HC Deb 18 February 1887 vol 311 cc19-23
MR. PITT-LEWIS (Devon, Barnstaple)

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the removal, without lawful authority, of a corpse from a grave, whether in a churchyard or in the burial ground of a congregation of Protestant Dissenters, is indictable at Common Law, and this for the express reason that it is an offence against public decency, and an outrage on the feelings of the living; under what authority the Home Department issues licences for the removal of the dead from their place of burial; whether it is the practice of the Home Department to grant licences for the removal of the dead, as a matter of right, on the mere application of any person who can show a legal title to the ground in which such dead are interred, or whether any, and what, discretion is exercised as to such licences; whether it is the practice of the Home Department to grant such licences without previous direct communication, by the Department itself, with the surviving relatives of the persons whose bodies it is intended to remove, for the purpose of affording such relatives an opportunity of themselves arranging with the Department for the removal of their dead, and their re-interment at a place in a manner consonant with their natural feelings and religious views; whether it is the practice of the Department to take any, and what, precautions for the purpose of effectually securing that any removal of the dead which may take place under the licence of the Department shall be conducted in a manner consistent with public decency, and with a due regard to the feelings of any relatives who may still be surviving; whether, on the 5th November last, a licence was granted by the Home Department for the digging up and removal to the parish churchyard of the bodies of three persons—namely, Mrs. Mary Irwin, Anna Maria Coad, and Robert Elliot Coad, who had for many years laid buried in a burial ground attached to a Nonconformist Chapel in the parish of Morthoe, North Devon; whether such licence was granted by the Home Department at the sole instance of the Trustees of the Chichester Estate; whether he is aware of the circumstances under which the Chichester Estate had acquired such property—namely, that, about 50 years since, Mr. T. Smith, a landowner in the village, gave to his sister, the late Mrs. Mary Irwin, a piece of freehold land on which to build a chapel; that, some time after the gift had been made and the chapel had been publicly opened, and the burial ground openly used as a place of interment, an exchange of some lands which were intermixed was made between Mr. Smith and the Chichester Estate, and, on the occasion of that exchange, the chapel and burying ground were, without communication with the persons who had erected and used the chapel and burial ground, turned from freehold into a leasehold, determinable on Mr. Smith's death, and that on the death of Mr. Smith in March last, the Chichester Trustees took immediate possession of both chapel and burying ground and forthwith ejected the congregation, and refused to listen to any offer whatever by the congregation and the relatives of the persons interred therein for the sale to them of the chapel and burying ground; whether he is aware that the husband of the deceased Mrs. Mary Irwin is still alive, at the age of 83 years, and resident close to Morthoe, and that her daughter and son-in-law were also the parents of the two other persons whose bodies were removed, and that they and numerous other relatives are resident in the locality; if he will explain why, when the Home Department determined to sanction the removal of these three bodies, a previous intimation was not directly given to these relatives, to the effect that they might themselves within a certain time, on application, obtain a licence for the removal and re-interment of the bodies in a manner in accordance with their feelings, and that, in default of application by them within the time named, a licence for the removal of the bodies would be granted to the Chichester Trustees; and, whether no communication whatever (other than an official acknowledgment of their letters) was made by the Department to any of the relatives of the deceased; whether the actual removal of the bodies took place on 17th December last; and, whether some days before the Parliamentary Representative of the Division drew the attention of the Home Department to the case by an official communication, enclosing to the Department a letter from one of the relatives, expressing willingness, if sufficient time were afforded, to arrange for the removal of the bodies; and, whether in reply both to that and also to another communication from the relatives, a mere official acknowledgment was sent, and the fact that the licence had been actually issued, and would be forthwith acted on, was omitted to be communicated; whether the removal of the bodies took place in the dead of the night, and whether the following statement by Mr. Coad is a correct account of the manner in which it was effected— This is how it was done; the bones of my dear wife's mother were picked up and put into a bucket, and thus brought from the tomb. The coffins of my dear son and daughter were taken up, and then it was found that one of the new coffins brought in at midnight from Barnstaple was not large enough, and the dear girl's corpse was put back into the grave again. The other two bodies were taken to the churchyard, and left unburied from four o'clock on Wednesday morning to Friday morning; then the three corpses were buried in the dark as though they were three suicides; whether the manner in which the removal of these bodies was conducted was in accordance with the regulations of the Home Department; whether he is aware that the proceedings which have taken place in this case have been condemned by the Archdeacon of Barn-staple, and by the Secretary and Registrar of the Bishop of the Diocese; and, whether he will take measures to in future prevent any licence for the removal of bodies being issued without previous communication with the relatives of the deceased, and to prevent any similar proceedings taking place under the shelter of a licence from the Home Office?

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS) (Birmingham, E.)

To remove a dead body without authority is an offence indictable at Common Law, and also summarily punishable under statute. Licences are issued under the Burials Act, 20 & 21 Vict. c. 81, s. 25. On application being made it is usual to refer to the Inspector of Burial Grounds, by whom, in cases where he thinks it necessary, Circulars are issued (1) to the applicants; (2) to the relatives, asking if they had objection to the removal. In this case the latter Circular was not sent, the Secretary of State having been informed by the applicant that the relations had caused application to be made for the removal, but that no progress had been made. The licence for removal is granted on condition, among others, that the removal be effected with due care and attention to decency. It those conditions are not complied with, the penalties attach under the Act. At the time of granting the licence I had no knowledge of the history of the family or of the property. Before the licence was acted on I was informed that no deed of gift from Mr. Smith to Mrs. Irwin had ever been produced or mentioned; that Mr. Smith exchanged the site of the chapel and burial ground for other lands belonging to the Chichester Estate; that Mr. Smith took a leasehold interest in that site; that the three persons named were buried in the burial ground while it was vested as a leasehold in Mr. Smith, and without the consent or knowledge of the freeholders, the Chichester Trustees. When the lease came to an end in 1886 the relatives of the buried persons were twice invited by the Trustees to effect the removal themselves, and were offered a month for the purpose. Under such circumstances, I saw nothing that would justify me in interfering with the execution of the order of removal, provided the sanitary conditions laid down in the licence were observed. The removal of the bodies was effected, as I am informed, with propriety and decency, in the presence of a representative of the relations, who expressed himself satisfied. I am not aware that the proceedings have been condemned, and I see no reason to alter the usual practice of the Department with regard to the issue of licences.

MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)

asked a number of further Questions on the same subject, inquiring, amongst other things, whether it was not the duty of the Secretary of State to make inquiries before granting licences; whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman was aware that the description of the removal of the bodies quoted in the printed Question was written by a relative of one of the deceased persons; and whether he thought the requirements of decency had been complied with?

MR. MATTHEWS

I am not aware of any of the circumstances alluded to by the hon. Member.

MR. CONYBEARE

I give Notice, then, that I will draw further attention to this matter.