Section 7. “Every coroner’s district shall be provided by the authority who appoints the coroner with suitable accommodation for holding inquests, and with a coroner’s officer or officers and other assistance as may be necessary for the proper carrying out of the duties of the office of coroner.” This provision sounds very well in theory, but are not most populous centres already equipped with the necessary facilities for conducting an inquiry? If any such populous centre exists which is not so equipped, then the provision is most essential. But in outlying country districts, to centralise the place of inquiry would involve carting the dead body a great distance, to the probable discomfiture and inconvenience of the surviving relatives. In average cases, there is no special need to subject a dead body to more than ordinary scientific investigation, as near the place of death as possible, to fulfil the intentions of the law, and to have it tumbled across a county and back, with incidental delays is, one may safely say, somewhat unnecessary, if the natural feelings of surviving relatives are to be considered. An ordinary country house is usually sufficiently well adapted for the purposes of holding a _post mortem_ examination and a coroner’s inquiry. The customary system of using a local inn is not altogether bad, either, when it is remembered what a small number of inquests are anything like necessary in country districts. Section 9. “Notwithstanding anything in subsection (1) of section three of the Coroners’ Act, 1887, a coroner after due inquiry into any case referred to him may decide not to hold an inquest if he is satisfied that the deceased died a natural death.... For the purposes of an inquiry under this section, the coroner may order a _post mortem_ examination, and the cost of such examination, being such sum as the Secretary of State may by regulation prescribe, shall be defrayed as if the examination were made in connexion with an inquest.”