View report page

144
evidence of Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Sugden, submitted to the
Worshipful Chancellor a letter from Mr. G. Perceval Wyatt,
the Coroner for the County of Surrey, in which he strongly
advocated the views of the Vestry, stating that, in his
opinion, "it was a disgrace to this country in the present age
that a large number of people, j urymen, witnesses, police, and
others, who perhaps have very strong prejudice against
entering a public house, should be compelled to do so, and
in most cases at a time of great distress and grief." The
Worshipful Chancellor, in delivering judgment, regretted his
inability to grant the application. " I am satisfied/' he said,
" that the building would be convenient for the purpose of
holding Coroners Courts, and I note from the evidence that
it would not be used for what I may term 'sensational'
inquests. Were I satisfied that this Court had the power to
grant permisson I should have no objection. But I am bound
by the 88th canon which provides that no secular court can be
held upon sacred ground. I can entertain no doubt that
the holding of inquests would come within this canon, and
were I to grant permission I have no doubt a prohibition would
lie. I would refer to the cases of Hanson and Betlmal
Green (4 P. D.L.R., p. 46, 1878), and the Queen and Twiss
(4 L.R., Q.B.D., 407), quoting the case of Campbell and the
Vestry of Paddington. If it can be shown to me that this
court has power to give permission for the holding of inquests
I shall certainly grant the Faculty.'
On January 19th, 1887, the Mortuary Committee finally
reported to the Vestry that they had prepared Rules and
Regulations to be observed by the Mortuary Keeper, and
also for the reception of bodies, and had provided a Register,
which is kept in the Vestry Clerk's Department, of the
bodies received, where brought from, age, sex, supposed