The Sun.
London, England, 1850-06-04 00:00:00

THE

that the ratepayers should exercise a control in the ad•
ministration of the rives. He did not see why four or
five neighbouring parishes might not unite for the pur-
poses of the Bill, and he would not vote for a board
with such irresponsible and extraordinary powers.
Mr. SLANEY denied the Bill was unconstitutional in
principle, or that it would be expensive. He denied
that parochial management was always effective and
satisfactory in practice. It did not follow that the
powers necessary to make a change would be require d
when the change had been effected, and he would sup-
port the clause. As a word of good cheer to the under-
takers, he might add he had no doubt they would be
likely to get the contracts for burials on account of
their long experience and the capital they had em-
barked.
Lord D. STUART opposed the clause. This central
board appeared to him to bo by no means so good as the
old mode of management. He hoped that the present
clause would receive from the House a calm and delibe-
rate consideration, for this clause appeared to him to be
the pivot upon which the Bill turned, end he had al-
ready stated his opinion that it ought to be expunged al-
together.
Mr. HUNIE wanted to know what the board would
cost, and he wanted to know what was to ba the income
of the present Chief Commissioner.
Sir G. GREY replied that it was to be settled by Par-
liament.
Mr. HUME could not believe that it would be pos-
sible to carry out any principle of self-government by the
establishment of such a board.
Mr. WYLD said, what they wanted was an elected
and responsible body. They were perfectly willing that
the Government should appoint insp2ctors and establish
any control that might he necessary ; but it was most
desirable to preserve the advantages of local govern-
ment.
Mr. FITZROY said, that the view of the parishes
was that they should manage their own affairs, but they
were willing to do so under the control and guidance of
a Government board. It would be very hard upon the
parishes if where the funds, owing to the mismanage-
ment of others, proved insufficient, they were to be fur-
ther taxed. He should vote in favour of the amendment
and for the omission of the clause.
'rho Committee then divided upon the amendment
which had been moved by Mr. T. Duncombe, when there
appeared—
For the amendment ...
Against it
Majority ...
The clause was then agreed to, and
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said, that the House having
thus expressed its opinion he should not trouble them
with any further opposition.
Clauses 3,4, and 5, were then agreed to.
On clatie 6, empowering the Board of Health to pro-
vide burial-grounds and to purchase lands. for burial
grounds,
Mr. HUME said, that some limit should be fixed
within which new cemeteries and burial places should
not be opened. The limit established by the Act in
schedule A ought to be adopted, and he proposed that no
new burial places should be opened in the several places
named in the schedule.
Lord ASHLEY explained that the parishes of Streat-
ham and Tooting were named in the schedule, but they
contained some large, open, and airy places which might
be advantageously occupied as burial-places for a time.
When the population pressed upon these places the
Board might go further. But it' the Act cempelled them
to go further at present it might be necessary to convey
bodies a distance of 12 or 13 miles for interment, which
would cause expense and loss of time.
The motion was then withdrawn.
Mr. WAKLEY wanted to know whether the Noble
Lord did not think it advisable to mention some mini-
mum distance within which interments should not be
permitted?
Lord ASHLEY—From what point?
Mr. WAKLEY—From St. Paul's.
Lord ASHLEY—But on some sides there were dis-
tricts more open than on others. On some sides the
population was spreading very greatly, and on others it
was not. The Act did not contemplate the construction
of a single large cemetery, but a great many, and some
of those which were already established would be taken.
As the population pressed upon them they would be
shut up, and others at a greater distance opened.
The clause was then agreed to.
On clause 7, giving power to the board to purchase
cemeteries-,
Mr. MOFFATT Laid, the cemetery companies had
been the great pioneers of reform in the matter of ex-
tramural interment. Property to the amount of half
a million sterling had been invested in the metropo-
litan cemeteries, and it would be unjust to pass this
clause. He would, therefore, MOTO that the clause be
expunged,
Sir G. GREY said, the clause had been inserted for
the protection and at the desire of the cemetery com-
panies, who would be ruined if the clause were with-

... 57
... 135
... -78

drawn.
Sir B. HALL called upon the Home Secretary not to
listen to the directors of cemeteries, who wished to sell
their property, but to consider the rights of the sur•
viving relatives of those who were buried in these ceme-
teries, arid who bad purchased property there.
Mr. HUME—There are seven cemeteries in the
neighbourhood of London. Are they all included in the
schedule?
Sir G. GREY—Yes; all.
Mr. MOFFA.Tr was authorised, on the part of one of
the largest of the cemetery companies, to protest against
the clause.

Mr. HUME—Would there be any power to close
these cemeteries unless they became a nuisance?
Sir G. GREY said the cemeteries might be shut up if
prejudicial to the public health, under the powers of this
Bill, arid if not prejudicial they might be taken by the
ifiard of Health for interments. The decision upon this
point might safely be left to the discretion of the Board
of Health.
Lord ASHLEY said there had been no representa-
tions from the friends and relatives of persons interred
in the cemeteries objecting to the closing of the ceme-
teries.

Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, but no
division took place, and the amendment was withdrawn.
The clause was then agreed to.
On clause 8, giving the board power to lay out burial-
grounds and build a chapel,
Mr. C. LUSHINGTON moved to expunge the latter
part of the clause, beginning at line 25, and providing
that no funeral service other than that of the Esta-
blish( d Church should be performed is that port'on of
the burial-ground which had been consecrated accorting
to the rites of that Church. tie objected to the proviso
as a piece of intolerance on the part of the Church, which
ould perpetuate sectarian differences beyond the grave,
by preventing members of different religious sects from
13 ing side by side in death.
Mr. DRUNIMOND did not think there was such a
great respect for burial of the dead in this country as
some people supposed. It was well known that oects-
sionaly churchyards were levelled when they became too
high, and a case bud lately occurred where the flesh and
h,Ples of dead hodics were spread over the fields.
Sir G. GREY opposed the amendmery. The 8.11
proceeded on the principle that new cemeteries were to
be we 1 as subsitut.,s for the old parochisl grounds, and
that the rites of {he Church should be preserved in these
cctneter ies. so that no person c ,uld be laid in consecrated
ground without the rites of the Church.
Th- amendment was then withdrawn, and the clause
agreed to.
On this 9th clause, _ . _

Mr. LENNARD proposed the omission of certain
words, by rshich power is 4iven to the bishop to with-
draw the licence or any chaplain attached to a cemetery.
Sir G. GREY opposed the proposA, on the ground
that whatever right a bishop possessed, such as granting
sod withdrawing licences, a continuance of that right
was implied, and therefore ought to be preserved in the
Bill.

The clause was then agreed to, as were also clauses up
;o 18 inclusive.

The CHAIRMAN then reported progress, and ob-
tained leave to sit again on Thursday next.
The other orders were then disposed of.
The Borough Court (Ireland) Bill was read a second
time.

Ta reply to a question from an HON. MEMBER,
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that he proposed to take
the next Committee of Supply on Friday next.
The Summary Jurisdiction (Ireland) Bill was read a
second time.
The Vestries and Vestry-clerks Bill was read a third
time, and passed.
The General Board of Health Bill was read a second
time.
COURT OF PREROGATIVE (IRELAND) BILL.
Mr. KEOGH proposed as a Select Committee on the
Court of Prerogative (Ireland) Bill, Mr. Gladstone, Mr.
Keogh, Mr. Napier, Mr. Scully, Mr. George Alexander
Hamilton, Mr. William FAg.rtn, Mr. Grogan, Mr. Sid-
leir, Lord Nam, Mr. O'Flaherty, Mr. Bouverie, Mr.
Solicitor-General for Ireland, Mr. Monsell, Mr. Bellew,
and Sir John Young'.
Major BERESFORD objected to the Committee that
it was a partial one. There were nine Members upon it
whu constantly voted with the Government, and only six
Members on that side of the House. Under those cir-
cumstances, at that hour of the night, he moved that the
debate be adjourned till Thursday next.
Mr. KEOGH complained of the objection raised to the
number of the Committee as being uncalled for.
Mr. MACKENZIE defended the objection to the
Committee, as did also Mr. Grogan.
Sir G. GREY recommended un arrangement on the
subject.

BRIGHT recommended that the two names pro-
posed to be substituted should be proposed at once, in-
stead of the motion made by the Hon. Member (Major
Beresford).

Mr. NAPIER, who entered the House at the mo-
ment, proposed to substitute the names of Mr. Goul•.
burn and Mr. Turner for Mr. Sadlier and Mr. Bouverie.
Mr. KEOGII sai 1 that he only named his Committee
in accordance with a previous arrangement with the 11,n.
and L, arned Membrr for the University. He had no ob
j..elion to Mr. Goulburn's name being substituted for
Mr. Sadlier.

Major BERESFORD, with great warmth, cotep'ained
of 800. Gentlemen coming over t. tha., s.de of the
House, and listening to their conversation, and Vlcia
voting for the Government.
After a short conversation, a division tt ok place,
when there appeared—
For Mr. Sadlier ... 106
Against it ... ... 29
Majority ••• ••• —77
Mr. KEOGH said he had no objecticn to the substi-
tution of Mr. Goulburn for th i other Gentleman named.
After a short conversation, it was resolved that Mr.
Bouverie should be named on the Committee.
Oa the motion that Mr. Monsell should stand as a
Member of the Committee,
Mr. GROGAN su,:gested that the name of Mr. Gout-
burn should be substituted fur Mr. Monsell, and moved
in accordance with his suggeition,