the office of coroner; but the question, whether the duties of the office might not be quite as efficiently performed by other persons, was at least worth consideration, and many reasons might be adduced in its favour. It was said that in Scotland, where there were no coroners, the same functions were discharged by the Procurators Fiscal. But we had, besides coroners, officers analogous to the Scotch Procurators Fiscal. In Ireland there were, in every county, local sessional Crown prosecutors, who might well discharge some of the functions now discharged by coroners. There were also for each county, barristers, who on representing the Attorney General conducted all important Crown prosecutions at the assizes; and, besides, there were the stipendiary and other magistrates. It could hardly, therefore, be contended there was not in Ireland a staff of other officials quite equal to the discharge of the coroners' duties. "With respect to the proposal in the Bill to allow coroners the power of appointing deputies, he believed such a course would be very inexpedient. The result would simply be absentee coroners and deputies doing the work for one-fourth of the salary, just as in the case of the Clerks of the Peace at present. Again, as to the proposal to fix and provide an increased salary to the office, it should be recollected the coroners were paid out of the county cess, which fell upon the farmers, and they might justly feel aggrieved by any appreciable increase to that impost. However, all he asked for was full consideration of the question. He did not oppose the second reading of the Bill; but as Notice of a Motion had been given to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, it occurred to him that this would be a desirable course to pursue, so as to have not only a careful examination of the several clauses, but also an inquiry into the larger question as to whether the office should be permanently continued.

said, the subject was of importance not only to the part of the United Kingdom to which it specially referred, but also to the other parts where the office of coroner had been in full operation for many hundreds of years, and was now in operation with the general approval of the country. There could not be a doubt that complete satisfaction was given in the performance of their duties by the very learned and other persons who were holding the ancient and dignified office of coroner in the country; and any proposition to abolish the office would be looked upon as revolutionary, though a coroner might occasionally make some observations which were not befitting his office. He could quite understand that in Ireland there might be objections as to the way in which coroners were appointed and paid, and as to the necessity of raising the qualifications of persons who were candidates for the office, but he could not understand how those objections should be made reasons for abolishing the office itself. He believed that in Ireland, as in England, it would be impossible to carry on the administration of justice efficiently without Coroners' Courts. Of course, they heard complaints from time to time of the proceedings in those Courts. The decisions of the juries and of the coroners were called in question, but that was only what happened with another ancient institution—trial by jury. They often heard complaints of ignorant or perverse verdicts, but no one proposed, therefore, to abolish trial by jury. As to the mode of electing coroners, it had been said that candidates appealed to political feeling, and that in many cases they succeeded in obtaining the office in consequence of party excitement or influence. That might be regretted; but he believed that it had not been proved that persons so elected had allowed party feelings to influence them in the discharge of their duties. If such misconduct were proved it would be in the power of the proper authority to remove the offender. It had been suggested that the public prosecutors in Ireland might act as substitutes for coroners; but the duty of a public prosecutor was to prosecute, and he could not do that until there was a person to be prosecuted. The inquiry of the coroner into the cause of death was to find, if necessary, who that person was. It was one thing to point to a person as being guilty and another to conduct a legal trial, with a view of fixing that guilt, and securing condign punishment; and therefore it was most important that they should not have the duties of a prosecutor mixed up with those of a coroner, which involved very often the admission of evidence that would not be allowed in a criminal investigation. He should vote for the second reading of the Bill, though there were some of its four leading provisions which, he thought, might be amended in Committee. It proposed that elections should not extend over one day. This shortening of time was adopted for the saving of expense, and was in the direction of all modern legislation. He also thought that payment by salaries instead of by fees would be an improvement; but as it had been objected that a coroner who had held many inquests might thereby be awarded a higher salary than another less active, but not less efficient, who had held fewer inquests, he would suggest that that objection might be met by spreading the average amount of fees over a larger number of years than those named. The existing law as to qualification it was proposed to repeal, and to secure, as far as possible, a qualification which would lead to efficient persons being elected. In Committee he should be quite ready to support alteration in the proposed qualifications. The other provisions of interest had reference to the payment of witnesses and the superannuation of coroners; and with regard to those, he should be prepared to receive any reasonable proposition on the matter. In conclusion, he would express a hope that the Bill would receive a second reading.

said, as his name was on the back of the Bill, he wished to say a few words as to the reasons which induced him to give it his support. One of the reasons which he thought showed the necessity for amending the present law was the fact that a coroner might have a person before him charged with committing murder, and at the close of the first day's proceedings, before the jury had arrived at their verdict, the prisoner might be committed to the county gaol for safe keeping. Next day, when the jury met again, the production of the prisoner might be refused. The hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don) objected to the use of party symbols in the election of coroners; but it was not shown that this had any other effect than proving that the candidates were in harmony with the political feelings of those among whom they lived, not that it would injuriously or improperly affect the discharge of their official duties. He ventured to say that after the discussion which had taken place, and the expression of public opinion by English Members, no hon. Member would propose to abolish the office of coroner. The only question, therefore, was whether the existing law required amendment or not. He thought it was utterly impossible to uphold the present state of things, and that the Government would do what was wise and prudent in fixing the salary of the coroner. The Bill contained provi- sions for improving the machinery of the Coroners' Courts, especially with respect to the expenses of the coroners in attending inquests and the fees to medical men for attendance and post-mortem examinations. The Bill was, perhaps, not free from objections in some of its details, but those objections could be dealt with best in Committee, and it was important that such a momentous matter should be settled satisfactorily. He thought that it would be cruel now to disappoint the expectations raised in the bosoms of Irish coroners by preceding Governments.

hoped the second reading of the Bill would be agreed to. He approved of its provisions on the whole. It would be a great mistake to suppose that the abolition of the office of coroner would be popular with any class of the people of Ireland. It would be regarded as a great change upon the ancient Constitution of the country to which they were deeply attached. The administration of justice by an independent and popularly elected officer gave them a feeling of confidence, which would be greatly weakened by the abolition of the office.

supported the second reading, and said, that in Committee he should propose that the election of coroner should be by ballot.

said, the names of the hon. Members on the back of the Bill showed that the question was not a Party one. As to the appointment of deputies being open to abuse, that might be prevented by giving the Lord Chief Justice power to revoke such appointment.

was in favour of the office being maintained; but, at the same time, approved of the fixing of higher qualifications on the part of candidates. Those specified in the Bill were an improvement on the present law.

said, that both in England and in Ireland the elementary and primary idea of Coroners' Courts had been widely departed from. The Coroners' Court was established for the simple purpose of inquiring into the cause of death, and it was for the legal Courts to determine the question of guilt or innocence; but in consequence of the Coroners' Courts having gone beyond their original jurisdiction and inquired into all sorts of irrelevant issues, there had been within the last 20 years inquests extending over days, and even weeks. He therefore desired that a clause in the measure should clearly indicate that the proper province of the coroner was an inquiry as to how death had occurred and that investigations as to who, if any, was guilty ought to be left to the Criminal Courts. He thought this Bill might be read a second time, because it introduced several improvements in the existing law. The payment of a salary instead of fees, and the fixing of qualifications higher than those of ordinary outsiders, were two of those improvements; and further, he agreed with the principle under which prisoners had a right to be present at an inquest. On the other hand, there were some objectionable provisions which would have to be carefully considered in Committee. One of those was the power to appoint deputies. No matter how much that power might be nominally subject to the approval of the Judges or magistrates, they might depend upon it that whenever the power of appointing a deputy was given it would be exercised. The coroner would reside far away from the district or county for which he was appointed, and some broken-down man, with the nominal qualifications, would be appointed as deputy at a low salary, or on small fees, to perform the duties. He also thought the principle of superannuation a right one, although he objected to the way in which it was proposed to be calculated, as it might lead to possible abuses. There were other provisions to which exception might be taken; but he would not oppose the second reading of the Bill which would require much consideration in Committee.

said, he was glad the position of the coroners of Ireland had been brought under the consideration of the House, for it could not be denied that their present position was very unsatisfactory. He strongly objected to the abolition of the office, for it would be very hard to obtain another tribunal which would discharge the duties of the coroners in so just a manner. It had been recommended that the duties should be undertaken by unpaid magistrates; but that proposal had been tried in one county during the time the office of coroner was vacant, and had not been found to answer. The result was that the office had to be filled up. It would be a very hard matter to get two magistrates to come down and devote three or four hours, or, perhaps, two or three days, to holding an inquest. And if magistrates were appointed, he was convinced that they would demand from the Treasury a higher rate of payment than the coroners would receive. He also condemned the proposal, because, in the first place, the duties were of a judicial character, and should be discharged impartially; and, in the next, that those gentlemen were officials of the Government, and more or less under their influence. It was an office of great importance, and required to be filled by gentlemen of capacity and possessing an intimate knowledge of the country. He had heard no objections which would warrant hon. Members in opposing this measure. There was one portion of the Bill which he was afraid would inflict serious injury on some half-dozen coroners in Ireland. The Bill provided that coroners, on attaining the age of 70 years, should cease to hold office, and if they had served in the office for 20 years, they were to receive a pension. But those who had not served 20 years would not receive a pension, and therefore they would be deprived of their means of livelihood. He thought that would inflict a great hardship on those persons. He would suggest that the clause should be altered so as to provide that no coroner appointed in future should be allowed to hold the office after attaining the age of 70 years. Upon the whole, he thought that the objections taken by hon. Members to the Bill were such as could be easily dealt with in Committee.

believed the present position of coroners in Ireland was exceedingly unsatisfactory, and for his own part he preferred their being paid by salary instead of by fees, which tended in many cases to improper and illegal practices. He objected, however to the proposal of having resident magistrates appointed to the office, as being officials connected with the Government.

thought it was quite time that some such change as that proposed by the Bill was adopted, although some alterations might be required when the Bill got into Committee.

thought from what he had heard said by hon. Members at both sides of the House that the office of coroner required some change. He would not abolish the functions of the coroner altogether, as it might be necessary on many occasions to hold a public inquiry. He should support the second reading. In Scotland there was nothing distinctly corresponding to a coroner's inquest, and there was some want of such an inquiry. The Procurator Fiscal was not a judicial functionary. He was the public prosecutor and the public prosecutor only. His inquiries were not of a public, but of a private character. No doubt, generally speaking, he performed his duties extremely well; but there was not the same satisfaction in the public mind that there would be, provided there was a public inquiry by a proper judicial officer. In Scotland he should be satisfied to entrust the inquiry to a sheriff.

was of opinion that it would be better to pay coroners by a fixed salary instead of fees. He should support the second reading of the Bill; but there were clauses in it which he should endeavour to alter in Committee.

was also of opinion that the Bill in many instances required to be considerably altered; but as that could only be done in Committee, he should reserve his objections until it went into Committee.

supported the second reading of the Bill, although there were clauses in it which he should endeavour to get altered in Committee. He was an advocate for the payment by salary and not by fees, and should have the expenses paid, one-half by the ratepayers, and the other by the Government.

said, he was prepared to support the second reading of the Bill, on the condition that it should be referred to a Select Committee in order to put it into proper form. There were a number of changes proposed by the Bill, which were now suggested for the first time, which ought not to be accepted without careful inquiry, and he thought a Select Committee ought to be appointed to consider the subject. He believed the Bill as it stood would not be in the interest of the public service. Within the last few years the question of altering the mode of election and many of the incidents connected with the office of coroner had been the subject of Bills and Motions brought forward in that House. If legislation of a novel character was to take place in connection with the law and the office of coroner in one part of the United Kingdom, it must not be forgotten that it would have some effect upon the law and the office of coroner in other parts of the Kingdom. In many respects it was a very extraordinary Bill and required great attention on the part of the legal and medical Members of the House. It did not deal with a very important question—namely, the unseemly conflict between the magisterial bench and the Coroners' Court, which so often brought the administration of justice into contempt. This important incidental question was one which ought not to be omitted in any legislation on this question. This Bill for the first time defined and specified the qualification of coroners, it made an important change in the proceedings attending the election of coroner and it introduced a superannuation clause which had never before appeared in any Coroners' Bill. There was another provision in the Bill to which he objected, and which he was surprised had not provoked some comments from hon. Members opposite. It authorized the coroner before he had commenced the inquest, to commit persons to prison on mere suspicion. Then as to the appointment of deputies, the choice was limited to members of the legal and medical professions, and to that restriction he also objected. As to the payment of coroners by salaries, he was of opinion that in many cases it would not have so good an effect as payment by fees, inasmuch as it might induce these officers to neglect their duties. With respect to the superannuation clause, he thought it was a most extraordinary and unheard-of-thing to propose that a public officer should be compelled to retire after attaining the age of 70 years. He ventured to assert that there was no precedent whatever for the insertion of a clause of that description. He thought if the Bill was intended to pass and to be of any practical use it could not be amended in Committee of the Whole House, but ought to be referred to a Select Committee.

said, he thought the debate had necessarily and very properly travelled somewhat beyond the points in which an amendment of the law was desired by the coroners themselves. For many years the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Goldney) had brought forward a Bill dealing with the duties, salary, and position of coroners; but that Bill had never got beyond the stage of second reading, because great doubt was entertained whether it was necessary to continue the office of coroner at all. There was great force in the argument of the right hon. and learned Member for Londonderry (Mr. Law) and other hon. Members who had dealt with the subject from this point of view. The case of Ireland was even stronger upon this point than the case of England or Wales, because in England there were no public prosecutors, whereas in Ireland there was a system of Crown prosecutors; and in England there were not, as there were in Ireland, stipendiary magistrates all over the country who might be entrusted with discharging another portion of the duties pertaining to the office of coroner. It was, however, an office of great antiquity; the persons appointed to hold it were elected by the people themselves, and he did not think, therefore, that any proposal to abolish the office of coroner or even to alter it in any essential character could be adopted by the Government, or would be assented to by the House of Commons. As, therefore, it would be admitted that the office should be retained, it was well to consider whether the law regulating it could not in some respects be improved; and the question was, whether that end was properly attained by the Bill. A Committee which sat some years ago on the Grand Jury laws in Ireland recommended that the appointment to the office of coroner should be vested in the magistrates or grand juries, subject to the approval of the Lord Lieutenant; but that was a proposal to which he could not agree. He would continue the office as it was, and the mode of election to it; for it should be borne in mind that the mode of election in Ireland was much more satisfactory than the English system. He observed the Bill made no provision for avoiding the conflicts which sometimes arose between coroners and the magisterial bench. Now, in any measure dealing with the authority of coroners that matter ought certainly to be considered. He looked upon the inquiry before the coroner as an inquiry rather into the cause of death, than into the guilt or innocence of any accused person; and he thought means were already provided for following up criminal inquiries without the aid of Coroners' Courts. It was proposed that coroners should be allowed to appoint deputies. On that point, he would only remark that in Ireland there were offices in which the appointment of deputies was a great public evil, and he did not wish to add to their number. The practice in itself was a bad and somewhat dangerous one, and the Bill did not sufficiently specify the circumstances under which deputies could be appointed or show how they were to be paid. The suggestion to make certain professional qualifications necessary for coroners was a wise provision; but he did not see any good reason for abolishing the existing property qualification. It was also a reasonable proposal that coroners should be paid by salary instead of by fees; but he objected to the high scale of fees on which the salaries were to be based, and thought it would require alteration in Committee. The Bill further proposed that coroners after 30 years' service should be at liberty to retire upon pensions. That was a proposal not founded upon the recommendations of the Committee on the Grand Jury Laws, who recommended that pensions should only be granted to officers who had devoted their whole time to the service of the country. It was a just principle—that officers who had served the public long and faithfully should be entitled to retire upon pensions; but there was considerable difficulty in applying it in the case of those whose public duties had occupied but a small part of their time. It was proposed that these pensions should be charged upon the fines inflicted for offences by Petty Sessions Courts; but that was a fund intended for the benefit of clerks of petty sessions, and he could not conceive anything more unfair than to draw upon a fund intended for such a purpose, and thus diminish a sum the application of which was an established rule. There was one clause in the Bill which proposed that coroners should be authorized to retire upon pensions, however short their service; but that was a proposal which he doubted would be accepted by the House. Nothing was said as to the limitation of age on appointment, and he thought that the clause relating to that matter would also require further consideration. On the part of the Government, he readily consented to the second reading, but considered the Bill would require a great deal of amending in Committee, and was, therefore, rather inclined to think it would be wise to adopt the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite and the hon. Member for Londonderry, and refer it to a Select Committee. He would, however, put himself in communication in the Whitsuntide Recess with authorities in Ireland on the subject of the measure; and he would now say, speaking for himself, that he would give his hearty support to the second reading.

, in moving that the Order for the second reading of the Bill be read and discharged, said, he had originally brought in the Bill thinking that it would be one of general convenience. Its only object was to simplify the borough registration, which was now very complicated and expensive. Objections having, however, been made to the Bill, he now asked permission of the House to withdraw it, that he might move for leave to introduce a short Bill to amend the state of the law in reference to a defect which was shown in Registration Courts to be cause of great annoyance and considerable curtailment of the franchise.

, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to relieve certain Occupiers of Dwelling Houses from being disqualified from the right of voting in the Election of Members to serve in Parliament by reason of their underletting such Dwelling Houses for short terms, said, those persons paid the rates of the house during the time it was let—a time that they might have gone merely to a watering-place for the benefit of health and re creation; but as the law stood they were not considered occupiers, and they were consequently disfranchised. That was a state of the law which called for amendment, and he therefore hoped the House would give its consent to the introduction of the short Bill which he proposed to amend a defect which had been the cause of great annoyance, and which was a blot on the Parliamentary electoral system of the country.

expressed his satisfaction at the course taken by the hon. Member for Christchurch in regard to the withdrawal of the first Bill.

concurred with the hon. Member who moved for leave to introduce the Bill that the law as it now stood was very defective in the manner he had pointed out, and called for amendment. Practically, persons who let their houses for a short time only paid all rates, and might be regarded as residents; but as the law stood they were subject to be disfranchised, if objection was made to their names being retained on the Register. He approved of the course which had been pursued by the hon. Member in withdrawing the former Bill on the subject, for, as it stood, he (the Solicitor General) would have felt himself bound to oppose it; whereas with regard to the one now substituted for it, he should be prepared to give it his support.

agreed that the law required amendment in the manner proposed, and was also prepared to support such a Bill as that proposed by the hon. Member.

thought that his hon. Friend who moved for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the law in the manner proposed had hit upon a blot in the Parliamentary electoral system. It was a great hardship to a man to be deprived of his right to vote during the ensuing year, because he had let his house during a short time that he might require to go out of town.

, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that among the social questions pressing for a solution there were few of more importance than the question of amending the law relating to Infanticide. That was the third occasion on which he had brought the subject under the consideration of Parliament. An allegation was made last Session in "another place" that the Bill would have a tendency to diminish the security of infant life; but, on the contrary, its tendency would be to increase the security of infant life. That the Bill had been introduced on behalf of the Infant Life Protection Society ought in itself to be a sufficient answer to so absurd a charge. The new offence created by the measure, which stood midway between murder and concealment of birth, occupied, as Mr. Justice Willes stated in his evidence before the Capital Punishment Commission in 1866, the same relation to murder that treason-felony occupied to treason. The 6th clause was copied from the Treason-Felony Act. Would anybody assert that the Treason-Felony Act had lessened the securities of the Crown against High Treason? On the contrary, it had strengthened those securities by ensuring convictions at the hands of juries, who would have acquitted the prisoner, if proceeded against for the capital offence. If juries were reluctant to expose a traitor to the death penalty, was it surprising that juries hesitated to find a verdict of guilty of wilful murder against the mother of an illegitimate child, in whose breast the instincts of a mother's love had been stifled by her dread of the scorn of a cruel world, and especially of the virtuous of her own sex? So far from blaming juries for invariably acquitting the mother, they would be less than men, if they did not do it. The 3rd, 4th, and 5th clauses of the Bill were founded on the recommendations of the Capital Punishment Commissioners of 1866, who, in their Report, said—

"Our attention has been called to the frequent failures of justice in eases of Infanticide. The crime of Infanticide, as distinguished from murder in general, is not known to the English law. The moment a child is born alive it is as much under the protection of the law as an adult. We have considered whether the failure of justice which undoubtedly often occurs in such cases may not be obviated by some change in the law which shall add to the protection of new-born children. The principal obstacle, which now prevents the due enforcement of the law, is the extreme difficulty of giving positive proof that the child, alleged to have been murdered, was completely born alive. We have given this important and difficult subject our serious attention and we have arrived at the opinion, that an Act should be passed, making it an offence, punishable with penal servitude or imprisonment, at the discretion of the Court, unlawfully and maliciously to inflict grievous bodily harm or serious injury upon a child during its birth or within seven days afterwards, in case such child has subsequently died. No proof that the child was completely born alive should be required. With respect to the offence of concealment of birth, we think that no person should be liable to be convicted of such offence upon an indictment for murder, but should be tried upon a separate indictment. The accused should not be entitled to be acquitted in either of the above cases, if it should be proved on the trial that the offence amounted to murder or manslaughter."

In the composition of that Commission he saw the names of four Members of the present Cabinet—the Duke of Richmond, the Earl of Derby, Mr. Gathorne Hardy, and Mr. Ward Hunt. Their Report was founded on the evidence of distinguished Judges who were examined before them. Of those Judges he might mention the names of Lord Cranworth, Mr. Baron Martin, Lord Wensleydale, Mr. Justice Willes, and the Lord Chief Baron, Sir FitzRoy Kelly. The late Mr. Justice Willes, in his evidence, said—

"I think that the present law certainly is in a very bad state. I think that a great many children meet with foul play under circumstances in which no sentence or adequate sentence can be passed upon the mother. I am obliged to come to the conclusion that a great many women kill their children in the course of birth, or soon afterwards, with a view to conceal the fact that they have had them, and they get off now altogether in cases whore it appears that there has been no concealment of the dead body, so as to be a misdemeanor."

The Chairman, the Duke of Richmond, said—

"I do not understand you to propose any alteration in the law as it at present stands, to meet those difficulties which you yourself have mentioned?—I think that there ought to be an alteration in the law. I should propose a separate Act of Parliament upon the principle of the Treason Felony Act."

"Mr. EWART: An Infanticide Act?—I would take away all the anomaly which belongs to the case at present. I do not think that the acts against procuring miscarriage meet the point; it is not a case of abortion, it is the case of a full-grown child; it is not to produce a birth before the natural time. I think that you must have a distinct Act of Parliament; it would be nothing new in principle."

Sir Samuel Martin, in his evidence, said—

"There is certainly one case of murder, which is probably the most common case which occurs, and that is child murder; I would certainly suggest that an alteration be made in the law with respect to the child being completely born. …… Any Judge who pleases can at once get an acquittal for a murder of that sort. It is almost impossible to tell whether the wound was given before the child was separated from the mother or afterwards; there are no means of getting at it, and if you suggest to the counsel for the prosecution, 'Have you any means of showing that this wound was inflicted after the child was separated from the mother,' the counsel says 'No,' and there is an end of it; that is not a very satisfactory state of the law.

"Mr. HARDY: You think that there should be some intermediate offence between murder and concealment of birth?—Yes.

"Mr. HUNT: Making it immaterial whether the child was completely born or not?—Yes; I think that some punishment short of death should be provided for that offence.

"Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND: Do you mean for infanticide generally, or for infanticide in the act of birth?—In the act of birth; an infant is found just as it is born with some wound, and no one can doubt that it was inflicted by the mother, but cannot tell whether it was inflicted before or after its complete separation from her."

When he (Mr. Charley) first introduced a Bill to amend the law on the subject, in 1873, it was read a second time; and when he introduced it the second time, in 1874, it was read a second time and referred to the Select Committee on the Homicide Law Amendment Bill of the Recorder of London, by which Committee it was amended in a manner of which he (Mr. Charley) disapproved. The Bill went up to the House of Lords, where it was read a second time; but it was subsequently thrown out on the Motion for going into Committee—the Bill that was thrown out, he would observe, not being his Bill, but the Bill which the Select Committee had made it. The principle of his Bill was supported by Mr. Justice Blackburn, in his evidence before the Homicide Committee. The Bill proposed to give power to treat infanticide as a simple felony, punishable with penal servitude or imprisonment, instead of as at present compelling prosecutors to proceed against mothers who destroyed their new-born offspring for the capital offence. He did not propose to make any alterations in the existing law; but simply to create a new offence and give an alternative mode of procedure. The Bill did not deal with the question of murder. Dr. Neilson Hancock, in his Judicial Statistics, 1873, p. 23, observed—

"The statistics of infanticide in England and Ireland are quite startling. The proportion of children in Ireland to the rest of the population was ascertained by the Census Commissioners in 1861 to be as 2·4 to 97·6, or, in other words, that in every 200 of the population about five are infants under one year of ago. It follows from this that the proportional number of infants under one year of ago which would correspond to the 23 murders which appear from the Coroner's returns to have taken place amongst the rest of the population in Ireland would be about 0·6 a-year, or 6 in 10 years. The actual number of infanticides is therefore 28 times the number of murders occurring amongst the same amount of the population at other periods of life. In England and Wales the actual number would appear to be on an average 50 times the number occurring amongst the same number of the population at other periods of life. In Ireland 106 persons were committed for trial for infanticide. So strongly, however, does the feeling against capital punishment operate, that there was not a single conviction for murder, and 39 were acquitted. If the punishment were more in accordance with public opinion, the prosecutions and convictions would be more frequent, and the excessive number of infanticides would be more effectually checked."

thought the Bill ought not to be read a second time without some discussion, and expressed his objection to the principle of the Bill, which proposed to make, what in another person was wilful murder, a simple felony punishable by 10 years penal servitude when committed by a mother upon her own child. The Bill defined an offence which amounted to murder, and proposed to enact that it should not be murder but a minor offence. As the Bill was framed, a jury, in order to convict of the new offence, must find that the mother "wilfully and maliciously inflicted bodily injury causing the death" of the infant—or, in other words, they must find that she had committed wilful murder. He would suggest the omission of the words "thereby causing death," which would remove the objection.

explained that his Bill did not touch the law relating to murder, but gave the prosecutor the choice of proceeding for murder or for the new offence created by the Bill.

said, if the Bill of the hon. and learned Member passed, juries must either find the prisoner indicted under the 3rd clause, guilty of felony, which would subject her to penal servitude for 10 years, or acquit her altogether; and as a consequence of the latter, she could not be indicted a second time if further evidence were obtained to support a charge of murder or manslaughter. He hoped it would not go forth that by British legislation that which would be murder in any other woman would not be considered murder in a mother. He trusted that his hon. and learned Friend, if the Bill be now read a second time, would bear his suggestions for its amendment in mind.

said, that amongst all the reforms which had taken place in the criminal law, no attempt had been made to deal with this important matter, which circumstance showed the difficulty of dealing with it. The Bill did not alter the definition of murder, but made the crime with which it dealt different from what it had been up to the present time. For himself, he considered the life of an infant of as great importance to the State as that of any grown person. Much had been done by Lord Romilly and other distinguished men to bring about a reform of the law in relation to capital punishment, which was now only mercifully retained in few and exceptional cases. The Bill proposed to make a difference only in cases where the child at the moment of birth, or within a very short period after that event, was supposed to have lost its life by the act of the mother; but, in cases of unassisted birth, children were in great danger of losing their lives without any guilt on the part of the mother. It might be said that an alteration of the law might increase the crime of infanticide; but, to his mind, it would not have any such effect, and juries would not then hesitate to find verdicts according to the evidence, and the certainty of punishment that would follow would have a deterrent effect, and give more security to preservation of infant life.

said, the eases which the Bill of the hon. and learned Member proposed to deal with had become a disgrace to the law of the country. There was not a circuit at which women were not indicted for the alleged crime of infanticide; and in these cases there was almost a moral certainty of the woman being acquitted by the jury. The principal reason was that juries would not convict when they knew that the extreme penalty of the law was to be carried out for the offence committed. The great thing in legislation of this kind was to see that the punishment should be certain. There was not a known instance—certainly for many years past—in which a woman who had been convicted of infant murder had suffered the extreme penalty of the law. Therefore, there ought to be an alteration in the law. This Bill created a new offence, for which the person on conviction would receive a very commensurate punishment. Though this new offence was created, the old offence of murder still remained. There might be some of these offences of so bad a character that the persons would be indicted under the old indictment for murder, and there was nothing in this Bill to hinder it being done. The effect of the 3rd section of this Bill would be to obtain more convictions, and with this certainty the result would naturally be further protection for the child. The ablest Judges in the land had all pronounced against the present law. One of the greatest difficulties in the conviction of women as the law now stood was that the child must have had an independent or separate existence from the mother before the wound had been inflicted that caused the death. The great defence always set up by a skilful counsel was that the child had had no separate or independent existence, that it was not completely born, and possessed no independent circulation. This Bill did away with that absurd distinction, and the person who caused the death of a child would be convicted without reference to whether the child had attained a separate existence. The Bill would meet the difficulties of the case, and be a most valuable measure.

, having been a Member of the Committee referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman, considered the proposal contained in his Bill to alter and amend the law necessary, and he hoped the measure would not be defeated. As the law now stood juries would not convict of murder. He thought that the measure would tend to the preservation of life, and, seeing that a change in the law was necessary, he should give his vote for the second reading.

said, that when the Act of Elizabeth with reference to bas-tardy was altered, those who opposed the alteration had prophesied that infanticide would become more common, from the difficulty that had been thrown upon the poor unfortunate woman to prove the paternity of her offspring. Their idea had been fully borne out, and, so far from passing this measure, which he thought would have the effect of legalizing murders of this kind, he trusted that the House would rather return to the old law with reference to the subject, during the existence of which infanticide was almost unknown. Were the law restored to its original state she could establish a claim for the support of the child upon the putative father, or else upon the parish.

said, the question was whether infanticide was to be committed with impunity, as it was under the present law. Speaking with the experience of a Judge who had been for many years engaged in the administration of the criminal law, he attributed the failure of justice in cases of infanticide to the difficulty of proving that the infant had ever a separate existence from the mother. This Bill met that case by providing a penalty for any violence done to a child, either before its birth, or in the course of its birth, and was so far a valuable improvement of the present law.

considered that a Bill of such importance as the one now before the House should not have been introduced by a private Member, but should come before them on the Government of the country.

said, he should not give his support to the Bill if he thought it would facilitate infanticide. He believed the Bill would do no- thing of the sort. When a woman was indicted for the murder of her child it was almost impossible to obtain a conviction, because, according to the law of this country a child could not be held to be murdered, unless it could be proved that there was an independent circulation in the child and that it had been completely born into the world; and it was very difficult to obtain medical or other testimony on the subject. Therefore, a Bill of this sort was necessary, and it would effect, in his opinion, a very just and desirable alteration of the law. Instead of encouraging the commission of the crime of infanticide, he believed it would greatly deter women from the commission of that crime, and for that reason he should support it. He must, however, draw the attention of the hon. and learned Member for Salford to the fact that under the Bill, an accessory to the infliction of a malicious wound upon a child could not be punished. It was not desirable that such a result as that should occur. In the Bill introduced by the hon. and learned Member in 1873, the indictment was not restricted to the mother of the child. But he could not find fault with the hon. and learned Member, because he had drawn the Bill in conformity with the language of the Select Committee to whom the Bill was referred.

said, the general opinion of the House evidently was, that the Bill should be read a second time, and the criticisms offered upon it were rather' matters for consideration in Committee. One of the advantages of the Bill was, that it would meet the practical evil arising from the fact that when a woman was indicted for the murder of her child, there was often so much sympathy with her in her peculiar circumstances that juries refused to convict, and she was subsequently acquitted as if entirely innocent. There were one or points in which the Bill might be advantageously amended in Committee; but with that reservation, he was of opinion that the measure, supported as it was by the practical experience of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Recorder of London, was one which it was desirable to pass.

, in moving that the Bill he now read a second time, said, he felt some surprise at hearing that the measure was to he opposed; and as he had no doubt the opposition to it originated in a thorough misconception of its provisions, he would now attempt to explain what was the real object of the Bill. Its real object was simply to remove a great hindrance which existed in the way of those who were entitled to the franchise obtaining the exercise of it, and to put it on the same footing as it was in England. That being the object of the measure, he hoped that, considering the number of days they had spent in providing for Ireland a measure of coercion, they would not hesitate to send after it this measure of enfranchisement to serve as a kind of equivalent. The Bill only proposed to deal with the question of rates. In Ireland the franchise depended upon two conditions. The first was, that the property out of which the vote was claimed should be rated to the poor; and, secondly, that the occupier himself should be rated. In some parts of Ireland it was the custom for the landlords to pay all the rates and taxes, and therefore the occupiers were not rated, and, as a consequence, could not vote. They certainly had a remedy for this, but it was a very cumbrous and inconvenient one. For instance, an occupier who wished to be placed upon the electoral roll might make an application to be rated; but then the application had to be accompanied by a tender of all the rates due up to the date of his making the application. To say the least, it was very unjust that they should have to pay those arrears, whether they arose in the qualifying year or not. In the case of England, in 1869, when they had to consider the case of that troublesome gentleman "the compound householder," Mr. Jacob Bright introduced and carried a measure, providing that the man formerly liable for the rates, although another paid them, should be put in possession of the franchise; and the only and sole object of this Bill was to assimilate the law of Ireland to the law of England in that respect.

, in moving that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, said, that although the hon. and learned Gentleman professed that it only dealt with the question of rating, it led up directly to a municipal and Parliamentary reform in Ireland, and would place the franchise in the possession of those who paid 5s. or 10s. in the way of rates. ["No, no!"] Well, if that was not its object, it had no object at all. If the hon. Member's object was to place on the registry men who were owners, and were qualified for being rated above £4, he could have gone about it in a much simpler manner, and in a much shorter Bill; but household suffrage, and not that, was his object. He had brought that question distinctly forward in a Bill which he had withdrawn; but this Bill was introduced to effect the same purpose in a covert way. It was, in fact, a new Reform Bill, which, if introduced at all, should be brought forward on the responsibility of the Government.

supported the Bill, and hoped the House would not be induced by anything which had fallen from the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Vance) to reject this measure, which was a simple endeavour to render the law in Ireland as regarded the franchise the same as it was in England. If, while the scope of the Bill was such as to meet with general approval, there were any matters of detail open to objection, those could be attended to in Committee. Certainly, the objection to the Bill that it was one which ought to proceed from the Government, and not from a private Member, came with a very bad grace from the hon. Member for Armagh, who had himself occupied so much of the Sitting with a measure introduced on his own responsibility, dealing with one of the most ancient institutions of the country—the jurisdiction of coroners—nor was it constitu- tionally necessary that all such measures should originate with the Administration. This measure was not in any respect a sweeping and radical measure, but simply one of common justice.

supported the principle of the Bill, which he thought should meet with the unanimous favour of the House, inasmuch as it was simply to confer the same rights upon the towns of Ireland as had been given to those of England.

supported the Amendment. If it were a mere measure of rating, no one would object to the Bill; but they had to read between the lines for its real object, and that was to carry under the guise mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Limerick both an electoral and municipal Reform Act for Ireland. Seven out of the eight clauses of this Bill were copied verbatim from the Borough Franchise Bill, which had been introduced early this Session by the hon. Member, and thus withdrawn to make room for the present Bill. Unless it were the intention to follow up this Bill by another Bill, conferring the franchise upon all ratepayers, it had no meaning. If this were done, the result would be that, in some of the boroughs, the result would be that the new voters would outnumber the present constituents from two to one to three to one. He had never heard of any complaints against the existing state of affairs, and he objected to passing such provisions under the title of a Towns Eating Bill. They had lately passed a Bill which would for a time secure peace to Ireland, and he hoped that peace would not be disturbed by this kind of political agitation.

said, he accepted the assurance of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Limerick that this measure was not intended to cover a new Irish Reform Bill, but was simply to remedy the grievance that persons otherwise entitled to the franchise should be excluded from it merely on account of the omission of their names from the list of ratepayers. He had listened with attention to the remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman; but had not heard him cite a single instance in which this grievance was felt. Certainly, no complaint of the kind had reached the House, and on reference to Sir Alfred Power, who was Vice President of the Local Government Board in Ireland, he found that no complaints whatever had been made to the Local Government Board upon this subject. Already ample provision had been made by which, in case of the omission of the names of occupiers entitled to be rated above or below £4, their names might be inserted in the rate-book. They might claim to be rated, and if any clerk of a Union wilfully neglected his duty in that respect he was subject to dismissal. He could not, therefore, support a Bill of this kind without the proof of some grievance it was intended to remedy.

said, that in his own town (Dundalk) 15 names were omitted, and he attributed the opposition he met with at the last Election to the fact—— And it being a quarter of an hour before Six of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned till To-morrow.