Yachting accident, 148 years ago

[Danny Jo]

During Freestyle's visit to Sligo in July I discovered that I one of my great great uncles had drowned in Windermere, on 11 June 1861. Looking at his death certificate, I see that the coroner, whose inquest was held two days after the event, gave the cause of death as "Accidental drowning by the overturning of a yacht". The death was registered on 15 June 1861.

I don't imagine that documentation of such an event today would be so expeditious. Was less fuss made about death in those days? If so, why? Because it was more commonplace?

 

[tillergirl]

Some guesses. Less people around so fewer deaths. Fewer deaths, fewer queues for post mortems, cold storage facilities not so good so better to be quick; today 'routine' ie non suspicious deaths can be stored so the Pathologists does many in one day rather than one a day when they happen. Toxicology is more involved these days, results take longer. 1861 was the year the Offences against the Person Act - long old Act - became law so I guess they were thinking about injuries, death just as much etc. But two days does seem quick. Was the Coroner on the helm?

 

[Wansworth]

A related tale,in Ribadeo Northern Spain they arrested the new life boat as some of the lifeboat men had drowned when It overturned(drink could have been at the root)This happened years ago but I came across the lifeboat still arrested in a shed in 1994.

 

[Ubergeekian]

During Freestyle's visit to Sligo in July I discovered that I one of my great great uncles had drowned in Windermere, on 11 June 1861. Looking at his death certificate, I see that the coroner, whose inquest was held two days after the event, gave the cause of death as "Accidental drowning by the overturning of a yacht". The death was registered on 15 June 1861.

I don't imagine that documentation of such an event today would be so expeditious. Was less fuss made about death in those days? If so, why? Because it was more commonplace?

Solely on the basis of old detective stories (Dorothy L Sayers, Margery Allingham, Agatha Christie etc) it seems to me that coroners inquests used to be done very quickly. It seems pretty common n those books for inquests to be held within a day or two of a body being found. I can suggest two reasons:

1. No refrigerated storage for corpses

2. fewer lawyers with their snouts in the trough.

It also amazes me how long trials last these days - six months is nothing unusual for a murder, yet Crippen's only took five days and Ruth Ellis' was over in a day.

 

[Danny Jo]

Some guesses. Less people around so fewer deaths. Fewer deaths, fewer queues for post mortems, cold storage facilities not so good so better to be quick; today 'routine' ie non suspicious deaths can be stored so the Pathologists does many in one day rather than one a day when they happen. Toxicology is more involved these days, results take longer. 1861 was the year the Offences against the Person Act - long old Act - became law so I guess they were thinking about injuries, death just as much etc. But two days does seem quick. Was the Coroner on the helm?

Umm, fewer people around, yes, but the number of deaths per annum was approximately the same. The population of England and Wales was 20 million in 1861. Both the birth rate and the death rate were considerably higher than they are today. The total number of deaths in England and Wales in the ten years 1861-1870 was 4,474,500 - the "standardised" figure, whatever that means was 5,575,000 - but say roughly 500,000 per annum. In 2007 the total number of deaths in England and Wales was 504,052. Goodness knows how many more pathologists there are now than there were then.

 

[savageseadog]

Solely on the basis of old detective stories (Dorothy L Sayers, Margery Allingham, Agatha Christie etc) it seems to me that coroners inquests used to be done very quickly. It seems pretty common n those books for inquests to be held within a day or two of a body being found. I can suggest two reasons:

1. No refrigerated storage for corpses

2. fewer lawyers with their snouts in the trough.

It also amazes me how long trials last these days - six months is nothing unusual for a murder, yet Crippen's only took five days and Ruth Ellis' was over in a day.

It's also quite striking how many murder convictions were based on confessions.

 

[Ubergeekian]

It's also quite striking how many murder convictions were based on confessions.

Striking is the word, though of course falling down stairs at the police station also played its part.

 

[Sultans_Kapitein]

The total number of deaths in England and Wales in the ten years 1861-1870 was 4,474,500 - the "standardised" figure, whatever that means was 5,575,000 - but say roughly 500,000 per annum. In 2007 the total number of deaths in England and Wales was 504,052. Goodness knows how many more pathologists there are now than there were then.

Yes but don't forget that the birthrate was a lot higher than to day AND the number of 'still births' also higher, and if a child were born in the work house and did not survive the birth I do not think an inquest was called for, but I could be wrong and am glad to be corrected.

Mal

 

[Danny Jo]

Yes but don't forget that the birthrate was a lot higher than to day AND the number of 'still births' also higher, and if a child were born in the work house and did not survive the birth I do not think an inquest was called for, but I could be wrong and am glad to be corrected.

Mal

The birth rate (which refers to live births only) was indeed much higher. Stillbirths are not included in either the births or the deaths stats. Infant mortality (deaths under 1 year of age) was about 150 per thousand then as compared with 5 per thousand now. About 70% of our present infant mortality is accounted for by deaths in the first 4 weeks of life. But 15% of the population dying before the age of 1 year accounts for a minority of the early deaths in Victorian England - I think I've read somewhere that 50% of the population did not reach the age of 45 years or so.

 

[DownWest]

I remember in Diss, Norfolk, when a regular villain was up before the beak. He asked why the man was so bruised and battered. The sargeant said " He fell down the stairs at the station" ( this IS true) a muffled voice at the back of the court said "Yes, three times"
A

The length of current trials must be connected to the need for the CPS to cover every bit of evidence and witness for fear of appeals. Plus the ease with which public funding can be obtained to finance such. A legal friend retired quite early and told me that much of his considerable fund was from working the legal aid system.
A