557THE FIRST REPORT OF DEPARTM-ENTAL COMMITTEE ON CORONERS.

syphilis and of colchicum in gout is absolutely empirical, i

yet we are fully justified in employing these. And so it may j well be with Dr. COLEY’S toxins. We hope that the use of 1

Coley’s fluid will be carefully and thoroughly tested here, i

and we echo the wish of Mr. BUTLIN that Dr. COLEY could i

stay in this country for at least a year in order to show us how the method is employed, and how to attain the results 1

which he himself has achieved.

The First Report of the Depart-mental Committee on Coroners.THE Blue Book, recently issued, which contains the (

evidence given before the Departmental Committee appointed to consider the law relating to coroners and coroners’ inquests and the practice in coroners’ courts, contains much that is t

of interest to the medical profession. Before very long, pre- ...

sumably, the recommendations of the Committee will be s

issued, when it may be hoped that the course of politics i

will permit legislation to follow at no great interval. The ...law requires amendment, as all are aware who, as coroners, a

as medical practitioners, or in other capacities, have been brought into contact with cases of death where no medical jcertificate has been forthcoming, while the cause of death f

has had to be established in the interest of the public or of surviving relatives. At the intermediate stage which then

ensues, and which precedes in some instances an inquest and c

in others burial without either a medical certificate or a a

public inquiry, the machinery has often failed to work t

smoothly, and the Committee has consequently had to t

concern itself largely with the possible amendment of Ithe procedure at this point. The shortcomings have r

now been explained to a body competent to make sugges- i

tions of a practical character, and one result of the B

inquiry has been that the coroner’s office and the c

inquest, including the coroner’s jury, have received worthy E

vindication of their ancient dignity and usefulness from wit- r

nesses whose words are in every way entitled to carry weight, r

Their opinion may be summarised by saying that especially c

in cases where there is a suggestion of murder, manslaughter, f

or conduct deserving censure, it is of great importance that c

there should be an inquiry at which evidence on oath can be I

compelled, although no charge has been formulated against an a

individual, and at which statements can be admitted which t

would be excluded if such a person were being tried in i

accordance with the rigid laws of criminal evidence. The use c

of such statements, which might be kept back from those con- c

ducting an inquiry privately, is, of course, not to prejudice t

the guilty but to ascertain the truth as nearly as possible, c

to afford clues, and to suggest directions in which admissible s

evidence may be sought. With regard to the British jury, it has been spoken of by advocates in terms of turgid t

laudation as a " palladium " of our liberties, and it has been c

made, on the other hand, the object of censure and of t

ridicule not always undeserved. It may be admitted, more- i

over, that in coroners’ courts not situated in such an excep- tional area as the City of London the juries are hardly composed of the best educated and most intelligent of the l

community. Nevertheless, whether it be summoned to assist the coroner or any other judicial officer, the jury remains

for the obtaining of what is known as a " finding of

fact," the most satisfactory tribunal that we are likelyto obtain, in spite of the circumstance that its duties mayinvolve the consideration of scientific testimony. There

is, apparently, no desire on the part of lawyers, medicalexperts, or coroners who have given their evidencebefore the Departmental Committee to transfer the responsi-bilities of the men in the "box" to the coroner, either

alone or in conjunction with a medical assessor. It is.

true that Professor H. H. LITTLEJOHN, with a combined ex-

perience of the English and Scotch systems, expressed anopinion in favour of the latter, and advocated an inquiryconducted privately by a trained legal official. His evi-

dence was of a valuable character and will no doubt afford

suggestions for improvement in matters of detail ; but, onthe other hand, Mr. A. J. PEPPER may be cited as a

witness of weight who maintained his belief in the jurysystem, and other witnesses, including coroners, whose dutyit has been to apply the existing machinery, took a similarview. Making allowance for the tendency which we mustall have to trust to methods with which we are familiar,we do not think it likely that in this country the coroner’s

jury will be superseded by any other tribunal in the near

future, although steps may be taken to render the enquiries.more satisfactory to all concerned.The method of summoning juries and the number of jurors

desirable for practical purposes are discussed in the report,and other topics ventilated which are of special interest.

to the medical profession include the viewing of the

body by the coroner and the jury. It is a little sur.

prising to find a strongly voiced opinion in favour of,

retaining the practice under which a jury is compelled to

inspect the body. Under present conditions, at all eventswhere apparatus necessary for it exists, this is done with--

out risk in possibly infectious cases and without any

exposure of a distressing character. The reasons given for-retaining the view, however, included the possibility of a jurormaking a valuable suggestion from the inspection (for which

obviously something more than a glimpse of the uncoveredface would be necessary), and also the danger of some

deception, such as the substitution of another body, beingpractised. Mr. G. P. WYATT, a coroner of experience, was.also of opinion that the necessity of inspection of the bodyby the jury afforded the coroner a tangible pretext for

insisting on his right to have possession of the body without,demur on the part of the relatives. The possibility of thecoroner being given a discretionary power to order a view

by the jury and of individual jurors being allowed to

decline to avail themselves of the opportunity was con--

sidered, and this seems to us a fair compromise.Two important questions arose for the Committee out of

the post-mortem examination-the first being whether thecoroner should be empowered to order this before decidingto hold an inquest ; and the second to whom he should

intrust any post-mortem examination that he might considerdesirable. Mr. R. HENSLOWE WELLINGTON may be mentionedas an advocate of the preliminary post-mortem examination.He put the number of inquests which might be dispensed!with if the cause of death were to be thus ascertained at

40 per cent., and as it is admitted that an inquest often.

558

causes distress to the friends of the deceased, as well as

public expense, it seems likely that the authority to makethe order suggested will form the subject of a recommenda-tion by the Committee. The question of who is to hold

the post-mortem examination follows, and the opinionsexpressed were divided between the employment of an

independent pathologist in all cases, and the alternative ofhis services being made use of at the coroner’s discretion.The friction which has arisen in the jurisdiction of a

London coroner owing to his practice in this matter will beremembered, and it will be interesting to see what the Com-mittee will recommend. On the one hand, it is clear that

the medical man who under the provisions of the Coroner’sAct, 1887, now has the right to be ordered to make

the post-mortem examination is perfectly competent to

do so in a large number of instances, but in some

others it would be better to employ a pathologist quali-fied by special training and practice for the purpose. If,however, the employment of the latter is not rendered

obligatory a question necessarily follows as to how

the coroner, particularly if he is not himself a medical man,is to exercise the discretion suggested. In this connexion

it may be mentioned that several witnesses were asked as

to the qualifications desirable for the holding of the coroner’s

office, and that Mr. HENSLOWE WELLINGTON was of the

opinion that in country districts the legal qualification mightbe preferable to the medical, but that in large urban

areas the coroner should be a medically qualified lawyerwith experience." These topics are likely, however, to bereviewed as a whole, the comparison of the English andScotch systems, with the selection of desirable features

from both, affording the most obvious method for obtainingthat efficiency which we all desire to see-an efficiencywhich, be it remembered, must always fall short of per-fection and, however generally satisfactory, can scarcely beexpected to be beyond criticism.The principal topics dealt with by the witnesses before

the Committee, including those mentioned above, were pro-pounded to them in a series of written questions addressedto them before they gave evidence, and a number of other

points arising out of these were discussed. The fees of

witnesses suggested dealing with those fees which should

be paid but which are now unjustly withheld, when the

deceased has died in a hospital and when the medical

witness is a member of the staff of the institution.

The Committee was reminded in an interesting piece of

evidence by Mr. ISAAC BRADLEY, coroner for Birmingham,that this proviso is the survival of a clause to the same

effect introduced into the Coroners’ Act passed at the

instance of Mr. THOMAS WAKLEY, the Founder of

THE LANCET, early in the last century. It was then

devised as a reservation in the nature of a compromise inorder to induce Parliament to sanction the payment of anyfees to medical witnesses, and its retention has been a

matter of adverse comment ever since. Inseparably con-nected with the question of fees to medical witnesses

properly so called is that of remuneration for medical

men from whom coroners seek information when a death

is first reported to them. We are not sure whether the Com-

mittee had this matter fully enough before it, and whether

the evidence of one or two members of the medical profes-sion conversant with the matter from recent personal experi-ence might not be found useful. There are, however, more

witnesses to be called, and the revision of the system of

inquiry preliminary to holding an inquest or to dispensing withone must necessarily bring the subject under consideration.With regard to the scale on which medical fees should be

fixed, as well as on other important subjects, the Committeehad evidence from Dr. A. G. BATEMAN in his capacity of

general secretary of the Medical Defence Union. His

evidence, and that of several other witnesses, includingMr. CLINTON T. DENT, Dr. F. J. WALDO, and Mr. J.

BROOKE LITTJ,E, a barrister, who gave an instructive

historical synopsis of the history of the coroner’s office,

should interest medical men into whose hands the Blue.

book containing it may fall.We have not here gone into the evidence upon two

subjects of rather disproportionate importance to which

the Home Office called the Committee’s attention after

its appointment. These are deaths resulting from the

administration of anaesthetics and the danger arisingfrom the use of flannelette in articles of clothing. As

to the latter, little was said of importance, attention

being called to the provision for use of fireguards in the

recent Children Act. As to the former, exhaustive and

interesting evidence was given by an important series of

witnesses, which will probably have as its outcome a recom-mendation as to the manner in which these deaths should be

inquired into. This is, however, a matter which does notaffect the general ordering of those duties which a longprocess of development has assigned to coroners.

Annotations.

THE BRITISH ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCE-MENT OF SCIENCE.

4. Ne quid nimis."

THE British Association for the Advancement of Sciencewill this year hold its annual meeting at Winnipeg, inWestern Canada, and a considerable number of passengersleft British ports by steamer a week ago for the purpose oftaking part in the proceedings. On the present occasionthe association is making its third visit to Canada. At thefirst visit, in 1884, the meeting was held in Montreal, LordRayleigh being the President, while at the next visit, in

1897, the meeting was held in Toronto, with Sir John Evansas President. The proceedings will commence at Winnipeg onAugust 25th, Sir Joseph J. Thomson, Cavendish professor ofexperimental physics in the University of Cambridge, beingthe President. The work will be conducted in 11 sections,the subjects and sectional presidents of which will be asfollows :-Mathematical and physical science (ProfessorErnest Rutherford), chemistry (Professor H. E. Armstrong),geology (Mr. H. Smith Woodward), zoology (Mr. A. E.

Shipley), geography (Colonel Sir Duncan Johnston), economicscience and statistics (Professor S. J. Chapman), engineering(Sir William H. White), anthropology (Professor J. L.

Myres), physiology (Professor E. H. Starling), botany(Lieutenant-Colonel D. Prain), with a sub-section on agri-culture (Major P. G. Craigie), and educational science

(Rev. Dr. H. B. Gray). Medical subjects treated from aclinical or therapeutic point of view are seldom, if ever,