Part 15

§ 101. It is only submitted that suitable accommodation should be provided for the removal and care of bodies, and given, as it would be, as a boon. Confident statements are frequently made that the removal of the deceased from private houses to any public place of reception would be resisted; but it appears on an examination of the cases in which resistance was made, that in most of them the arrangements were really offensive, coarse-minded, and vulgar, and such as to prove that the feelings of the relations and survivors were little cared for by those who ought to have understood and consulted them. In some cases of the lowest paupers the retention of the body has been proved to have arisen from a desire to raise money, on the pretext of applying it to defray the expenses of the funeral long after it had been provided for; but the objection of the respectable portions of the labouring classes are objections not to the removal itself, but to the mode and sort of place in which it is commonly performed on the occurrence of a death from contagious disease, in a bare parish shell, by pauper bearers, to the “bone-house” or other customary receptacle for suicides, deserted or relationless, or, as they are sometimes termed, “God-forsaken people.” On the occurrence of the cholera little difficulty was interposed by any class to the immediate removal of the dead. The success of such a measure would depend entirely on the mode in which it is conducted.

§ 102. In reference to all such alterations, it may here be premised that very serious practical errors are frequently created by taking particular manifestations of feeling or prejudice, and assuming those prejudices to be impregnable, and assuming, moreover, that any or every prejudice pervades the entire population.

Not only does the extent of the prejudices which are supposed to stand in the way of regulations of the practice of interments, but the difficulties of overcoming them, appear, from an examination of the evidence, to be commonly much exaggerated; but it appears that the nature of the objections themselves is much mistaken: it appears, for example, that the prejudice against dissection often arises less from a desire to preserve the remains in their living form than to preserve them from profanation and disrespect. In no part of the country has a more intense feeling been manifested to preserve the remains of the dead from dissection than in Scotland, where the expense of safes made of iron bars, strongly riveted down, and of a watchman to watch it, forms a prominent item of the funeral charges. Yet when the studies of the schools of anatomy were allowed to depend chiefly on the supplies of subjects stolen from the graves, it is stated by practitioners who, whilst students, were themselves driven to that mode of procuring subjects, that their labours were frequently frustrated by the precautions the survivors had taken to render the use of the remains for dissection impossible, by putting quick lime into the coffin to destroy them. The same precaution has been known to have been sometimes taken for the same purpose in London; and yet by proper care and attention to the feelings of the survivors, the practice of post-mortem examinations has been extended, and the consent to the use of the remains even for dissection in the schools has been frequently obtained from the survivors. A witness of peculiar and extensive opportunities of experience in several thousand cases was asked on this point—

Have you had any reason to believe, that by careful and kind treatment of the labouring classes, their prejudices may be extensively overcome?—Yes, certainly. There was no prejudice stronger or more general than that to post-mortem examinations, or to any dissection; yet by care, and by the inducement of the allowance of a better funeral, that prejudice has been extensively overcome. The teachers of the medical schools, after dissection of a body, and its use for the advancement of medical knowledge, have made a liberal allowance for the interment of the remains; such sums as three or four pounds have been allowed for that service. When the relations of the poorest classes have expressed the common aversion to a pauper funeral, and their pain at having to submit to it on account of their necessity, I have told them if they would allow the remains to be taken to a medical school, and be examined, the teachers would allow them such a respectable funeral as they wish; I have sometimes added, “It is for the advancement of science; persons of the highest rank and condition in society have directed their remains to be examined, and I do not see what sound objection there can be to any of the poorest classes doing so.” Whenever I have made the offer under such circumstances it has generally been accepted.

Of course after the examination at the schools, the remains were properly and respectfully interred?—Yes they were, wherever the parties requested, whether in or out of the parish.—They frequently chose places of interment out of the parish, and in some instances places two or three miles distant, and almost always out of the town.

Why was the burial mostly chosen out of the parish?—Generally from a dislike to the places and mode in which paupers were buried; to their being put into a hole, where, perhaps, fifty others were, instead of having a separate grave. They frequently made it a main condition, that the remains should be buried out of the parish.

The means to ensure voluntary compliance with all salutary regulations for the better ordering of interments, are those which ensure real respect to the remains of the interred, and thus to the feelings of the survivors. The widows’ and the mothers’ feelings of reluctance to part with the corpse would, from such measures, receive appropriate alleviation.

_Proposed Remedies by means of separate Parochial Establishments in Suburban Districts._

§ 103. A set of remedies, as proposed in the Committee of the House of Commons, and agreed to, has been before the public, and the chief part of them embodied in a bill proposed to the House at the close of the Session of Parliament of 1842. All the evidence of disinterested persons which I have met with, all paid and experienced officers connected with parishes, whose interests would perhaps be the least disturbed by parochial establishments, concur in the conclusion that the measures proposed for creating such establishments would not diminish, but would rather diffuse, and might even aggravate the evils intended to be remedied.

By the first clause it was proposed to enact—

That the rector, vicar, or incumbent, and the church-wardens of every parish, township, or place in every such city, town, borough, or place respectively, shall form a parochial committee of health for every such parish, township, or place.

§ 104. The first observation which occurs on this proposal is, that it involves the formation of “a committee of health,” for the execution of a sanitary measure, requiring the application of a very high degree of the science applicable to the protection of the public health, and omits all provision of services of the nature of those which would be required from a well-qualified medical officer. A provision on a parochial scale would indeed preclude the regular application of such service, except at a disproportionate expense. As a remedy against undue charges on the smaller parishes, a power of forming unions for the purpose is provided by the clause.

Or it shall be lawful for the rectors, vicars, or incumbents and church-wardens of any two or more parishes, townships, or places therein, to form such parishes, townships, or places into a Union for the purposes of this Act; and in such cases the rectors, vicars, or incumbents, and church-wardens of each parish, township, or place so united, shall form a parochial committee of health for such Union; and all the powers hereinafter given to any such committee may be executed by the majority of the members of any such committee at any meeting.

It is agreed by the most experienced public officers, that even a compulsory power to form unions of two parishes, but leaving the union beyond that number optional, would be equivalent to a provision, that two and _no_ more shall unite; but that a merely permissive power to unite would be nugatory, except perhaps in the case of the smallest parishes: in other words, since there are in the district to which the enactment would apply, in the metropolis, upwards of 170 parishes, it would imply the establishment of upwards of 100 places of burial in such places as the following clauses would enable the parishes to provide.

And be it enacted, that every such committee may provide a convenient site of land for the burial of the dead of the district for which such committee shall be formed, which land shall not be in or within the distance of two miles from the precincts or boundaries of the city of London or Westminster, or the borough of Southwark, or in or within one mile of any other city, town, borough, or place; and no land which shall be purchased for such purpose shall be within 300 yards of any house of the annual value of 50_l._, or having a plantation or ornamental garden or pleasure-ground occupied therewith (except with the consent in writing of the owner, lessee, and occupier of such house).

An undertaker who has an extensive business, states that he has for some time been desirous of purchasing a piece of ground for interments in the suburbs of the metropolis, as a private speculation of his own, and that he had been three years in looking out for a plot that was suitable and purchasable, but has hitherto been unable to procure one. Other witnesses, on similar grounds, doubt the practicability of parishes procuring land, unless at enormous prices.

Supposing it were possible to procure separate plots for all the parishes which will require them in the suburbs, there are preliminary objections to the plan which relate to the suburbs themselves.

§ 105. The suburbs, it may be submitted, not only require careful protection on their own account, but on account of the population of the crowded districts of the metropolis, which are relieved by the growth of the suburbs. The progress of the new increments to towns is, therefore, as a sanitary measure, entitled to favourable protection. But the appropriation of vacant places, without reference to any general plan, must create very frequent impediments to the regular or systematic growth of the suburbs, and can scarcely fail ultimately to deteriorate them. And by the proposed measure the place of interments being removed, not only without any securities for the adoption of new measures of precaution, such as will be shown to be requisite in the formation, and also in the management, of places of burial for a large population, and the proposed machinery being such as to render it very nearly certain that no improved arrangements can be executed in such burial-grounds, the measure would simply effect the transference of common grave-yards from the old to the midst of new suburbs; and this transference must be accompanied by the creation of a new and apparently economical, but really extravagantly expensive and permanently inferior, agency, for the management of the new ground.

§ 106. These results admit of proof derived from the actual trial of a system of parochial interments apparently differing in no essential point, and especially in the nature of the agency and the scale of establishments, from the plan proposed.

In the parishes of St. Giles-in-the-Fields, St. George, Hanover-square, St. James, Westminster, and St. Martin’s-in-the-Fields, over-crowding of the burial grounds within the parish, between forty and fifty years ago, led the parish officers to obtain local acts for the establishment of burial grounds in the suburbs. The spaces then obtained were apart from any buildings. They are all now closely surrounded by them. The burial grounds of the parish of St. Giles-in-the-Fields having been the subject of an investigation before the Committee of the House of Commons, I have not made any inquiries with relation to them. In the suburban burial ground which belongs to the parish of St. George, Hanover-square, which consists of two acres of land, the interments have been for many years at the rate of about 1000 corpses per annum. It is now in the centre of a dense town population. It has become the subject of complaints similar to those made in respect to burial grounds in the ancient parts of the metropolis; and it appears that there are equally good grounds for the discontinuance of the practice of interment there, and for the selection of a burial place at a greater distance, notwithstanding that the payments from individuals produce to the collective funds of that parish a surplus beyond the expenditure of the management of the ground.

§ 107. The arrangements for burial in the parishes of St. Martin-in-the-Fields, which has a population of 25,000, and of St. James, Westminster, which has a population of 37,000, where the suburban burial grounds have not been crowded to the same extent, may be adduced as a high class of examples of a change of practice to extra-mural or suburban burials, and of management by a parochial machinery. In the parish of St. James, Westminster—

The gross expenditure of the chapel and ground between the years 1789 and 1835 (46 years) amounted to £73,879 1_s._ 11_d._, and it is estimated that the cost of maintaining the chapel and ground during that period over and above the receipts was not less than £50,000, the whole of which was drawn from the churchwardens under authority of the Act of Parliament.

But the chapel attached to the burial ground of this parish has been converted into a chapel of ease, for the accommodation of the inhabitants of the parish where it is situate. The vestry clerk of the parish states—

The pew rents, which formerly averaged only £150, now amount to upwards of £500 per annum, while the burial fees have decreased, and are still decreasing in amount.

The interments of the middle class and more wealthy among the inhabitants of the parish of St. James, which do not take place either in the vaults or grounds of or belonging to the parish, are presumed to be made in the neighbouring cemeteries, while the labouring class resort chiefly, as I am informed, to the burial ground in Spa Fields, where the fees are less by 2_s._ 9_d._ than at the Hampstead Road ground, the undertaker’s charges being the same for each.

Is the church to be considered part of the burial ground?—Yes; it is. The Act apparently contemplated only a place for the performance of a service over the dead, not for services to regular congregations. The minister has a house on the ground, and derives a portion of his emoluments from pew rents, derived from persons who attend the chapel from the immediate neighbourhood—parishioners of St. Pancras parish; very few, if any, of the parishioners of St. James, have pews there. The minister, Dr. Stebbing, has a moiety of the pew rents, which now amount to nearly £500 per annum. His proportion of the burial fees may be about £70 per annum.

Since the commencement, has the income defrayed the expenses of the burial ground?—Since Dr. Stebbing has been the minister it has only just paid the expenses; but I am apprehensive that it will not continue to do so. By the Act for the regulation of the chapel, any deficiency in the expenditure is directed to be made good out of the moneys in the churchwardens’ hands. Since the establishment of the chapel it has been a drag on the funds: a very severe one.

When the chapel was established were there any houses round it?—Not any.

What is its condition in that respect now?—It is now in the midst of houses which are increasing in numbers.

When asked, what was the condition of the burial ground, notwithstanding the expenditure made upon it, he states that—

The ground, consisting of four acres, is in a very watery condition, but is considered capable of being effectually drained, the expense being the only obstacle.

Is it considered that the ground will hold more than it does?—Many more; and a much larger amount of burials for a number of years.

What are the objections to the ground?—One objection among the higher classes, and a very serious one, is that it is very wet. After a grave has been dug, the water in it has risen, and the coffin is lowered into the water.

Has there been any expenditure upon it for rendering it attractive by planting or ornamenting it?—In former years it was planted with trees or shrubs; but as compared with the cemeteries it cannot pretend to any attractions.

Is there anything in the circumstances of the establishment of the burial ground and chapel for St. James which do not render it a fair example of any similar measure for an equivalent population in these times?—There appear to be no circumstances to prevent it being considered a fair example.

§ 108. The following is the account of the St. Martin’s suburban burial ground, given by Mr. Le Breton, the clerk to the guardians of the parish:—

What is the provision made for the burial of the poorer classes in the parish of St. Martin-in-the-Fields?—The burial ground in Drury-lane in 1804 was considered to be full, when four acres of ground, situate at Camden-town, were purchased and used as a cemetery. The plot was then in what was considered the country: the distance of the spot is rather more than two miles from the workhouse. Since its institution it has been completely surrounded by houses, and they are now building close against the wall of the burial ground. Originally it was designed as a better sort of burial ground, but since loss has been incurred by it and it has not been found to be attractive; two hundred pounds have recently been expended upon it in planting it. Formerly it was so wet that when persons went to funerals there they often found that the coffin was let down several feet in water or mire. This created an unpleasant sensation, and the ground was drained at a great expense into the Fleet-ditch. The objection as to the wetness of the ground does not now exist.

What have been the expenses, and the numbers of interments and charges of the burial ground?—(The following statement was given in answer to this question.)

The original cost of forming ground, &c., was about £2,000 The price is a perpetual rent-charge of, for the 4 acres, £100 = £3,000 per annum Establishment Charges:— Chaplain’s salary per annum £60 Sexton’s salary per annum £50 Keeping up ground by gardener £20 Paving rate per annum £30 Compensation to St. Pancras £5 The chaplain and sexton have houses to dwell in, which are kept in repair, insured, and the taxes paid by the £30 parish at a considerable expense

A private Act of Parliament was obtained, but at what cost does not appear.

The burial ground was formed in 1804, and the charges of it to this date have exceeded £10,000 beyond the fees received.

_From 20th March, 1806, to 1st December, 1842._

Total number of burials at Camden-town since the formation of 10,982 the ground Of these were non-parishioners 1,987 Of these were paupers 4,624 Of these were buried in the cheapest ground where 1,062 monuments are not allowed All burials for St. Martin in the Fields, 1841 522 Registered deaths, 1841 589

Beyond the expense of the establishment, have any inconveniences been the subject of complaint by the parishioners?—Yes; that the hours appointed by the chaplain are not those most suited for interments; that they are often driven off until late in the evening, and in consequence of the time being limited the service is performed in a hurried manner. In respect to position, the cemetery appears to be convenient, and no one within the district complains of any offence arising from it. My own view is that there ought to be a central or some other supervision over cemeteries: if there be not there will only be abuses and grounds of dissatisfaction.

Do you conceive that the experience of the parish of St. Martin, of a separate parochial cemetery, is applicable as an index to the general charge upon the rate-payers in the other parishes of the metropolis, resulting from the simple prohibition of interments in the town, and the permission to any two or more parishes to provide cemeteries for; in other words, to the transference of burial grounds from the centre of the town to the midst of the suburbs?—Yes, I do consider it applicable: moreover, that at the present time, it would be still more difficult to obtain sites within a reasonable distance than it was in 1804: the expenses of separate parochial grounds must therefore be much more considerable.

§ 109. The Rev. Wm. Stone, the rector of Spitalfields, whose position, as the minister of a large and populous parish, possessing one of the best managed places of burial in the metropolis, gives him peculiar opportunities of judging of the most advantageous administrative arrangements, and entitles his observations to peculiar weight, concludes his testimony in the following terms:—

1. As the clergyman of a poor and populous parish, I should regret the necessity of imposing any additional rate upon my parishioners, especially any one which was likely to be regarded as a church rate; and I feel certain, that a rate assessed for the burial of the dead, and collected under the authority of the rector and churchwardens, would be so regarded. Under our present system, the burial of the dead is a source of profit; it yields an annual surplus towards defraying the other expenses of the church; and it thus conspires with other circumstances to make the church-rate fall light upon my parishioners. But in a population like mine any additional impost would be felt; and confounded, as in such a population it certainly would be, with church-rate, it might operate mischievously or even fatally against the church establishment of my parish. The same objection would apply in principle to all poor and populous parishes. As a clergyman, too, I might add more personal considerations; for, though the incumbent, as the only permanent member of the committee of health, might have some local prominence and weight, more, perhaps, than might everywhere be satisfactory to dissenters; yet, in imposing pecuniary charges on his parishioners, and levying penalties for the non-payment of those charges, he would have duties unpopular enough to outweigh the advantage of any distinction conferred on him.

2. If it is said, that a rate of 1_d._ in the pound would be too light to be felt; it may be said also that it would be too much so to answer its purpose. It is commonly calculated, that, in my parish, a rate of 6_d._ in the pound realizes barely 500_l._, yet the population to be provided with interment is above 20,000. And as all the parishes about us are in much the same circumstances this objection would apply equally to a union of parishes.

3. There is much that is objectionable in the proposed local committees of health.