The Sun.
London, England, 1845-04-09 00:00:00

after this report and the report of the Re-
• , ,
did. bib Iligut Hon. Friend the Horne
Secretary state ? Why, the Right Hon. Gentleman
stated that he did net believe there was any injury
done by interments. in large towns. But the Right
Hon. Baronet not being satisfied with the results
of fortner inquiries, apppointed Mr. Chadwick, the
secretary to the Poor law Commissioners, to investigate
this suaject. Mr. Chadwick was engaged from the
middle of 1842 to the middle of .1843, in inquiring into
the matter, and then his report was laid before Par-
liament. And what did they find in that report ?
Why, that all interments in close towns contributed to
produce atmospheric impurity, and yet the Right Hon.
Baronet was not satisfied with this opinion.
It seemed to him quite clear that his Right Hon. Friend
having that report before him, was afraid to give offence
to certain parties. He reminded him of the Pope at
Rome, who said that the acknowledgment of a certain
fact represented to him would be inconvenient, and that,
therefore, the only course fur him was to deny it. One
objection to the measure was, that it would interfere with
the vested rights of the established clergy. But the fact
was, that a large majority of the members of the church
were in favour of the measure ; and in support of that
statement he relied upon the evidence of the Bishop of
London and the Rector of Leeds (I)r. Hook). The great
mass of the Dissenters were also in favour of it, and they
were not at all adverse to a provision for preserving the
vested rights of the clergy. Before he sat down, he
would call the attention of the House to the Second Re-
port of the Committee on the Health of Towns. The
Second Report stated, that the attention of the Commit-
tee had been brought to the injurious effect of the
crowded state of churchyards in large towns—(not re-
ferring to London)—especially in Shields, Chester, and
other towns named. He would now come to another
statement made to him by a gentleman, a
principal member of one of the Inns of Court,
who wrote to him to communicate facts of the
most startling character iii support of the Bill.
t)ne of those statements referred to a place formerly
called Enon chapel, in the immediate neighbourhood of
Lincoln's Inn. That place was used in the morning as
an infant school, and in the evening as a place for
dancing. In the cellar were deposited the bodies of
nearly 9,000 persons, from which an intolerable stench
was emitted. In the summer a peculiar insect made its
appearance, whilst infectious disease was spread through
the neighbourhood. The police had been applied to ;
but the authorities declared that they had ne power to
interfere to remove the charnel-house, or to prevent the
saturnalia that were carried on within it. The letter
was signed by Mr. G. Grace, the principal of Clement's
Inn. The Lion. Gentleman then referred to a work
published by the amiable and learned Evelyn, in the year
1729, in which that good man referred to the practice
of the ancient Christians not to allow -the dead to be
buried within ihe precincts of their towns ; much less
(according to Evelyn) would they have allowed inter-
ment in their temples. The practice of interment
within churches commenced in the reign of
Charles 11., which was no high authority
for the practice, The number interred in
this metropolis amounted to 1,000 per week, making a
tow of upwards of 50,000 a-year. Look, then, to the
enormous mass of human bodies accumulated in the
grave-yards of the me.ropolis in the course of twenty
years. He was assured, upon high medical authority,
that if the practice were continued many years longer
s,me dreadful epidemic would suddenly spread amongst
the people. He put it to the Right Hon. Gentleman
(Sir James Graham) to think of the responsibility which
would fall upon him, if, by rejecting this measure, he
was the means of bringing about any such plague. Was
it not extraordinary and disgraceful, that in this great
metropolis, the centre of the civilisation and the wealth
of the s•se•rld, such an evil was continued ? That we
were so wedded to the abominable practice of interment
in large towns that neither the Government not the Le-
gislature would interfere to put an end to it ? He sup-
posed that his Right Hon. Friend would plead the diffi-
culties of the question. But surely those difficulties
ought not to deter his Right Hon. Friend from the per-
formance of a great duty. What ho proposed to make
to the House was an abstract proposition condemnatory
of the practice of burying in large towns as injurious to
the public health and to public decency. In submitting
that proposition to the House he was willing to leave
the measure in the hands of the Government, if they
would take it up. If they did not, he would proceed
with his measure himself ; and he would renew it next
year, and again and again, until he succeeded.—(Haar,
hear.) He concluded by moving a resolution to the
effect which he had stated.

Mr. HUME seconded the motion. He thought it
highly discreditable to this country, that whilst Ger-
many, Spain, and even Sicily had taken measures to
prevent pestilence to the living, from the indecent
sepulture of the dead in crowded towns, the abomination
was allowed to continue in this country.—(Hear, hear.)
It was vain for us to exclaim against the barbarity of
savage nations who destroyed one another, whilst our
Legislature allowed pestilence to be engendered and pro-
pagated for the destruction of our own people.—(Hear,
hear.) He could not believe that the Hon. Baronet
would allow this state of things to exist longer. He had
stated that there was a measure to that effect about to be
introdeced, hut it was his (Mr. Hume's) opinion it would
be of no effect without comprehending Interment. In-
stead of bothering themselves with curtailing the hours
of labour of citizens in a healthy state, the Government
ought to interfere to cheek this practice. They
seemed, however, to be utterly apathetic as regarded
this important matter. The Honourable Gentleman
then proceeded to read extracts from the observations of
Dr. Reid, and Mr. Brandt, respecting the dela-
tcri Ills qualities of the miasma, arising from
churchyards, remarking that though it did
cause material and sudden disease yet it frequently ge-
nerated it by slow degrees. What would be the state of
those inhabitants in the neighbourhood of a churchyard ?
If-they had a regular plague in London how soon the
Government would take measures to stop it ; but what
was this but a plague in a lesser degree. Their infor-
mation was not founded on their own country ; Professor
Brandt " states that in Paris the water generally con-
tained a quantity of organic matter, and that it received
a colour from the soil, and that a great number of them
were adjacent to churchyards." It was near 18 years
ago since he moved for returns of the number of church-
yards, their extent, and the number of bodies interred in
them during the year. The reports laid on the table of
the House. Let any one take up the list and it was
enough to disgust any individual Member of Parliament,
and persons of high reek should recollect that they had
duties to perform, and that they ought to consider the
situation of helpless masses of the people, and ought
to see that they were not hastening the
death of their fellow-creatures in this manner, which was
nothing less than savage. Dr. Reid gave instances
where 20 coffins were interred in the space of one grave,
and stated that they were se full of carbonic acid that
the grave digger could not venture to go down. He hoped
that the Hon. Member's motion would be supported, and
that Hon. Gentlemen would lend their aid in removing
this evil. Every passage of the book from which he
quoted contained evidence so strong that any one who
read it woul 1 be convinced of the great mischief result-
ing from the practice. When the returns were made, he
was sure that Hon. Gentlemen, by paying attention to
them, would see that tens of thousands of pounds which
they were employing to improve different parts of the
world, would be better made use of in assisting that un-
fortunate, hardworking, and valuable class, who became
incapacitated, and were disabled by the bad atmosphere
which they breathed. From the humane feelings of the
House he knew that the Hon. Member's resolution
would be carried triumphantly. If the Hon. Gentle-
man the Secretary of State for the Home Department
prepared a Bill to abolida that nuisance, it would meet
the same fate. He should like to see the man who
would oppose it. The latter was the course which he
would recommend, and he was of opinion that the Right
Hon. Baronet would pursue it.
Sir J. GRAHAM said that the Hon. Member for
Montrose expressed a hope that he should hear some-
thing from him on this subject which would be satisfac-
tory. But he was afraid, from the exaggerated view
taken on this subject, that he should disappoint the
Hon. Member. The Hon. Member for Lymington (Mr.
Mackinnon) had stated, that when he first brought this
matter forward two or three years ago, it was received
with jeers anti laughter. lie (Sir J. Graham) must say,
that the Hon. Gentleman's memory was deceptive on
that occasion. He saw and heard many discussions with
reference to the public health, and he was sure that a
discussion respecting the health of so large a portion of
the community was never discussed with the slightest
violation of decorum. His Hon. Friend had referred to
his responsibility in this matter—not in direct terms,
bet in terms not to be misunderstood. He called him
timid, supine, and negligent, and said that he
was courting spurious popularity, and went so far as to
say, that persons in his position—Members of the
House of Commons—from their station were disposed
to neglect the lower orders. He (Sir J. Graham) was
perfectly aware of his responsibility. He was guided
by a sense of his duty in the matter. But looking to
the importance of this matter, and seeing how much it
was connected with the interests of the poorer classes,
he should pause before he should give his assent to this
resolution. He must be permitted to observe, that
customs in foreign countries were quite inapplicable to
the consideration of this question. In foreign countries
they had no scruple in having recourse to quicklime and
various other matters for the purpose of decomposing
bodies, which would by no means be admitted here.
With regard to the particular case, it was no such easy
matter at once to declare by force of an Act of Parlia-
ment that relations should not be buried in places where
their kindred had been buried. He would not believe it
to be a matter of expense or outward decorum. There
existed inward feelings—feelings which were entitled to
the utmost respect, and which were not peremptorily to
be violated by any one. his [lon. Friend said that, with
respect to the practice that prevailed in this city regard-
ing the interment of the dead, there existed a strong
feelug—that the practice was abhorrent to human na-
ture, disgusting, and classed teem with barbarians. He
was reminded of his duty with respect to publie
health ; he demurred to the opinion that public
health was injured by interments in cities. Con-
sidering the amount of population, there was no
metropolis in Europe where public health prevailed to
the same extent. Then the Hon. Member said that this
was a painful subject, and not suited for discussion in a
public assembly like this. The Hon. Gentleman the
Member fur Montrose referred to the fact, that health
was impaired by residing in the neighbourhood of
churches. That he did not agree Q. Tile Bishop of
London, for he did not see why he should not give his
authority, told him that, when he was the rector of
elishopsgate, that the rectory was contiguous to the
churei,,,,-;,nd he remarked that at no period were his wife
and family more healthy than when they residered there.
With regard to the rector of St. James's and St. Giles's,
he did net believe that these residences were unhealthy;
nor did he believe that Gedig-eteeke near gt. Mar-
garet's, was unhealthy, but he undersloo'd that
was one of the most healthy places in the City.