Wynne Baxter trivia

[Howard Brown]

40,000 inquests in 40 years.
1,000 per year.
2.7 Inquests per day


Nenagh Guardian
October 9, 1920
*************

[Howard Brown]

Eau Claire (Wis.) Leader
March 18, 1906
*************

[Cris Malone]

As mentioned in an earlier post, Wynne Baxter wore many 'hats' during his long career. He also had some keen personal interests which promoted his involvement in social, science and cultural organizations. He was a major promoter of the Public Library system so people of less financial means could have access to a plethora of books heretofore found only in the collections of the wealthy. Baxter was Library Commissioner for Stoke Newington, where he resided from 1883 until his death.

His lifelong passion was the works of John Milton. He had the most extensive collection of Milton known to exist, including a very rare edition of Paradise Lost, complete with annotations by the author himself. Baxter used his collection to promote the financial backing of public libraries and would often entertain guest at his home at 170 Stoke Newington Church Street (former home of Isaac Disraeli's father). The events would constitute a lecture on Milton by Baxter, accompanied by a slide show presented by his son, Frank, who also shared his father's interest in this field.

Baxter wrote a book on Paradise Lost, detailing the variations in the several editions. It is still considered by scholars as the definitive piece on the subject of Milton.

After Baxter's death, his collection, comprising some 280 lots, was sold at auction on June 12, 1921. It only garnered L700 - a steal considering how much some of the editions from this collection are worth now.

Baxter's son carried on in his father's footsteps as a member of the Stoke Newington Libraries Committee and other literary organizations.

After Frank's death in 1932, the Baxter home - which it and the surrounding estate had been in the Baxter family trust - was surrendered for demolition.


Sources:

Literary World - Vol 2, July 1899- June 1900.
The Bibliographer - vol. 2, no. 2, Feb. 1903.
London Mercury - vol 4, 1921.
National Archives collection, Kew.

[Cris Malone]

Wynne Baxter was known to point out the social/economic conditions of the East End during his summaries at some of his inquests. Notable to most was his denunciation of the conditions at some of the lodging houses during the Chapman inquest. This was because the vast majority of the cases that came before him were the tragic result of depravity and suffering that he was constantly exposed to on a daily basis while conducting his inquiries.

Below, is one notable example. Sometimes there were four such inquests held in just one day. It is an excerpt from Montagu Williams' 1891 book, Later Leaves:



The coroner in this case, Mr. Wynne Baxter, a few days afterwards held an inquest into the circumstances attending the death of a dock-labourer, aged fifty-three, who had resided at 231, High Street, Shad well. The deceased, who was only a casual hand at the docks, had a family of four children—the eldest being thirteen and the youngest three—dependent solely upon him, his wife being confined as a lunatic in the asylum at Banstead.

Strangely enough, the poor fellow had been unusually fortunate in obtaining work just before his death. His services were engaged on the Monday and also on the Tuesday. During the morning of the latter day, he complained to a fellow-workman of considerable pain, and on going to receive his pay at six o'clock that evening, he suddenly fell down in a fainting condition. His comrades carried him to the hospital, but on their arrival there, life was pronounced to be extinct.

A post-mortem examination was held, and the house physician stated the conclusions to which it had led him. The cause of death, he said, was syncope, due to want of food, there being no trace thereof either in the stomach or intestines.

Evidence was given to the effect that the children had some food on the Monday evening when their father came home from work; and the jury, in returning their verdict, expressed the opinion that the deceased had starved himself to death to feed his little ones.


.

[Chris G.]

Originally Posted by How Brown

40,000 inquests in 40 years.
1,000 per year.
2.7 Inquests per day


Nenagh Guardian
October 9, 1920
*************

Yes but some of those inquests could have been fairly short and over relatively trivial matters. The son of long-serving S.W. Lancashire coroner Sir Samuel Brighouse (56 years), Robert Wales Brighouse, deputy coroner for Ormskirk, on 3 June 1940, held a ‘treasure trove inquest’ in the matter of a gold sovereign found by a schoolboy, the reason being that such treasure could be claimed by the Crown as per ancient law.

Chris

[Cris Malone]

Few issues were more contentious than the controversy surrounding the removal of a deceased relative to a mortuary. It had been common tradition for the dead to remain in the home while awaiting burial. It was considered an essential part of the grieving process for Christian families. Mortuaries were often not trusted to provide proper care of a departed loved one, nor were they considered appropriate places for friends and relatives to gather to offer their condolences to the bereaved.

With the introduction of the Sanitary Act of 1866, which authorized a justice - on the 'certificate of a qualified medical practitioner' - to order the removal of a body of a person who had died of an infectious disease or posed a health risk to the inhabitants of the same house, some conflagrations were inevitable. Justices were expected to exercise discretion in performing their duties in these matters and a physician's certificate was supposed to insure legitimate cause for such measures. But those in power have often assumed more authority than was actually intended.

Enter Coroner Wynne Baxter and the case of Mrs. Caroline Banham, age 70, lately residing at 15, High Street, Whitechapel.

Mrs. Banham had been knocked down by the pole of a pair-horse van while crossing the street on March 19, 1891. She subsequently died from congestion as a result of her injuries on March 23. Coroner Baxter gave verbal instructions to his officer to have the body removed to the mortuary in anticipation of an inquest without any certification by a doctor. Furthermore, Baxter's officer took it upon himself to write the directive on a scrap of paper and present it to the woman's family without any written authorization by the coroner himself.

Mrs. Banham's family were upset and sought the council of a Mr. Davis, one of the curates of the St. Mary's Parish Church, Whitechapel. The curate sympathized with the family and queried the opinions of a solicitor, two police inspectors and an official of the local government board. All, with the exception of one police inspector, advised that there was no authority to remove the body. Davis refused to let Baxter's officer take the body from the premises.

Baxter convened the inquest anyway and summoned the curate, Mr. Davis, to appear. The coroner was relentless in his determination to make an example of Mr. Davis. Davis held his ground against the irascible coroner. He challenged the action of the coroner's officer, questioned the 'absolute power' the coroner presumed to have over a body when 'bodies were removed for no apparent reason' and cited the opinions of the professionals who he had consulted.

Baxter replied that he did have authority to order the body removed to the mortuary and had made it a universal rule to do so. He could not see 'why twelve or fifteen men should be compelled to go into a house when there was a possibility of their spreading contagion.' Of course, this was presuming that a post-mortem and an inquest were necessary in the first place. The coroner told Mr. Davis that if he 'had communicated with him instead of going to a lot of irresponsible officials, he would soon have found out the law on the subject.' Baxter asserted that he was the rightful interpreter and enforcer of such laws.

He also reminded Davis that persons had been indicted for obstruction in such matters and that if there 'was any other attempt at interference he should commit the person interfering.' The stalwart Davis invited the charge to be made against him and added that it would be a good way of bringing the matter to the public. Baxter arrogantly told him that 'the public had no option in the matter' and as a result of 'this clerical interference' a costly adjournment would now have to take place while a post-mortem was conducted.

The post-mortem was conducted and at the reconvened inquest, the physician stated that the woman had died as a result of her injuries as expected all along.

An article in the April 15, 1891 edition of the Sanitary Record remarked, "Mr. Wynne Baxter, the East London Coroner, has apparently a sufficient sense of the importance of his office; but we do not know from where he derives the autocratic powers which he assumes to exercise... Coroners are no more above the law than are magistrates or judges, and there is no excuse for their performing their duties in such a slipshod way.'

The writer was mistakenly giving Mr. Baxter the benefit of the doubt, if 'slipshod' was to mean in a careless manner. There was nothing slipshod about Baxter's or his officer's actions here. It was an intentional and deliberate action undertaken without any discretion applied to the particular circumstances involved or the implementation of the law as it was written.

[Tom_Wescott]

Cris,

Do you think the timing of Baxter's Scandinavian vacation at the time of Tabram's murder was coincidental to his pay cut or that he was, in essence, going "on strike" from his duties in protest to the pay cut?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Cris Malone]

Hi Tom,

I don't think so. Many of these officials took vacations at certain times during the summer months and Scandinavia or the Alps seem to have been popular vacation spots for them.

I did read somewhere ( Law Times I think) that at one point Baxter threatened to resign, but it was probably a bluff. He had to know that Collier was more than capable to fill in if necessary.

Baxter did what he was trained to do; bring forth a lawsuit. He just got derailed when there was a county reorganization and a restructuring of county governments while his suit was taking place.

With the possible exception of John Troutback of Westminster, Wynn Baxter was one of the most controversial coroners of his day. He had a lot of sympathy for the plight of the people in his district on many issues, but he was not very compromising... unless pushed into a corner as a result of his own impulsive behavior. He knew how to play hardball against any opposition and was most effective in seeing his will carried out.

He made some enemies and more than a few jurors who had to serve at his inquests literally despised him. The Pall Mall Gazette reported one time that a juror who was angry at being taken away from his wife and children to 'perform the duties of an Englishman' threatened to place a stick of dynamite under the coroner's seat and blow him up.

[Dave O]

Hi Cris,

Thanks for your account of the Banham inquest. I think Baxter's performing a legal maneuver there. It seems to me that in ordering that postmortem, Baxter is solidifying his authority over the body. He looks to be falling back on section 24 of The Coroner's Act 1887 (restating part of sec 143 of The Public Health Act 1875). It gives him a clear right to remove a body for the purposes of conducting a p.m.

I think it's interesting that based on your account, this opposition drives him to adjourn and order an autopsy.

Best,
Dave

[Cris Malone]

I agree Dave. Here is the text of an opinion piece written in the Sanitary Record, Vol 12:

REMOVAL OP CORPSE TO
MORTUARY

Mr. Wynne Baxter, the East London Coroner, has apparently a sufficient sense of the importance of his office; but we do not know from whom he derives the autocratic powers which he assumes to exercise. It is, of course, often to the last degree desirable that the bodies of persons who have died should be removed from too close proximity to the living; and this is especially the case where the relatives of the deceased occupy only one or two rooms, and considerations of health and decency cannot be observed unless the corpse is removed. But though such a course of proceeding may be desirable in many, if not in all cases, there appears to be no power given by our law to enforce it

According to the report of the proceedings held recently on the body of an old woman named Caroline Benham, who lived and died in High Street, Whitechapel (see page 080, Mr. Baxter makes it a universal rule to order bodies, on which an inquest is to be held, to be removed to the parish mortuary for the purpose of being viewed by the jury, as he does not think it reasonable to compel them to enter houses which are often not suitable for the accommodation of so many persons, and where, moreover, there may be a possible risk of infection. Doubtless a well-arranged mortuary is a more suitable place for the purpose than most lodgings or small dwelling-houses can be, and the removal thither of the corpse is a benefit to the surviving members of the family; but, unfortunately, popular prejudice is often opposed to such a removal, and the law does not sanction it except in certain cases. Under the Sanitary Act, 1866, which applies to the metropolis, and the Public Health Act, 1875, which applies to the rest of Kngland, mortuaries may be provided; and to them "any dead body of a person who has died of any infectious disease, or any dead body which is in such a state as to endanger the health of the inmates of the same house or room," may be removed by order of a justice, on a certificate by a legally qualified medical practitioner. A coroner is, ex-officio, a justice of the peace, and therefore might make such an order, if he was put into motion by a proper medical certificate. A coroner, or other constituted authority, may also order the removal of a body to a proper place for the purpose of carrying out a post-mortem examination. These two cases are. as far as we can see, the only ones under which there is any power to remove a corpse if the friends object; and in both cases a proper order must first be made.

In the case of Mrs. Banham, it would seem to have been most desirable that the body should have been removed; for the tenement occupied by her family, consisting of herself and her daughter, and the daughter's husband and child, was only two small rooms over a provision-shop, approached by a stepladder. But the relatives disliked the idea of the removal, and, backed up by the advice of a curate, refused to allow it. There was no medical certificate that the body required to be taken elsewhere, and consequently there could be no magistrate's order. The coroner had apparently given verbal directions for a post-mortem examination, but had not stated where this was to take place, and the only document ordering removal was a slip of paper given by his officer to the undertaker. The curate had consulted certain people who might be supposed to know something of the law, who told him (quite rightly) that there was no power to remove the body without an order from the coroner. Mr. Baxter, when informed of this, is reported to have said that " it was a great piece of impertinent interference with his office, as j the usual course had been taken with regard to the removal of the body." We cannot agree. It probably was most desirable, as we have said, that the body in question should have been removed; for if a post-mortt m examination was required, it could not well have been conducted in either of the two small rooms above the provision-shop. But officials such as coroners should take the trouble to discharge their duties propei ly. If the usual course in East Londou is for the coroner's officer (whoever that person may be) to give a slip of paper to an undertaker, ordering the removal of a corpse, without obtaining any formal order from his employer, the coroner, the sooner it is recognized that the slip of paper is waste paper, and is no valid order at all, the better for all parties concerned. Coroners are 110 more above the law than are magistrates or judges, and there is no excuse for their performing their duties in such a slipshod way. If the law is to be altered, the alteration must be made by Parliament. Possibly, as regards the Metropolis, provision may be made for the matter in the Public Health Amendment Act, which has attained its second reading in the House of Commons.