§ Order for Committee read.
§ House in Committee.
§ Clause 27.
§ LORD D. STUARTobserved that the question raised by the clause was, whether the conducting of funerals should be left to free competition, or whether authority should be given to the proposed board to intermeddle. It was no sufficient ground for abandoning the sound principles of free competition, that in certain cases advantage had been taken of relatives by undertakers. There might be instances of extortion; but no inconsiderable portion of the charges made by the undertakers consisted of charges for scarfs, &c., which went to the clergyman; and in 1842 the Bishop of London had stated before a Parliamentary Committee that a large portion of the emoluments of clergymen were derived from that source. But whether the undertakers were extortioners or not, was it right for Parliament to interfere with free competition? Why should not the people be left to protect themselves? It was by encouraging free competition that the public interest would be best promoted, and not by reducing the number of people engaged in the trade; for the effect of the clause would be to reduce the number of undertakers. The Board of Health were empowered to obtain tenders for conducting funerals; but if that board did not invite a man to make a tender, was he to be excluded from undertaking funerals? Would not the consequence be a system of favouritism and jobbing? Was there any fairness in such a proceeding? Again, it was proposed to enact that if any undertaker offered to contract for conducting funerals, and his offer was accepted, it should be open to any person to call on him to perform a funeral, and that he should be bound to perform it. But no provision was made for paying him. At present an undertaker might make inquiries relative to his customer, and might decline to execute the funeral. Under the Bill, however, those who contracted with the Board of Health would be compelled to execute a funeral when called upon, as if they had made a special contract with 904 the party requiring their services. That was an exceedingly oppressive arrangement. The whole clause might be omitted without interfering with the rest of the Bill; and he was prepared to divide the Committee on the question.
§ MR. ALDERMAN SIDNEYrepeated the objection to the clause that, whilst it compelled undertakers who contracted to take funerals, it made no provision for their being paid. With respect to the charges of undertakers, all that the House of Commons could deem incumbent on it was to protect the defenceless; but the inquiries he had made led him to believe that the charges of undertakers were not exorbitant as regarded either the pauper class or the artisan population. In a parish with which he was intimately connected in the city of London, where formerly the undertaker was allowed, under his contract, 14s. 6d, for each funeral of a pauper, the undertaker now found a conveyance and carried the body of the pauper a distance of four miles for an additional charge of only 4s. In the case of a better class, the undertaker found a coach for six mourners, supplied pall-bearers and attendants, cloaks, scarfs, and everything, and conveyed the corpse a distance of four miles for 3l. 10s. When that was the case, and parishes were enabled to have their paupers conveyed the same distance for 18s. 6d., he really did not see the necessity for the Board of Health interfering, as proposed by the present clause.
§ SIR G. GREYsaid, the object of the clause was to invite tenders from undertakers, to distribute the business as much as possible, and to enter into contracts with the trade to perform funerals at certain specified rates. From communications which he had himself received from members of that body, he knew that there would be many willing in the different districts to undertake to conduct funerals at a given price. If the Board of Health considered those prices reasonable they would publish them, and would state to persons who wished their relatives to be buried at that rate that Mr. So-and-So, an undertaker, had contracted with them, and would bury at that rate. That was the object of the clause, it having been deemed desirable, when the places of interment were removed to a considerable distance from the abodes of the poor, to provide, if possible, some means by which they could lessen the expense of funerals to those parties; and he believed the operation of 905 the clause would be that there would be found members of the trade willing to contract at a much lower rate than was charged at present. At the same time the clause did not make it compulsory upon the public to employ the undertakers who contracted.
§ MR. WYLDasked what the effect of the clause would be upon parishes? At present the great mass of the working classes employed undertakers who would give credit; but if this clause were compulsory, and the poor had not the means of paying cash for the funerals of their relatives, it would at once fall back upon the parish, who would be compelled to bear the whole expense. Was the clause to be permissive or compulsory?
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, it was both permissive and compulsory—permissive, inasmuch as the public might go to any undertaker they pleased; compulsory, inasmuch as the undertakers who contracted with the Board of Health were bound to bury at the rates specified in the contract.
§ MR. SADLEIRsaid, that there was nothing to prevent a poor person ordering an expensive funeral, if the contract was to be on credit prices; and if, as was most likely, the undertaker gave in his prices for ready money, the consequence would be in numerous instances to prevent the poor from providing themselves for the funerals of their relations, and throwing the burden on the parishes.
§ MR. BRIGHTthought the incessant attacks which had been made upon the undertakers by the friends of this Bill, both in and out of the House, were scarcely justified. No doubt exorbitant charges were made in connexion with funerals; but were there not exorbitant charges in other trades? If every trade were to be put down because of exorbitant charges, what, he should like to know, would become of architects, lawyers, medical men, and other professions in which such charges prevailed? [Mr. WAKLEY denied that medical men charged exorbitantly.] He would withdraw the remark, then; so far as the medical profession was concerned, of which of course his hon. Friend knew much more than he did. But what he wished to say was, that the exorbitant nature of undertakers' bills arose from the foolish pride—the vanity of people in ordering expensive funerals. He saw coming down to the House that day a funeral procession, consisting of a hearse, some half-a-dozen 906 mourning coaches covered with velvet trappings and feathers, a man marching in front with a sort of platform on his head, out of which appeared to grow a whole forest of black plumes—all was needless pomp and foolish pride—there was the semblance of woe, perhaps, but none of the reality. What reason had the person who gave orders for such a funeral as that to complain of the exorbitance of undertakers' charges? The sect to which he belonged took a very different course. They never put on mourning when any of their relatives died—they never encouraged or permitted—(he did not mean to say there was any positive law against it, but opinion was against it)—these semblances of woe, and so far as the undertakers were concerned, they never succeeded in practising their extortion upon them. But besides the funeral, a great and principal charge on the working classes, when a member of a family died, was the necessity the survivors felt themselves to be under of dressing all the other members in black. He had known cases where parties had borrowed money for this purpose, which had taken them years to repay. If persons of intelligence really desired to put an end to the unnecessary expenses of funerals, they should begin by abandoning this foolish custom. The blame of the heavy bills for funerals was due not so much to the undertakers themselves, as the desire for vain, useless, and meaningless ostentation, and the ignorant prejudices of the public. And this was an evil which he scarcely hoped Parliamentary interference would ever remove.
§ MR. MACKINNONsaid, the sum and substance of the observations made by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down appeared to be, that much vanity was to be found in human beings, which was perceptible in various shapes, but that in persons of the hon. Gentleman's persuasion there was none; but, surely, a peculiar sort of dress, a difference of demeanor, in manners and language, might arise from vanity in those individuals by whom it was practised—quite as great vanity as might be found in the funerals of the great, to which allusion had been made. The hon. Member had stated that the Legislature had no more right to interfere with the undertakers than with architects, or with any other class of the public. He (Mr. Mackinnon) denied that, because, when a husband lost his wife, or a wife lost her husband, there was a peculiar, it might be a 907 mawkish feeling of delicacy, which induced them to avoid whatever might have the appearance of a deficiency of respect for the dead: and hence they were led to sanction a more expensive funeral than was perhaps consistent with their means. But he did not think that that could justly be described as proceeding from vanity. The great advantage of this Bill would be, that it would check the existing custom, and would enable parties who had the misfortune to lose their relatives to say in what way they should be buried, according to scale No. 1, No. 2, No. 3, or No. 4, instead of leaving the matter, as at present, to the discretion of undertakers, who, taking advantage of the feeling of affection for deceased relatives, induced often a more expensive display than the means of the parties could justify.
The EARL of ARUNDEL and SURREYsaw no reason why the hon. Member for Manchester should attribute to vanity, or to any other improper motive, the degree of respect which in all ages every religious sect, except, as it now appeared, his own, had been in the habit of paying to the burial of the dead. It was, of course, easy to impute to vanity the trappings and display of which the hon. Gentleman spoke, just as it was easy to ridicule anything. He (the Earl of Arundel) had himself heard the strait dress and peculiar costume of the sect to which the hon. Member belonged attributed to vanity. So far from regarding as vanity the extreme anxiety which he had often witnessed in poor persons to purchase even the smallest quantity of black clothing to pay respect to the memory of their deceased relatives, he considered it as a degree of reverence highly commendable; and he believed that when the feeling of reverence for the dead totally ceased, there would be very little reverence left for the living.
§ SIR H. VERNEYentirely concurred in the remarks which had been made by the hon. Member for Manchester, and thought he had read a most useful lesson both to the House and to the public. He (Sir H. Verney) would say nothing with respect to the hon. Member's friends, the undertakers, except that after what he had said they might well exclaim, "Save us from our friends!"
MR. T. BUNCOMBEwished to ask the noble Lord the Member for Bath what was the reduction he expected to effect in the price of funerals? For that was the real question after all. He had seen a scale of 908 prices advertised by an undertaker, which, as far as he could judge, did not appear exorbitant, notwithstanding what had been charged against the extortionate practice of that trade; and he wished to know whether the noble Lord's scale for funerals—for the noble Lord was now the official undertaker—would be lower or higher than this. Mr. Shillibeer, in his advertisement, told them that the Metropolitan Interments Bill was founded on his system, that of undertaking funerals at fixed, moderate, and inclusive charges. Mr. Shillibeer said, that by applying to him 30 or 40 per cent would be saved from the usual charges on first-class funerals. Now, what would the noble Lord do it for? Here was Mr. Shillibeer's scale—a nobleman's funeral, 30 guineas; a gentleman's, not a nobleman's, 10 guineas; and an artisan's, 4 guineas, and no extra charge if within ten miles of London. Now, what was the noble Lord's scale? The noble Lord, unlike Mr. Shillibeer, made an extra charge out of London; for they were told that some extra expense would be incurred in taking the funeral four or five miles out to some public cemetery in the country. Mr. Shillibeer would undertake an artisan's funeral, and bury ten miles in the country, providing the one-horse hearse, postboy, and all, for 4l.—would the noble Lord do it cheaper? According to the hon. and learned Attorney General this clause was to be both permissive and compulsory—permissive as to those who entered into the contracts, and compulsory as regards the public. But when all the undertakers were knocked up, which was the real object of this Bill, and that of the Committee of Whitehall, the whole undertaking business would be in the hands of the board and three or four undertakers, and what security would they then have that the prices of funerals would be confined even to their present limit?. The report signed by Lord Ashley, Dr. Southwood Smith, and Mr. Chadwick, stated that the whole burial business of London might be done, as they thought, by four persons. Mr. Shillibeer had offered to undertake the whole himself, and to do the whole business of the funerals consequent on the 60,000 deaths which occurred annually in this metropolis. There were now about 700 furnishing undertakers in London, besides a large number of tailors, cobblers, upholsterers, and others, who undertook funerals, and by whose intervention the charges to the pub- 909 lic were so enormously swelled up. The apothecary, too, did a little in the same way occasionally, and had his favourite undertakers, whom he recommended, and from whom, of course, he drew a fee. When they had knocked up the undertakers, he wanted to know, supposing they could not find so many Shillibeers, whether they must not bury the dead themselves? And, if they were going to do that, let them do it at once, and boldly. He thought the latter part of the clause ought to be expunged, because, supposing a dispute to arise between the contracting undertaker and the relatives of the de-ceased, recourse must be had to the Board of Health, or, as they might be more properly designated, of Trade, as arbitrators, and an unseemly wrangle must ensue relative to the proper performance of the interment. He wished to know what reduction the noble Lord the Member for Bath expected to effect under the Bill in the charge for funerals?
§ MR. BRIGHTwished also to ask whether the Board of Health intended to restrict the number of undertakers, or whether every undertaker might come forward and say that he would furnish the funerals in his district according to a certain prescribed scale of fees?
§
LORD ASHLEY, in reply, said, that there was no intention to limit the number of contractors. He believed that the board would contract with every undertaker who had capital invested in the business. The hon. Member for Finsbury had stated the number of metropolitan undertakers as upwards of 700. That, however, was hardly the fact. Mr. John Bedford, one of the witnesses examined by the board, was asked—
What proportion of this number of 700 persons whose names are given in the Directory, calling themselves undertakers, can be said to share the principal amount of business?—I suppose nearly one-tenth, perhaps nearly 100. Of that 100, how many are principal houses?—Nearly 20 from the first class of undertakers; the lower classes in the trade are very different. Can you give any notion what is the average amount of capital employed by the first class of tradesmen?—I should say some 3,000l. And the average capital of the next 20?.—Something like half that amount of capital for the next 20 or 30. Then the remainder, what sort of capital have they?—The largo proportion are poor indeed.
The hon. Member for Finsbury said truly that the great sources of extortion were the intermediate tradesmen. Most of these were nothing more than upholsterers, who, being in the neighbourhood, managed to get the order and carried it to the city to
910
those who had capital invested in the business, and who alone could perform the funeral. It was with these intermediate parties that the extravagant charges originated. The hon. Member for Finsbury had asked him to state the scale of prices for the different classes of funerals. He begged to say that it would not be possible to give the hon. Gentleman a definite answer to that question until they had had an opportunity of contracting with the undertakers and seeing their terms; but of this he was perfectly certain, from the minute inquiries he had been enabled to institute, that, in comparison—not with the scale of prices 10 years ago, but with the reduced scale which had been put out since the agitation on this subject commenced—he firmly believed that they would be able to find parties ready to contract for funerals at 25 or 30 per cent cheaper. Before sitting down, he bogged to express his hearty concurrence in the remarks which had been made by the hon. Member for Manchester. He only wished that he had spoken upon this solemn subject with a little more forbearance. If he had considered the subject a little more maturely, he would have found that the idle folly which he had condemned was the result of au evil custom, rather than the indulgence of a feeling of vanity. It ought to be remembered that there were moments when people could not enter into a bargain; when they were obliged to take whatever was placed before them; and it was also to be borne in mind that people did not like to be charged with dealing irreverently with the remains of their friends, and were thus naturally led into an evil custom. He hoped, however, that one result of this Bill would be to abolish that pernicious custom; and hero he begged to say that that good and illustrious woman the Queen Dowager, who was now "gathered to her fathers," had, in dying, as in living, conferred an inestimable benefit upon the country by her admirable example, in having expressed her wish to be interred with all the simplicity which became the member of a Christian community.
§ MR. WAKLEYsaid, that he also fully concurred in what had fallen from the hon. Member for Manchester. Still, be believed that the fault respecting costly interments did not altogether he with the undertakers. On the contrary, that body seemed to him to have been very grossly calumniated. He had now been acting as coroner for a period of ton years, and during the whole 911 of that time he had never heard of a single case of complaint against an undertaker. The morbid feeling on the subject lay with the public, because, if in street A or B a splendid funeral took place, the relative of the deceased in a neighbouring street must have an equally splendid funeral. He hoped that the discussion of tonight would put an end to that morbid feeling, without, at the same time, destroying the reverence which ought ever to be shown to the dead. He regretted that his hon. Colleague should have made any remarks respecting the medical profession, inasmuch as that hon. Gentleman was indebted to that profession for his ability to attend the House upon the present occasion. There was, in fact, no difference between the practical physician and the apothecary. An invalid took physic from the latter, but as soon as the undertaker walked in, the apothecary walked out. In fact, the dead man was the very worst patient an apothecary could attend. Now, he was desirous of knowing what security there was in the present clause that the existing race of undertakers would be the parties to perform the funeral duties in future? He was anxious that in such changes as were now proposed, individual interests should suffer as little as possible. What objection could there be, then, to give to the undertakers of the metropolis some sort of security against loss? He had been informed by that class of men that if private speculators were allowed to furnish future funerals, they and their families would be involved in irretrievable ruin; and, therefore, he was desirous of proposing the insertion of certain words in the clause which would give to the undertakers a preference with reference to the contracts. He begged to move as an Amendment—
That the Board of Health may invite and receive tenders from furnishing ironmongers—he meant undertakers—of three years' standing in their business.
§ MR. T. DUNCOMBEexplained. He had not said that the apothecary was in partnership with the undertaker, but he believed that in some cases funerals had been conducted by apothecaries. His hon. Colleague had observed that the worst patient an apothecary could have was a (dead body; he (Mr. Buncombe) hoped that his hon. Colleague did not mean to extend that observation to coroners.
§ SIR G. GREYhoped the Committee would not entertain the Amendment, which, 912 even with reference to the hon. Gentleman's own views, was a contradiction in terms, since, purporting to benefit the undertakers of London, it absolutely excluded from that benefit all undertakers who had not been in business three years.
§ MR. WAKLEYwould not press the Amendment; but he hoped the noble Lord the Member for Bath would give an assurance that if he continued a member of the Board of Health, he would take care that the undertakers should have the preference in making these contracts.
§ Amendment withdrawn.
§ SIR G. GREYhoped that his noble Friend would give no such assurance, simply on the ground that it would be quite wrong for an individual member of a board to say in his place in Parliament what should be the decision of the board with respect to particular powers about to be conferred upon them.
§ MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that unless great precaution was exercised, the system of contract might be grossly perverted, and produce the very evils of which complaint was now made. He thought it would be best for the parish to make arrangements and contract for the interment of its own poor. Then there would be a wide competition, and cheapness would be more likely be secured. He disliked the system of classification which was adopted by the Bill. A great deal had been said about the vanity displayed by persons in the condut of their funerals; but would there not be as much vanity in having a funeral belonging to Class 1, or Class 2, or Class 3? For his part it seemed to him that this classification would act as a premium on vanity, and he must say that he felt strong objections to the clause.
§ MR. COBDENsaid, it was not very often that he rose to endorse any opinion utttered by the hon. Member for North Warwick-shire, but he certainly did coincide with him on the present occasion. Complaints had been made of the ostentation of those who employed undertakers. This arose from our being a people of caste. Each caste was trying to emulate the caste above them; and, while attempting to discourage this system, the Government were, by putting into the present clause different degrees of caste, encouraging the very thing they deprecated. The clause contained a list of payments for the interment of masters and serfs, the very thing which ought to be rendered obsolete. What would be the effect of this? Why, that every one 913 would be ashamed to have his friend interred in the lowest class of charges. Where was the necessity of taking any care of the higher classes at all? Surely they could bury their dead. He contended that the poorer class was the only party for which the House ought to care, because if the upper classes were cheated a little, they would not thereby be ruined. He wanted to know why the Board of Health should not make some provision that they would keep a register of the certain prices at which funerals would be conducted with decency and solemnity for the lower classes?
§ SIR B. HALLsaid, that great alarm had been excited among the tradesmen of Marylebone, in consequence of what they conceived to be the excessively high price at which an artisan was to be interred, according to the statement recently made by the noble Lord the Member for Bath. He wished to ask the noble Lord what would be the whole expense, from the time the contracting undertaker entered a house to the time the earth was thrown upon a body, for the interment of a mechanic residing in any part of London? Suppose a person died in the neighbourhood of St. Pancras, and was buried in any cemetery the noble Lord pleased, what would be the cost in such a case?
§ LORD ASHLEYsaid, it was quite impossible for him to answer the question at present. He could only repeat that the reduction upon existing charges would be very considerable indeed. He begged to add a word. On the previous evening the hon. Baronet had informed the Committee that the fees paid upon interments in St. John's Wood church, were only 7s. 10d., an amount which the hon. Baronet contrasted with the 25s. which it was stated would be the maximum fees upon interment under this Bill. In the first place, the hon. Baronet took no account of the fact that the maximum in question was susceptible of very great reduction; and, in the second place, the hon. Baronet was wrong in his own figures. He (Lord Ashley), in the course of the day, had made inquiries in the parish referred to, and he had found that the hon. Baronet in his statement had entirely left out of his calculation the very heavy foe paid for the ground, the churchwarden's fee, which in that parish amounted to no less than 1l. 8s., making with the 7s. 10d. stated by the hon. Baronet, 1l. 15s. 6d. instead of the maximum of 1l, 5s. under the Bill—.
§ SIR B. HALLWas the ground fee stated by the noble Lord for parishioners or for non-parishioners?
§ LORD ASHLEYFor parishioners. For non-parishioners the fee was 2l. 2s.
§ SIR B. HALLcould only say that he had received his information from the officers of the parish. There was, however, as he had since learned, an additional charge of 4s., making the fees 11s. 10d. With regard to St. Pancras, he had overstated the facts. A pauper buried in that parish paid 4s. 6d.; a parishioner 7s. 6d., and there was a further fee for the ground of 3s., making 10s. 6d. in all. He had before him a copy of a bill to the directors of St. Pancras for the interments ending December quarter, 1849, one of the items of which was "67 poor, at 2s. 6d.," which was the sum be had stated.
§ MR. SADLEIR moved a proviso to the effect that no contract should be entered into by the board, the expenses of which were to be more than 5l. The object which he had in moving the proviso was this. He understood that the system followed in burying the humbler classes in this metropolis was one partly of cash and partly of credit, and he wished to preserve the continuance of this system, which was considered to be a great boon by the humbler classes. He named the sum of 5l., because he understood that under the operation of this measure a very respectable tradesman could be interred for that sum with all becoming solemnity, whilst the funeral of a labourer or artisan could be performed for 1l., 1l. 10s., or 2l. Now if the clause passed without the proviso, the contractor would stipulate for cash payments as his protection against a poor person calling upon him to furnish an expensive funeral. The friends of the deceased might not be prepared with ready cash, and the consequence would be that the expenses of the funeral would fall upon the parish in many cases.
§ SIR G. GREYsaid, he did not see the necessity of placing any restriction of the kind on the Board of Health.
§ Proviso negatived.
§ MR. BRIGHTthen proposed a proviso to the effect that the Board of Health should be bound to give its sanction to undertakers other than those who had obtained contracts to undertake the performance of funerals, at the same rate as the contracting undertakers. Suppose that there were 100 undertakers, and that it was estimated forty could perform all the 915 business, sixty would be extinguished, although the forty might not execute the work cheaper than the 100. He did not think it necessary that there should be any limitation of the number, and therefore he considered that if any undertaker chose to signify to the Board of Health that he was willing to undertake the performance of funerals on the terms published by them, such undertakers should receive the authorisation and sanction of the board for so doing. Otherwise the public would be led to the inference that there was some advantage in going to the contracting undertakers, from their connexion with the Board of Health, and an injustice would be done to the undertakers who were not contractors. He much doubted whether this measure would ever be a popular one; but the adoption of this proviso would at all events remove one objection to it.
§ SIR G. GREYsaid, that there was nothing to prevent other undertakers from performing funerals at as low or lower charges than the contractors. There was nothing to prevent their entering into competition with the contractors, and they would have this advantage, that, knowing the price of the contracting undertakers, they might undersell them if they thought proper.
§ MR. BRIGHTthought the undertakers who were supposed to be in alliance with the Board of Health would possess an advantage which might operate somewhat injuriously upon others engaged in the same trade.
§ MR. ALDERMAN SIDNEYsaid, if it was intended by this Bill to restrict the trade of undertakers, he thought the Committee was bound to repudiate such an obnoxious principle; for he did not see why a particular class of tradesmen in London should be debarred by Act of Parliament from that competition which existed in all other trades.
§ LORD ASHLEYsaid, that the object was to distribute the business as widely as possible.
COLONEL THOMPSONcould not perceive the difference between these and any other contracts. Would not the fair and reasonable course be for the board to give information of the terms they would give for burials, according to certain specifications, and then accept the best contract that was offered?
§ SIR DE L. EVANSwished to know if the tenders were to be publicly advertised for?
§ SIR G. GREYsaid, that the Bill implied that they would be sought by public advertisement.
The ATTORNEY GENERALopposed the Amendment, on the ground that if every one might come in and do the work which one man had contracted to do, there would be no contract or competition at all, and no one would enter into such a contract.
§ MR. BRIGHTsaid, that what he wanted was the sanction of the Board of Health, if he might so express it, to all undertakers, and not to particular undertakers only, who were willing to perform these funerals. He would not divide the Committee.
§ Proviso negatived.
§ LORD D. STUARTfelt the clause to be so objectionable that he must divide the Committee against it. Many attempts had been made to amend it, but all had been fruitless. The feelings of the poor ought to be considered, as well as those of the rich and great. He had on the preceding night said, and he now repeated it, this was not a poor man's Bill, for its effect would be to violate the feelings of the poor in the matter in which they were most susceptible. There were few things that poor people regarded with greater horror than the burial of their deceased relatives by charity. Surely that feeling deserved respect and consideration, yet by this clause hundreds of poor persons, who, if they had the advantage of a little credit for a funeral, might be able to proceed as they did at present—paying a small sum down, and the balance by instalments—would be forced by this clause in its present state to that resort which was the most abhorrent to their feelings—a pauper's funeral. Upon this ground he objected to the clause, and he opposed it also as being a gross and objectionable interference by the Government with the freedom of trade, and with matters in which they had no business to interfere.
§ Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 104; Noes 25: Majority 79.
§ Clause 28.
§
MR. STANFORD moved that the following words be added:—
Provided always, that nothing herein enacted shall be construed to authorise or empower any officer or servant of the said board to enter any house or room for the purpose of removing any dead body, or for any other purpose of this Act, against the will of any relative of the deceased.
§ SIR G. GREYapprehended there could be no necessity for the proviso. The removal could not take place against the will of the relatives.
§ SIR W. CLAYbelieved that there were persons out of doors who would be glad to have a distinct assurance that it was not to be compulsory, and that the officer was to have no power to interfere except on the expressed request of the relative or executor having charge of the funeral.
§ SIR G. GREYhad not the slightest hesitation in giving the assurance, but should have thought the language of the clause made it unnecessary. It was not intended to give any power of entering a house, or removing a body, with out the consent of the executor or relatives, the parties in fact whose duty it was to see to the decent burial of the deceased.
§ Proviso withdrawn. Clause agreed to as was Clause 29.
§ Clause 30.
§ SIR G. GREYsaid, that since the Bill was first introduced, he had inserted two amendments in this clause. Representations had been made to him that if no fee was allowed on the burial of those bodies which were interred at the expense of the union or parish, with the exception of those cases where the deceased parties had been members of the Church of England, there would be no minister in attendance to perform the service over them. He therefore proposed to insert in this clause, and again in the 38th clause, the following-words:—"And where such body is buried at the expense of any union or parish, a sum not exceeding one shilling." The only other amendment was in line 24, the effect of which would be to prevent any fee being taken in respect of the removal of a body.
§ SIR B. HALLsaid, that this clause and the two following ones were new ones; and before they were discussed by the Committee he wished to hear the reason of the alterations that had taken place. In the original Bill it was proposed that an average of years should be taken, upon which the compensation to the present and future incumbents should be fixed. That had been abandoned; and the proposition now was that a fee of 6s. 2d. should be paid upon every burial to the present and all future incumbents.
§ SIR G. GREYsaid, he had thought that, upon the whole, this was the best mode of affording compensation. The other plan 918 proposed that an average should be taken, for three or five years before the closing of any burial ground, of the receipts in that parish from burial fees, and that a sum should be awarded to the existing incumbents during their incumbencies, and continued to the future incumbents, subject to any deduction that might be directed by the bishop. There were great difficulties with regard to this compensation. No doubt it was perfectly just and equitable that some compensation should be made; and as regarded the existing incumbents, he had not heard any objection made. In many of the London parishes the income of the clergyman was derived in a great measure from these burial fees. In the course of his communication with those re-presenting the interests of the clergy, he had found them ready to make a fair concession of their interests to their public good. The clause now proposed gave them a less amount of compensation than they would have received under the former clause. The principle on which the compensation was fixed was identical with that embodied in the different Cemetery Acts, but the amount was much less. The principle had been recognised and adopted by Parliament in all those Acts, the law being that, in respect to every body brought to any of these cemeteries from any parish in London, the clergyman of that parish, in some cases the clerk and churchwardens also, should receive certain fees, varying in amount at the different cemeteries. An average had been taken of the receipts in a given time on account of burial foes for the great majority of the parishes in London: it amounted only to 8s. 2d.; 6s. 2d. was the average of a more limited number; and 6s. 2d. was the amount with which he believed the great body of the clergy would be satisfied, though it did not reach the average, and in many cases fell very far short of the incomes they were now receiving. But there was this new principle embodied in the clause; that the payment of the chaplain for performing the duty at the burial ground was to be deducted from the amount of fees payable to the several clergy. The duty, therefore, would be performed at the same charge as was now the average of a largo number of parishes in London. He thought this the most equitable mode of apportioning this compensation. No additional charge was thrown upon the public, in respect of the payment of the chaplain, or the incumbent; at the same time there was a provision that 919 a sum not exceeding the same amount should be paid at the request of parties to a minister of any religious denomination, who attended to perform the burial service at the place of interment.
COLONEL THOMPSONhoped the question of compensation would be decided simply with reference to the status in quo. If the Church insisted on forcing an examination into whether she was the Church with which the State had made a compact or not, the ease would be altered. But it was time enough to act on this when it came to pass; and till then, the only way the matter was to be viewed, was, that the Church was about to lose certain sources of revenue she had heretofore enjoyed, and for those, it was the shortest and fairest way that compensation should be given.
§ MR. LUSHINGTON moved an Amendment to the effect that the compensation to be awarded under the 30th clause to incumbents and others shall not be perpetual, but shall he limited to such incumbents and others only as shall be in actual possession of their respective tenures at the period of the passing of this Act. Although he did not mean to oppose compensation to the existing incumbents, in order to strengthen his case he would set out by endeavouring to show that payment of fees for burials to the clergy was not justifiable by law. As to the right to compensation he could not concede, nor did the Legislature recognise, it in such a case. The proprietors of Gatton and Old Sarum were not compensated after the Reform Bill, nor innkeepers and postmasters after the establishment of railways. In Willis's Reports, 18th George II., there was a case where Mr. Justice Abdy pronounced a claim for burial fees on the part of an incumbent to be untenable, and laid it down that it was the clear duty of a parochial priest to bury the dead according to the 68th canon, by which he was liable to suspension in case of refusal, as well as according to common law, by which he was made liable in a temporal court for any nuisance arising from his neglect; that neglect, in Linwode's opinion, was simony. Sir Henry Spelman called the claim of burial fees "abominable," and other harsh names; and Milton, in quoting him, used words so intemperate, that he (Mr. Lushington) was prevented repeating them by his regard for prelacy. It was but a custom—an oblation to the pastor by the relatives of the deceased. He now came to a point upon which consider- 920 able stress had been laid. It was stated, that the alterations made in the Bill were founded on the practice of the cemetery companies. When one of those companies purchased a large piece of land, they desired to have a portion of it consecrated by the bishop of the diocese; but the bishop told them that he would not consecrate any portion of their cemetery unless a high wall were raised between it and that portion of the ground which it was proposed to leave unconsecrated; and, further, that he would not do it unless they agreed to pay certain fees upon every burial to the existing incumbents, as well as to all others who might succeed them. When the cemetery at Kensal-green was opened, the proprietors of that ground, at the instance of the bishop, agreed to pay to the incumbents of parishes and their successors 5s. for every burial in a vault, and 2s. 6d. in the open ground, and a further fee of 2s. 6d. to the incumbent of the parish of Maryle-bone for every such interment. It was subsequently thought by the bishop that this was rather a had bargain, and when other cemeteries came into existence they were compelled to pay still higher prices—the Western Cemetery to pay 10s., and another cemetery subsequently established 20s., and all this for the sake of increasing the incomes of the clergy! He would put a case the force of which he had no doubt would be felt by the House. He did not like to anticipate unpleasant casualties, but suppose his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brighton were to die at this place, he could not be buried in the cemetery at Brighton unless the incumbent of the parish were paid a sum of 2l. 2s. When the incumbents asked for compensation, he (Mr. Lushington) desired to know, was no compensation due to the public—no compensation to those who in the late pestilence lost so many of their friends and relations? It was well known that when propositions were made for the removal of interments from the metropolis, the main opposition was offered by the clergy, and mainly on account of the fees which accrued to them from the practice of Intramural burial. He would ask emphatically was there no compensation due to those who had suffered by the pertinacious refusals which the clergy gave to any proposition for putting an end to intramural burials? Then, with respect to the Dissenters, he was bound to say that when the members of the Church made those payments, they only assisted an es- 921 tablishment with which they were themselves in communion. Now the condition of the Dissenters was the very reverse of this. He was acquainted with a gentleman of the bar, who was a rigid Dissenter; his wife, a member of the Church, was dead, and had been buried in consecrated ground; but her widowed husband, however desirous he might be to direct that his remains should repose beside hers, could secure to himself no such melancholy satisfaction; for, he being a Dissenter, the burial service of the Church could not be read at his interment. It happened to him to mix very freely in various classes of society in this metropolis, and he could undertake to say, that in almost every class there existed a certain degree of disaffection to the Church of England, which was expressed in the most violent, often in the most furious manner. In the year 1817, when the cholera morbus raged in Bengal, numerous bodies floated down the Ganges, and vultures were seen perched upon them and tearing their flesh with their obscene talons. There were those who might refer to the habits of eastern birds of prey to illustrate their ideas of western voracity, but he should not seek to establish any analogy of that kind, because he was willing to pay due respect to every class of men; but, from the language used out of doors, he should not be astonished if Her Majesty's Ministers were accused of committing Her Majesty's subjects to the rapacious clutch of an insatiate hierarchy. Such or similar language was frequently used, and he must say, that if they wished to secure the failing attachment of the Dissenters, they would agree to the Amendment which he had proposed.
§ Amendment proposed, page 11, line 9, after the word "compensate" to insert the words "the present."
§ SIR B. HALLsaid, the proposition he and hon. Gentlemen who thought with him wished to place before the House was, that compensation should be given only to the existing incumbents, and not to those that came after them. Now, he wished to put the matter before the House on this broad principle, whether the people of that metropolis, those that were to come after the present generation, should pay for the interment of their relatives and friends large sums of money, and to a class of gentlemen for doing nothing. At first, in the former Bill, it was intended to give compensation in perpetuity to clergymen, as at present, on an average of five years; 922 but it being thought that the incomes of clergymen would hereafter become too large under that regulation, a clause (the 31st) was introduced, which empowered the Commissioners of the Treasury, or other official persons, having the sanction of the Bishop of London, to reduce the incomes of incumbents lest they might become too great. He was prepared to show to the House, that the incomes which would be derived by them under the present Bill, would be much larger than were contemplated in the former Bill, by 175 per cent, on an increase of the population at the rate of 45 per cent. On a former occasion, he asserted that the Bill altogether was redolent of the Bishop of London and Mr. Chadwick; and he had it from unquestionable authority, that the Amendments now sought to be introduced by the Government emanated from the bishop and metropolitan incumbents, with a view to maintain and increase their incomes. A notice appeared in a Sunday journal, which he was in the habit of reading, and which journal might be considered a very fair exponent of Ministerial views and intentions in reference to the Bill, in which that measure was characterised as a most perfect piece of legislation; and it being so perfect, he thought it marvellous that the Government should have altered it. What induced them to make the alteration? What but the agitation that had taken place, because the Bill had caused great dissatisfaction amongst the labouring classes, who could only see that if the management were given to a Government Board, they were certain to be charged heavier fees than heretofore. It was all very well to say the agitation had been got up by interested parties, by funeral undertakers. He, however, believed the clause they were then discussing had been the cause of the greatest opposition, and created not alone the greatest discouragement, but also the greatest disgust. He had asserted that the Bill, as amended, spoke strongly of the interference of the Bishop of London; and what was the official announcement? That the Bishop of London headed a deputation to the Secretary of the Home Department, and suggested the changes. One change was, that, instead of having their incomes fixed at an average of five years, they should have a fixed fee of 6s. 2d. on every interment that took place in consecrated ground. What would be the effect of that alteration? Why, that as population increased, so would their incomes in- 923 crease in an equal ratio. On a former occasion, when he cited the population of St. Pancras and Marylebone parishes, he was told by the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary that he had selected these parishes as telling more for his case. But he begged then to say that he cited them not only because they were parishes which he had the honour to represent, but also because they comprised a sixth of the population of the metropolis, and were assessed at some two millions sterling. In 1801 he found the population of the parish of Marylebone was 64,000, whilst in 1841 it rose to 148,000. In 1801 the population of St. Pancras was 31,179, and in 1841 it increased to 145,238, or, on the whole, more than 200 per cent. Now, if they fixed the fee at the rate of population given, they would find it would increase in the same ratio. He would next take the case of deaths. In 1845, in Marylebone, the number of deaths was 3,200, which, at 6s. 2d. each, would give 587l In 1846 they reached 3,472, which, at 6s. 2d., would give 1,070l. In St. John's Wood, in 1823, there were interred 1,260 bodies, which, at 6s. 2d., would give 388l. 10s. In 1846 there were interred there 2,063, and that number, at 6s. 2d., amounted to 666l. 19s. 4d., showing an increase of 278l. 19s. 4d. The object of the clergy in going to his right hon. Friend was evident. The bishop as pastor pastorum had made as good a case as he could for the shepherds, requiring that a positive fee should be fixed for them; but when the representatives of the flock in Parliament demanded a schedule in order that the flock might not be fleeced by the shepherds, the Government said that nothing of that kind could be granted. [The hon. Baronet then entered into a number of details with regard to the burial grounds of St. Giles's and other parishes, to show how insufficient was the space, and what numerous evils had arisen from that cause.] Let the House consider the position in which the Church was placed, the schism which existed within her communion, and the propositions recently made and happily rejected in the House of Lords, for the purpose of giving power to the clergy; and let them ask themselves whether respect would be paid to the dignitaries of a Church who asked that the community should be taxed in perpetuity, for those who would not, under the provisions of the Act, do anything in return?
§ MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, the hon. Ba- 924 ronet the Member for Marylebone, and the hon. Member for Westminster, had made a severe attack on the clergy; and the latter hon. Member had read some disgusting details of what he said had taken place in some of the churchyards of the metropolis. So foul seemed his collection that his courage failed him, and he did not inflict the whole of it upon the House. When the hon. Baronet laid the blame of the crowded state of the churchyards to the clergy, he ought to have recollected that they were not so much in fault as the inhabitants themselves, and those who represented them, whose duty it was to have moved in the matter, and attempted to remedy the abuse by legislation. The hon. Baronet ought also to have recollected that the fees were only the means of paying the clergy; and when he complained that the fees would increase as the population increased, he ought not to have forgotten that, as the population increased, the duties of the clergy must also increase. It seemed to him that the clause was a proper provision for the future spiritual duties of the Church. The attack of the hon. Baronet on the clergy was for a state of things which they could not remedy. Was not that the case?
§ SIR B. HALLsaid, if the clergymen had made representations to the parochial authorities that the burial grounds were insufficient, the evils might have been remedied. But nothing of that kind had been done.
§ MR. NEWDEGATEBut if these evils were notorious, representations were unnecessary, and it was the duty of the vestries, and the Members representing these boroughs, to see to their removal. He was not so conversant with the position of the London clergy in this respect as he was with that of the clergy in some other towns. In Birmingham there were cures of souls where the remuneration did not exceed 150l., more than half of which small stipend depended on burial fees. It was not correct to say that these payments were for the act of burial; but they were official fees, not for the mere performance of the act, any more than fees to some law officers were payments for the mere act of signature, where, upon no other man's signature but that of such officer, such fees would acrue; any more than fees for burial could acrue to any but the clergymen of the parish; they were a part of the stipend. Objection might be made to the form of payment; but unless other means were 925 provided, the depriving the clergy of them would be simply robbing them of a part of their income. He thought the hon. Baronet had not scrupled to pervert the circumstances for the sake of making an unfair attack on the clergy.
§ MR. HUMEsaid, the question was, whether the burial fee was a vested right or not, and whether the incumbent had any legal title to it. He thought it had been proved that the clergy had no legal title to a fee upon interments, and he should be glad to hear the hon. and learned Attorney General say whether there was any truth in the statement that by law the claim could not be maintained. The moment that burials ceased in the present churchyards, the clergy became sinecurists so far as they were concerned, and therefore their claim to compensation could not be supported. He contended that the clergyman of a parish was bound to bury without any fee, and if he refused he was liable to punishment. He thought it was fair to give present incumbents, compensation; but he denied the justice of extending it to their successors.
§ SIR DE L. EVANScontended, in opposition to what had been said by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, that the metropolitan Members were not to be blamed for not remedying the abuses that prevailed in churchyards. The interests of the clergy, in fact, stood in the way of any effectual remedies being applied. Had the bishops applied their influence to the removal of the enormities that existed, they would have ceased long ago. As to the proposal of the hon. Members for Westminster and Marylebone, he should like to hear what was unreasonable in it. They had what was called a "perpetual annuity" in the first Bill; and, though the phrase had been ingeniously withdrawn, the reality had not. There were 52,000 burials in the metropolis annually; and, assuming that all these took place in consecrated ground, no less a sum than 17,000l. per annum would be received. From this sum the stipend of the chaplains would be deducted, and the surplus would go, in all time coming, to the incumbents of the various parishes. Now, he asked, on what good ground could they propose such a compensation as this?
§ LORD ASHLEYsaid, that he must say a few words in favour of the clergy, and in favour of the demand which they made. In the first place, he would state to the House that when the cholera existed to the 926 fullest extent in this country, the Board of Health was called upon to act in an arbitrary way in a great many instances, and compelled the poorer clergy to close their graveyards: they agreed to do so without a murmur, although involving serious loss, for which they could never receive the slightest compensation. Then, if they looked at the compensation now offered, they would find that it was considerably less than the annuity based upon the five years' average which was proposed in the first draught of the Bill. Even supposing that the compensation was to be the amount of fees deriving from the burial of 52,000 persons per annum, it would not be much more than 16,000l; but it was manifest that they would not receive the fees upon the whole of these, for a considerable proportion of the interments would go into the unconsecrated ground, and into the ground set apart for Roman Catholics, and therefore all these would have to be deducted from the sum of 16,000l. The clergy, when they proposed the system of fees, likewise proposed that a deduction should be made for the services of the chaplains. This would amount to 2,000l. or 3,000l., and therefore not more than 13,000l. a year would be left for compensation. Now, taking the estimate made in 111 parishes, the sum to which the clergy would be entitled as a fee was 7s. 9d., while the fee which they had appropriated to themselves was 6s. 2d., subject to the deduction he had mentioned for payment of the chaplains. There were good reasons why they preferred this mode of payment to that of the annuity. There was a precedent in the case of the cemetery companies; and then they had this advantage, that they received their payments out of the interments ill consecrated ground only, and therefore were not exposed to the charge of receiving the contributions of Roman Catholics and Dissenters. So far as he could gather the opinions of the Committee, there seemed to be no very strong opposition to the compensation of the existing clergymen; but decided objections had been expressed to the perpetuation of the scheme. Now, these fees were not to be considered as mere payment for particular services; they were to be taken as a stipend for the performance of the general services which the clergy had to perform, there being in many instances little or no emolument beyond what was derived from churchyard fees, while in others fifty per cent of the clergyman's income was de- 927 rived from that source. The clergymen of the various parishes would still have the charge of the poor, and the duty of visiting from house to house. All the duty taken from them was that connected with the burial of the dead—their other clerical duties remaining the same as before; and that was the ground on which it was thought right to grant the continuation of the fees. As the population increased, the duties of the clergyman would, of course, also increase; and therefore he thought there was no weight in the argument which had been founded on that circumstance.
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, the authorities quoted by the hon. Member for Westminster were not at all in point. No fee could be recovered either by the common law, or the canon law, for a duty not discharged by the individual; but there was a custom for claiming a fee on account of duty performed by a party himself.
§ Question put, "That the proposed words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 88; Noes 126: Majority 38.
| List of the AYES. | |
| Adair, H. E. | Freestun, Col. |
| Adair, R. A. S. | Glyn, G. C. |
| Alcock, T. | Grosvenor, Lord R. |
| Arkwright, G. | Hardcastle, J. A. |
| Baldwin, C. B. | Harris, R. |
| Bass, M. T. | Hastie, A. |
| Berkeley, hon. H. F. | Hastie, A. |
| Berkeley, C. L. G. | Headlam, T. E. |
| Bouverie, hon. E. P. | Henry, A. |
| Bright, J. | Heywood, J. |
| Brotherton, J. | Hobhouse, T. B. |
| Burke, Sir T. J. | Hume, J. |
| Carter, J. B. | Hutt, W. |
| Clay, J. | Jackson, W. |
| Clay, Sir W. | Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H. |
| Cobden, R. | Kershaw, J. |
| Colebrooke, Sir T. E. | Mahon, The O'Gorman |
| Colvile, C. R. | Matheson, J. |
| Corbally, M. E. | Matheson, Col. |
| Crawford, W. S. | Melgund, Visct. |
| D'Eyncourt, rt. hon. C. | Molesworth, Sir W. |
| Duff, G. S. | Morris, D. |
| Duff, J. | Mostyn, hon. E. M. L. |
| Duncan, Visct. | Mowatt, F. |
| Duncan, G. | Nugent, Lord |
| Duncombe, T. | O'Flaherty, A. |
| Ellice, E. | Oswald, A. |
| Ellis, J. | Pearson, C. |
| Evans, Sir De L. | Pechell, Sir G. B. |
| Evans, W. | Pelham, hon. D. A. |
| Forster, M. | Perfect, R. |
| Fortescue, hon. J. W. | Pilkington, J. |
| Ricardo, O. | Trelawny, J. S. |
| Rice, E. R. | Villiers, hon. C. |
| Rebartes, T. J. A. | Wakley, T. |
| Romilly, Col. | Walmsley, Sir J. |
| Sidney, Ald. | Wawn, J. T. |
| Smith, rt. hon. R. V. | Willcox, B. M. |
| Smith, M. T. | Williams, J. |
| Smith, J. B. | Wilson, M. |
| Stansfield, W. R. C. | Wrightson, W. B. |
| Stuart, Lord D. | Wyld, J. |
| Talbot, C. R. M. | |
| Tenison, E. K. | TELLERS. |
| Thornely, T. | Hall, Sir B. |
| Tollemache, hon. F. J. | Lushington, C. |
§ SIR B. HALLsaid, that the burial foe now charged in the parish St. Pancras was 2s. 6d.; by increasing it to 6s. 2d. would be adding 175 per cent to the present income of the clergyman, so far as regarded burial fees. The population of that parish, according to the last census, was 118,000, and it was supposed now to reach 130,000; so that, in a few years, the income derived from those fees would be trebled. At St. John's Wood church, the burial fee was 4s. 4d.; so that the increase there would be 45 per cent. It was a perfect farce, therefore, to talk of a deduction from the clergyman's income. Unless Government were determined to make the Church and the clergy unpopular by exacting from the people these large sums of money, what the noble Lord should do was to secure to these large parishes the advantageous position they at present held, and in respect to the smaller parishes, where the fees were high, to reduce them to the sum named in the clause, or even to a lower amount. He and his hon. Friends who acted with him on this occasion did not desire to act with any unnecessary pertinacity against this Bill; but, seeing as they did that the Government were pertinacious in their determination to impose this heavy tax upon the metropolitan constituency, and were resolved to carry out the Bill without making any concessions whatever, it was the duty of himself and his Friends to persist in dividing the House again and again until they succeeded in obtaining what they considered to be just to those whose interests they represented. He should therefore propose that instead of the sum of 6s. 2d. being the amount of the fee to be paid to the incumbent, it should be 4s. 4d.
§ Amendment proposed, page 11, line 15, to leave out the words "six shillings and two pence," and insert the words "four shillings and four pence."
§ SIR G. GREYsaid, he had been informed that there was a graduated scale of 929 fees charged in the parish to which the hon. Baronet had referred, and that 4s. 4d. was the lowest fee in the scale, the average amount of the fee which had been received during the last five years being 6s. 2d., or 7s. higher than what was now proposed to be paid to the incumbent.
§ SIR B. HALLsaid, that the fee of 4s. 4d. was paid for about 70 per cent of the persons who were buried in Maryle-bone; and the 2s. 6d. fee was received for about the same proportion in the parish of St. Pancras.
§ LORD R. GROSVENORthought that as the clause now stood a great number of incumbents would be losers.
§ MR. HUMEasked why the House should not have before them a list of what was paid in each parish? Let an average be taken of what had been paid. Let the present incumbents have full compensation. What he objected to was a perpetual annuity to those who did no duty for the same, to which they were not entitled by law, and which tended to make the Church odious in every point of view. He wished to know whether the average was made upon the deaths or the rates, without respect to the number of deaths.
§ SIR G. GREYsaid, the average was made with reference to the deaths.
§ SIR W. JOLLIFFEcould not offer any opinion as to whether 6s. 2d. or 4s. 4d. was the just amount; but he thought that it was most unjust to make compensation, not in proportion to present value, but to what it might be when the population was doubled.
§ MR. BRIGHTsaid, that if the average were struck upon the whole number of burials it would come to one sum, and, if made according to the number of parishes without reference to the actual number of burials, it would come to an entirely different sum. The House, he must say, was asked to do what would bring a great amount of odium upon the clergy of London, and likewise on the measure itself; and, taking both these circumstances into account, he thought the Government would only be acting a wise part if they postponed this clause for the present with a view to its being reconsidered. The day of reckoning for the Church was not far distant, and would prove a still heavier undertaking, if, in the interim, the Government did not take the side of the people and of justice, instead of allowing themselves to be browbeaten, as he believed they now were, by the Bishop of London.
§ SIR B. HALLsaid, that before he divided, he wished to know if there was any objection to postpone the clause?
§ SIR G. GREYdid not see what was to be gained by postponement, and declined.
§ SIR B. HALLThen I withdraw the Amendment, and move that the Chairman report progress.
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ Whereupon, Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 52; Noes 144: Majority 92.
§ MR. ALDERMAN SIDNEYsaid, that the burial fees in the district with which he was acquainted were—in St. Bride's, 3s. 4d.; in St. Sepulchre's, 4s.; and in St. Bartholomew the Great, 1s.; and these charges included the cost of digging the grave, and registering the death. In fact, the charge of 6s. 2d. was greatly in excess of the average of the fees paid to clergymen for burials; the matter required further consideration. He should, therefore, move that the Chairman leave the chair.
§ MR. HUMEsaid, that there ought to be a table of the fees at present charged laid before the House, and a calculation made founded upon it*.
§ LORD J. RUSSELLsaid, that at the rate hon. Gentlemen were going on, discussing every line of every clause, the Bill would take six weeks to get through Committee, if every other Bill were postponed in its favour. However, he would not oppose at that hour the Motion that the Chairman should report progress, and have leave to sit again at twelve o'clock on Monday.
§ MR. HUMEopposed the sitting at twelve on Monday, he having to attend a very important Committee of the House at that hour on the same day.
§ LORD J. RUSSELLdid not see how it would be possible to get on with the Bill otherwise. If they left it to take its chance with the other business before the House at five o'clock, it would take the whole of the present Session to get it through Committee, unless hon. Gentlemen would give more facility to the passing of the clauses.
§ SIR B. HALLhad to attend a meeting 931 of his constituents upon this very subject at twelve on Monday. He, therefore, should oppose a twelve o'clock sitting. If Government brought in a measure of such a description, they must expect the representatives of the people, who would have to pay the taxes, to sift its provisions carefully. Nothing like a factious opposition had been given to the Bill.
§ MR. D'EYNCOURTalso opposed the sitting at twelve o'clock on Monday, he having to attend a Committee of the House at that hour.
§ MR. LUSHINGTONsaid, that his constituents were exceedingly disgusted with the precipitation with which the Bill was being passed through the House.
§ LORD J. RUSSELLproposed that the Committee should be adjourned to twelve o'clock on Tuesday.
§ House resumed.
§ Committee report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House will, upon Tuesday next, at Twelve of the clock, again resolve itself into the said Committee."
§ MR. BOUVERIEopposed the sitting at twelve o'clock. He moved that the words "twelve o'clock" be struck out.
§ Amendment proposed, "To leave out the words 'at Twelve of the clock.'"
§ LORD J. RUSSELLsaid, that the effect of striking out those words would be, that Tuesday being a day on which Motions took precedence of Orders, the Committee would be thrown completely out. He, therefore, hoped the Motion would not be pressed.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
§ The House divided:—Aves 136; Noes 23: Majority 113.
§ Main Question put, and agreed to.
§ Committee to sit again on Tuesday next, at Twelve of the clock.
§ The House adjourned at a quarter before One o'clock, till Monday next.