HL Deb 18 February 1965 vol 263 cc613-5

2.42 p.m.

LORD DERWENT

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

[The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government what explanation has been given by the London Museum for taking away without authority the coffin of Anne Mowbray, Duchess of York, for removing the remains from the coffin, and for failing to notify the Home Office.]

THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM)

My Lords, after the police had consulted the coroner they removed the coffin from the place where it was found. It was then handed to a representative of the London Museum on condition that, if it proved to contain human remains, the coroner should be informed. The Museum complied with this condition and, on learning the age of the remains, the coroner disclaimed any jurisdiction. The London Museum's examination was carried out with the knowledge of the police, the coroner and the authorities at Westminster Abbey. The Museum has expressed its regret for its failure, through inadvertence, to notify the Home Office.

LORD DERWENT

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply, but it is not entirely satisfactory. Is the noble Lord suggesting that the London Museum did not know that it was an offence to remove a body, or part of a body, from a coffin without authority?

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, it is a Common Law misdemeanour to remove a body from a place of burial without lawful authority. In the present case the police do not propose to take proceedings against any person, because they are satisfied that any breach of the law, by whomsoever it was committed, was committed without intent. It would appear that the London Museum required no authority for the examination they made of these remains. No person has any property in a body and, apart from the provisions of the Anatomy Act and the provisions relating to removal from a place of burial, there is nothing in the law making it an offence to interfere with human remains.

LORD DERWENT

My Lords, am I wrong in thinking that the noble Lord told us the other day that a Home Office licence should have been granted, and that it was not granted? Yet he now says no offence has been committed.

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, I did not say that no offence had been committed. I said that the police did not propose to take action against whoever may have committed an offence. Last week, when the noble Lord asked this Question, I explained that under the Burial Act, 1857, in addition to a Bishop's power to authorise removal from consecrated ground by a faculty, the Secretary of State had power to authorise by his licence the removal of human remains, and also power to impose any conditions on the issue of a licence. Unfortunately, in this case the persons who actually removed the coffin from the place of burial or re-burial knew nothing about the necessity to obtain the Home Secretary's licence. That is where the offence lies, and only there.

LORD AMULREE

My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that if permission to go ahead has been obtained from both the coroner and the police, a reasonable person would assume it was not necessary to obtain any further permission, even though, technically, they may have been incorrect in that assumption?

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, that is the view taken by my right honourable and learned friend. The London Museum did, in fact, have the sanction of the police, of the coroner and of the Abbey authorities, and the coffin was not opened until after they had received that sanction. Until it was opened, they did not know that the coffin contained any human remains at all.

LORD DERWENT

My Lords, I am sorry to press this matter, but many people are rather upset at the fact that a body was removed from a coffin when neither the coffin nor the body belonged to the people who opened it. Am I right in thinking that all the people named by the noble Lord as having given their permission had no right to give it?

LORD STONHAM

The coroner, of course, might have had jurisdiction, but found that, in view of the age of the remains, he had no jurisdiction or interest. As for the Abbey authorities, the Dean and Chapter, who were consulted as soon as the inscription on the lid of the coffin was deciphered—and the Abbey was the original place of burial of the little Princess—they sanctioned the opening of the coffin for the purposes of investigation by the London Museum.