Tweet
Hi Mike,
For a thing that was held in the open, many times every day, and which was exported all across the world, I can think of few things less understood than the English inquest or the coroner. So I’m glad to see that you’ve asked some good questions here: http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.p...1&postcount=91. I have not tried to give you a dissertation, I know lengthy posts are difficult to follow on a computer screen, but since inquests are a major source of information for us, and in many ways they are downright mysterious, it really is worth the time to give you some substance.
The coroner was an independent judicial officer who investigated sudden death, not just murder or suicide but other cases of death as well where there might be some area of public concern: prison, hospital, workhouse deaths, accidental deaths in dangerous areas like railroad crossings, explosions in coal mines. Really his business was to guide juries through evidence so they could return proper verdicts.
I completely agree with Dusty Miller when he wrote “Remember the inquests were not made up of Whitehall Wallahs but people who lived and/or worked in the area”. That’s my view as well: the Victorian inquest is really about the community protecting itself. It publicized the need for reform or it protected reform that had already been achieved. Or, another value it had was to demonstrate to the public that institutions were working properly, like showing that the police were investigating a crime adequately, people were protected in prisons, hospitals were treating people correctly, etc. Verdicts were returned by members of the community, and the coroner was of their choosing. The jury could choose to ignore the coroner’s advice.
For a coroner to withhold evidence or impose a verdict upon the jury was misconduct—in such a case an appeal could by made to the Attorney General to make a case before the High Court to quash the verdict, render the verdict void, and order the coroner to hold another inquest. In extreme cases of misconduct, the Lord Chancellor had the power to fire the coroner, but no power to direct him to action as the High Court did. The Home Secretary was obviously interested in the causes of death in England, yet had no power to direct the coroner to specific actions either. He could, however, request them, through Home Office circular (whether the coroner complied was up to his discretion).
So the county coroner was directly appointed by the people, free to act without government interference in order to openly investigate sudden death and in doing so, often review procedure. With questions of homicide or suicide, you have the police investigation and then you have inquest, which is nothing more or less than the people’s open investigation, held by themselves and their appointed coroner, aided by the police and the testimony of witnesses and experts (of varied quality), using all their knowledge pooled together (even the jury was invited to use their own personal knowledge, and both coroner and jurymen could simultaneously provide testimony as witnesses while remaining in their official capacity, although that wasn’t the preferred way to do things). The inquest was preliminary only, and neither the coroner nor jury had any power to follow up on the verdict once it was over (though the coroner had the power of arrest). On top of the verdict, the jury could express opinions related to it in the form of “riders”, but these riders carried no weight, except perhaps in newspapers, which publicized them. Publicity was really the only way that an inquest could have any influence, and so the attendance of press was paramount, not only to publicize the proceedings but when the coroner really couldn’t be interfered with, the press was there to keep him honest, not to give him a venue to preen or posture in.
There’s a lot that was right with the system and a lot that was wrong. Until the spring of 1889, coroners working in England's counties were popularly elected by freeholder. That includes places like the county of Middlesex, part of which the metropolis of London sprawled over in 1888, and the place where coroners like Wynne Baxter, Roderick Macdonald, Thomas Bramah Diplock and George Danford Thomas worked in their assigned districts: South East or just East, North East, West, and Central respectively. Coroners were elected for life, so I would disagree with your characterization that the coroner was an upwardly mobile person looking to further his career. Once elected, that was his career, and all four of the coroners mentioned above died in office, doing the same work they undertook in 1888. Their salaries were based on things like population, mileage, number of inquests held, so any raises they received (if they received a raise at all) are really reflective of the amount of work undertaken rather than a reward for a job well done. I think that for a coroner, there was little mobility at all, either up, down, or sideways--just more of the same until they themselves died. Perhaps there would be some new innovation or invention that led to new ways of dying, like the railroad or the airplane or a Great War would come along.
Anyway, in the counties the coroners were elected. Until 1926, there were no professional qualifications for the office--you had to own property and win an election, that was your qualification. Practically speaking, you had to have money of your own (in medieval times the knight qualification was meant to avoid corruption; in Victorian times although you received a salary, you still had to pay expenses from your pocket, which meant the coroner operated from a financial hole) But of course you have to satisfy voters too, by giving them reasons to elect you. Anyway, there are three backgrounds that a coroner might have had then, only two being professional: a lay coroner (a person with no training in either medicine or law), a legal coroner, and a medical coroner. In 1888, the lay coroner was on his way out, most people agreeing that he wasn't the person you wanted to hold inquests or to advise juries on law, but he's still sticking around in some places for awhile yet. Although there was no official requirement, most coroners were of the legal variety--solicitors--while a minority had medical backgrounds. That was a national trend. There was a debate, one that had been hot in the first half of the 19th century, but which had cooled, over which coroner was best: medical or legal? A medical candidate would argue (as Thomas Wakley argued in 1830) that obviously the coroner's office required medical expertise in investigating sudden death. The legal candidate would argue that a coroner's job was to advise and guide juries upon law, and that the office was a judicial one--the coroner was a magistrate, and the only organ that could actually direct a coroner to perform a particular action, like hold an inquest, was the Queen’s Bench, the High Court, which had authority over magistrates (and sometimes over the years you see the Lord Chief Justice refer to himself as “The Chief Coroner”). In 1926, an amendment law was passed that coroners had to have 5 years professional experience as either a doctor or solicitor. Today there is a bill in preparation for a new law, which I believe I'm right to say mandates a legal qualification, so England seems to be on the verge of finally settling the debate (though I'm sort of fond of the medical coroners).
While the national trend favored legal coroners, looking at our stretch of the woods, Middlesex in 1888, 2 out of 4 of its coroners were doctors (Diplock and Danford Thomas), with Baxter representing the legal coroner. Roderick Macdonald was the odd bird of the bunch, being a doctor who had limited legal training. Since he received this training after losing an 1886 election (the one that Wynne Baxter won), that was probably something that he did to help him win the North East district in 1888, which he did in spades--a kind of best of both worlds type of coroner that might prove attractive to the freeholders.
But although there were no professional qualifications to become a coroner, not legally anyway, there was an organization that provided structure. This was the Coroner’s Society, which was founded in the 1840s, and provided its membership with advice. Throughout his long career, 1849-1901, Samuel Langham was heavily involved with this group, acting both as its Secretary and President. The Coroners Society is still active today; one day I hope to be allowed access to their archives. Also the Home Office issued circulars on procedure in consultation with the Lord Chancellor; these were discretionary as neither the Home Office or the Lord Chancellor had power to direct coroners to any action.
Now you have the elections, which is where your question about politics comes in. Elections might seem the way to go when you're talking about an office that's there to protect the citizenry against dangerous areas, unsafe practices, or the government itself. Actually, it turned out differently. Tremendous sums of money were thrown into winning them, often there was violence, hardly a way to gain such a solemn office. People reasonably wondered, “What is so good about being coroner that people should go to all this trouble to get themselves elected?” They smelled corruption, something that had always been associated with that office, and which sort of originated earlier in the century when the coroner received no salary, but was paid per inquest. One thing you should know is that the 1830s saw a sudden rise in the number of inquests because of the creation of a new oversight over workhouses, death registration, and the creation of the Metropolitan Police: these all meant that more cases were being reported to coroners, which led to more inquests held, and so there was this sudden jump. But critics didn’t look at what the causes of the increase were—they thought the coroners held more inquests in order to make more money. Making this perception worse was the introduction of the Medical Witness Act in 1836, which for the first time allowed coroners and juries to compel the testimony of doctors and order them to perform postmortems. Coroners, it was charged, were ghouls intent on making a profit using the dead body of your loved one. So, there was a great deal of suspicion. No doubt, there really was some shady business going on—the beadles who served as coroner’s officers were said to be notoriously corrupt, skimming money, and if you go to oldbaileyonline search the name of Thomas Hammond (Roderick Macdonald’s officer), you will see that he went to prison for fraud in 1891. But, still a big part of it was unfounded, fueled by misconception.
I’ve read in Hansard that part of the reason why so much effort went into coronial elections was because political parties sometimes seized on them as a way to test their strength before more important electons came around. You will certainly find that candidates for the office were connected: The Times claims that Wynne Baxter had over 1,000 names on his petition to run in 1886, with broad support from the Metropolitan Board of Works; Roderick Macdonald had the backing of MP Samuel Montagu in 1888; Thomas Diplock had the support of Lord Ranelagh (and leased a house of his, from which he ran his office as coroner).
Throughout the years, you will find the House of Commons trying to find a way to do away with the election, but as M.P.’s were reluctant to do away with a right (voting), there wasn’t much they could do except limit the scope of elections (which they did with The Coroners Act 1844, limiting participation and the duration of elections). Not until passage of The Local Government Act 1888, were they done away with altogether. County councils were created, effective in 1889, and were given the power to appoint coroners. Since the councils were elected bodies, the right to vote was preserved. In London, to the best of my knowledge, Roderick Macdonald was the last coroner there to be popularly elected by freeholder (and his election was a source of unfavorable comment in the House of Commons). And that was how something that was on the surface good but in reality bad for the office was eventually done away with.
So to sum up, thought it feels kind of like sunshine and flowers to say it, the coroner was in effect a guardian of the community (referred to as “the poor man’s magistrate”), someone who presided over the public’s own investigation of sudden death, able to compel assistance in his investigation. He was a friend. Yet at the same time, the public mistrusted him for the reasons I’ve mentioned above, so he was a friend they didn't always know was a friend, or because they didn't always understand why he acted as he did. Like Sirius Black
I don’t really know how the police viewed the inquest—I wouldn’t be surprised if they saw it as wasting time with laymen when they could have been working. Perhaps it hindered the investigation (I don’t think it did) or there were times they were giving out too much information, but this was their system and there was a saying “Publicity is the soul of justice”. Also, appeals to the jury could be made. Sometimes inquests could be private as well, but there would have to be an awfully good reason for it.
There’s more, but I’ll stop there. I know these posts are awfully long and probably tiring to read, but just read a little at a time.
Cheers,
Dave
For a thing that was held in the open, many times every day, and which was exported all across the world, I can think of few things less understood than the English inquest or the coroner. So I’m glad to see that you’ve asked some good questions here: http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.p...1&postcount=91. I have not tried to give you a dissertation, I know lengthy posts are difficult to follow on a computer screen, but since inquests are a major source of information for us, and in many ways they are downright mysterious, it really is worth the time to give you some substance.
The coroner was an independent judicial officer who investigated sudden death, not just murder or suicide but other cases of death as well where there might be some area of public concern: prison, hospital, workhouse deaths, accidental deaths in dangerous areas like railroad crossings, explosions in coal mines. Really his business was to guide juries through evidence so they could return proper verdicts.
I completely agree with Dusty Miller when he wrote “Remember the inquests were not made up of Whitehall Wallahs but people who lived and/or worked in the area”. That’s my view as well: the Victorian inquest is really about the community protecting itself. It publicized the need for reform or it protected reform that had already been achieved. Or, another value it had was to demonstrate to the public that institutions were working properly, like showing that the police were investigating a crime adequately, people were protected in prisons, hospitals were treating people correctly, etc. Verdicts were returned by members of the community, and the coroner was of their choosing. The jury could choose to ignore the coroner’s advice.
For a coroner to withhold evidence or impose a verdict upon the jury was misconduct—in such a case an appeal could by made to the Attorney General to make a case before the High Court to quash the verdict, render the verdict void, and order the coroner to hold another inquest. In extreme cases of misconduct, the Lord Chancellor had the power to fire the coroner, but no power to direct him to action as the High Court did. The Home Secretary was obviously interested in the causes of death in England, yet had no power to direct the coroner to specific actions either. He could, however, request them, through Home Office circular (whether the coroner complied was up to his discretion).
So the county coroner was directly appointed by the people, free to act without government interference in order to openly investigate sudden death and in doing so, often review procedure. With questions of homicide or suicide, you have the police investigation and then you have inquest, which is nothing more or less than the people’s open investigation, held by themselves and their appointed coroner, aided by the police and the testimony of witnesses and experts (of varied quality), using all their knowledge pooled together (even the jury was invited to use their own personal knowledge, and both coroner and jurymen could simultaneously provide testimony as witnesses while remaining in their official capacity, although that wasn’t the preferred way to do things). The inquest was preliminary only, and neither the coroner nor jury had any power to follow up on the verdict once it was over (though the coroner had the power of arrest). On top of the verdict, the jury could express opinions related to it in the form of “riders”, but these riders carried no weight, except perhaps in newspapers, which publicized them. Publicity was really the only way that an inquest could have any influence, and so the attendance of press was paramount, not only to publicize the proceedings but when the coroner really couldn’t be interfered with, the press was there to keep him honest, not to give him a venue to preen or posture in.
There’s a lot that was right with the system and a lot that was wrong. Until the spring of 1889, coroners working in England's counties were popularly elected by freeholder. That includes places like the county of Middlesex, part of which the metropolis of London sprawled over in 1888, and the place where coroners like Wynne Baxter, Roderick Macdonald, Thomas Bramah Diplock and George Danford Thomas worked in their assigned districts: South East or just East, North East, West, and Central respectively. Coroners were elected for life, so I would disagree with your characterization that the coroner was an upwardly mobile person looking to further his career. Once elected, that was his career, and all four of the coroners mentioned above died in office, doing the same work they undertook in 1888. Their salaries were based on things like population, mileage, number of inquests held, so any raises they received (if they received a raise at all) are really reflective of the amount of work undertaken rather than a reward for a job well done. I think that for a coroner, there was little mobility at all, either up, down, or sideways--just more of the same until they themselves died. Perhaps there would be some new innovation or invention that led to new ways of dying, like the railroad or the airplane or a Great War would come along.
Anyway, in the counties the coroners were elected. Until 1926, there were no professional qualifications for the office--you had to own property and win an election, that was your qualification. Practically speaking, you had to have money of your own (in medieval times the knight qualification was meant to avoid corruption; in Victorian times although you received a salary, you still had to pay expenses from your pocket, which meant the coroner operated from a financial hole) But of course you have to satisfy voters too, by giving them reasons to elect you. Anyway, there are three backgrounds that a coroner might have had then, only two being professional: a lay coroner (a person with no training in either medicine or law), a legal coroner, and a medical coroner. In 1888, the lay coroner was on his way out, most people agreeing that he wasn't the person you wanted to hold inquests or to advise juries on law, but he's still sticking around in some places for awhile yet. Although there was no official requirement, most coroners were of the legal variety--solicitors--while a minority had medical backgrounds. That was a national trend. There was a debate, one that had been hot in the first half of the 19th century, but which had cooled, over which coroner was best: medical or legal? A medical candidate would argue (as Thomas Wakley argued in 1830) that obviously the coroner's office required medical expertise in investigating sudden death. The legal candidate would argue that a coroner's job was to advise and guide juries upon law, and that the office was a judicial one--the coroner was a magistrate, and the only organ that could actually direct a coroner to perform a particular action, like hold an inquest, was the Queen’s Bench, the High Court, which had authority over magistrates (and sometimes over the years you see the Lord Chief Justice refer to himself as “The Chief Coroner”). In 1926, an amendment law was passed that coroners had to have 5 years professional experience as either a doctor or solicitor. Today there is a bill in preparation for a new law, which I believe I'm right to say mandates a legal qualification, so England seems to be on the verge of finally settling the debate (though I'm sort of fond of the medical coroners).
While the national trend favored legal coroners, looking at our stretch of the woods, Middlesex in 1888, 2 out of 4 of its coroners were doctors (Diplock and Danford Thomas), with Baxter representing the legal coroner. Roderick Macdonald was the odd bird of the bunch, being a doctor who had limited legal training. Since he received this training after losing an 1886 election (the one that Wynne Baxter won), that was probably something that he did to help him win the North East district in 1888, which he did in spades--a kind of best of both worlds type of coroner that might prove attractive to the freeholders.
But although there were no professional qualifications to become a coroner, not legally anyway, there was an organization that provided structure. This was the Coroner’s Society, which was founded in the 1840s, and provided its membership with advice. Throughout his long career, 1849-1901, Samuel Langham was heavily involved with this group, acting both as its Secretary and President. The Coroners Society is still active today; one day I hope to be allowed access to their archives. Also the Home Office issued circulars on procedure in consultation with the Lord Chancellor; these were discretionary as neither the Home Office or the Lord Chancellor had power to direct coroners to any action.
Now you have the elections, which is where your question about politics comes in. Elections might seem the way to go when you're talking about an office that's there to protect the citizenry against dangerous areas, unsafe practices, or the government itself. Actually, it turned out differently. Tremendous sums of money were thrown into winning them, often there was violence, hardly a way to gain such a solemn office. People reasonably wondered, “What is so good about being coroner that people should go to all this trouble to get themselves elected?” They smelled corruption, something that had always been associated with that office, and which sort of originated earlier in the century when the coroner received no salary, but was paid per inquest. One thing you should know is that the 1830s saw a sudden rise in the number of inquests because of the creation of a new oversight over workhouses, death registration, and the creation of the Metropolitan Police: these all meant that more cases were being reported to coroners, which led to more inquests held, and so there was this sudden jump. But critics didn’t look at what the causes of the increase were—they thought the coroners held more inquests in order to make more money. Making this perception worse was the introduction of the Medical Witness Act in 1836, which for the first time allowed coroners and juries to compel the testimony of doctors and order them to perform postmortems. Coroners, it was charged, were ghouls intent on making a profit using the dead body of your loved one. So, there was a great deal of suspicion. No doubt, there really was some shady business going on—the beadles who served as coroner’s officers were said to be notoriously corrupt, skimming money, and if you go to oldbaileyonline search the name of Thomas Hammond (Roderick Macdonald’s officer), you will see that he went to prison for fraud in 1891. But, still a big part of it was unfounded, fueled by misconception.
I’ve read in Hansard that part of the reason why so much effort went into coronial elections was because political parties sometimes seized on them as a way to test their strength before more important electons came around. You will certainly find that candidates for the office were connected: The Times claims that Wynne Baxter had over 1,000 names on his petition to run in 1886, with broad support from the Metropolitan Board of Works; Roderick Macdonald had the backing of MP Samuel Montagu in 1888; Thomas Diplock had the support of Lord Ranelagh (and leased a house of his, from which he ran his office as coroner).
Throughout the years, you will find the House of Commons trying to find a way to do away with the election, but as M.P.’s were reluctant to do away with a right (voting), there wasn’t much they could do except limit the scope of elections (which they did with The Coroners Act 1844, limiting participation and the duration of elections). Not until passage of The Local Government Act 1888, were they done away with altogether. County councils were created, effective in 1889, and were given the power to appoint coroners. Since the councils were elected bodies, the right to vote was preserved. In London, to the best of my knowledge, Roderick Macdonald was the last coroner there to be popularly elected by freeholder (and his election was a source of unfavorable comment in the House of Commons). And that was how something that was on the surface good but in reality bad for the office was eventually done away with.
So to sum up, thought it feels kind of like sunshine and flowers to say it, the coroner was in effect a guardian of the community (referred to as “the poor man’s magistrate”), someone who presided over the public’s own investigation of sudden death, able to compel assistance in his investigation. He was a friend. Yet at the same time, the public mistrusted him for the reasons I’ve mentioned above, so he was a friend they didn't always know was a friend, or because they didn't always understand why he acted as he did. Like Sirius Black
I don’t really know how the police viewed the inquest—I wouldn’t be surprised if they saw it as wasting time with laymen when they could have been working. Perhaps it hindered the investigation (I don’t think it did) or there were times they were giving out too much information, but this was their system and there was a saying “Publicity is the soul of justice”. Also, appeals to the jury could be made. Sometimes inquests could be private as well, but there would have to be an awfully good reason for it.
There’s more, but I’ll stop there. I know these posts are awfully long and probably tiring to read, but just read a little at a time.
Cheers,
Dave
Comment