§ MR. COBB (Warwick, S.E., Rugby)I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is truly stated in the London Press that a Coroner's inquiry was held relating to the death of the late Duke of Bedford; whether it is the custom to give notice to the police of the holding of a Coroner's inquiry, and if such notice was given in this case; whether it is the custom to make out a list of the inquests which are about to be held, to allow the representatives of the Press to inspect such list at the Coroner's Office, and whether the case of the Duke of Bedford was omitted from any such list, although other cases were included in it; and whether the Home Office will obtain full information from the Coroner as to the causes which have led to this case being treated differently from ordinary cases, and as to the secret nature of the inquiry?
§ MR. MORTON (Peterborough)had also the following question on the 894 Paper: To ask the Secretary of State whether his attention has been drawn to the statements in the Press as to the absence of the public and the reporters from the inquest on the body of the late Duke of Bedford; whether the District Coroner was within his legal right in conducting the inquest in private, and without the usual notices; and, if so, whether any such right has been exercised in recent times; and whether he will consider the desirability of making such procedure in private illegal in future, in view of the practice of cremation, which destroys the evidence of the cause of death?
§ MR. MATTHEWSI will answer this question and that of the hon. Member for Peterborough at the same time. I am informed by the Coroner that an inquest was held, that notice was given to the police, and that an Inspector of Police was present. It is customary, though not obligatory, for the Coroner to place a list of inquests (not always a complete list) in his outer office. The Coroner gave no directions to omit the case of the Duke of Bedford from the list, and, as a matter of fact, the case was included in the list. No difference whatever from the usual practice was made in the treatment of this case, and the Coroner reports to me that the family of the deceased were informed that this was an open inquiry in a Public Court, which anyone might attend. The Coroner knows no reason why the public and reporters were absent. They were not excluded at his instance. As the Coroner did not conduct this inquest in private, the question as to his legal right does not arise.
§ MR. COBBI should like to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that in the same paper containing the short paragraph announcing, six days late, that there had been an inquest, there was a full report of an inquest held before the same Coroner on the widow of a sculptor, and also before another Coroner of an inquest, also held the previous day, on a sign painter, who likewise committed suicide; whether he can find out or can account in any way for the difference made between the cases of these comparatively humble individuals and the case of the late Duke of Bedford? I also wish to ask whether the Coroner means to allege 895 that, the Press having had full information of the inquest in the usual manner, no reporters attended it?
§ MR. MATTHEWSI can only answer at this moment the last part of the hon. Member's long question. I understand the Coroner's information to amount to this—that the Press had the usual means of information in the list. If they did not choose to avail themselves of it, it was not the Coroner's fault.