It is to be hoped that this section will be the means of establishing the rules of procedure on an exact basis. Also, there is no reason why the rules relating to evidence should not be applied with as much strictness in a coroner’s court as in a Metropolitan Police court. It is true that in numerous cases a coroner’s inquest savours more of a _quasi_-scientific investigation than a legal inquiry, but it should be borne in mind that it is primarily concerned in upholding the law by checking or discovering crime. Candidly, a better appreciation of this aspect of his functions would improve a coroner’s status among legal practitioners. Whether a man died from cerebral hemorrhage or syncope is really of little importance, provided he did not die by some unnatural means. The everlasting verdict, “Death from Natural Causes,” is far too frequent. Admittedly, where a medical practitioner has refused to certify the cause of death, the coroner has in the past been bound to order an inquiry, but in numberless instances the result of a great deal of trouble has merely been a verdict of natural death. Of course, this is not to be construed to apply to cases originating in suspicion. Where there is suspicion, there should be an inquest. Where there is no suspicion as a _raison d’être_ for an inquest, there should be no inquest.[8] This would do away with hundreds of useless and even expensive inquiries. The “medical investigators or pathologists” of the new Bill should often be able to satisfy themselves, by the appearance of the body and the circumstances attendant upon the death, without having recourse to a _post mortem_ examination.