52 REPORT— 1869. 



their boilers and boiler-attendants. These improved investigations would at 

 the same time have a most wholesome effect upon the operations of boiler- 

 inspection associations and boiler-insurance companies, as in the event of the 

 explosion of an enrolled boiler, the case would be fully investigated by im- 

 partial parties, and the facts brought to light. Such a course would clearly 

 promote sound inspection. 



Thus the Committee consider that the adoption of this measure would have 

 so wholesome an influence upon boiler-makers and boiler-users, as well as 

 upon boiler-attendants and boiler-inspectors, and indeed upon all those con- 

 nected with the use of steam, that it would, without any further Governmental 

 interference, do much to prevent the recurrence of steam-boiler explosions, 

 and they warmly concur with the proposition. 



With regard to the manner in which the expense of these investigations 

 should be defrayed, the Committee recommend that this should be met from 

 the same source that coroners' inquiries are met at present, viz. either from 

 the county or city rates, as the case may be. This course is deemed better 

 than that of throwing the cost of the inquiry upon the owner of the exploded 

 boiler by way of penalty, as in many cases his resources would be so drained 

 by the catastrophe as to be insufficient to meet the charges ; while, in 

 addition, it is thought that scientific witnesses, called upon to discharge so 

 important a public duty as that now jn'oposed, should not be dependent on so 

 uncertain and invidious a source for remuneration. 



It has been proposed that the Crown should levy a heavy deodand on the 

 owners of all boilers that explode, unless it could be shown that the explosion 

 arose from causes entirely beyond their own control, the oni;s of the proof 

 being thrown on the boiler-owners, and not on the Crown. Such a measure 

 has, at first sight, much to recommend it. It would doubtless act as a 

 powerful stimulant to care ; but inasmuch as the relatives of those killed by 

 boiler explosions arc deprived thereby of their means of support, it is thought 

 that all payment should go to them in the way of compensation rather than 

 to the Crown. In many cases the owner of a boiler is so impoverished by its 

 explosion that, had he to pay a deodand, he would have nothing left to com- 

 pensate those who were rendered widows and orphans by the catastrophe, so 

 that the Crown would be robbing them of their legitimate compensation. It 

 is thought therefore it would be better not to impose any deodand, fine, or 

 penalty, but to leave the steam-user, in the event of explosion, simply to the 

 exposure of full investigation and plain speaking, combined with the liability 

 to an action for damages, which the improved verdicts would give increased 

 facilities for setting in motion. 



The Committee would wish to add a few remarks upon the misapprehen- 

 sion that arises from the use of the word " accidental " in the verdicts re- 

 turned by coroners' juries, and the advantage they think would be derived 

 from the substitution of the expression " not due to mcdice aforetJiovf/Jit." 

 The Committee apprehend that the fundamental object of a coroner's inquiry, 

 in the case of a sudden or violent death, is to determine whether that death 

 was occasioned by personal malice or not. Thus it may be legally correct for 

 the jury to return a verdict of " accidental death " from a steam-boiler 

 explosion, though the boiler may have been so worn out that, in an engineer- 

 ing and common sense view, the explosion was no accident at all. Thus the 

 jury use the word in one sense, but the public accept it in another, and the 

 term is taken to be an exoneration of the owner of the boiler. It is thouglit 

 that the obligations of the jury would be fulfilled, at the same time that the 

 prevention of steam-boiler explosions would be promoted, if juries, instead of 



