CHAPTER II

DEATH AND BURIAL[6]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section 1. “Every power to appoint a coroner shall cease upon the first occurrence of a vacancy in the office of coroner after the _commencement of this Act_.”

Then follow certain references as to the redistribution of coroners’ jurisdictions. The financial aspect of the office of coroner is not neglected.

Section 2. “There shall be paid to every coroner such salary as the authority by whom he is appointed and paid may decide, provided that after the lapse of five years from the date of appointment of the coroner, and of every successive period of five years, it shall be lawful for the authority to revise and thereby increase or diminish such salary, and if the coroner is dissatisfied with such revision the Secretary of State may determine the amount of such salary on the application of either the authority or the coroner.”

Another provision which exhibits a certain foresight, defines the question of age limit: “Every coroner shall cease to continue to hold the office of coroner on reaching the age of sixty-five years, provided that the Secretary of State may continue such coroner in office for a further period not exceeding five years on the application of either the authority by whom he was appointed or the coroner.”

The question of granting the retired coroner an annuity by way of superannuation allowance appears to be justly provided for; the authority of the Home Secretary is left to decide the amount, together with the detailed regulations relating to such payment. What is of greater public importance seems to be contained in the next provision, which deals with the qualifications of coroners.

Section 5. “No person shall be appointed a coroner unless he be a practising barrister of not less than five years’ standing, or a solicitor of not less than five years’ standing, or a registered medical practitioner who is also a barrister or a graduate in law of a University in the United Kingdom, provided that no member of the authority making the appointment, or any person who has been a member of such authority within a period of twelve months immediately before the making of the appointment, shall be eligible for appointment as a coroner by such authority.”

On the whole, there is little to criticise or attack in the qualifications set out, though it might not be too much to demand eight or ten years’ professional standing in the case of a solicitor, instead of five. Indeed, it seems scarcely equitable to place a solicitor on the same basis as a barrister or an especially highly qualified medical practitioner, unless such solicitor has taken a University degree, or has had to pass examinations of a more academic character than those which obtain at present.

Section 7. “Every coroner’s district shall be provided by the authority who appoints the coroner with suitable accommodation for holding inquests, and with a coroner’s officer or officers and other assistance as may be necessary for the proper carrying out of the duties of the office of coroner.”

This provision sounds very well in theory, but are not most populous centres already equipped with the necessary facilities for conducting an inquiry? If any such populous centre exists which is not so equipped, then the provision is most essential. But in outlying country districts, to centralise the place of inquiry would involve carting the dead body a great distance, to the probable discomfiture and inconvenience of the surviving relatives. In average cases, there is no special need to subject a dead body to more than ordinary scientific investigation, as near the place of death as possible, to fulfil the intentions of the law, and to have it tumbled across a county and back, with incidental delays is, one may safely say, somewhat unnecessary, if the natural feelings of surviving relatives are to be considered. An ordinary country house is usually sufficiently well adapted for the purposes of holding a _post mortem_ examination and a coroner’s inquiry. The customary system of using a local inn is not altogether bad, either, when it is remembered what a small number of inquests are anything like necessary in country districts.

Section 9. “Notwithstanding anything in subsection (1) of section three of the Coroners’ Act, 1887, a coroner after due inquiry into any case referred to him may decide not to hold an inquest if he is satisfied that the deceased died a natural death.... For the purposes of an inquiry under this section, the coroner may order a _post mortem_ examination, and the cost of such examination, being such sum as the Secretary of State may by regulation prescribe, shall be defrayed as if the examination were made in connexion with an inquest.”

In section 10, there is provision for the appointment of standing “medical investigators or pathologists” in each coroner’s district to assist the coroner in his inquiries and inquests and to make _post mortem_ examinations. The next section refers to the payment of ordinary medical witnesses, as opposed to the coroner’s “medical investigators or pathologists.” Section 12 of the Bill makes some sentimental provision in connection with the coroner’s jury and the question of “viewing the body.” It is of no great importance or interest one way or the other. Section 13, on the contrary, is of definite value from a legal standpoint. “Every coroner,” it settles, “shall cause a record of every inquiry and inquest to be kept, and shall transmit such record to the clerk of the [county] council or borough council, as the case may be, and it shall become the property of such county council or borough council, as the case may be, and such record shall be so made and transmitted as the Secretary of State may by regulation prescribe.”

In section 14, it is provided that “The Secretary of State may frame rules and orders for regulating the procedure or practice of coroners’ inquiries and coroners’ courts, and forms of proceedings therein, the fees to be charged for copies of depositions, records, or any document in the custody of the coroner or the local authority, and any other matter not regulated by statute on which it may, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, be desirable to prescribe the practice of coroners, and may from time to time amend such rules, orders, forms and fees.”

It is to be hoped that this section will be the means of establishing the rules of procedure on an exact basis. Also, there is no reason why the rules relating to evidence should not be applied with as much strictness in a coroner’s court as in a Metropolitan Police court. It is true that in numerous cases a coroner’s inquest savours more of a _quasi_-scientific investigation than a legal inquiry, but it should be borne in mind that it is primarily concerned in upholding the law by checking or discovering crime. Candidly, a better appreciation of this aspect of his functions would improve a coroner’s status among legal practitioners. Whether a man died from cerebral hemorrhage or syncope is really of little importance, provided he did not die by some unnatural means. The everlasting verdict, “Death from Natural Causes,” is far too frequent. Admittedly, where a medical practitioner has refused to certify the cause of death, the coroner has in the past been bound to order an inquiry, but in numberless instances the result of a great deal of trouble has merely been a verdict of natural death. Of course, this is not to be construed to apply to cases originating in suspicion. Where there is suspicion, there should be an inquest. Where there is no suspicion as a _raison d’être_ for an inquest, there should be no inquest.[8] This would do away with hundreds of useless and even expensive inquiries. The “medical investigators or pathologists” of the new Bill should often be able to satisfy themselves, by the appearance of the body and the circumstances attendant upon the death, without having recourse to a _post mortem_ examination.

It might be fairer to the pathologists were they to receive a fixed remuneration per annum, irrespective of the number of bodies subjected to scrutiny or to internal examination. The remuneration could be based on yearly averages, when the perfectly natural incentive for an extra two guineas would be absent in deciding them in favour of a _post mortem_ or against the necessity for it. It is not suggested that a reputable pathologist would be much influenced by a trifling fee, but where he is to receive payment for doing a thing, and nothing for not doing it, he perforce does it. Then, too, where a person has the power to decide whether or not the carrying out of a _post mortem_ is necessary, there is a tendency for him to give more attention to all the various circumstances of the death than he might otherwise feel himself obliged to do. A highly qualified man, with the power of independent judgment, does not deliberately set himself a task unless he believes its performance to be essential. By giving some such power to the “medical investigators or pathologists,” a great deal of superfluous work would be saved. The question of reducing every coroner to a fixed salary--_i.e._, a salary not dependent on the number of dead bodies on which inquests are held--would be a further advantage both to the coroners and to the community. The system of so much per head per corpse is obsolete; if it is not exactly obsolete, it ought to be so.

The second part of the Coroners’ Law and Death Certification (Amendment) Bill is concerned with questions of death certification and burial. Section 16 of the Bill, which is the first in Part II., sets out that “No death shall be registered under the Registration Acts without the delivery to the registrar of a certificate of death duly signed by a registered medical practitioner, or by a coroner, after holding an inquiry or inquest.” The next section goes on to say that, “Before giving a certificate of death, a registered medical practitioner shall personally inspect the body and identify it as the body of the person named in the certificate whom he has attended during his last illness, and shall _certify to the fact of death as well as to its cause_.” (The italics do not appear in the Bill.) Sections 18 and 19 are uninteresting, merely containing, as they do, particulars of the form of death certificates and the method of filing the same.

Section 20. (1) “When the registered medical practitioner who attended a person during his last illness is unable to give a certificate of death, he shall forthwith notify to the coroner the fact of such death with the reasons for his inability to give such certificate.” (2) “When no registered medical practitioner has attended the deceased person during his last illness, the relatives, friends, or other persons having cognizance of the death, or of any doubtful or suspicious circumstances attending the death, shall themselves report full

## particulars thereof to the coroner.”

Section 23. “Every person who shall bury or otherwise dispose of any dead body shall certify, by endorsement of the burial order (which endorsement shall be in the form set forth in the Second Schedule to this Act), the name of the place, the date, and the mode of burial, or other mode of disposal of the dead body, and shall send such order to the registrar of deaths in whose district the death was registered within five days after such burial or other disposal of the dead body. Such certificate shall, together with the certificate of death, or finding of the coroner after inquiry, or verdict after inquest, as the case may be, be entered in a book kept for the purpose, to be called the ‘register of deaths and burials.’” Then follow penalties for non-compliance with the regulations specified.

Section 24. “No person responsible for the burial or other disposition of any dead body shall retain the same, or delay the burial or other disposition of the same for any longer period than eight days after death, except with the previous written consent of a justice of the peace. Before giving this consent such justice shall be satisfied that such retention or delay is reasonable, and the consent shall state the period and grounds of such retention or delay. Any person who fails to comply with the provisions of this section shall, on summary conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding _five pounds_ for every day during which he fails to comply as aforesaid.”

## Part III. contains one important provision. “Any dead child which has

issued forth from its mother after the expiration of the twenty-eighth week of pregnancy, whether alive or dead, shall be the dead body of a person within the meaning of the Coroners’ Act, 1887, and this Act, and a person within the meaning of the Births and Deaths Registration Act, 1874.”

By the foregoing extracts from the new Bill, it will be seen that a greater attention is to be paid to establishing _the fact of death_, something which hitherto has been left to be implied from the nature of the certificate. The intention of the provision is, of course, excellent. It may even help to abate the nervousness of persons who go in dread of burial alive. But its practical value will be dependent on the precautions taken by the individual medical practitioner in his examination of the corpse. The routine of examining dead bodies becomes as commonplace as any other routine, and it might not be a bad policy to include a provision for a definite test by which the medical practitioner could finally _prove the fact of death_.

Cases of premature coffining may be extremely numerous or extremely rare. It is a purely speculative question. There is, however, little doubt that where a supposed dead body is left to the tender mercies of funeral scavengers, few of these men would scruple to coffin the same, though still animate, if the chance of discovery were remote. And the chance of discovery would be remote--indeed, it might be quite absent in nine out of ten such cases. Obviously, the most perfect way to prevent premature coffining would be for the relatives or friends of the deceased to retain possession of the body until definite indications of decomposition or putrefaction were present. In many cases, the eight days allowed under ordinary circumstances by the new Bill would enable interested persons to secure evidence of this character.

An advantage which England has over France lies in the fact that in this country hasty burial has never been enforced. The climate here certainly lends itself to a comparatively tardy process of decomposition. In tropical countries, when a man dies his body is buried or otherwise disposed of a few hours after death. In France, unless special permission is obtained from the local authorities (which involves having the body embalmed), it is usual to carry out burial within forty-eight hours from the time of death. This applies to the North of France, Normandy and Brittany, where hasty burial is in no sense climatically necessary. But there are many other things associated with French regulations regarding the dead which would not find much support in this country. The grave lease, for instance, which merely secures _temporary burial_, is one. A person dies and a grave is leased for five years. At the end of the five years, the body may be exhumed, and, for want of a better purpose, it is removed to a factory where the residue of the decomposed flesh is boiled off, or steamed off, and a skeleton is the result. The skeleton is afterwards sold to the anatomical specimen dealer. As a regular traffic, the whole scheme is odious and would not appeal to the legislators of this country. Another French institution for the disposal of the dead is the “funeral pomp monopoly.” A _concessionnaire_ obtains the right to bury all the dead in a certain district, with the result that there is no competition and no choice of undertakers or methods left to the person who is responsible for the burial of a friend or relative. In Havre, in Rouen, in Paris, these monopolies exist. One finds them in the smaller towns, too, where the old peasant in the street feels distinctly uncomfortable, on beholding the very men who will certainly pack him in his coffin the moment he dies!

The employment of an undertaker is in no sense obligatory in England, and an amateur funeral, needless to say, is just as legal as a funeral carried out by Peter Robinson or Maple and Co.![9] There is also no reason why the persons who die in a certain district should be buried or cremated in that district. The law does not interfere with sentimental preference. In England, the voluntary choice of burial place,--means, method, etc.,--is legally sanctioned. To a material mind, however, it is absolutely incredible how the people themselves at this advanced epoch continue to employ the ludicrous top-hatted, woebegone scarecrows, whose only function is to carry a piece of furniture to a wagon, also equally grotesque in its appearance, and a little later on to discharge the burden at a graveyard, a railway station or a crematorium! The day of undertakers’ “mourners,” desperate-looking hearse-drivers, and other _bizarre_ mockeries connected with funerals, should be ended by the force of common sense. The system continues through habit, through a certain repulsion which many people have for giving practical thought to death and its circumstances.[10]

FOOTNOTES

[6] See Appendix B.

[7] Mr. Chester’s italics.

[8] “The Isle of Wight Coroner to-day decided that an inquest was unnecessary on Sir Alfred Lyall, who died suddenly at Lord Tennyson’s yesterday. Sir Alfred’s medical attendant has certified that he was suffering from angina pectoris. The funeral will take place at Harbledown, near Canterbury.” From the foregoing paragraph in _The Pall Mall Gazette_, April 11, 1911, it will be seen that the discretion allowed the coroner has been well employed. Though Sir Alfred Lyall fell down dead in his room, there was obviously no cause for an inquest.

[9] “The French have the reputation of being a witty people, but although they have shaken off belief in revelation, they are to the last degree credulous in other things. No invention, says _The British Medical Journal_, seems to be too silly for a French paper to palm off on its readers when it deals with English matters. Not long ago it was gravely announced in a French medical journal that an English company had been formed to work a patent for the installation of cremation ovens in private houses.... Our contemporary, which professes to quote from a circular issued by the new company, states that the apparatus is therein described as ‘a gas furnace, low, but long and wide, covered with a steel case, into which the coffin is introduced.’ The corpse, it is said, is burnt in a few seconds. The oven must be heated an hour beforehand. For those who do not happen to possess this convenient arrangement among their household furniture, the company offers it on hire. All one has to do is to telephone to the right address and the company will forthwith send the apparatus with skilled operatives to work it. The price of the whole apparatus is given at £90, and the total cost of the operation as £2. But the company hopes that if its affairs prosper it will be able to reduce the price. Here, says our contemporary, is an idea which could only spring from the brain of an Anglo-Saxon.... To this we reply that the idea, wherever it sprang from, could only have been published in a French journal. This suggested addition to the comforts of the English home opens up wide possibilities. We are recognised as the pioneers of sanitation. Are not our water-closets diffused throughout the civilised globe? The bathroom has followed, though to a much more limited extent. A home crematory would certainly have several advantages, alike from the sentimental and the practical points of view. The crematory _à domicile_ would sweep away once and for all the mourning coaches, undertakers’ men, and all the trappings and ceremonies that make death hideous to all but those ghouls who find an unholy joy in the last rites paid to a defunct fellow creature.... With the home crematory available the only funeral-baked meat would be the corpse of the deceased. Now that we are told to lead the simple life, here is a way of getting rid once and for all of one of the most artificial ceremonies of civilised life. A crematory in the home would also supply to unscrupulous persons who wished to get rid of inconvenient relatives an easy way of disposing of the compromising remains. Lest the lively but simple-minded Gaul should misunderstand us, we hasten to add the warning which Artemus Ward found necessary for his readers, that this is a ‘goak.’”--_Pall Mall Gazette_, April 15, 1911.

[10] It has frequently occurred to the writer, who has made a practical study of such subjects, that the conduct and methods of persons who traffic in the disposal of dead bodies should be brought into the closer cognizance of the law. A regular system of police inspection is required. The acts and omissions of the irresponsible scavengers who thrive on burying the dead are often of such a character that the law itself is infringed. A popular weekly paper contains the following passage in its current issue:--“In one of the poorer districts of Manchester the police have just found on the premises of a female undertaker the bodies of nine children--all very young, seventeen days being the oldest--waiting until the parents could secure the necessary burial fees, to be buried. The remains were discovered in an outhouse; and, impossible as it may seem, one body had been there for two weeks.... On making inquiries, I find that there is nothing at all unusual in this procedure. The poorer people are very sensitive where their dead are concerned, and have a great aversion to what is termed ‘a pauper’s grave.’ It is in times of trouble or death that the real good-heartedness of the working-class shows itself. Directly the neighbours learn that the house of someone in their midst has been visited by death, a subscription is started. However, as they are in receipt of only a meagre wage themselves, a week or so often has to pass ere sufficient has been raised to satisfy the undertaker, and apparently his premises are used as a sort of pawnshop for dead bodies.... When a child has had a separate existence, the doctor gives a certificate of death, and a _post mortem_ is not necessary. Consequently, it is very doubtful if anything further will be heard about the matter.”

The poor make, relatively, the easiest victims in connection with funeral extortions. One hears of defunct costermongers being carted to the grave in four-horsed hearses, etc.! A good example of funeral extravagance is to be found in the subjoined paragraph:--“_Miner’s Funeral Costs £40._--It was shown at Pontefract County Court, on Tuesday, that the mother of a miner, just deceased, had spent £40 on the funeral. This sum included £5 10s. for tea to 110 persons who attended. There was also £10 for dresses, and the mother had borrowed £16 to make other payments.”

It is interesting to note that there is no right of property in a corpse. It is usual, however, for the executors of the deceased to have possession of the body and to control the means and method of disposal.

##