Part 25

+-----------------+-----------------------------------------+------+ | | CITY OF LONDON UNION. |Totals| |DEATHS in five +------+------+------+------+------+------+ for | |Autumn Quarters | S.W. | N.W. |South.| S.E. | N.E. |Work- |entire| |as follows:-- | | | | | |house.|City. | | +------+------+------+------+------+------+------+ |April, May, June,| | | | | | | | | 1849| 56 | 55 | 58 | 45 | 50 | 26 | =765=| | „ „ „ | | | | | | | | | 1850| 34 | 39 | 40 | 43 | 50 | 22 | =589=| | „ „ „ | | | | | | | | | 1851| 44 | 38 | 75 | 70 | 56 | 28 | =767=| | „ „ „ | | | | | | | | | 1852| 47 | 51 | 41 | 47 | 59 | 28 | =774=| | „ „ „ | | | | | | | | | 1853| 45 | 47 | 59 | 50 | 47 | 33 | =817=| +-----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+ |Total of five | =226=| =230=| =273=| =255=| =262=| =137=|=3712=| |Seasons | | | | | | | | +-----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+

No. XIV.--_Comparative Mortality in Different Seasons of the Year._

SUMMER QUARTERS.

+-----------------+--------------------------+--------------------+ | | EAST LONDON UNION. | WEST LONDON UNION. | |DEATHS in five +--------+--------+--------+------+------+------+ |Autumn Quarters | Saint |Cripple-| Work- |North.|South.|Work- | |as follows:-- |Botolph.| gate. |houses. | | |house.| | +--------+--------+--------+------+------+------+ |July, Aug., Sep.,| | | | | | | | 1849| 171 | 199 | 73 | 148 | 295 | 33 | | „ „ „ | | | | | | | | 1850| 102 | 93 | 26 | 74 | 65 | 18 | | „ „ „ | | | | | | | | 1851| 123 | 105 | 38 | 76 | 73 | 11 | | „ „ „ | | | | | | | | 1852| 160 | 116 | 26 | 74 | 77 | 31 | | „ „ „ | | | | | | | | 1853| 126 | 151 | 20 | 66 | 52 | 31 | +-----------------+--------+--------+--------+------+------+------+ |Total of five | =682= | =664= | =183= | =438=| =562=| =124=| |Seasons | | | | | | | +-----------------+--------+--------+--------+------+------+------+

+-----------------+-----------------------------------------+------+ | | CITY OF LONDON UNION. |Totals| |DEATHS in five +------+------+------+------+------+------+ for | |Autumn Quarters | S.W. | N.W. |South.| S.E. | N.E. |Work- |entire| |as follows:-- | | | | | |house.|City. | | +------+------+------+------+------+------+------+ |July, Aug., Sep.,| | | | | | | | | 1849| 145 | 77 | 86 | 77 | 73 | 18 |=1395=| | „ „ „ | | | | | | | | | 1850| 39 | 39 | 43 | 31 | 43 | 22 | =595=| | „ „ „ | | | | | | | | | 1851| 40 | 39 | 53 | 36 | 42 | 27 | =663=| | „ „ „ | | | | | | | | | 1852| 44 | 32 | 49 | 26 | 54 | 28 | =717=| | „ „ „ | | | | | | | | | 1853| 39 | 41 | 42 | 32 | 48 | 22 | =670=| +-----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+ |Total of five | =307=| =228=| =273=| =202=| =260=| =117=|=4040=| |Seasons | | | | | | | | +-----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+

ON THE PRESENT BURIAL-PLACES OF THE CITY.

TO THE IMPROVEMENT COMMITTEE OF THE HON. THE COMMISSIONERS OF SEWERS OF THE CITY OF LONDON.

_December 10th, 1852._

GENTLEMEN,

In order to an application of the Metropolitan Burials Act by the constituted authorities of the City, you have requested me to report how far, in my judgment, the existing burial-places within this jurisdiction are fit for further reception of the dead.

I have little to add to the information which I have laid before the Commission in my successive annual reports--especially in that of 1849, and which long since induced me to express my conviction ‘that the City of London could no longer with safety or propriety be allowed to furnish intramural burial to its dead.’

It would, indeed, be ridiculous if I should pretend to you that this part of the subject requires any further inquiry. Putrefactive decomposition of one kind and another is the principal cause of town-unhealthiness. Against its occurrence round about our houses all your legislation is directed. The human body, once destitute of life, furnishes no exception to the laws of organic decay: under the common laws of chemical change, it soon dissolves itself into products neither less offensive, nor less poisonous, than those of any brute’s decomposition. And you cannot take a juster view of the subject--you cannot arrive at stronger arguments for the immediate abolition of intramural interment, than by forcing yourselves to discard for a moment all memory of the fading human outline which masks this dreadful nuisance, and to conceive it as _a mere bulk of animal matter_, planted every year to undergo decomposition within the City, beneath our Churches, and before our thresholds.[91]

[91] The right of interment in the City may at present be claimed in respect probably of more than three thousand corpses _per_ annum. The number actually interred of late years has, I believe, not exceeded an average of two thousand _per_ annum.

Dead bodies thus buried contribute importantly in their neighbourhood to the vitiation of air and water. Those that lie shelved in vaults, eventually, if not at first, spread through the atmosphere every product of their decomposition. Those that are dug into the soil have their decay modified by its influence, mingle with its drainage the products of their transformation, and thus (as I have shown in my remarks on the Bishopsgate pump water) find their issue in the nearest land-spring of the spot, polluting the drink of the population. Further, in all the more frequented burial-grounds, the soil seems to be saturated with animal matters only partially transformed; and at every new disturbance by the spade, a fresh quantity of this unctuous clay comes upmost, tainting the air with materials of fœtid decomposition, often to the great distress of persons who dwell in the vicinity.

On such grounds as these, I cannot hesitate in renewing my report that the City of London is absolutely unfit to serve as a further burial-place for the dead; and this, whether by inhumation or in vaults, whether in parochial burying-grounds, or in those of other communities.

Regard being had to the object of your reference, you would probably not desire me at present to enter on the ulterior questions of extramural interment.

On such representations as I have made, the Court of Common Council (acting under the Metropolitan Act already referred to) has authority to determine in respect of the City of London, whether the existing places of burial, either from their insufficiency, or from their dangerousness to health, are so unfit for their purpose as to render it necessary that other burial-space be provided.

Should they affirm this view, they can then ‘authorise and direct the Commissioners of Sewers of the City of London to exercise for the said City and Liberties all the powers and authorities vested in Burial-Boards under the Act.’

This course being taken, the Commission (subject to approval from the Secretary of State) will have authority to make all arrangements requisite for the final closure of burial-places within the City.

In approaching the subject of extramural sepulture, with its innumerable details of inquiry, for site, for conveyance, and for burial--details which form the knowledge and experience of a special class of persons, the Commission may perhaps first consider whether works so foreign to their usual functions shall be undertaken by themselves directly, or shall be made matter of contract with existing Cemetery Companies, or other associations or individuals. Till this decision is made, it seems impossible to conjecture what topics you may wish to entertain, or within what limits the industry of your officers may most usefully be exercised.

There are many very important parts of the subject with which it may hereafter become my duty to deal; but till the preliminary questions are settled, it would be idle to detain you with sanitary considerations belonging to a later stage of your inquiry.

As my Report for 1849 had long been out of print, I subjoin an extract from it of so much as relates to the matter in hand.[92]

[92] The passages here referred to form a separate section of the First Annual Report; and therefore need not be reprinted in this part of the present volume.--J. S., 1854.

NOTE.

_On considering the above Report, the Improvement Committee of the Commissioners (to whom the subject had been specially referred) at once resolved to report to the General Court that, in their ‘judgment, steps should be taken for closing the several burial-places within the City;’ and at the same time they desired that the Officer of Health would prepare for them his opinion on those ulterior arrangements which such closure might render necessary._

_The following Report was written accordingly._

INTRODUCTORY REPORT SUGGESTING THE OUTLINE OF A SCHEME FOR EXTRAMURAL INTERMENT.

TO THE IMPROVEMENT COMMITTEE OF THE HON. THE COMMISSIONERS OF SEWERS OF THE CITY OF LONDON.

GENTLEMEN,

Under the several clauses of the Metropolitan Burials Act, and under certain clauses of the City Sewers Act 1848, the Commissioners of Sewers, acting as a Burial-Board for the City of London, will be subject to the following responsibilities--viz.:

_First_,--That a sufficient extramural burial-place be provided for those classes of persons who have heretofore had right of interment within the City;

_Secondly_,--That the facilities of transit and conveyance to such burial-place be commensurate with the purposes for which it is established;

_Thirdly_,--That evil no longer accrue to the health of the City from unnecessary delays of interment, or from the keeping of dead bodies in the dwelling-rooms of the poor.

* * * * *

I. To measure the sufficiency of a burial-place, one must know for what numbers of population it is intended to suffice.

Burial-Boards under the new Act are obliged to provide accommodation for all _parishioners_ or _inhabitants_ of the several parishes within their jurisdiction.

Under the term ‘parishioners’ as relating to the City, there may be included, I am told, an indefinite number of non-resident rate-payers: and although, at first, interment might not be claimed under the latter head to any considerable extent, yet, with the completion and success of your Cemetery, the applications might year by year become more numerous. From the nature of the case, such claimants would in most instances be of the wealthier classes, and might consequently be expected to apply for special allotments of ground. It seems therefore desirable that you should have some knowledge of the number for whom you may thus be required to provide.

I would accordingly suggest as expedient, that a legal opinion should be obtained on your exact liabilities under the law referred to; and especially as to whether the right of burial possessed by non-resident rate-payers does likewise extend to the non-resident households of such rate-payers.

In the meantime I will leave this set of claimants out of my argument; assuming that, whenever you have reckoned their number, you will be able, on their account, to add to your general estimate, according to a fixed proportion, the assessment of whatever additional accommodation they may legally require.

The number of deaths belonging to the ‘inhabitants’ of the City of London may be more precisely given. It would probably lie, as an average, within 3200 per annum.

In attempting to fix the extent of ground required for your purpose in respect of this mortality, I must bring before you some preliminary considerations.

First,--as regards the _minimum accommodation_ to be given in your Cemetery; I assume that every person buried there, however humble his previous station in life, may in death claim a grave to himself. It has been the opprobrium of our previous system that, in the poorer classes of interments, many bodies have been huddled together into a single pit. Probably you will think, as regards your future burial-place, that no consideration of cheapness can justify this indecency: probably you will be unwilling that, in a presence which confounds all social comparisons, there should be drawn, with your sanction, between rich and poor any so disrespectful distinction. But at all events, on sanitary grounds, I feel bound to assure you that these multiple burials are quite inadmissible. With such concentration of organic remains in very narrow compass, the soil grows utterly fœtid; and it becomes impossible to guard against nuisance arising to the public, or against danger to those who are occupied in digging and tending the ground. These evils, indeed, are so glaring, and the indecorum of crowded interment has long been so notorious, that nothing could have given them continuance except the necessities of our narrow accommodation under the system of intramural burial: and it would of course be without excuse to perpetuate them under the changed circumstances of extramural Cemeteries, where space can so readily be obtained for all legitimate requirements of the public. So far as the experience of other countries may help to determine your judgment in this matter, I may inform you that, in every foreign interment system which can deserve to be considered an establishment of public authority, the right of single burial is universally recognised.

Next--as regards the _succession of interments_; according to the burial-usages of modern times, no public Cemetery with fixed limits can be permanently useful, except on a full recognition of the fact that it is a decaying place for the dead, not a place for their embalmment or mummification. For hence it follows, that ground once used for burial becomes equally fitted for a second use, whenever by gradual decomposition the bodies first interred there have thoroughly vanished from the soil.

This principle has given the common rule of burial; and for obvious reasons. Under any other plan, the entire area allotted for interment would presently be in holding. No portion, however remote the date of its first occupation, could be resumed for a second series of interments; and the provision of a new Cemetery would be indispensable. Pushed to its extreme consequences, such a system must eventually convert the entire country into its burial-ground.

Under the practice of intramural interments--that practice which the new law supersedes, the principle of temporary tenure has been made to cover all manner of brutal abuses. Graves have been disturbed--within metropolitan churchyards and other burying-grounds, in which the transformations of decay had not half accomplished themselves; and public decency has been outraged--here, in the centre of civilisation, by the spectacle of human remains being tossed about like offal. It is one chief advantage of extramural sepulture, that, while the inevitable decay of the dead will be removed from the vicinity of the living, and the latter will no longer have their atmosphere tainted by this hideous contamination; so likewise for the dead--however humble, that in this new resting-place, room will be allotted them with no indecent stint; that the dwellings and market-places of the living will no longer hem them in, grudging their narrow requirements; that their return to dust will be respected, as beseems the last phase of mortal existence; and that, against any desecration of their repose, there will be given every security which piety and affection can demand.

There may be difference of opinion as to the precise time when a grave can with truth and decency be thought to have become distenanted. The rapidity of decay varies in so extraordinary a degree according to soil, that some inhumations are almost equivalent to embalming; while, in other cases, the process is comparatively rapid. Only experience of a particular soil will enable you to know with precision, what length of tenure is needed there for the purposes of interment to accomplish themselves; but on general principles one can approximate pretty nearly to the truth. Assuming the site of your Cemetery to have been selected with due regard to those qualities of soil which determine the differences adverted to, I think it unlikely that any adult grave can properly be re-opened within twenty years[93] of the time when interment shall last have occurred in it. Very long within this time, however, all soft textures of the body would have completed their decay. Remains of the coffin and of the skeleton--materials insusceptible of putrefaction, would alone occupy the grave, and with gradual crumbling blend themselves in the soil. Not till this final disintegration of the skeleton is complete--not till the identity of its different elements is destroyed, can the first occupant of a grave be fairly deemed to have abdicated his tenure. From this time only, can his interest in it be held as having reverted to the public, for whoever next may claim a similar usufruct of the ground.

[93] Twenty years would probably represent at least four times the average period during which the bodies of the poor have been left at rest in many grave-yards of the metropolis. Yet I would willingly advocate a longer term of years as the personal tenure of a grave, if public opinion would sanction the heavier expense which must thus be entailed on the living.

Taken for granted that, as regards the general public, your Cemetery will be established on the principle of a temporary tenure of graves, it remains for you to determine to what extent you will permit wealthier applicants to purchase exemption from this rule, and obtain a freehold interest in particular portions of your ground. I have little to say on this point, because it is of no sanitary importance, provided that privileges so purchased do not in any degree interfere with the general economy of your plan. Barring any risk of this kind, it comes before you simply as a question of finance.

A precaution, however, which I would suggest, is, that, first of all, you should provide a cemeterial space sufficient for the interment purposes of your population, on the principle of temporary tenure; that no portion of this space should, under any circumstances, be alienated from its public destination; that the whole of it should remain in perpetuity the common burying-ground of the City of London. This prime necessity of your plan being secured, it will be competent for you to include in your purchase a certain redundant number of acres; and out of these you can allot, at your discretion, such quantities of ground as may be desired in freehold, either for the purposes of family interment, generation after generation, or for the fiction of perpetual tenure by some single occupant.[94]

[94] In regard of these exceptional burials, it will be requisite to fix certain regulations; especially for the construction of family graves, wherein it will be desired that many who during life have been united, shall after death have their ashes mingled together in the soil. A frequent custom in private Cemeteries for fulfilling this purpose has been, for graves to be dug to a considerable depth--sometimes such that twelve coffins could be piled there, one on the other; and these deep pits have commonly been provided with brick walls. Now, for the same reason as determined my opinion against the multiple burial of the poor, I would argue against this arrangement, as one which might occasion excessive accumulation in single spots of your Cemetery, and as being in principle bad. In preference, I would venture to recommend the endeavour to introduce an interment-custom, which is prevalent abroad, of _family plots of ground instead of family pits_. Under ordinary circumstances, all the accommodation heretofore sought in the one arrangement would be found superiorly in the other; and in a well-projected suburban Cemetery the larger superficial extent could probably be afforded at much less cost than is usually paid for the pit. Persons familiar with the details of Cemetery-burial would easily devise an arrangement of such plots, whereby they should be separate and secluded, admitting of appropriate decoration, and altogether likely to prove more acceptable to public opinion than many existing arrangements. In regard of such plots, too, there might be conceded a privilege which I believe has not been allowed in private Cemeteries; namely, an hereditary right to refill the ground for any successive number of times, subject only to such restrictions as will determine the succession of interments in other parts of the Cemetery.

In thus selling portions of your land for private and privileged employment, you would be satisfying what has become a habit, and may be considered a legitimate claim of the wealthier classes. Beyond this, it is also evident, that you would virtually be competing with the ordinary Cemetery-companies of the metropolis, in the most lucrative department of their trade. It would probably be easy for you, by varying your fees according to circumstances, either on the one hand to diminish, and almost prohibit, the frequency of applications for exceptional interments; or, on the other hand, to attract such applications. Even, if you thought it desirable, you might admit purchasers from other classes than those having right of burial in your municipal Cemetery;--in short, you might manage it commercially, with a view to profit, looking to its proceeds for covering many expenses of the general establishment.