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

F;Vitninit

&W 7 -
LONDON. TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 1851

Fifteen months have elapsed since
the Imperial
Legislature passed into a law a Bill introduced into
Parliament for the prevention thenceforth
dead
intra-
mural interment. Yet at this moment the are
buried daily within the crowded precincts of the
me-
tropolis. The evil, indeed, has at length become s,
notorious and unendurable that a deputation, yester-
day morning, waited upon the Prime Minister at his
0fi1,:i..1 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 our impression of this evening.
W e 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 becausenotubnit
e reiteration of facts already familiar
mm
to the
as become absolutely essential for
the removal of tbs: h*i detestable abomination. Whoever
will call to recollection the statements put forward
from time to time by ourselves in these columns, will
Yesterday confess that what was insisted upon by the
members of the Sanitary
Association assembled to-
gether in Downing-street has been maintained not
only in our leading articles, but in a
s. variety ,
of com-
munications from our correspondents, The he accuracy
of this is undeniable. It did n=st remain forthbe Right
13
Reverend CHARLES JAMES LourieLo to
light the series of evils complained of—thourignlaghto"'
repetition of those co-nolaiots we are rejoiced even
now to notify, no matter how tardy the hour of
their reiteration.

One of the principal truths insisted upon yesterday

THE SU

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-
lish extramural cemeteries first, and the❑ talk to us
or 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 gives 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 ether 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, word,
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 pls.asure 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, had come to an entirely false conclusion,
because although it was true that under the old sys-

tern 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 Crop, as though they had ac-
tually given false testimony, and he believed that the
iffect of the new law would be to put an end altogether
to false claims and false defences in civil courts:'
This is, indeed, the true point of view in which the
matter should be regarded. Those who were capable
of puz,ting 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 together 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 travelling 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

Ist. That he did not borrow the kettle.
2d. 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
confirmation. Where then, we ask, is the morality of
those
tected wf
ahios e
hpouotd
ss uic infamous
nh
issue, and
and
d such easily de-
, and those who go a step
farther in guilt, •
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 new law that temporal
di
penalties will necessarily follow the gross
what were previously simply moral obligations, sregard of
with-
out any sanction to enforce obedience in
this
world
but a man's own conscience. Who is there who canr
think of the subject without admitting that it
was
desirable to check such proceedings, and that the
guilt of the offenders was of a fir deeper dye than
that of the ordinary class cf 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 apinst them, for
bleb they cant:A, he convicted uz,til th ir guile
been clearly brought home to the satisfaction (in
every instance) of twelve of their peers, that the