An HON. MEMBERbegged to ask the right hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham) whether any steps had been taken on the part of the Home Office to institute further inquiry into the late awful cases of poisoning in Norfolk, and to prevent the possible repetition of such crimes. He wished to know whether the attention of the registrar-general of deaths had been directed to the subject, and whether it would not be advisable for all registrars to refuse to enter notices of sudden death, until inquiry should have been instituted?
§ SIR J. GRAHAMThe question put by the hon. Member was one of very great importance, and the subject to which he had referred one of very great consequences. The inquiry instituted by the Crown had closed, but the report had not yet been received by him. With regard to the other question, and the suggestions of the hon. Gentleman, he must observe that it was the duty of the registrar of deaths to receive from a householder an account of the death (with its cause) of an individual in his district, and to enter the statement so made; and positive instructions had been issued that the registrars should be satisfied as to the accuracy of the statement. But as to refuse to enter a sudden death when there should exist no suspicious circumstances to occasion a doubt as to its fairness, he thought such a proceeding would be most vexatious. He would take that opportunity of stating to the House what he believed to be a serious cause of the commission of these crimes. It was the infrequency of coroners' inquests throughout the country. In the case alluded to, it appeared that no less than twenty persons had lost their lives by poison, administered by one individual, without any inquiry having been held. Any person having reason to think that death had occurred under suspicious circumstances, had a right to call for an investigation. But he regretted to say that, during the last few years, so much jealousy had arisen at courts of quarter-session with regard to the charges consequent upon holding those inquiries, as to prevent their being holden; and in his opinion inquests had not been held in a great many instances in which they ought to have been. Some of the magistrates of Devonshire had 376 come to the resolution that they would not allow expenses where the verdict on an inquest had been "died by the visitation of God." The consequence had been that at Ilfracomb a coroner had refused to hold an inquest because his expenses would not be allowed. This course had operated most injuriously in reference to the performance of their duties by coroners, and inquests had in many cases been omitted that ought to have held.