METROPOLITAN BURIALS BILL. (Hansard, 21 June 1852)

§ LORD JOHN MANNERS
said, he would beg to move the addition of these words: Provided, that it shall be lawful for Her Majesty to continue during the continuance of the General Board of Health the appointment of the 1080 additional member of such Board authorized by the said Act, and the salary of such member fixed as in the said Act mentioned shall be paid as by Section 7 of the Public Health Act, 1848, is directed concerning the salaries therein mentioned,

§ SIR BENJAMIN HALL
begged to ask for an explanation of the Proviso.

§ LORD JOHN MANNERS
said, that it was found necessary to have the signatures of two members of the Board to all documents; and it therefore became necessary to continue the salary of Dr. Southwood Smith, who acted as a second Secretary to the Board of Health. It would be unreasonable to expect him to discharge the duties required of him without remuneration.

§ MR. MACKINNON
said, he wished to call the attention of the noble Lord the First Commissioner of Works to a provision of the Bill now about to be repealed, namely, that inspectors should be appointed to prevent persons keeping dead bodies in their Houses beyond a certain time. He saw no such provision in this Bill. He hoped a similar provision would be introduced.

§ LORD JOHN MANNERS
said, the principle of the present Bill was permissive, and not compulsory; it was therefore im-impossible to enforce the removal of bodies, as suggested by the hon. Gentleman. But power was given to erect reception houses for the bodies of the poor, and to appoint persons to superintend the removal of those bodies.

§ VISCOUNT EBRINGTON
said, they were about to pass an Act in haste to repeal an Act which had been passed after great deliberation. The Government was now in the possession of a large piece of ground which was available for a burial ground, and which would enable the noble Lord (Lord J. Manners) to shut up immediately 100 places of burial in this metropolis and its vicinity. By availing themselves of this for a temporary purpose, passing a temporary Act, if necessary, to give the requisite powers, they might reserve the main question of metropolitan interments until the next Session of Parliament.

§ SIR BENJAMIN HALL
said, he would beg to remind the Committee that the question immediately before them was whether the salary of Dr. Southwood Smith (for it was to his salary that the clause alluded) should be continued or not. That gentleman was appointed under the Metropolitan Interments Act of 1850. That Act was to be repealed by the clause then under consideration; why therefore, 1081 he asked, should Dr. Southwood Smith have his salary continued when he would have no further duties to discharge?

§ LORD JOHN MANNERS
said, that Dr. Southwood Smith was originally appointed under the Act of 1848.

LORD SEYMOUR
said, he must beg leave to correct the noble Lord: Dr. South-wood Smith was first appointed under the Act of 1850.

§ LOUD JOHN MANNERS
But Dr. Southwood Smith was acting under the Board previously to that period, and as it has been found in practice convenient to require that two members of the Board should be present, and should sign all documents issued by the Board, and as Dr. Southwood Smith was one of the members of the Board whose signature was generally required, it was but fair that he should be remunerated for his trouble. If Parliament should be pleased to determine that the act of one member of the Board should be sufficient, then the objection of the hon. Baronet (Sir B. Hall) would be fair. It was a fact that he, as President of the Board, could seldom attend to take part in its proceedings.

LORD SEYMOUR
said, there was considerable inconvenience in the constitution of the Board itself. Although he, when President of the Board, was responsible to Parliament for the proceedings of that Board, yet when he attended the Board and made a proposal, it was seldom he could get a seconder, for Mr. Chadwick and Dr. Southwood Smith, forming the majority of the Board, carried the question against him. He had told the Government that it was impossible to go on in that way. He thought it would he far better if some Lord of the Treasury were to assist Mr. Chadwick, so that the Government might have some possibility of controlling the Board, and preventing the inconvenience and delay of business which now repeatedly occurred.

§ VISCOUNT EBRINGTON
said, his impression was, that Dr. Southwood Smith first acted under the Nuisance Removal Act; and, if he were not mistaken, it was the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Wakley) who first proposed that some medical gentleman should be appointed to the Board of Health. He agreed in that proposition, and that it was proper some medical man should be connected with a Board having to deal with questions of a medical or a quasi medical character.

§ MR. T. DUNCOMBE
said, according to 1082 a return he had himself moved for, Dr. Southwood had received 1,200l. for his services under the Interments Act of 1850. That Act was to be repealed. The functions of Dr. Southwood Smith would therefore cease; why, then, should he continue to receive 1,200l. a year? All that Dr. Southwood Smith had done for the Board of Health was to go to Paris and to assist in writing 10,000 letters. But the Board of Health having proved a dead failure, was about to be repealed, he hoped the Doctor would follow the Board.

§ LORD JOHN MANNERS
said, he must repeat, that as long as two members of the Board were necessary to the transaction of the business of the Board, they must be paid. He agreed with his noble Friend (Lord Seymour) that the constitution of the Board required revision, and the whole question must come under revision within the next two years. All he now asked for was a temporary arrangement during that period, in order that injustice might not be done to Dr. Southwood Smith.

§ SIR BENJAMIN HALL
said, that from the manner in which the noble Lord had explained the matter, he considered it was not worth while to divide the Committee on the subject.

CAPTAIN FITZROY
moved, that instead of the words "after a time mentioned," the words "after one year of making the order" should be inserted, thus enabling proprietors of existing burial grounds to provide themselves with new ones after the issue of the closing order.

§ LORD JOHN MANNERS
said, he had no objection to the Amendment.

LORD SEYMOUR
said, by the clause it would be compulsory on the parties to close the burial grounds, but it would be optional with them to open new burial grounds; now suppose they should refuse or delay opening new burial grounds, what was to happen in that case?

§ MR. WALPOLE
said, he must admit that he had already foreseen this difficulty, and thought that it ought to he equally compulsory on the parties to provide a new burial ground as well as to close the one directed by the Secretary of State; but this was but a temporary measure, founded upon a permissive principle—therefore, in 1083 the first instance, perhaps, it might be better to leave the parties to act permissively.

§ VISCOUNT EBRINGTON
said, he must object to so long a period. Everybody knew the serious dangers arising from burial grounds during the hot summer months. He thought it would be desirable not to precipitate the matter, but to pass a temporary Act, calling into employment as burial grounds the 150 acres or more that were stated to be unoccupied immediately around the metropolis, and to defer the subject for future consideration.