The Sun.
London, England, 1850-05-24 00:00:00

THE GOV

ERNMEN T INTERMENTS

BILL.

A public m2eting was held yesterday afternoon,
the Freemasons' Tavern, to consider the Governineni
Interments Bill.

It was generally understood that the meeting had
been convened by the undertakers of London who
were, opposed to the Bill.

On 'Elie motion of Mr. STEVENS, seconded by Mr.
C. COCHRANE, it was unanimously agreed that Mr.
Mackinnon, M.P., should take the chair.
Mr. MACKINNON said as he was a Member of
Parliament, and anxious that the Bill should pass—
(Loud cheers)—he did not think it would be prudent
to take the chair, and therefore, though conscious of
the honour they had done him, he would respectfully
decline presiding over the meeting.
Mr. NICHOLAY, of Ox Cord-street, was then called
to the chair, and, in opening the proceedings, said
that though he was a friend to sanitary measures,
yet he was anxious they should take care that the
Legislature should not, under the colour of public
benefit, thrust additional abuses upon them.—
(Cheers.) It had been said that all who opposed the
Bill were undertakers, but he was not an undertaker,
nor had any interest whatever in the trade, and simply
made his appearance at that meeting on public grounds.
Many clauses of the Bill were of a very arbitrary na-
ture, and it had been hinted, with perhaps equal
justice, that the originators of the Bill were parsons
and jobbers.—(Cheers, and cries of " Oh.") He
trusted that no disturbance would take place at the
meeting, but that an impartial hearing would be
given to every speaker, whatever opinion he
might take with respect to the Bill.—(Hear, hear.)
Could any measure be considered impartial which
overlooked a most important class of the community ?
—(Oh, oh.) People might entertain a different
opinion, but he looked upon the Bill of the Govern-
ment as nothing but a huge job.—(Cheers.) Ac-
cording to it the Government were to have the right
of buying up all the grave-yards and cemeteries in
London, and to have one universal place of sepulture
for the benefit of all classes in the metropolis.—
(lien r, bear.) This was interfering in a most un-
warrantable way with the rights and privileges of a
:•or,munity, and he hoped such a measure would not
'er.:eive the public sanction. The Chairman concluded
;3-v reading letters of apology from Lord Dudley
Cioutts Stuart, M.P., T. Duncombe, Esq., M.P., and
several other persons who bad promised to attend.
The following is.a copy of Mr. Duncombe's letter :
" 5, Paltce Chambers, St. James's, May 22.
•
" Sr,—l regret that it will not be in my power to at-
tend the meeting at the Freemasons' Tavern to-morrow,
having previous engagements at the hour for which that
meeting is fixed. But as I have for some time past en-
tertaind very strong objoetions to the Metropolitan In-
terments Bill, I purpose giving notice, to-morrow or on
Friday. of my intention of moving iu Committee the
omission of the greatest portion of the Government Bill,
and of the insertion of new clauses, which will, in my
opinion, render the measure more efficient in its opera-
tloil'i,iiv4hout being injurious to any party. My amend-
. ir tats will of course be printed previously with the votes,
mid ,I trust will meet with the views of those whom you
represent.—l have, &c.,

" THOS. S. DIINCOMBE.

" D. 13. Shaw, Esq., 8:c."
Mr. J. COOK EVANS proposed the first resolution
• " That this meeting is deeply sensible of the necessity
for a general legislative enactment, providing effectual
control over the interment of the dead, and preventing
the abuses at present connected with intramural sepul-
ture; but is of opinion that the Iletropoliem Interments
Bill now before Parliament is throughout fundamentally
objectionable, and wholly fails to secure the object for
IN-'deli it has been professedly introduced."
lie said he was in no way interested in the Bill, ex-
cept as one of the public, and, being one of the public,
he thought it his duty to oppose the measure of the
Government. It was said that enormous charges
were made by undertakers fur the burial of the dead.
(Hear.) He was not there to defend them, but no
doubt they liked to get as much as they could out of
a good job.—(Laughter.) But that was not peculiar
to undertakers ; it was equally applicable to paid
members, secretaries, and commissioners of public
hoards.—(Laud cheers.) The Bill, as the chairman
hal observed, was nothing but a Government job.—
(Cteers.) There was no more respectable class
than the undertakers; and having had the misfor-
tune to employ them, he would, so far from
complaining of them, say that he was much
obliged to them for the services they had ren-
dered. No case had been shown for Go-
vernment interference in the burial of the dead.
--(Hear.) Government might undertake to bury
them cheap, but they had much better try to keep them
cheap.—(Cheers.) Why, it did not cost more to take
a person out of the world than to bring him into it.
The fees charged for an accouchement, together
with the visits after the delivery, and
the powders, pills, and draughts which were
supplied to the patient for no earthly purpose,
amounted to a large sum, and what reason was there
why Government should not pass a legislative enact-
ment to regulate accouchements ?—(Laughter.)
Malt was now much cheaper than it had been, yet
the price of beer was not less, and why should Go-
vernment, on the same principle of interference, not
establish a large and gigantic metropolitan brewery?
—(Loud clleers.) The Bill involved a system
of centralization or bureauocracy which, though it
might suit some countries less free than ours, yet
was quite unsuited to the spirit and habits of the
people.—(Cheers.) No doubt the bishops
and persons had taken an important part in framing
the Bill, for on looking over the clauses, he found that
they had taken good care of theenselyee. The speaker
then referred to various parts of the Bill, and expressed
a hope that the public feeling against the Bill would be
so strongly expressed as to prevent its passing into
la'.v.—(Cheers.)
Mr. RoGeas, cf St. Anne's parish, briefly seconded
the motion, observing that ,with the exception of
doing away with intramural interments, he was
wholly opposed to the principle of the Bill.
Sir Da L ?ICY EVANS said there could be no doubt that
this was a question of great practical and personal
importance to every individual in the metropolis, but
be would abstain from entering into the details of the
Bill, and confine himself to stating the general view
which he took of the measure. He was certainly op-
posed to the Government becoming a great under-
taking company, because he thought that local
management was preferable to centralization or Go-
vernment management.—(Hear, hear.) The Go-
vernment had no right to interfere with private
enterprise, but, independently of that, he could not
see the propriety of Government undertaking what
they proposed by this Bill.—(Hear.) Much abuse
had been heaped upon the undertakers, but the clergy
for years past bad opposed extramural interments,
and that was not !he only instance in which they
retarded great measures of improvement, for they
had set their face against the education of
the people.—(Hear.) The public were determined
that intramural interments should henceforth cease,
but the present Bill was extremely objectionable, and
he should feel it his duty to oppose it in the House of
Commons in anything like its present shape.
Mr. M kCKINNON, ALP., said the question was
one of great diffieulty, and he found it so when
he introduced a Bill into Parliament on the sub-
ject five years ago. He was the chairman
of a Parliamentary Committee which was
appointed to consider the subject, and he drew up the
report of that Committee, which was to the effect that
intramural interments should cease altogether in large
towns e and populous places.—(Cheers.) In conse-
tine of that report he brought a Bill into the House,
in which be proposed that the object should be car-
' rie
(- out by parishes and unions of parishes, in-
stead t,f by a system of centralization, which he
"thoujeht was extremely objectionable.—(Cheers.)
The.t Bill however was thrown out in consequence
u itsTnot meeting with the approbation of the various
onflicting interests representedb in the House of Com-
mons. Sir George Gre
in the present
Bill, he believed was ac3tl%tedsobrryirngbion.nfgest and upright
principles, and he shouldy
any opposition
to its details should endanger its passage_h through
the House.—(Hear, hear, and cheers.)
been read a second time and the principle of
lß.till had
therefore, adopted by the Legislature, so that wtash°
details had only now to be considered in Committee.
He was afraid if much opposition was offered to the
Bill in the House that the Government would, like
Pontius Pilate, wash their hands
raeof the matter alto-
mostimportant asiirs
gether, and thus a
for the sanitary improvement of the metropolis
world be delayed to an indefinite period.
Tie was told by a well-known professional man that
there was a great probability of the cholera visiting
this country again, and the dreadful scourge would
be aggravated if the Bill were lost.—(Cheers.)
Under these circumstances no other course could be
adopted than to sanction the principle of the measure,
and to allow the clauses to be modified in Commit-
tee; but the resolution which had been pro-
posed in effeet stated that the Bill was
altogether objectionable. He felt it his duty, there-
tore, to propose an amendment, that the words from
" fundamentally objectionable" to the end of the re-
solution should be omitted, and the words "objec-
tionable in some of tLe clauses" be inserted in their
place.

Mr. C. COCHRANE supported the amendment amidst
much disorder and confusion.
After a few observations from Mr. CONDOR, the
editor ot. the Patriot, who supported the original
motion,

The ammdment and resolution were then put stria•
tim, and the number of hands held up for each were
about equal, but
The CuarnarAN declared, however, that the amend-
ment was lost, an announcement which was received
Nrith loud cheers, interspersed with hisses.
2lr. J. BELL proposed the next resolution—
" Tnat this meeting more especially protests against
Cie centralising principle of administration contained iu
the Bill, whereby;the miniiters of the Crown assume the
duties of local government, by appoiAting cQinmiui°ll?"'