HC Deb 08 March 1842 vol 61 cc281-3
Mr. Mackinnon

said, in rising to bring forward the motion of which he had given notice, he trusted he should be excused for the few remarks he was about to make on a subject of such great importance. He had been first induced to bring it forward in consequence of having been appointed on the select committee on the health of towns the Session before last, when this question had incidentally come under their consideration, and it then appeared to him of so much importance that he had been induced to give it his best attention. Subsequently to that time the City of London and a number of individuals had considered the subject. Under these circumstances he trusted he should not be thought presumptuous for endeavouring to show to the House the necessity of some legislative measure to alter the prevailing custom. The more they considered the subject the greater would be their astonishment that for so many centuries they had lived with such a mass of corruption amongst them, and had continued to follow the example of the most barbarous nations. The object he had in view was to prevent the inhumation of individuals in large towns. How it was possible that such a custom had been for so long a period sanctioned in this country passed his comprehension. Perhaps the House would be surprised when he told them that in all the nations in the globe a different state of things had taken place. Amongst the ancient Egyptians,— [Laughter] he would not long detain the House—but the ancient Egyptians had a custom of burying their dead out of the towns; the Greeks followed the same plan; the Romans did the same. In the laws of the twelve tables there was a law that no man should be either burnt or buried except out of the precincts of the town. It was impossible for any custom to be so obnoxious and injurious to individuals as this of inhumation in towns. The early Christians used to bury their dead in towns. The first person buried in a church was the Emperor Constantine. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Wakley) had alluded to this subject in a publication with which he was concerned. With the permission of the House he Would read to them a few extracts from the opinions of two or three medical men totally unconnected with each other on this subject. The first that he would read was that of Mr. Jinks. The hon. Member read the extract of the following import. One of the effects of this custom was, a fetid and dreadful odour, which became most pernicious, and was made still more so by atmospheric electricity. Here was what the Lancet said: One William Green, in digging a grave in St. Margaret's churchyard, Westminster, was suddenly taken with delirium, and in a short time he died. There was a variety of occurrences which showed without any doubt that inhumation in towns was very injurious. All he could say on the subject was, that it was a matter of very grave importance, and deserving of very deep consideration. Thinking it the duty of the Legislature to guard against anything which might be injurious to the welfare of the people, and that it was the province of a Member of that House to bring such a question forward, he had undertaken to do so, and he did it with the sanction of Her Majesty's Government. Whether they considered the feelings of the body of the clergy, or the sentiments of the citizens of London and of the public at large, it was their bounden duty to give this subject their best attention. The hon. Member concluded with moving for a Select committee to consider the expediency of framing some Legislative enactment (due respect being paid to the rights of the clergy) to remedy the evils arising from the interment of bodies within the precincts of large towns, or of places densely peopled.

Dr. Bowring

seconded the motion. He rejoiced to see that in this country at last some little attention was paid to this subject, with the view of making the dead as little noxious to the living as possible. In France, Spain, and other countries great attention had been paid to this.

Mr. Wakley

wished to know if the hon. Member intended that witnesses should be examined before his committee? If so, it was unnecessary that any discussion should then take place on the subject. Many complaints had been made to him that the charges made at the cemetries for 'burying the poor were outrageous, and he feared that unless caution were exercised in conducting the inquiry, monopolies might be created of a very dangerous and pernicious character. He was informed that a poor person could not be buried at a less charge for the ground alone than 10s. He hoped that this subject would be examined into before the committee.

Sir J. Graham

was decidedly of opinion that the time had arrived when some legislative interference was absolutely necessary on this subject; and the comfort of the community and the feeling of decency of civilized minds required that greater space should be provided for the burial of the dead outside the walls of towns. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wakley) feared that this inquiry might lead to the establishment of some monopoly on an enactment being passed on that inquiry. But, in giving assent to this inquiry, he guarded himself against sanctioning any legislative measure which might emanate from this committee. He did think that any legislative measure must be very carefully considered by that House; but, on the other hand, he thought that previous inquiry was the best ground for any legislative measure. With regard to the constitution of the committee, he was quite sure the hon. Member would take every possible caution with respect to the names on that committee, and that, in conformity with the established rule of the House, he would give notice of the Members to be put on it.

Motion agreed to.