The Sun.
London, England, 1855-11-19 00:00:00

rt YA RD S.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE 'sm.
SlR,—The metr.politan public ought to feel very much
indebted to you for recalling attention to this subject in
the able manner you have done, in your leading article
in The Sun of Tuesday, the 23d ult. During the dis-

cm,sions on the subject of intramural burial throughout
the last 15 yearn not one of the London press has ren-
dered such services to the twofold cause of the abolition

of the wrong and the exposition of the remedy in this
particular department of sanitary reformation as your
journal ; and I hope you will still render further ser-
vices, and earn higher praises, in this peaceful campaign.
The war of nations is indeed a frightful evil, and great
is the sin of those who render it necessary ; but we must
not shut our eyes to the direful operations of relentless
sanitary foes at home —more costly and more deadly,
though carried on with fewer trumpets.
In the Reports of the Registrar-General it appears
that within the metropolitan districts, which comprehend
a population now exceeding 2,400,000 ( i.e., a population
more dense than is spread over 14 English counties),
there die yea,•ly of preventible diseases 16,000 persons ;
whilst it has been estimated that this unnecessary mor-
tality entails on society a yearly loss of 1,000,0001.
sterling. Uneasiness has been expressed at the expendi-
ture of life and treasure which has attended a twelve-

month's struggle in the Crimea. But multiply the
of victims that have perished annually of preventibls
diseases within the metropolis during the last quarter of
a century, and the loss in pounds, shillings, and pence,
by 25, and you have .a sum total of 400,000 deaths, and
25,000,0001.

But these are only two items in the dark balance-sheet
of our yearly metropolitan mortality. In the twelve
months ending 31st December, 1854, there died within
the metropolis, exclusive of those who perished of pre-
ventible diseases, no less than 57,697, or, throwing the
two together, 73,697 in all. Again, it has been calcu-
lated that the expense alone of putting these corpses into
the ground has mulcted the bereaved families of a sum
of not less than 1,421,0001.
These statistics, Sir, show that the sanitary warfare
at home merits the continuous attention of the metro-
politan press, as well as the conflicts between Turkey
and Russia ; and yet, with the exception of your paper,
dosing the last 18 months scarcely one London journal,
daily or weekly, has published a single artiele on the
subject. On the operations in the East the general
press of the metropolis has written what, if added
together, would make many hundred miles of disquisi-
tions, while, within sight and smell of their own offices,
the cause of the orderly, inexpensive, and wholesome se-
pulture of the dead is allowed to be botched, neglected,
and j• bbed with.

Parliamentary returns show that up to the passing of
the Metropolitan Interments Act of 1850 the dead of
the metropolis were received into upwards of 240 small
dispersed graveyards and eight suburban cemeteries.
In this way the 3,592,275 cubic feet of putrescent gases
evolved from the decomposition of one year's mortality
found vent through 252 apertures, and was thu., com-
paratively speaking, deprived of its lethal properties.
We are now in the fifth year from the passing of that
measure, and it would appear from some returns pro-
cured by Mr. Brotherton, in May last, that there were
then still open, or partially open, for interments within
the limits of the metropolitan burial circuit, 60 conse-
crated burial grounds, and 11 partly consecrated, of
which nine are cemeteries.
From the same returns it appears that St. Dur Ames
Burial-ground, Stepney, about 6 acres in size, provided
in 1854, interment for 1,606 corpses ; that the Cam-
bridge Heath Cemetery, 4 acres in size, found room for
1,506 corpses ; the Nunhead Cemetery, 42 acres in size,

supplied burial for 1,727 corpses ; that Brompton Ce-
metery (lying in the midst of 100,000 living inhabitants),
36 acres in size, received 2,321 corpses ; that Norwood
Cemetery, 25 acres in size, buried 1,649 corpses ; that
Highgate Cemetery, 35 acres in size, interred 1,568
corpses ; and that Kensal Green Cemetery, 42 acres in
size, obtained 1,921 corpses. As these numbers
added together only make 12,298 corpses—what has be-
come of the other 61,399 corpses (as shown by the Re-
gistrar-General's returns) which last year have found
graves 'within the limits of the metropolitan burial dis-
tract ?
In the "Instruction§ for Burial Boards in providing
Cemeteries," issued by the Board of Health, it is stated,
at page 6, that if a dry, porous, sandy, or earthy soil be
selected, such a soil will admit of being buried in at the
rate of 120 interments per acre per annum ; but if the
Ewa be wet or clayey, not more thin 60 to 70 interments
per acre per annum. Now at the latter rate 41-. Duns-
tan's, Stepney, would be able to supply interment ac-
commodation for only 360 to 420 corpses per annum.
How many short of 1,606 corpses found interment
within its s;x acres ?
It is very desirable that the horrid system of pit
burial—i.e., huddling from 15 to 18, and even 20, corpses
into one hole—should be denounced and put down.
These things, however, are being connived at by the
Board of Health, the Home-office, and parochial func-
tionaries, and unless the editors of the press bestir them-
selves now another session of Parliament will overtake
us, and pass away without any legislation for the sup-
pression and punishment of such crimes—for they are
crimes against the health, the morals, and the purses of
the metropolitan public.
Allow me, sir, to ask, through the medium of your
columns, whether any of your numerous readers can tell
what number of corpses found burial last year at Vic-
toria-park Cemetery, at Tower Hamlets' Cemetery, and
at Abney-park Cemetery, as no returns from these
cemeteries are given in the returns procured by Mr.
Brotherton in May last? Also, can you obtain any in-
formation as to when the burial returns, moved for by
Mr. A.psley Pellatt on the 10th of August, 1854, will be
supplied ? These returns were then ordered by the
House of Commons to be furnished, but already fourteen
months have elapsed without their appearance. Is this
withholding of these returns intentional' or otherwise
I remain, sir, your obedient servant,
VIGIL. _

PAPER CURRENCY.

(From the DerbgshdreCourier.)

That stern bullionist, the Times newspaper, bas
occasionally lucid intervals when it utters opinions
on the currency question, bearing a wonderful re-
semblance to those of common sense. The other
day, in a leading article, in answer to the question,
" How far may we count on the speedy exhaustion
of Russia ?" after discussing the resources of Russia
as to men and provisions, the writer proceeded to
treat of the " financial embarrassments" of the
empire. Russia, he observed, is above every other
country, "sufficient in itself, and may be isolated
without feeling the want of anything but luxuries."
And he then proceeded to propound the following
opinion :

For the purposes of/ 'internal trade, paper may be
largely substituted for the precious metals without dis-
tress to the people ; and it is evident that the more they
are disconnected from foreign countries, the more they
are independent of the metallic currency, which is ne•
cessary for international dealings."

Now what is sauce for the Russian goose, is
sauce also for the British gander. If in Russia
paper money may be largely substituted for the
precious metals, for the purposes of internal trade
without distress to the people, why may not this
be the case in England ? During the period between
1797 and 1815, we know that we had Paper Re-
presentative, " Inconvertible" Money " without
distress to the people." And much more than
this, Paper money enabled the people to endure
all the evils of a protracted, to support an enor•
mous load of taxation, and nevertheless to make
advances in trade, commerce, and internal national
improvements, greater than had ever been known
in the world's history, in a similar space of time.
Well, we are at war again. We have heavy war
expenses ; we have theinterest of an immense debt
• pressing upon us ; and we have at this moment
the impending evils of an exceedingly high price of
nearly all the necessaries of life, if Paper Money
can do anything to lighten these burdens, now is
the time to make use of. Are we merely to main-
tain an abstract opinion of certain Currency
" dreamers " about Gold at 3/. 17s. Did. an ounce t
to risk the infliction of ruin on our merchants and
manufacturers, and distress and suffering on thou-
sands of the patient and enduring working-classes
during the coming winter ? IsEngland to endanger
its capability of carrying on a just and necessary
war with vigour, and at last to descend from
its high position among nations merely to uphold
the Currency Crotchets of Peel and Jones Lloyd t
The latter part of the dictum of the Times be-
trays its scanty information on the subject which
it professes to teach. It is by no means " evident"
that the more disconnected with foreign countries
a nation is, the more independent it is of the me-
tallic currency. Our merchants found no difficulty
during the war in carrying on all " international
dealings" with " incontrovertible" paper money,
and " gold at its market price." The " deficiency
of these metals, which have been adopted as a
standard for measuring other values," did us not
the least harm. In fact in an industrious, enter-
prising, commercial community, such as we have
yinouEcnaglllainndt,o
this
6, deficiency cannot exist—unless
existence an artifical drain of the pre-
cious metals by such absurd and unnecessary enact-
ments as the 'Bills of 1819 and 1844.
Can any one who for a moment gives attention
to the subject believe that we cannot, with our
iron, with our cotton goods, with our manufac-
turesbuy from other nations what-
ever
And if we want gold and silver to
wo
ef ewvaeur yt
7 kind,
pay our balances of trade, these " precious metals"
are just as easily bought with our commodities as
our commodities are to be bought with them.

THE NONCOMBATANT PRISONERS AT LEWES. —About
a fortnight since the Rusbian prisoners on parole in
Lewes, who held civil offices under the Russian govern-
ment, memorialised the Admiralty for their release ; and
a communication was made on the subject with the Rus-
sian government, which has declined to entertain any
proposal on the matter, and the prisoners will, conse-
quently, remain as prisoners of war. They are seven in
number, namely, two Fins and five Russians. The Fin
are Dr. Okermao, military surgeon ; Mr. Oebruhum
sheriff of Bomarsund. The Russians are Mr. Kortcakoff
chief of police at Eupatoria ; Mr. Lekochoctoff, lieuten-
ant of police of the same place ; Mr. Cirigo, police inter.
preter at Eupatoria ; Mr. Bakanoff, an engineer ; and
Mr. Kortojanoff, sheriff of Sertel2.7-figisea). Ewen.