HC Deb 08 April 1845 vol 79 cc328-58

Report of Ecclesiastical Commissioners, Feb. 1832; Report of Select Committee on Health of Towns; Supplementary Report to Report on the Sanatory Condition of the Labouring Population of Great Britain; Second Report of the Commissioners appointed for inquiring into the state of Large Towns and Populous Districts having been read,

Mr. Mackinnon

said: Three years are past since first I called the attention of this House to the practice of interments in large towns. My suggestions were in the outset little attended to, even much laughter was excited: the idea was by many deemed novel, if not visionary; but at length, with some reluctance, a Committee was granted by the House to investigate the question. When the evidence of parties acquainted with the practice of intramural interments was brought before the Committee; when the evidence of medical men, the first in this town, was given, the members of whom the Committee was composed were astonished and shocked at the abominations disclosed; and they came to the unanimous resolution to recommend the abolition of interments within large towns and populous districts. Since that period petitions without number have been presented, and the shocking practices prevalent in the grave yards of the metropolis have appeared in various forms before the public, and excited equal indignation and disgust. It is neither my inclination nor my intention to enter into any statement of the customs of ancient times; I will only observe, that from the time of our Saviour and of the early Christians, until corruptions entered into the Church, no interments in churches or in towns took place. All the early Christians were interred out of the precincts of the living. Not to take up the time of the House, I will at once proceed to the Report of the Commission, the Ecclesiastical Commission, which is as follows:— The practice of burial in the church or chancel appears to us in many respects injurious, in some cases offensive, in some instances by weakening or deteriorating the fabric of the church, and in others by its tendency to affect the lives or health of the inhabitants. We are of opinion, that in future this practice should be discontinued, so far as the same can be effected without trenching on vested rights. Now, Sir, by whom is this signed? Not by any Members of Parliament hostile to the Church, or desirous of innovation; not by any Members of the Opposition, but by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the following names: Durham, London, Wynford. Lincoln, Tenterden, C. N. Tindal. Now let us see what say the Committee of this House when it gives its Report:— "Resolved (1842)—That the practice of interments within the precincts of large towns is injurious to the health of the inhabitants thereof, and frequently offensive to public decency. On what is this Report founded but on the most shocking evidence disclosed of the manner in which the remains of the dead are treated, and of the unhealthiness of the practice of putting the dead amongst the living. When Sir B. Brodie is asked, "Do you consider the state of the grave yards in the metropolis as one cause of fever and disease?" his answer is, "I have always considered that as one cause." What states Dr. Chambers? "I have no doubt," he answers, "that fever called typhus, even in the cleanly quarters of London, owe their origin to the escape of putrid miasma. I should presume that over-crowded burying grounds would supply such effluvia most abundantly." When this last Report was alluded to by me in this place two years ago, my right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Home Department declared he was not yet satisfied; that Le must require further evidence; and a Special Commission was issued to a very able and intelligent gentleman, Mr. Chadwick, to investigate the subject. What says his Report?— That all interments in towns where bodies decompose, contribute to the mass of atmospheric impurity injurious to the public health. This able Report is so well known, and has been so generally perused, that I need not comment on it any longer; but I will next proceed to the last Commission on the Health of Towns, whose Report was published early this Session, which says— Amongst other causes of the deterioration of the atmosphere in towns, our attention was called to the practice of interring the dead in the midst of densely populated districts. Instances have been brought before the Commissioners of the great evils arising from the condition of the grave yards in several large towns, Shields, Sunderland, Coventry, Chester, York, &c., and we deem it right to draw attention to the existence of such complaints. Now, Sir, it may seem that quite enough has been said by the Commissioners on the Health of Towns, and by the Committee, to satisfy the most incredulous that the nuisance exists; but my right hon. Friend still doubts, he is not yet satisfied: like St. Thomas, he is still incredulous. I cannot help thinking my right hon. Friend does not like to believe in the nuisance, because it may be very difficult to remedy the same. One of the Popes in days gone by, when told the earth moved round the sun,—that such was discovered by Copernicus, said, "It may be true, and I believe it, but I shall save much trouble to myself if I say I do not believe it, and I will persist that such is not the case." Now the right hon. Gentleman says the people are still desirous to continue the custom of interring the dead in the midst of the living; but I confess I am at a loss to see what portion of the community is so desirous. Not the upper class. I am sure the middle classes are not; and I see no appearance in the lower class: on the contrary, I have presented petitions signed by thousands against interments in towns, and none have appeared except from a few interested persons, speculators in grave yards in this metropolis in its favour. What says the gentleman who is Principal of Clement's Inn? I will just read his letter to the House.

24, Surrey Street, Strand, 3rd March, 1845.

"Sir—Observing that you intend to call the attention of the House of Commons to the necessity of promoting the health of large towns by preventing interments within their precincts; I beg, as the Principal of one of the minor Inns of Court (St. Clement's Inn), to furnish you with a few facts of the most startling and disgusting character, and which establish at once a case of great injury to the health of a thickly populated district, and of disgrace to a civilized community. Within one-eighth of a mile from Lincoln's Inn, and abutting on St. Clement's Inn, is a building known as Enon Chapel, now used by what is called a Temperance Society in the morning for an infant school, and at night as an assembly room for dancing. The building measures less than sixty by twenty-nine feet, and the part occupied by the living is separated from the place of interment (a cellar) by an indifferently constructed wooden floor, the rafters of which are not even protected with lath and plaster. From 1823 to 1840, it is stated and believed, that upwards of ten thousand bodies were deposited in the cellar, not one-fiftieth part of which could have been crammed into it in separate coffins, had not a common sewer contiguous to the cellar afforded facility for removal of the old, as new supplies arrived. In the cellar there are now human remains, and the stench which at times issues through the floor is so intolerable as to render it absolutely necessary that the windows in the lantern roof should be kept open. During the summer months a peculiar insect makes its appearance; and in the adjoining very narrow thoroughfare, called St. Clement's Lane, densely inhabited by the poor, I need scarcely inform you, that fever, cholera, and other diseases, have prevailed to a frightful extent. Over the masses of putrefaction to which I have alluded, are children varying in number from one to two hundred, huddled together for hours at a time, and at night the children are succeeded by persons, who continue dancing over the dead till three and four o'clock in the morning. A band of music is in attendance during the whole night, and cards are played in a room adjoining this chapel-charnel house. The police have declined to interfere, alleging that the building does not come under the description of a place of amusement, as defined by the Act of 25 Geo. II, c. 36; and as there is no probability of the inhabitants in the immediate neighbourhood giving evidence of their own amusements being a nuisance, there is little prospect of the saturnalia being discontinued, unless the attention which you may be able to excite shall lead to the adoption of some extraordinary means for removing the Enon plague-spot from the centre of the metropolis.—I have the honour to be, Sir, your very obedient humble servant,


"William Alex. Mackinnon, Esq., M.P."

Now here is a highly respectable gentleman, a lawyer, the head of Clement's Inn, who tells you of the evil, and openly gives his name, and permits me to mention it to the House. Before I sit down, allow me, Sir, to allude to the opinion of a very good and able person, so early as the days of Charles II., Evelyn, the author of the Sylva, who says,— The custom with the early Christians was, In urbe ne sepelito ne urito. If then it was counted a thing so profane to bury in cities, much less would they have permitted it in their temples. Now, after all this, would it not raise our indignation, to suffer so many persons without merit, permitted to lay their carcasses, not in the nave and body of the church only, but in the very chancel, next the communion table, ripping up the pavements and removing the seats, &c., for some little gratification of those who should have more respect for decency at least. Now, Sir, I will only add, that in this metropolis, the number interred in the midst of the living, is one thousand in a week nearly; in the whole of the kingdom that number per day. What a hideous and dreadful apprehension does not this number of dead interred among the living create as to the future consequences that may arise! What will this House have to answer for, if at the end of an uncertain period, but at some period, a pestilence or some direful malady should arise in the population, and spread universally through the ranks of society! What would, what will be said by Europe and the world, if in the nineteenth century, the disgraceful practice of interment of the dead in the midst of the living, is not only permitted, but practised, by the most civilized nation, in the most civilized metropolis, and amidst the most wealthy population of the world? Sir, I hope the vote of this night will at once declare the sense of this House, and put an end to a disgraceful abomination, of which the most barbarous people in this globe would be ashamed. If I succeed in moving my Resolution, that in the opinion of this House the interments in the precincts of large towns and of populous districts is injurious to the health of the inhabitants, and contrary to public decency, I shall then proceed to bring in a Bill to that effect, not under a very sanguine hope that I can pass such a Bill unless supported by Her Majesty's Government, but to keep up the public feeling, and to act as a pioneer in a work which I deem not only absolutely necessary for the health of the people, but required by public decency, and creditable to the Legislature by whom such sentiments are entertained, which sooner or later will and must be adopted. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving— That this House is of opinion, that the practice of Interment in towns and crowded districts is injurious to the public health, and exposes the places of sepulture to desecration, and the remains of the dead to acts revolting to moral and religious feelings, and that such practice ought to be abolished as early as is practicable, consistently with the object of making due and proper provision for Interment, and for the protection of vested interests in all accustomed fees or emoluments.

Mr. Hume

seconded the Motion. He considered the subject one of great importance; and he waited with some anxiety to see what part the Government would take with respect to it. Nothing, he thought, could be more disgraceful to them in that House than that their time should be engaged in party contests, instead of being devoted, as it ought to be, to the public welfare. In no country in the world—neither in Germany, nor Spain, nor France—was this practice continued. Surely the exposure that had now taken place, the details contained in the letter written by a person on the spot, the knowledge that had been obtained, the evidence of their own Committee, as well as the accurate details given by Mr. Chadwick, must prove the necessity of exertion on this truly important question. He had read over, with great anxiety, the details given by Mr. Chadwick; and having done so, he could not allow himself to think that his hon. Friend would have occasion again to trouble himself on this subject. The Government, in appointing a Commissioner, had excited expectation, which, now that they had information, he was sure they would not disappoint. Let them remember, that whilst they had been occupied in mere party squabbles, inquiries directed by themselves had proved the people in the towns to be living in filth, in squalor, and in misery, that were almost incredible, had they not been so distinctly proved. It was discreditable to them, as a nation of civilized and Christian men, that these things should be. They were shocked at the descriptions of the inhabitants of savage nations putting each other to death; but how much more shocking was it to think that in a civilized country like this—as it had been proved by facts that could not be contradicted nor denied—that by their own ignorance and apathy they were causing the death of thousands of their fellow-citizens — that by their neglect they permitted to be enervated their labouring classes, upon whom the strength and stability of the country depended; that they permitted them to have bad food and bad air—to live in filth, poverty, and misery, when their first duty ought to be to remove all the causes that led to their depression and degradation. He would recommend hon. Members to read Mr. Chadwick's little book on the subject, in every page of which they would find full evidence of the magnitude of the evils complained of. And he would recommend those hon. Members who were desirous of improving the condition of the working classes, and increasing their health and comforts, to deal with those evils, and, if possible, to devise a remedy for them, as a more practical means of accomplishing their object, than by interfering between the master artisans and the workmen, when in a healthy state, to limit the hours of labour. In one page of Mr. Chadwick's work was a long and important statement as to the practice in France, and the experience of that country as to the effect of interments in towns on the sanatory condition of the people; so that this evidence rested, not upon what had occurred in this country alone, though that he thought was conclusive enough, but also on the experience of foreign countries. Professor Brande had stated that much of the well water in London—many of the wells being in the immediate vicinity of churchyards—was contaminated, and rendered unwholesome by water from the neighbouring graves mingling with it. Eighteen years ago, he (Mr. Hume) moved for a Return of the number of churchyards in the metropolis, their superficial extent, and the number of bodies interred in them in each of the previous ten years. Let any hon. Gentleman look at this Return, and recollect that ever since interments had been going on at the rate of 1,000 a week, and say whether the practice was not sufficient to disgust anybody. Talk of savage manners and brutal practices! Could there be a more savage practice than this? And not only was it to be deprecated on account of the disgust and horror it was calculated to excite; but more so on account of its fatal effects upon the health of the people, especially the working classes, who were most exposed to its influence. Dr. Reid had spoken of the extent of the evil arising from the miasma of graveyards. He had detected deleterious gases escaping from graves twenty feet deep, and stated that he had found the ground in many churchyards perfectly saturated with carbonic acid gas. He thought, for the sake of decency itself, even if the more important consideration of the health of the people did not require it, some assurance should be given by the Government that they would turn their attention to the subject, with a view to devise some remedy for the evil. Hon. Gentlemen, who could reside where they pleased, and command what accommodation and comfort they required, might not be aware of the consequences of the practice which it was the object of the hon. Member for Lymington to put a stop to. It was the labouring classes who felt the evil in its full force—those who were compelled to live in narrow courts and alleys, and were obliged to crowd together in single rooms and in cellars; those whose condition was in itself sufficiently miserable, without having added to it the sufferings which arose from this most deleterious and disgusting practice. Those philanthropists who, anxious to improve the condition of their fellow-man, employed thousands and tens of thousands for the benefit of people in foreign countries whom they knew nothing of, might turn their humane intentions to the position of their fellow-countrymen at home. He agreed with the hon. Member for Lymington, that a case against the practice of interment in towns was made out. Why, then, should the Government hesitate to propose a remedy? The right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) shook his head; intimating thereby, he supposed, that the difficulties in the way of passing any such measure were insurmountable. Let the right hon. Baronet but bring forward a Bill on the subject, and he would pledge himself that it would be carried. He was sure no man in that House would be found to oppose such a Bill on the plea of vested rights. If there were vested rights, pay them and get rid of them; but let justice be done to those large masses of the community who were less fortunate than themselves. He trusted the right hon. Baronet would adopt the course recommended by the Commissioners who had investigated the subject, and not allow trifles to prevent them. He seconded the Motion of his hon. Friend with great pleasure.

Sir J. Graham

said, the hon. Member for Montrose had expressed a hope that he would hear something from him that would be satisfactory to the hon. Member for Lymington, and those who were anxious that, the Government should take this matter into their hands with the view of proposing to Parliament some measure of legislation on the subject. He was, however, afraid, from what appeared to him to be the exaggerated views entertained on the subject, that he should disappoint him. His hon. Friend the Member for Lymington had stated that when the case was first brought forward by him, some years ago, it was received by the House with derision, cheers, and laughter. He thought his hon. Friend's memory in this respect was not quite correct. He had heard the subject frequently discussed, and never on any occasion did he remember its being received with any violation of decorum. No Motion on the subject had, he believed, been met in that House (as his hon. Friend seemed to suppose) with levity and neglect. His hon. Friend had accused him, not certainly in direct terms, but still he had intimated in a manner not to be misunderstood, that he had been guilty, in dealing with this question, of supineness, timidity, and negligence, and that he was courting a spurious popularity; and his hon. Friend had gone still further, and had charged persons in his position, and Members of the House of Commons, with being from their situation disposed to despise the claims of the lower orders. Now he could assure his hon. Friend that he was influenced by nothing but a sense of duty in the course he felt bound to follow in regard to this matter. He was fully alive to its importance, and to the wants and feelings of the humble classes in regard to it; and it was because he was so alive to their feelings and wishes, that he hesitated to pledge himself to bring forward any such measure as that suggested. The experience of foreign countries had been referred to, and the practice in these countries with regard to the interment of the dead had been compared with that which existed in this country. Now, in the first place, he must say that the customs of foreign countries were not applicable to the consideration of this question with us. In foreign countries there was no hesitation on the part of the people in large cities to adopt means for the more rapid decomposition of human remains. Burning, lime, and other devices were had recourse to for that purpose, which in this country would not be tolerated. Then, again, with regard to the feelings of the poor themselves, it was no easy or safe matter to declare at once by Act of Parliament that people should no longer be buried in those places in which the remains of their kindred lay. This was not a mere question of expense—it was not a question of mere outward decorum; warm feelings in reference to this subject of the interment of the dead obtained in the hearts of the people—feelings that were entitled to respect, and which must not be lightly nor unnecessarily violated. His hon. Friend the Member for Lymington had said that the practice prevailing in large cities in regard to the interment of the dead was abhorrent to human nature, created disgust, and in the opinion of foreigners classed us with barbarians; and he had further called upon him, on considerations of the public health, to devise and submit to Parliament some measure for putting an end to the practice. He was aware that the question was one connected with the public health, but he was not prepared to admit that the public health was endangered. He believed it was an undoubted fact that there was no metropolis in Europe in which, looking at the density of the population, the public health was preserved so well as in London. The hon. Member for Montrose had stated that health was impaired by a residence in the neighbourhood of churchyards. Now, he had very high authority, and he believed he should commit no impropriety in naming it—that of the Bishop of London—for stating that that was not the case. The right rev. Prelate had informed him that when he was rector of Bishopsgate he resided in the rectory, which was immediately contiguous to the churchyard, and that during that period, himself, his wife and family, which was a large one, never enjoyed better health. Then there were the rectories of St. James's and St. Giles's, both contiguous to churchyards; but he did not believe any complaint of ill health on the part of the residents as resulting from that contiguity had ever been heard. Again, in the immediate vicinity of that House there was a churchyard; but he had never heard that the houses in Great George-street, or the other houses near St. Margaret's churchyard, were unhealthy; on the contrary, he believed there was no part of the metropolis in which the health of the people was better preserved. His hon. Friend had called upon the House to affirm a mere abstract Resolution. Now, what he wanted to see was the Bill by which his hon. Friend proposed to meet the evil of which he complained. No man was more competent to embody his views in the shape of an enactment than his hon. Friend. He had acted as the Chairman of the Committee by whom the inquiry had been made—he had bestowed great attention on the subject—an attention which he regretted to say that he had not been able to pay—and his hon. Friend was consequently most competent to determine what the remedial measure should be. It was to be regretted, therefore, that his hon. Friend had not at once brought forward a Bill upon the subject. At all events he should say the House ought not to proceed in this matter by an abstract Resolution; a mere abstract Resolution, such as that now proposed, would be rather an impediment than an aid to legislation. What, therefore, he entreated of his hon. Friend was, that as the pioneer of the Government he would not press his Resolution but at once bring in his Bill. Let them look at the importance of the subject in reference to what the Resolution called upon the House to pledge itself to. Was it wise, in a deliberative assembly like that House, when the remedial measure, in the shape of an Act, was still doubtful—was it prudent at once to declare, by this Resolution that interment in cities and towns was injurious to the public health—a breach of public decorum inconsistent with the social and religious feelings of the people, and with a due regard to decency? Now, he for one was not prepared to affirm that interment in towns was inconsistent with the public health, or opposed to the social or religious feelings of the people; nor did he believe that any new legislation was necessary to check those infringements of public decorum and decency which had been stated. With regard to the case that had been recently brought forward of the Spafields burial ground, he had thought it necessary at once to institute a prosecution; and that matter was now pending. At the instance of the Government the parties accused of the offence had been prosecuted, and before a judicial tribunal the case would be fairly heard; and if the facts were proved to be as alleged, he had no doubt that the law was sufficiently strong to grapple with the abuse. Again, with regard to what had been alleged in respect to Enon Chapel, he believed the law was already strong enough to deal with that case also. His hon. Friend had said that there were very strong feelings upon the subject in the public mind. But let them proceed to pass a Bill of a stringent character, prohibiting absolutely interment in cities and towns—adopting Mr. Chadwick's suggestion, for instance—and they would find that public feeling would be excited to the greatest degree, and if they did not take care would be grossly violated by their enactments. Then with regard to the suggestions of the various Commissioners which had been alluded to. In the first place, the Ecclesiastical Commission report only as against interments in churches. Then came the Report of the Sanatory Commissioners, which glanced at the subject incidentally, it was true, but did anything but propose a specific remedy. Mr. Chadwick alone was the person who recommended that burials within the precincts of towns should be prohibited. He admitted that the great question of the health of the people in large towns was about to be dealt with by the Government in a comprehensive manner, by the Bill of which his noble Friend had given notice, and which was now all but prepared, and would be submitted to Parliament at an early period in the present Session. But such had been his feeling in the matter, that though he admitted interment in cities to be intimately connected with the health of the people, yet he thought the subject was so marked and so distinct, and disconnected from all other causes productive of temporary disease, that he had thought it expedient to keep it out of the scope and operation of that Bill. But, to return to the Report of Mr. Chadwick; he agreed that that Report was most laborious, able, and comprehensive, as to the evils he described; but then, as regarded the remedial measures suggested by Mr. Chadwick, he was bound to say that nothing had convinced him more of the extreme difficulty of dealing with the subject than those very propositions which Mr. Chadwick made. His hon. Friend had stated that there were not fewer than a thousand burials within the precincts of this metropolis every week throughout the year. Now, what was Mr. Chadwick's proposal? It was neither more nor less than this—that all the arrangements for interments which were now conducted by upholsterers and others should cease to be left in the hands of private individuals; but that all the arrangements should be in future confided to the Government, and, in point of fact, that the Government should undertake the burial of the people; that they should fix the scale of expense, and that burial places should be provided at the distance of not less than four or five miles from the metropolis, the charge to be met by a parochial assessment. Such was the proposal of Mr. Chadwick. The hon. Member for Montrose had admitted that gradually, without the force of legislative enactment, the inclination of the public led them to adopt burial places outide the towns rather than in the churchyards within them, and that ample facilities were given by private companies for that object. Now, he (Sir J. Graham) would say, take care lest, by a compulsory enactment, they interrupted that course of feeling, which, if left to itself, would remedy the evil. He believed the adoption of the Report of Mr. Chadwick, viz., the abolition, by Act of Parliament, of all interments under the direction of private individuals, would interfere with that feeling, and that such a proposition, if the Government were to embody it in a Bill, whatever success it might meet with in that House, out of doors would encounter great general condemnation. It had been said, that amongst the most determined opponents of any change in the practice of burials in towns was the Church. He did not believe that to be the fact. On the contrary, he believed the Bishop of London had turned his attention to the subject, with a view of introducing a measure directly to accomplish the object which his hon. Friend had in view; but he felt that the utmost caution was necessary in dealing with the question. If he could satisfy himself that the particular measure to which his attention had been directed was safe, and might be adopted without occasioning difficulties still greater than the evil it was intended to remedy, he would not oppose it; but having given to the subject the fullest consideration in his power, he was not prepared to say that, as at present advised, he could hope to be able to introduce a measure that should be worthy the attention of the House; and until he could do this—though he should be at all times prepared to bestow his best attention to the measures of others—it would be impossible for him to undertake on the part of the Government to bring in any measure on the subject. Let us have some Bill, said the hon. Member for Montrose; but the question was what measure would be most likely to meet the difficulty. His hon. Friend said, confirm these Resolutions, and pledge yourselves to legislate. While he was not prepared to give any pledge on the part of the Government to bring forward a specific proposal on the subject, it would be most inexpedient to affirm those Resolutions, the effect of which could only be to excite public attention and public expectation to the utmost on a matter of great delicacy and great difficulty, and upon which there was much feeling in the public mind, without any particular result. His hon. Friend the Member for Lymington, had said, that if the Resolutions were carried, he should himself be prepared to bring in a Bill to carry out his views. He could not see that it was in any way necessary to pass these Resolutions as a preliminary step to the introduction of the Bill. His hon. Friend's Bill must stand or fall on its own merits, independent of any Resolutions; therefore the passing of the Resolutions could have no effect on his hon. Friend's Bill. At the same time he saw great difficulty and inconvenience in approving such a declaration as that involved in the Resolutions. And while he was quite ready to give full consideration to his hon. Friend's Bill when brought in, having made that declaration, until the Bill was before him he must decidedly oppose the adoption of the Motion of his hon. Friend.

Mr. Bernal

agreed with the right hon. Baronet, that there was great difficulty in adopting the Resolutions proposed; for though he would go far to further the object of the hon. Member for Lymington, he could not accede to all the dogmas contained in those Resolutions. With regard to his right hon. Friend's speech—if he meant to say that there was no danger to the public health, arising from the interment of the dead in cities, or within the walls of towns—that was a proposition which the evidence of all medical and scientific men showed clearly was not tenable. He was surprised that the right hon. Baronet should give currency to such a belief and such a doctrine. When his hon. Friend opposite stated the number of burials in the metropolis at 1,000 a week, he did not know whether he included the burials in the cemeteries from the metropolis. [Mr. Mackinnon: Yes.] If so, the statement was much exaggerated; for if the interments in the various cemeteries at Stoke Newington, Hampstead, Kensal-green, Fulham, and other places, were considered, it would make a considerable reduction in the number of burials that actually took place within the town. The mischief of the system was felt principally by the lower classes, who could not avail themselves of the cemeteries. Let any man look at the burial ground on the right hand going out of Clare-market to Lincoln's Inn, or the churchyard of St. Ann's, Soho, and the number of other burial grounds in those densely-populated streets and alleys, which it was the misfortune of our poorer brethren to be compelled to inhabit, and say whether health was not likely to suffer from their contiguity. As his right hon. Friend (Sir J. Graham) had said, he was willing to put the strong arm of the law in force against the practices — the disgusting practices they had heard of at Spafields, and the dancing cemetery in Fetter-lane, and that he would do the best he could to devise means for relieving the poorer classes, he would advise his hon. Friend the Member for Lymington to abandon the subject and leave it in the hands of the Government, who alone could combat the evils and effectually put a stop to the disgusting details which had been described. He agreed with his right hon. Friend that they must not wholly blame the Church in this matter. There were many burial grounds attached to Dissenting chapels, in which the evil was equally great; and in regard to which considerations of a sectarian and religious feeling interfered to prevent a remedy. It was not just to say that it was the ministers of the Established Church only who presented a difficulty to the adoption of a remedial measure. He contended that it was necessary to close the burial grounds abutting upon the city of London. He believed that such a proposition would not meet with that amount of opposition from religious feeling which would prevent its being carried into effect. Some measure might be framed in communication with the authorities of the parishes interested, which might prove of great benefit to those classes of society whose rights were not so well advocated as they would wish to see them.

Dr. Bowring

was afraid that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary left but little hope for the hon. Member for Lymington. While country after country had felt the necessity of discontinuing the practice of interring their dead in large towns, we had alone kept up the usage. In France, public cemeteries were now removed from the neighbourhood of towns; in Spain, the same object had been for the most part accomplished. In many cities of Germany, and also in Denmark, a similar progress had been made. In the Oriental world, cemeteries were removed from the neighbourhood of human habitations; everywhere public opinion seemed to have made progress, but here, where they still refused to carry out the object sought for. Could anything be more distressing than the accounts of the manner in which human bodies were treated in our burial places? The Report, so often quoted tonight, gave them many painful instances of the kind. One of the witnesses examined before the Committee, gave the following evidence. He was asked— What are the matters objected to that are of common experience in our burials, when the corpse and attendants have arrived within the churchyard?—In certain seasons of the year, when the mortality is greater than usual, a number of funerals, according to the present regulation of the churchyards, are named for one hour. During last Sunday, for example, there were fifteen funerals all fixed during one hour at one church. Some of these will be funerals in the church; those which have not an in-door service must wait outside. At the church to which I refer, there were six parties of mourners waiting outside. My man informed me, that all these parties of mourners were kept nearly three-quarters of an hour waiting outside, without any cover, and with no boards to stand upon. The weather last Sunday was dreadfully inclement. I have seen ten funerals kept waiting in the churchyard from twenty minutes to three-quarters of an hour. I have known colds caught on the ground by parties kept waiting, and more probably occurred than I could know of. It is the practice on such occasions to say the service over the bodies of children and over the bodies of the adults together, and sometimes the whole are kept waiting until the number is completed. Even under these circumstances, the ceremony is frequently very much hurried." How many are there in some parochial burial grounds to be buried at one time?—Sometimes fifteen. Again, Mr. Dix was asked— In the crowded districts is the funeral ceremony often impeded?—Besides the state of the parochial burial grounds, the mode of performing the ceremony is very objectionable, in consequence of the crowd and noise and bustle in the neighbourhood. I have had burials to perform in St. Clement's Danes burial ground, when the noise of the passing and the repassing of the vehicles has been such that we have not heard a third of the service, except in broken sentences. The middle and higher classes were resorting to extra-mural cemeteries for the interment of the dead. But the reason of the great resistance which was opposed to these cemeteries by other classes was, that monetary interests were often involved. In many instances large fees were payable to the clergyman. There was one case in which the clergyman who officiated in a town burying ground had strenuously opposed the proposition for extra-mural interment. Now, upon referring to the Report, he found that this rev. Gentleman was in the receipt of fees to the amount of 892l. 7s. 8d. accruing from the present practice. Here was his opposition at once explained. Now, he (Dr. Bowring) would be disposed to buy the clergy off. He would not deprive them of their fees. Were they to assure the clergy that they would lose nothing by the change, he had no doubt but that many of the difficulties which at present stood in their way would be subdued. The present state of things was disgraceful. Let any body visit any of our crowded churchyards, let him see the foul and fearful places in which human mingled with its native clay—let him compare these with the churchyards of Turkey. With the latter no revolting associations were connected; on the contrary, they were the sites of healthful recreation. The present state of our burial places was one which should not be allowed to continue; and he would warmly support any proposition for improving our practice in regard to the interment of our dead.

Viscount Mahon

said, he was a Member of the Committee which had this subject under consideration two years ago, and he certainly had hoped that the Government might have been able to introduce a measure in accordance with the recommendation of that Committee. Conversant as he naturally was with the details of the question from having paid much attention to it when serving on the Committee, he must acknowledge that he did not think the right hon. Gentleman had exaggerated the difficulties of the subject; but he did think that his right hon. Friend had in some degree underrated its importance. For his part, he could conceive no question more closely connected with the health and well-being of large towns. They were told that the Government had other measures in preparation to improve the sanatory condition of towns — measures for better drainage and ventilation and a more abundant supply of water, which were calculated to be of great advantage; but they were trifles in comparison with the subject now brought tinder consideration. What availed it to introduce a better system of ventilation, if the air they sought to introduce had first passed over an infectious churchyard? And what availed a better drainage, if mouldering infection were condensed on the surface; or a better supply of water, if the water came corrupted and tainted in its course? He maintained, therefore, that this question was one of the very greatest importance to the health of towns, and, great as the difficulties were, he could not think them insuperable when he remembered that this was the only capital in Europe—for it was not allowed even in Constantinople to bury the dead within the walls—where such a system was permitted to continue. He could not agree with his right hon. Friend in treating so lightly the argument founded on the example of foreign capitals; for what they had done gave the sanction of experience to the course he was advocating. He could state that in the Committee further evidence had been again and again offered in corroboration of what was the universal opinion of that Committee; but the evidence was considered already sufficient; they had no doubt whatever as to the existence of the evil; the only difficulty was as to the appropriate remedy. His right hon. Friend seemed to think that there was no strong public feeling on the subject; but he believed that his right hon. Friend was mistaken. He had, for instance, that evening presented a petition from the inhabitants of Paddington, signed among others by his hon. Friend the Recorder of London (Mr. Law), one of the Representatives of Cambridge University, the right hon. Member for Northampton, and by other several Members of Parliament and persons of note, expressing regret that the recommendations of the Committee had not been followed up by some legislative measure, and declaring their conviction of the necessity of such a measure. He still hoped, therefore, that the right hon. Home Secretary would apply his attention to this subject; for no question could be more deserving of his consideration, and nothing could give him a stronger claim on public gratitude than bringing forward an effective measure for remedying the existing evils. Considering the nature and extent of the private interests involved in this question, he did not expect much good from local measures or Private Acts of Parliament; he believed that nothing but the strong arm of the Government could apply an efficient remedy. Yet still so far as private legislation went, he was ready to afford it every aid in his power. With respect to the Motion before the House, he must confess that he could not give his entire concurrence to the terms of the Resolution which had been proposed by the hon. Member for Lymington. That hon. Gentlemen had done him the honour to consult him on this subject; but the terms of the proposition then suggested by the hon. Member differed materially from those of the Motion now before the House. He was quite willing to vote in favour of a general Resolution to the effect that interment in large towns was injurious; but his hon. Friend had introduced a Resolution containing strong terms, which he for the first time had heard—terms which, in his opinion, ought to be avoided, and which had properly been objected to by the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State. He had another objection to the Resolution in its present shape. He had already expressed to the hon. Member for Lymington his conviction that it would be better, in the first instance, to confine legislation on this subject to the metropolis, or at most to a very few of the largest cities: and if the measure was found practically effective in the metropolis, it might afterwards be extended to other less populous towns. He was not, therefore, at present prepared to give his concurrence to any measure of this nature relating to other than the larger cities and towns, not because he wished entirely to exclude the smaller towns from its operation, but because he considered that it was advisable, in the first instance, to proceed step by step, and not to make legislation on such a subject too extensive. Though he could not concur in the terms of the Resolution before the House, yet he felt all the importance of the question, and he should never cease when an opportunity occurred of urging it by vote and voice on the attention of Her Majesty's Government.

Viscount Ebrington

said, It was along time since he had heard a speech with greater pain than that with which he had listened to the right hon. Baronet opposite. He deeply regretted that on a subject which involved no party principles, the right hon. Baronet should be found to countenance so many unworthy and noxious prejudices, and to throw the weight of his high position and eminent administrative ability into the scale to aid in distracting public improvement, and assist private interest in delaying measures no less needed, in his opinion, for the health and comfort, than for the decency and morals of the country. The right hon. Baronet had made statements which were neither borne out by facts nor consistent with the opinions of those best qualified to judge. He begged pardon for taking up the time of the House; he had not intended to speak upon this question, and would not have done so but for the speech delivered by the right hon. Baronet. The right hon. Baronet had most confidently asserted that it was the universal practice on the Continent to accelerate decomposition by artificial means; but in refutation of that statement he would refer him to a passage in the very admirable Report which had been so frequently quoted. He there found that at Frankfort, Munich, and other places where much attention had been paid to the subject, the general rule was not to allow the interment of more than one body in each grave, because this course insured the more regular progress of decomposition. There was no mention of any artificial means being used there to accelerate it. He was aware that at Naples, where burials were generally conducted with little feeling or decency, quicklime was thrown in with the body; but, generally speaking, in the cemeteries on the Continent no such practice prevailed. In Austria, indeed, some such law once existed; but it was now either repealed or had become obsolete. The right hon. Baronet, to shew that graveyards in cities were innoxious, had most unfortunately instanced the churchyard of St. Margaret's. But Dr. Reid, in his evidence, had stated that the most deleterious exhalations proceeded from it, which sometimes extended even to the House of Commons. The right hon. Baronet had said, on the authority of the Bishop of London, that residences close to churchyards in towns were generally not unhealthy; but in the Report, amidst much other evidence, was recorded the case of a clergyman whose house was near a full churchyard, and whose family suffered severely from the effluvium proceeding out it. He did not complain so much of the right hon. Baronet declining to legislate upon this subject, while he had so many other measures upon his hands, though it certainly appeared to him (Lord Ebrington) that, intimately connected as it was with the public health, this subject merited the attention of Government as much as some of those with respect to which they had proposed measures, as of his discountenancing the desired reform, and clinging to the practice of interment in towns. He (Sir James Graham) had spoken of this as a question which did not attract much public attention, and in which the community at present did not take much interest; he (Lord Ebrington) thought that the numerous cemeteries established in the neighbourhood of the metropolis and of the other large towns sufficiently disproved this assertion. In the town which he represented, so intolerable had the nuisance become, and so sensible were the inhabitants of the physical and moral evils it occasioned, that some of the most enlightened and benevolent of them, including the rector, actuated by a desire to remove these evils rather than by the hope that it would prove a profitable speculation, had determined to set up a cemetery company at Plymouth; but until the subject was taken up by the Government, he believed no effectual remedy could be applied: at least no remedy which would meet the case of the labouring classes, who could not afford any additional expense in interments. He would conclude by thanking the hon. Member for bringing the subject before the House, and recommending him to modify his Motion as the noble Lord had advised; if, however, he kept it in its present form, he (Lord Ebrington) would still cordially support it.

Mr. Hawes

While he fully admitted the importance of the subject, was deeply impressed with the conviction that they would be doing very wrong to underestimate the difficulties connected with it, and with which, in taking any legislative step, they would have to contend. He remembered, upon a former occasion, a Bill upon the subject had been introduced; but that measure had been arrested in its progress through Parliament, and he did not now see any symptoms of the probability of more cordial support being given to any measure which might be introduced, than that which the Bill which had failed, had formerly experienced. He had heard it stated to-night that it was from the Dissenters that the chief opposition to any measure for the prevention of the burial of the dead in large towns would most probably emanate. He would, however, beg leave to call the attention of the House to that part of Mr. Chadwick's Report which contained the Resolutions passed at a large meeting of Dissenters upon the point. They stated that the meeting would hail with much satisfaction the adoption of any means to correct the abuse of any practices connected with burial grounds which could be satisfactorily established. So much for the anticipated obstacles to be thrown in the way of any reform of this nature by the Dissenters. But was the House aware of the extent of the vested rights which, were they to take the subject in hand, they would have to interfere with? And that was not the whole evil. They would have to interfere with proprietary chapels, containing vaults from which no injurious exhalation could possibly arise. If they meant to prohibit by law all intra-mural interments, they would have to deal with these private chapels. A good deal had been said as to the practice of burial in foreign countries. But were they prepared to adopt anything like the regulations incident to the system practised by these countries? The system of burial abroad was the subject of regular police regulation; and if they meant to establish that custom here—extra-mural interment—they must be prepared also to submit to the establishment of the custom of police regulation. A tariff of charges would require to be drawn up, and stringent rules regularly enforced. The advantages resulting from the establishment of cemeteries he would not underrate; but he would remind the House of some of the regulations prescribed to cemetery companies in the Acts constituting them. Many of these regulations were highly insulting and offensive to Dissenters; and unless they were prepared so to legislate with respect to these cemeteries as to make them acceptable to all classes of the people, he held that they could carry out that system of legislation no farther. It was deplorable to see such a wall built to separate the dead of Dissenters from those of churchmen. With regard to the clergy, again, he thought that considerable difficulty in legislating would arise, and the same thing might be said as respected Dissenting ministers. The latter did not charge fees at all for burial, and being enabled to inter the dead within a short distance of their own residences, they could do it without inconvenience. But if they were to compel these ministers to go three or four, or in some instances as many as fourteen miles, in order to perform their duties, they would be involving these ministers in expenses which it would be difficult for the Legislature to provide for. He had not stated these difficulties in a way inimical to the Bill, but as some justification of the course adopted by the right hon. Baronet opposite; and as some answer to his noble Friend (Lord Ebrington), who, he conceived, had underestimated the obstacles to be overcome, and had not done justice to the right hon. Home Secretary, who knew from experience with what difficulties legislation upon this subject was beset.

Mr. Borthwick

, though disposed to support the object of the Motion, had very great difficulty 'n assenting to the terms of the Resolution. He hoped the terms would be made more general, so as to meet approbation and overcome objections. He thought interments might be effected in London without injuring the health of the people; and he fell bound to oppose the Resolution, which he considered too general. He thought it would have been much better if his hon. Friend had introduced a Bill, because then the House would have had something tangible to deal with.

The Earl of Lincoln

said, that many of the views and opinions which he entertained on the present question had already been so ably and so fully stated by the hon. Member for Lambeth, that he should, in addressing the House, have much difficulty in making the least addition to the force of those remarks which had already been made; and he should have perhaps altogether refrained from occupying the attention of the House, if the noble Lord the Member for Plymouth had not misrepresented, because he had misapprehended, what fell from his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department. The noble Lord charged his right hon. Friend with endeavouring to revive what he called the old vulgar cry about private interests. Now, so far from that being the case, his right hon. Friend did little more than touched upon the question of private interests; but he urged strongly upon the House the extreme importance of not exaggerating the evils which they sought to remedy. He felt bound, on his own part, and on that of his Colleagues, to say that there did not exist the least desire to throw into the present discussion the weight of private interests. It had been said that his right hon. Friend might well be excused for not bringing in a measure on this subject on account of his not having time to investigate the difficulties with which the whole question was beset; but he must be permitted to say, that his right hon. Friend did not need any such excuse. His right hon. Friend did not put forward any such ground for not introducing a measure upon this subject. The House scarcely required to be informed that his right hon. Friend had devoted much attention to the subject; but he had purposely abstained from bringing forward any measure of legislation, because, notwithstanding that attention, he felt that he could not hope to do so in a manner satisfactory to himself, or calculated to meet the general opinion of the House. But what he wished to impress on hon. Members was this—that considerations connected with vested or private interests had no more than their due weight with the Government. The hon. Members for Weymouth and for Bolton had laboured to put forth as strenuously as possible the necessity of attending to the interests of the poor in this matter. In that he fully concurred. In a case of this kind it was much more important and much more necessary to attend to the interests of the poor than to those of the rich; and on account of the poor did he say that Parliament ought to pause before they favoured restrictions. Let the House look for a moment at the way in which this proposed change affected the pecuniary interests of the poor. The question of burial within or without the boundaries of a city was a matter of little importance to the rich; to the poor it was a very serious consideration. If a poor family were to pay the expense of removing a corpse and of conveying the mourners at a funeral from St. Giles's to Hampstead or Harrow, they would feel the expense to be very burdensome. The House were aware that Mr. Chadwick had made a Report on the subject of providing for the burial of the working classes; and his suggestions, if adopted, would go the length of placing the whole matter under the guidance of the police, and make the rich pay for the poor. To this he did not object so far as the rich were concerned; but then the effect of it would be, that the poor artisan would feel that in obtaining assistance for the burial of his relatives, aid must come out of the poor rates, and that, therefore, the effect of his applying for such assistance would be to place himself in the condition of a pauper. He knew that the proposition now before the House was not intended to apply to rural districts; but the same feelings, though with less intensity, existed amongst the poor of the towns. Whether in town or country, there was a general wish to be buried near one's forefathers; and people in the lower walks of life liked to have their relatives buried in their own neighbourhoods. Of that consolation he did not think that they ought to be compulsorily deprived: he was not willing wantonly to do violence to such feelings. He had very little desire to effect more upon the present occasion than impress upon hon. Members a sense of the difficulty which encircled the present question; but, at the same time, he did not see that they were precluded from considering the details of any plan which his hon. Friend the Member for Lymington might introduce; and he saw no reason why the usual practice of bringing in a Bill should be departed from. His right hon. Friend had told the House that he was not prepared to submit to them any measure on the subject; but he told them, at the same time, that he was prepared fairly and fully to consider any measure which any hon. Member might present to the House. An hon. Member near him had sugjested that the present Resolution should be modified. Now, he by no means recommended the hon. Mover to adopt any modification; but, on the contrary, to withdraw his Resolution, and move for leave to bring in a Bill. The hon. Member might be assured of this—that he would not advance the progress of the measure by moving an abstract Resolution Such a Resolution, if carried, instead of assisting, would hamper him, as well as the House, in any attempts at legislating on this most difficult subject. On these grounds, then, he hoped that the hon. Member would withdraw his Motion, and bring in a Bill.

Mr. T. S. Duncombe

got up to propose an Amendment, by the desire and wish of the hon. Mover. His Amendment was to this effect, that the practice of interment in large cities was injurious to the health of the population, and demanded the serious attention of Parliament. The noble Lord recommended the hon. Mover to withdraw his Motion, and bring in a Bill; but the hon. Gentleman had already tried that, and he now thought it best to propose a Resolution: upon the whole, that did appear to be the best course which he could pursue. He had served with the hon. Member on the Health of Towns Committee, and he had the honour to represent that part of the metropolis in which the Spafields burial ground was situated; he therefore could not help feeling some degree of interest in the proposition now before the House. Every one must know that the feeling which induced men to wish to mingle their bones with those of their ancestors was universal; and no one liked the thought of having the bones of his relatives shoved and knocked about. But people of large fortune had ample means of preventing this and other annoyances. The duty of Parliament, however, was to provide satisfactory resting places for the poor. After all, the great difficulty was in satisfying the clergy, who charged enormous fees, not only for burying the dead, but even for allowing corpses to be removed. What right could a clergyman have to charge 7s. or 12s. for leave to bury a corpse out of the parish in which the individual might happen to die? As to the Dissenters, the clergy in some instances refused to bury them at all. The fact was, that the Church, and not the people, created the difficulty. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving— To leave out from the first word 'That,' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'the practice of Interment within the precincts of the Metropolis and of large Cities, is injurious to the health of the population, and demands the serious attention of Parliament.'

Mr. Mackinnon

felt himself placed in rather a delicate situation. He could not produce a Bill without a great deal of trouble and expense, and at every step he should be met, as usual, with technical objections; and told, that he, as a private individual, was not entitled to propose measures to the House; that his details were imperfect and faulty; and his Bill, if he were to bring one in, would share the fate of many others brought in by individual Members; but if the Resolution, or even the Amendment, was passed, it would give an impetus to the sentiment of the country. Every assertion and every proposition affirmed in the Resolution was strictly true; and he did hope that the House would pronounce some opinion on the question before they separated that night.

Sir R. H. Inglis

said, that during the eighteenth century the religious part of the polity of England had been treated with great neglect by the Government. The efforts of the Legislature, he thought, should now be directed to extending the parochial system for the living, and also to extending the parochial system for the dead. The inhabitants of parishes should be enabled to join in purchasing burial grounds for their population; but let not the House be led away by the idea that the advocates of burial outside of cities were animated solely by a pure and disinterested zeal for the good of the poorer inhabitants of the metropolis. If the clergy were interested in the continuance of burials within the metropolis, there were other parties much more flagrantly interested in the opposite direction. A large body of the clergy in the metropolis were dependent on surplice fees; and in many parishes in London there were no tithes, the clergy depending on fees, and on the voluntary offerings of their congregations. Unless those vested interests were duly regarded, they would much injure some of the most important interests in the community. After doing this, it would be a very poor consolation for them to reflect that they had encouraged joint-stock companies in seven or eight localities around the metropolis. All he desired was, that in providing a remedy, those interests which he advocated should not be overlooked. He believed that it was possible to provide fitting places of sepulture within the metropolis, and at the same time not to injure the incumbents in the metropolis. For this object, he thought the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Finsbury would be the most proper basis.

Sir G. Grey

said, the proper way to proceed would be by Bill, and not by Resolution, and the Bill ought to be proposed by Her Majesty's Government. The difficulties which had been alluded to by the hon. Member for Lambeth formed an additional reason why this question could not be taken up and a Bill introduced by a private Member. The real question was, after all the facts which bad been brought before the House, whether the House would say that this was a subject which deserved its serious consideration. If the Amendment were adopted by the hon. Member for Lymington, he apprehended the result would be merely to express the strong opinion of the House that a Bill should be introduced by Her Majesty's Government. But if the Government wished the hon. Member for Lymington to introduce a Bill on the subject, it was an evasion, and they must be content to sit down under what he must call fearful evils deserving serious consideration. If Her Majesty's Government were not prepared to bring in a Bill, the House ought to interfere, and then the hon. Member might propose his Bill with some prospect of success.

Sir J. Graham

said, he had addressed the House on the subject in the absence of the right hon. Baronet. He deprecated proceeding by Resolution, because it raised false impressions out of doors, whilst no means were taken of pointing out any particular remedy. The right hon. Baronet hoped the Government would bestow attention on this subject. He had bestowed much attention on it, and had directed the attention of Mr. Chadwick to it, who had applied much industrious research to the subject; but the remedy proposed by Mr. Chadwick appeared to him to be entirely inapplicable to the present feelings and wants of society. It was not because this question affected the clergy that his principal difficulty arose. He did not hold the difficulty pointed out by the hon. Member for Oxford to be insuperable. But it was beset by equal difficulties arising from the objections of Dissenting bodies. To almost every Dissenting chapel there was a burial ground attached, in trust for all who worshipped in that chapel; and not only were their pecuniary interests thus involved, but their feelings also. If they determined that Churchmen and Dissenters should not bury in the accustomed places of sepulture, but at a distance from towns, then every poor individual wishing to attend his friend to his long home must forego a day's wages; and in winter he must travel four or five miles from home and back. To attend a funeral would be extremely inconvenient, unless conveyances were provided; and if they were provided, the cost to the poor would be oppressive. There was a desire in the human breast of laying our bones beside those of our departed relatives and friends. This feeling we could not reason on; it was stronger than reason, and was connected with the best sentiments of human nature. He did not say that it was not possible by very great care and caution to frame some measure to meet the difficulty; but he, on the part of the Government, had said, that having given much attention to the subject, he was not prepared now to bring forward such a measure, and he thought it unwise to insist on such a Resolution. Not being himself prepared to bring forward a measure, if any other Member saw his way more clearly than he did to legislation on this subject, so far from carping at the measure so brought forward, he would use his best endeavours to make it a proper and a successful measure. He had stated what the difficulties were, and he did not see how they could be removed by legislation. He was, however, quite sure that without legislation there was a strong tendency voluntarily to concur in the arrangement of having places of sepulture beyond the walls; and he was sanguine in the hope that in a short time it would be possible to bring forward some general measure. He would continue to give his best attention to the subject. He thought that a little delay would not be loss of time; and that there would eventually be a strong and general disposition to meet the difficulties of the case. He hoped, therefore, that the House would not be precipitate in passing a Resolution of this kind.

The Amendment and the original Motion were both, by leave, withdrawn. The words proposed by Mr. T. Duncombe were then put as an original Motion; and on that question the House divided:—Ayes, 66; Noes, 49: Majority, 17.

List of the AYES.
Ackers, J. Chute, W. L. W.
Acland, Sir T. D. Cobden, R.
Aglionby, H. A. Craig, W. G.
Aldam, W. Cripps, W.
Armstrong, Sir A. Curteis, H. B.
Baillie, H. J. Dalrymple, Capt.
Bernal, R. Dodd, G.
Borthwick, P. Duke, Sir J.
Bowring, Dr. Duncan, G.
Brotherton, J. Ebrington, Visct.
Browne, hon. W. Escott, B.
Busfeild, W. Esmonde, Sir T.
Carew, W. H. P. Flower, Sir J.
Cavendish, hon. G. H. Forster, M.
French, F. Mitcalf, H.
Gibson, T. M. Morris, D.
Gisborne, T. Muntz, G. F.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G. O'Brien, A. S.
Hamilton, W. J. Pigot, rt. hon. D.
Hatton, Capt. V. Plumridge, Capt.
Heathcoat, J. Protheroe, E.
Heron, Sir R. Ricardo, J. L.
Hill, Lord M. Rice, E. R.
Horsman, E. Somerville, Sir W. M.
Howard, hon. H. Staunton, Sir G. T.
Howard, Sir R. Strickland, Sir G.
Howick, Visct. Tancred, H. W.
Hume, J. Trelawny, J. S.
Inglis, Sir R. H. Villiers, hon. C.
Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H. Wawn, J. T.
Lambton, H. Yorke, H. R.
McGeachy, F. A.
Mahon, Visct. TELLERS.
Manners, Lord J. Mackinnon, W.
Marton, G. Duncombe, T.
List of the NOES.
Arkwright, G. Harris, hon. Capt.
Baillie, Col. Henley, J. W.
Baring, rt. hon. W. B. Herbert, rt. hn. S.
Bernard, Visct. Hope, G. W.
Blackburne, J. I. Jermyn, Earl
Boldero, H. G. Lincoln, Earl of
Bowles, Adm. Neville, R.
Bruce, Lord E. Patten, J. W.
Buckley, E. Peel, J.
Buller, Sir J. Y. Pennant, hon. Col.
Cardwell, E. Plumptre, J. P.
Christopher, R. A. Pringle, A.
Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G. Smith, rt. hon. T. B. C.
Clive, hon. R. H. Somerset, Lord G.
Corry, rt. hon. H. Stuart, H.
Darby, G. Sutton, hon. H. M.
Denison, E. B. Tennent, J. E.
Fitzroy, hon. H. Thesiger, Sir F.
Fremantle, rt. hn. Sir T. Thornely, T.
Fuller, A. E. Trench, Sir F. W.
Gaskell, J. Milnes Villiers, Visct.
Gladstone, rt. hn W. E. Warburton, H.
Graham, rt. hn. Sir J. Wellesley, Lord C.
Greenall, P. TELLERS.
Greene, T. Young, J.
Grimston, Visct. Lennox, Lord A.

Resolution agreed to.