REMOVAL OF ANNE MOWBRAY REMAINS (Hansard, 10 February 1965)

§ LORD AMULREE
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

§ THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM)
My Lords, under Section 25 of the Burial Act, 1857, a licence issued by the Home Secretary is required before human remains may be removed from a place of burial in unconsecrated ground. It is sometimes necessary, when human remains are accidentally disturbed during the course of building operations, to remove them immediately to safe custody before a licence can be issued. In this case, there was a long delay in reporting the circumstances to my right honourable friend. He has, however, now received a full report and is considering the issue of a licence, which will include provisions for the re-interment of the remains.

§ LORD AMULREE
My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister very much for his full reply, but I wonder whether I may ask a supplementary question. Can 121 he account for the long delay between finding the remains and the matter being reported to the Home Secretary?

§ LORD STONHAM
Yes, my Lords. Workmen excavating a site in the early afternoon of December 11 broke through an underground vault and discovered a leaden casket, which they brought to the surface. They informed the London Museum and the newspapers of their find. The newspapers informed the police and the police went there immediately, on the same afternoon, and, after consultation with the coroner, removed the casket to the safety of the police station. Later that same afternoon the official representative of the London Museum called and, having again consulted the coroner, was allowed to remove the casket. The London Museum consulted a number of important and responsible bodies with regard to the find, but it was not until January 13, when they had issued a Press statement, that my right honourable friend learned of this occurrence.

§ LORD AMULREE
My Lords, once more I should like to thank the noble Lord for his full reply. May I ask him this further question? When the matter of the reburial of these remains occurs, will steps be taken to find out whether there are any surviving relatives, and will their wishes be consulted as to the procedure?

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, this little Princess died 483 years ago and the position with regard to relatives is not, therefore, quite the same as if it were a comparatively recent interment. The exact position, as I understand it, is that the line of the first Dukes of Norfolk terminated with Anne Mowbray in 1481. The dukedom was re-created in 1483, and the first Duke of the second line was the son of the daughter of the first Duke of the first line. It would therefore be a little difficult to answer the noble Lord's question precisely. I am able to give an undertaking that my right honourable friend will consider any representations which are put forward in the House affecting the treatment or disposal of the remains.

§ LORD AMULREE
My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord very much for his further reply.

§ VISCOUNT DILHORNE
My Lords, the licence to which the noble Lord referred, and which the Home Secretary is now considering issuing, is, I gather, only for the removal of the remains from where they were originally found to the London Museum. Can the noble Lord say by what authority this casket was opened? A licence for removal would not warrant that being done. As I understand it, the name of Anne Mowbray, Duchess of York, was on the outside of the casket. What authority was there to open this casket?

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, I think I made it clear that the licence was not granted because my right honourable friend had no opportunity to grant a licence, as he had no knowledge of the occurrence. Secondly, the licence has not been granted; and when it is granted it will be retrospective. There are precedents for this. Certainly the licence will include precise conditions, and one essential condition will relate to the re-interment and the conditions under which examination can be made. As for the opening of the casket, as my right honourable friend had not been consulted, obviously those who opened it did so without his authority.

§ LORD COLYTON
My Lords, may I, as a non-Catholic, ask whether arrangements will be made for the remains to be re-interred according to the rites of the Roman Catholic Church, as the little Princess was a member of that Church?

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, that is a matter which will be considered by my right honourable friend if representations are made to that effect.

§ LORD ALPORT
My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that at the present time, when a great deal of reconstruction is taking place in towns in this country, there are constantly examples of items of great archaeological, historical and human importance being brought to light during these excavations, which are very often destroyed or lost because there appears to be no proper system of notification and control? Further, are the Government prepared to consider this problem so that we can ensure that anything that is discovered from the process of building construction is preserved for scholarship and historical research here in this country?

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that question. He will appreciate that there are sometimes circumstances similar to these when the actual discovery is made by people who are not informed, and cannot be expected to be informed, of the circumstances or of the value of what they discover. On the other point, about the official side, my right honourable friend is considering means of bringing the actual regulations to the notice of people concerned, such as chief constables and coroners, so that a recurrence of this may be avoided.

§ LORD ALPORT
My Lords, would the Minister be prepared to make a statement on the matter at the convenience of his right honourable friend?

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, that is something on which I will consult my right honourable friend.