The Sun.
London, England, 1853-01-25 00:00:00

LONDON, TUESDAY, JANUARY 25, 1853.

Sonuthing must really be at last attempted in
the wav of effectually putting an end to the
odious system of intramural interment, or people
will begin—and not without reason—to despair of
any good ever coming of the long-sustained sani-
tary agitation. Candidly, we will admit, that we
are almost sick at heart whenever we find our-
selves called upon to revert to that enormous
evil, knowing, as we do so well, that it is an in-
disputable source of a by no means inconsiderable
portion of the weekly mortality of the metropolis.
Every time we feel called upon to direct public atten-
tion once more to the monster grievance of our city
graveyards —we are reminded, if possible more and
more forcibly than ever, of the poisonous influence of
those dens of corruption on the atmosphere inhaled
at every respiration by the unfortunate inhabitants
of London and. Westminster. We remember this,
and together with the remembrance we bear in re-
collection the fact that no benefit has yet been se-
cured by those who have conscientiously and la-
boriously advocated the establishment in lieu of
the old system of a comprehensive plan of extra-
mural cemeteries. Hitherto, all that has been done
in regard to this horrible mode of burying the
dead within the precincts of the metropolis, has
been " in point of fact " merely the exposure of
the disastrous consequences of the abomination.
Not their dissipation ! Not even, to any appreci-
able extent, their diminution ! A bill havingreference
to the subject has, we know, of course been introduced
into the House of Commons, and that Bill has
been formally passed into an Act of Parliament.
But to all intents and purposes the record of that
proceeding might (for any advantage that it has
produced) be as lief erased from the pages of Han-
sard—and the enactment itself burnt as waste
paper or worm-eaten parchinent. Notwithstand-
ing the vaunted interference of the Legislature—
t, lue dead are still in this great capital buried away,
co, apse upon corpse, in the very midst of a swarm-
ing, and densely packed, and ever-increasing popu-
latioil. We want Mr. WALKER 'to bestir himself
Again .;r1 earnest, as he did uninte;Tupteffly for
A-airteen or fifteen long and laborious years—at
fast single handed, and throughout at large per-
sonal and pecuniary sacrifice. It is little short of
extravagances, we. admit at once, talking thus
calmly of t he; renewal of those great labours which
have been :so ill-responded to, and which, we blush
to say it, have been treated with such enormous
ingratitudo, both by the community and by the
Government. Mr. WALKER has done in this
[natter what no other man would have attempted.
Lie laid bare with his own hand one of the most
loathsome abominations that could by possibility
have startled the mind and appalled the heart of
the philanthropist. He has ventured into sinks
of disease and brutality that any other man would
have shuddered even to think of penetrating.
ferretted out those rats of sextons and ghouls
of
.graveyard-owners who had before then battened,
so to speak, upon the inanimate remains of their
fethow-creatures, unobserved andtherefore of course
molested. And all the details of this vicious
and detestable system he has recorded in his vari-
ous -works—giving them to the world in defiance
of cvery conceivable obloquy, and in spite of every
opposition. Those labours, moreover,
imaginable
he has dared to accomplish merely out of the mo-
tives of humanity—of all the meekest, and the
noblest, the bravest, and the gentlest source of ambi-
tion. And all hitherto practically to no good
purpose, because of the incomprehensible apathy
of the multitude, and of the culpable indifference
of the Administration !
It is a lamentable consideration, and a consi-
deration no less accurate:than lamentable. The ex-
ertions of Mr. WALKER in reference to this question
of intramural interment, may be said with perfect
truth to have originated the whole of that great
movement which is now popularly known as the
Sanitary Movement. So far, undoubtedly, his
labours have been eminently, and wonderfully,
and to him most honourably successful. He has
roused the community from its previously almost
tmbrokerr torpor in regard to everything seriously
affecting the health of the aggregate population.

He may be considered, without any exaggeration
of his merits, speaking in common phraseology, to
be :the Father ofthe Sanitary Movement. Gradually,
in consequence of theappearance of his very singular
:and startling pamphlets the attention of the more
:intelligent was enlisted in the cause, in the advo-
cacy of which he stood at the outset altogether
' alone. Eventually the Board of Health was
established. Gwyder House became numbered
amongst the recognised offices of the Government..
A Sanitary Commission was organised. The
Press, both metropolitan and provincial, became,
we believe, before long unanimous in insisting
upon the necessity of some Legislative interposi-
tion. A measure, as we have already intimated,
was laid upon the table of the House of Com-
mons, and that measure, after passing through
the required stages, grew at length into an
actual enactment. Yet, everything done, the
evil still exists—London is still cursed by the
horrid results of this abominable custom of intra-
mural interment. Since the passing of the Bill
intended to destroy that custom, we have been
compelled, time and again, to particularise spots
which are still infested by the old rats and the
old ghouls—in open and undisputed violation of
that miserably ineffectual Act of Parliament.
Among these ill-fated localities, we must not for-
get to specify, and that, too, in the strongest terms
of reprehension—Old St. Pancras burial-ground.
An exposure of the foul and hideously over-
crowded state of that churchyard has recently
been given, with very significant wood-cuts, in
the columns of our contemporary, the Builder. The
revelation is such as imperatively demands, we
conceive, the instant interference of our Adminis-
trators. Unfortunately we can speak to the
accuracy of the account furnished by the Builder
in terms of deplorable corroboration. It is true
that the ground is there so rotten with the dead
that " the stones are falling all ways." It is
true that " the paved pathways are everywhere
disrupted, such is the loose and quaking state of
the whole mass." It is true that the soil, which
is " a stiff clay," and has long been in " a dis-
gusting state"—being, in fact, " a mere mud-pond
in that portion which is appropriated to the burial
of the poor." All this is true, without the
truth being in any way over-coloured. And can
we suppose that such a state of things can be
much longer tolerated ? Alas 1 it must be con-
fessed that there is but too much reason for this
doubt when a document like the one we are about
to subjoin—dated, it will be seen, no less than
eighty-six years ago—is still in existence. lt has
been furnished to our contemporary by no less an
authority than Mr. GEORGE ALFRED WALKER. him-
self—that gentleman being, in truth, in posses-
sion of the original. The document is as fol-
lows :

" St. Clement Danes, Jan. 25, 1767.
" Notice is hereby given, that a vestry will be held on
Tuesday next, at six o'clock in the evening, in the ves-
try-ioom of this parish, to take into consideration the
cleansing of the great vault under the church, the same
still being in a very bad condition, and the smell of it so
offensive that divers• of the parishioners are prevented
from attending divine service.
" (Signed) HENRY WALLIS,
Churchwardens." •
Wm. MASSEY,
Eighty-six years ago, that notice was posted up
at St. Clement Danes by the Churchwardens !
Yet between 1822 and 1847, being only a quar-
ter of a century, 2,759 bodies were deposited
in that same terrible old graveyard ! Assuredly,
then, with a knowledge of these facts forced upon
our conviction, it is not without reason that we
regard with anxiety the indifference evinced upon
this Sanitary Question, both by the people and by
the Government.

Dr. WILLIAM FARR, to whose clear and con-
vincing argument, addressed to the members of
the Statistical Society, on the Property and In-
come Tax, we last week directed the public atten-
tion, has buckled on his armour in good earnest,
and entered the lists against the advocates of the
existing system, prepared to encounter them with
their own weapons. Although he allows every
" vantage" to his opponents, they must needs be
" cunning of fence" if they can withstand the pow-
erful and convincing train of reasoning with
which the doughty champion sustains and fortifies
his position. The propositions advanced by Mr.
CHARLES BABBAGE and his less talented followers,
down to Sir CHARLES WOOD, although revolting
to the common sense of the community, and pro-
ducing an almost instant dissent from every
hearer, cannot be easily disproved. It is
notorious to every mathematician that what are
commonly termed the "self-evident propositions,"
those which, without any very unreasonable as-
sumption might be demanded as " postulates"
are the most difficult to establish ; and it is an
equally arduous task to demonstrate the absurdity
of some of the most outrageous fallacies. It is on
these grounds that Mr. BABBAGE and the minor
fry, following " &Ingo interuallo" in his wake, have
been enabled so long to hold their ground. Had
not the principle been adopted and sanctioned by
the Legislature, and supported by some men of
known character, assailing it by serious arguments
would appear to be a mere fighting against
shadows, a Quixotic onslaught against windmills.
But the unfortunate precedent has been established,
and the abstruse terms (or, according to the vul-
gate, " jawbreakers ") adopted by the com-
batants have hitherto acted as dampers to
enterprise, and deterred champions from enter-
ing the list against those who did not
fight with ordinary weapons, but, like the wizards
of the old romances, induced their opponents to
combat on enchanted soil. In Dr. FARR, how-
ever, they meet a champion who apparently pos-
sesses a talisman which renders him proof against
all such devices, and enables him to meet the
enemy on their own ground. He can enter fully
into the technicalities and hard phrases in which
they are accustomed to seek refuge when worsted
in argument, and is thus able to drag them from
the inmost recesses of their lairs—another HER-
dams bringing a modern Cocus to justice.
One of Mr. BABBAGE'S favourite points is to
throw individuals overboard, and to group so-
ciety into different classes or bodies of persons,
such, for instance, as " the legal," "the clerical,"
" the mercantile professions." He then en-
deavours to show that, however severely the rule
of equal taxation may press against individuals,
it is quite justifiable as to the class, because,
" although the incomes are only temporary as re-
gards the individuals who enjoy them, they are
not in fact temporary as regards the class;"
adding, " the income of a class is as permanent
as the rents of lands or houses." If he consulted
Messrs. " BRIEFLESS" and " Duatur," the stand-
ing counsel of our facetious contemporary Punch,
in place of Sir ALEXANDER COCKBURN or Sir
FREDERICK THESIGER, and inquired the effect of
the recent changes produced by the establishment
of local tribunals, and the numerous reforms since
introduced, up to the passing of the Common Law
Procedure Act, he might see cause to change his
opinion as to the " permanency and certainty"
of legal incomes, and to believe that the divi-
dends of the Three per Cent. Consols, or even the
rents of well-circumstanced real estate, would be
more desirable then to the recipient than the profits
even of the forensic magnates above referred to.
It was in vain to press him with cases of in-
dividual hardship. He treated all such in-
stances with as much contempt as Mr. FILER, the
political economist, immortalised by CHARLES
DICKENS in " The Chimes," could have evinced.
The saleable value of the property from which
each person derived his income, was as nothing to
the mighty thimblerigger. He could not per-
ceive that a matter, grossly and palpably unjust
to every single individual or unit of which the
class was made up, must also be unjust to the
class itself. What is wrong per se can never become
right by frequent uso, nor can " an inequitable
tali
he rendered equitable by constantly multi-
plying it." The only response, however, that could
be elicited to these home interrogatories was,
"My principles (principles, GOD save the mark ! ! !)
lead me very distinctly to this, that you ought to
assess upon the class ! ! !" Such were the princi-
ples (!) laid down by poor MAGINN in his very
amusing novel of Whitehall, where he makes the
presiding judge sentence a Colonial Secretary to
death for the acts of his predecessor, on the. sound
" qui capit advantagios, sumit quoque

disadvantagios," or the principle on which the
juryman in GILBERT GURNEY justified the zig-zag
system of alternately convicting and acquit-
ting prisoners at the Old Bailey, as
the acquittal of a guilty man or the
conviction of an innocent one was of very little
consequence, so far as the class of defendants were
concerned, provided the average numbers were
brought to punishment or escaped with impunity,
his vision was so far telescopic. He could not
condescend to notice the existence of the atoms of
which the mass was made up.
Dr. FARR, however, joins issue on the point of
the class. He accepts the issue tendered by Mr.
BABBAGE, and most signally confutes him on his
own terms and with his own materials. He takes
the class " agricultural labourer," and the class
" barrister," and shows that neither one nor the
other is quite so well off as the class " fund-
holder," or the class " territorial aristocrat."
He proves that it will take a certain, and
by no means inconsiderable, annual outlay
to supply the wear and tear in their ranks,
to "raise" hard labourers from the cradle to the
field, to educate new barristers—" who cannot
be replaced by captives on the Coast of Africa or
elsewhere" and supply them with libraries,
chambers, and other innumerable causes of expen-
diture before the farmer of their revenues could
have a residue to himself. And he draws a just
distinction between receipts and profits, showing
that the income of a professional class is strictly
analogous to the " produce" of land. One-third
only divested of risk and expenses of manage-
ment is that which, under the name of rent, con-
stitutes the landlord's profit, and on which only
he is charged, although the barrister is taxed on
the entire amount he receives. It is exactly as if the
landowner had to pay on the total value of his
crop, as if his entire " produce" was clear profit.
We would, before closing this subject, invite at-
tention to the letter of an esteemed correspondent, a
Lieut-Colonel commanding a Regiment," which will
be found in another part of this day's impression. The
gallant officer puts his case clearly and distinctly,
and unequivocally exposes the grievance under
which the class " military officer" is labour-
ing. It is indeed a hardship that a man
who has purchased every step of rank, which
he has obtained after a protracted service,
continued, as in the case of our correspondent, in
every quarter of the globe, for no less than forty-
one years, and who is literally serving his country
gratuitously—for the aggregate of the sums he has
paid for his various commissions would purchase a
larger annuity than that of which he is in re-
ceipt—should be charged much more heavily
than those " who live at home at ease." It is,
_ however, a portion of the system which Mr. BAB-
BAGE defends, and which Dr. FARR has so ably
and unequivocally exposed. •

There is not a more contemptible piece o,
House-of-Commons slang than the cry, "No bit-
by-bit Reforms." Let independent Members be
on their guard, in the coming sessions, against
heeding it for one moment. There may be very
urgent need to press on the House several im-
portant amendments on the old Reform Act, and
no cajollery, and no taunts, ought, in that case,
to deter true Reformers from aiming to carry each
point if they can, and, if not, from letting the
electors see who are real Liberals and who are
not. If, indeed, the Cabinet will announce that
they mean to propose their New Reform Bill in
full time to carry it through this session, we
to
discuss recommend superfluous
dsheobulatcel
onnertinadiblivyiduanlotpoints. It would certainly
be more easyanything omitted by the
Government, as an amendment on the corres-
ponding part of the Government Bill, or as an
i
addition to it.ryite
fted:f Iooot
ipbisrtl,mi
place
however, for the opposite
probability that we would exhort our stauncher
m
to
re,
we
f
men to brace their nerves. Ifnliletoisniusthrd:etermined to
gißvefeor6muract
criopuanrttsithforMaintiwsterlvye wthe stronglyok
tpvi pc:
eeeoenn:acfftdreatearnthshoudde:epi
seeotnpx
innhoebaetsstional
caDoaetyrrhiShareholdersterehhleioatreohsthbkoebaervssetitic
nara;wieirlasneEl
itdwn:fiwihitnasfrfedr
maownsnr
etec:lctehisheaiolomebovi
nnni
suspect
fieeol
d
Ministers have acquired the full measure of offi-
cial nonchalance. We have a splendid Cabinet,
provided it be worked by a determined House.
By combining at all they have showed that they
arc, as the phrase goes, of squeezable materials ;
but, if left to themselves, it must but too soon
appear that the dice are loaded, and the cast will
always be to the advantage of the Noble Member
for London's " prescriptive claims." It ought,
therefore, to be known as soon as possible that
the electoral notices of motions, although no day
is affixed to them, are not mere show motions—
that as they were intended to test the question of
Electoral Reform with a Ministry presumed to be
hostile to it, so they will be pressed for that pur-
pose should an avowedly Reforming Ministry
loiter in their work. Ominous as we fear the
symptoms are that this may be the case, we shall
rejoice amongst the foremost to find it otherwise.
All " bygones shall be bygones" with us for
ever, from the hour that proposals are made
worthy the acceptance of Reformers. If the
Ministry will only imitate Sir ROBERT PEEL'S,
Sir JAMRS GRAHAM'S, and the Duke of WELLING-
TON'S conduct on the Corn Laws—if they will
come forward and avow that the time is come to
give real votes, and in fair distribution, to our
intelligent democracy—we will never reproach them
with the errors of the past, nor even quote
against them a sentence of old speeches which
does not express their present views. We will
back them to the extent of our Ability unreserv-
edly and heartily. We desire, therefore, not to
be classed with opponents of the Ministry if we
show them what ought, as we think, to be the
course of the hearty Liberals, should the Fabian
policy be adopted with regard to Reform.
In that case, then, we say, let those Members
at least who have given notice of substantial and
practical motions bring them forward with the
determination, if possible, to carry them,—let
them obtain the earliest possible day for discussing
them,—let them secure a sufficient attendance
from their own side to compel an attendance on
the other,—let them arrange with each other for
an adequate number of speakers, and by every
means in their power provoke some of the other
side to reply,—let them, at least, compel a divi-
sion, and exhibit a few times, on the division list,
those who are afraid to vote,and who vote on the
wrong side. They will do invaluable service to
the country if they make manifest who are either
foes to our " intelligent democracy," or cowards in
its cause. As a step to this, let them be well
satisfied that every real Reform, is worth something
in itself,—that "bit-by-bit Reform" is infinitely
better than no Reform,—that it is opposed only
because it is feared as a stepping-stone to complete
Reform. A useless attempt, or really trivial one,
for instance like that of General EVANS, to patch
up the annoying Rate-paying Clauses, instead of
a proposal to wipe them from the statute-book,
deserved little support ; it was merely trying to
mend an electoral bog which nothing could cure,
the only remedy worth having being to make a
shorter and safer path to the polling-booth. Very
different is the case with Mr. LOCKE KING'S mo-
tion for a Ten-pound Franchise in the counties.
Not the shadow of an argument can be advanced
by a Liberal against it. It is thoroughly prac-
tical ; it is not even the introduction of a novel
Franchise. The class to whom it would give votes
are superior, generally, in social standing to the
ten-pound householders in town ; they are almost
always superior to the 501. tenants-at-will, and
they are certainly much more independent than
the latter. Nothing on earth can be alleged against
them, but that it would be an enlargement of the
constituencies, although an enlargement of ex-
cellent quality. But why bring it forward
if the Government are purposing themselves
to bring in a large measure next session ?
Because, it will do the measure of next session no
harm if that measure be proposed at all next
session, and if it be really a liberal one ;
because, who can tell what may engage us next
session ? Who in the world would have dreamed
of a Durham Letter, and an Ecclesiastical Titles
Bat to kick reform aside in 1851 ? and, because,