The Sun.
London, England, 1847-01-06 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, JANUARY 6, 1647.

from new graves and applied directly to fertilise our
fields, the transition is too immediate, and cannot but
shock the natural prejudices of the human mind. Mr.
Chadwick has shown the imperative necessity of an en-
tire revision of our whole system of interment—at least
as far as regards large towns and populous districts ;but
the case of Minchinhampton proves that such a revision
is equally necessary for our villages and hamlets. The
necessity of such a revision appears to have been felt by
the great architect of St. Paul's—' For I could wish,'
says Sir Christopher Wren, ' that all burial in churches
might be disallowed, which is not only unwholesome,
but the pavement can never be kept even, nor pews up-
right, and if the churchyard be close about the church,
this is also inconvenient, because the ground, being con-
tinually raised by the graves, occasions in time a descent
by steps into the church, which renders it damp and the
walls green, as appears evidently in all old churches.'
When shall we see every parish in England with its
God's Acre,' those secluded places of sepulture, of
which the German Protestants have set us the example;
beautified with perennial flowers, with flowering shrubs,
with the cypress and the willow, and with groups of other
trees, the favourites of our familiar fields, gardens, and
woods ; in which peaceful retreats it may be possible
to cherish those reverential and tender associations natu-
rally called up by the sight, or even the thought of the
hallowed spot in which our beloved dead repose ; and
full of those types of renovation and decay, which the
fields and the woods offer to the notice of the serious
and contemplative mind, suggestions which are espe-
cially so precious because so soothing to the mourner,
and so calculated to revive in his heart resignation and
hope."
Mr. Smith, in his next letter, stated the course which
he had adopted, and the opposition he had met with iu
the parish—
" The patron of the living, who is also the lord of the
manor, together with the rector, were, I believe, the
principal cause of the unfortunate churchyard arrange-
ment. The former, who was present, appeared to re- 1
ceive my opinion with some pique and discourtesy.
Many, if not most, of the individuals present considered
that there was something in my views. I further stated
that I recognised the same uniform symptoms in the fever
of the present year, indicating that both arose from the
same cause. The rector, who was absent, soon sent a
protest against my theory; hence we have a parochial
division, and I am sorry to say that there is no immediate
prospect of the removal of the source of the malady.
Since I first addressed you I have had important addi-
tional confirmation of the views we both entertain.
Wherever this earth has been taken fever has followed.
The patron had some taken to his garden, and the only
son of the gardener near was attacked. The result at
the rectory you are already aware of, and there are two
or three more instances."

Dr. Southwood Smith, in his last letter, remarks that
any person of ordinary intelligence and common sense
would have surely thought it prudent, as a mere matter
of precaution, to remove these thousand loads of earth,
upon such representations. He quotes Dr. Mead, who
wrote more than a century and a half ago, about the
cause of the plague prevalent in Grand Cairo—
"A great canal passes through the midst of the city,
which, at the overflew of the Nile, is filled with water.
On the decrease of the river this canal is gradually dried
up, and the people throw into it all manner of filth, car-
rion, offal, and so on; the stench which arises from this
and the mud together is intolerably offensive, and from
this source, the plague constantly springing up every
year, preys upon the inhabitants, and is stopped only by
the return of the Nile, the overflowing of which washes
away the load of filth."

And he concludes the correspondence thus:—
" There is a growing dislike in the people of this
country to have their places of burial desecrated by
common and daily traffic, and by rude and low sports,
and those who can afford it now seek to bury their dead
in public cemeteries, wretchedly poor and inappropriate
as those cemeteries are, compared with what national
places of sepulture might and ought to ba mane. In
the meantime the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, in-

eluding the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Bishops
of London, Lincoln, Durham, St. Asaph, and Bangor,
have reported against the practice of burial in the church
and Chancel, ' a practice,' they say, which appears to
us to be in many respects injurious, in some cases by
weakening or deteriorating the fabric of the church, and
in others by its tendency to affect the lives and health of
the inhabitants. We are of opinion that in future the
practice should be discontinued." One distinguished
member of the bench, indeed, is of opinion that there is
no evil in this practice, provided it is not carried to ex-
cess ; that poison in itself is not hurtful, but only an
extreme dose of it. It is earnestly to be wished that the
Ecclesiastical Commissioners had reported again,t the
practice of burial near the church as well as within it,
were it only for the reason assigned by Sir Christopher
Wren, already quoted, that if the churchyard be close
about the church, the ground being continually raised
by the graves, occasions in time a descent by steps into
the church, which renders it damp, and the walls green,
as appears, evidently, in old churches.'"