The Sun.
London, England, 1851-11-25 00:00:00

-00714,[eliklatt
-

LONDON. TIIESDA7,_NOVEMBER 25 1851.

Fifteen months have elapsed since the Imperial
Legislature passed into a law a Bill introduced into
Parliament for the prevention thenceforth of intra-
mural interment. Yet at this moment the dead are
buried daily within the crowded precincts of the me-
tropolis. The evil, indeed, has 4t length become so
notorious and unendurable that a deputation, yester-
day morning, waited upon the Prime Minister at his
cftioi4l residence, for the purpose of complaining of
this most intolerable grievance. A report of the
discussion which thereupon ensued between these gen-
tlemen, headed by the Lord Bishop of LONDON, will be
found elsewhere in cur impression of this evening.
We refer the public to the various arguments there
brought forward by the different speakers—not be-
cause we recognise in them any novelty whatsoever,
but because the reiteration of facts already familiar
to the community has become absolutely essential for
the removal of this detestable abomination. Whoever
will call t,) recollection the statements put forward
from time to time) by ourselves in these columns, will
coefess that what was yesterday insisted upon by the
member 3 of the Sanitary Asnociation assembled to-
gether in Doweing.street has been maintained not
only in our leading articles, but in a variety of com-
munications from our correspondents. The accuracy
of this is undeniable. It did not remain for the Right
Reverend CHARLES JAMES BLourieLD to bring to
light the series of evils complained of—though his
repetition of those complaints we are rejoiced even
now to notify, no matter how tardy the hour of
their reiteration.

Qne of the principal truths insisted upon yftterds7

by the deputation to Lord JOHN RUSSELL is—that
it is idle to dream of effecting any improvement
whatever of a sanitary kind in either London or
Westminster whilst the atmosphere of those cities con-
tinues to be contaminated by the:loathsome and pesti-
lential vapours issuing from their overfilled graveyards.
Drainage is nothing without the previous prevention
of intramural interments. Ventilation is nothing
without it—and so on, we might say, in regard to
all the other schemes of sanitary innovation. Estab-
lisb extramural cemeteries first, and then talk to us
of sanitary improvements. To act otherwise is to act
without following the commonest dictates of right

reason.

We are gratified to observe, by the attendance yes-
terday of the Bishop of LONDON as the principal
personage in the deputation referred to, a testimony
at last given of a willingness on the part of the clergy
to push forward this long-desired project of social
emendation. We are nevertheless in no way blind to
the fact that in so doing the ecclesiastical authorities
are actuated, among other motives, by a desire to se-
cure to themselves the power very shamelessly de-
puted to them by the Metropolitan Interments Act—
supposing that Act to be at length brought
seriously into operation. Notwithstanding our long-
expressed reluctance to witness the transference
of the principal power in the management of the pro-
jected extramural cemeteries to the clergy of the
Establishment, we are so fully impressed with the
criminality of further negligence in regard to the
custom of intramural burials, that we would prefer
the former to the latter grievance, and are conse-
quently rejoiced to witness the present movement,
although that movement, if successful, must lead in
the first instance to the clerical aggrandizement—both
in regard to cash and authority—so frequently and
earnestly reprobated. Better have a little increase of
sway among the clergy than a continuance of this
horrible evil of intramural interments. So profound
is our disgust at the maintenance of a system so de-
structive as that of burying the dead within the pre-
cincts of the metropolis, that we prefer to its perpetua-
tion an increase of authority and emoluments from
which we should of course otherwise shrink with re-
luctance. _

Hitherto we have had nothing but words, words,
words, in regard to this greatest of all sani-
tary improvements—that of extramural interment—
until we are sick to very nausea of the discussion!
Insomuch so that we should almost expect to hear
from Punch a complaint to the effect that this perpe-
tual talk about Woking is Pro-Woking. Howbeit,
and we say this in all sober truth and seriousness, the
annoyance of the public has in the matter alluded to
reached a climax admitting of very little
further procrastination. It is from our con-
viction of this that we regard with some-
thing like real pleasure the fact of yesterday's
deputation. The misery inflicted upon the inhabitants
of the metropolis by the circumstance of the Inter-
ments Act continuing, after fifteen months' existence,
literally and truly a Dead Letter, must speedily
arouse an indignation amongst the population of the
capital such as will set at defiance even the obdurate
opposition of the remarkably obtuse intellect pre-
siding over the Chancellorship of the Exchequer.

The RECORDER of the city of London, yesterday,
on opening the November session of the Central Cri-
minal Court, alluded at some length to the new Law
of Evidence Act, and the cases which had been sent
for trial under the 19th section of the 14th and 15th
Viet., cap. 100 We rejoice to find that the opinions
of the Right Hon. Gentleman are corroborative of
those which we have already put forward on more
than one occasion. He declares his belief that " those
who viewed these proceedings (the prosecutions
above referred to) as a proof of the inexpediency of
the law, bad come to an entirely false conclusion,
because although it was true that under the old sys-
tem persons were not permitted to give evidence, and
had no opportunity, consequently, to make false
statements upon oath, yet it was too much the practice
for persons to make false defences and put false pleas
in answer to claims that were made upon them, and
they were thus equally morally guilty of the offence of
perjury, and in the eye of GOD, as though they had ac-
tually given false testimony, and he believed that the
effect of the new law would he to put an end altogether
to false claims and false defences in ci ail courts:'
This is, indeed, the true point of view in which the
matter should be regarded. Those who were capable
of putting forward unconscientious demands or de-
fences, to be sustained by the wilfully false or erro-
neous testimony of third parties, were, to all intents
and purposes, morally, although not legally, guilty of
" perjury." It is true that they did not themselves
call the DEITY to witness the truth of these allega-
tions, but they deliberately placed upon the files of
the Court, among the public records of the country,
pleas which they knew to be totally contrary to the
facts of the case—nay more, where permission to
plead double matter had been accorded, so contradic-
tory in themselves, that some one or more of the as-
sertions must necessarily be unfounded. Thus we
frequently find a direct " traverse" and a " plea in
confession and avoidance" joined.togather in the very
same suit—the one totally denying the cause of
action, the other acknowledging it to the fullest ex-
tent, but alleging some sufficient cause to excuse the
defendant from the non-performance of his contract,
or going in some other manner to the cause of action,
whatever it might be.

This may be wholly unintelligible to the lay reader.
We shall, however, refer to a story told of one of the
drab-coated repudiators of Pennsylvania, which
affords one of the best illustrations of the subject. It
is said that a worthy citizen had borrowed from a
neighbour a valuable copper kettle, which at the time
of the loan was in excellent order and condition. The
borrower subsequently returned the article (this
part of the case we confess appears to be
rather apochryphal), but in so dilapidated
a condition that it was almost useless.
The bottom had many holes, so that it could not dis-
charge its ordinary functions, and was far beyond the
powers of the most skilful travelliEg phusitechnist to
repair. The aggrieved owner brought his suit for the
injury inflicted on his property. The borrower was
called upon to answer the charge, to show cause why
he should not remunerate the plaintiff for the actual
damage. The defendant (as under the existing law
he was then entitled to do in Pennsylvania, and
would still be in the United Kingdom,) pleaded

ht. That he did not borrow the kettle.
21. That the kettle was damaged when he bor-
rowed it to the extent mentioned in the declaration.

3d. That he returned the kettle in perfect order,
without injury of any description.
Now, it is perfectly clear that if any one of these
statements were correct both of the others must ne-
cessarily be false. If the kettle had never been bor-
rowed it could not have been returned either whole
or damaged. If it was damaged when borrowed,
and returned in the same condition, it must have been
borrowed and could not have been given back in good
order, while the third plea is directly contradictory
to both the preceding. Let not our readers start with
astonishment. The same system is in force at this
very hour in this country, and there are few litigated
cases in the superior courts where equally conflicting
statements are not put forward. Let any sceptic ap-
peal to a professional man who has any practical
experience, and our statement will receive ample
ctheoonsfirmation. Where then, we ask, is the morality of
who put such infamous and such easily de-
tected falsehoods in issue, and those who go a step
farther in guilt, and pledge their own oaths to the
accuracy of their statements ? The one escaped
with impunity, because long practice had blunted
the moral feelings on these points. But it is the
very best feature in the nemwlalbli
awotghaattiotnesm,
wpoitrha.l
penalties will necessarily follow the gross disregard of
what were previously
obedience in this worldy or
out a we P
sanctionrel. to enforce
but a man's own conscience. Who is there who can
think of the subject without admitting that it was
de,irable to cheek such proceedings, aed that the
guilt of the offenders was of a far deeper dye than
that of the ordinary class of criminals, who committed
petty thefts to obtain the common necessaries of
existence for themselves or families ? Why,
then, should they not be punished, and that
severely ? And is it because some two or three par-
ties are called on to answer before juries of their
countrymen for offences charged against them, for
which they cannot be convicted until their guilt has
been clearly brought home to the satisfaction (in
emry instance) of twelve of their . peers, that the

abuses and enormities that were so loudly and justly
complained of should be continued in full operation ?
Far from it. Those who are brought within the law will
(if guilty) deserve to suffer the extreme punishment
that can be inflicted ; and if the Judge
should direct a prosecution on inadequate grounds,
there is still the preliminary inquiry before
the grand jury and the final investigation in
open court, which must take place before the
punishment. Any possible error will thus be cor-
rected, and if there should be some inconve-
nience to innocent parties, a matter by no means
likely, we must recollect that the effect will be, to
use the language of the Learned RECORDER, to "put
an end altogether to false claims and false defences in
civil courts," and submit to the trifling evil in consi-
deration of the exceedingly beneficial results that wilt
follow from the new regulations.