METROPOLITAN INTERMENTS BILL.

HC Deb 03 June 1850 vol 111 cc677-710

Order for Committee read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

COLONEL THOMPSON

presented four petitions from inhabitants of Lambeth in favour of the Metropolitan Interments Bill. On a point important to the right of petition, he begged to state that, finding the four petitions word for word the same, and with only about seventy signatures to each, he had been struck with the appearance of a collusive attempt to swell the number of petitions; but on inquiry he found the petitioners had acted under the impression that by a new rule of the House it was prohibited to paste one sheet of paper to another in a petition. He had seen a petition understood to contain a million and a half of signatures, and such a rule would imply dividing it into 20,000 petitions, with each a repetition of the substance. Believing this to be unfounded, he would, if no contradiction was given from the chair, communicate the same to the petitioners and the public.

MR. LACY

rose, pursuant to notice, to move that the Bill he referred to a Select Committee. This office, he said, devolved upon him, as he had proposed a general scheme of sepulture throughout the country before the Government measure was brought in; but he was not desirous of poaching over what might be considered the ground of the metropolitan members. He thought the Bill was so impracticable, so unjust on many parties, that it involved so large a waste of money (no less than 700,000l. would be paid up in seventeen years, and then more money would be wanted), and that in so apathetic a House the Bill could not possibly pass through Committee, that he proposed as the best course the reference of the measure to a Select Committee.

Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the Bill be committed to a Select Committee," instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

LORD D. STUART

, in seconding the Motion, said this was one of the most important Bills that had come before the House for a long time. It affected the health and pockets of all the inhabitants of the metropolis. Some such measure had been long and loudly demanded; and the Government were now compelled to turn their attention to the matter. He was not opposed to the principle of the Bill. He thought interment in large towns might properly be regulated by law, for the sake of the health of the inhabitants; and on this ground he had not opposed the second reading of the Bill. But its details violated many principles to which he was attached in a most unconstitutional way. Centralisation, now too much in fashion, and which threatened to overturn many of our institutions, would be increased and extended by the Bill before the House. It looked as though the whole business of the country would soon be transacted by boards and commissions. Government had taken advantage of the public demand for legislation on this subject to introduce a Bill which would place a vast amount of patronage in their hands. There was to be at least one paid commissioner. The object in view might have been accomplished just as well without violating the constitutional principles of self-government and liberty. The board to be appointed by the Government would have great and unusual powers. They would be authorised to appoint a whole army of officers, from commissioners down to sextons and gravediggers, who would all be in the pay of the Government. The board would also have power to shut up cemeteries in the town, or to allow them to continue open as they thought proper. They were also to appoint places of sepulture out of towti, and to decide on the price to be paid for the ground; to give orders as to the conduct of interments; and to regulate the amount of fees to be taken. This latter provision was most objectionable. A Bill containing such clauses ought to be looked at with the utmost jealousy. Parochial management was entirely done away with, and all authority given to these paid officials. Why not have allowed the metropolitan parishes, either separately or in union, to have regulated these matters? But it would be said that the parish boards should not be entrusted with those matters, because such boards did not prevent jobs. But did Government boards always conduct their business without jobs and unnecessary expenditure? Why, there was the Woods and Forests. How had that board conducted its affairs? Was it not proverbial for all kinds of waste and mismanagement? Had the Poor Law Board given so much satisfaction to the country that they should be anxious to entrust the management of their affairs to Government boards? There was the Sewers' Commission also, which had not given much satisfaction. Government boards, then, were as liable to mismanagement and to excessive expenditure as any other boards. But there was another objection to the measure, namely, that it interfered with trade. It was not the business of Government to regulate trade. It should be regulated on the usual principles of political economy, namely, by those of demand and supply. Whenever interference was allowed, it was justified on the principle of an overwhelming necessity. None such had been alleged in the present instance; and if any existed, the onus probandi lay with the Government. It was said that undertakers were extortionate. Even if some of them were so, that was no reason why Government should interfere with the whole trade. There were some tailors in this metropolis who charged extravagant prices for coats, and some butchers charged high prices for meat. On the same plea, therefore, they might fix the price of coats and butchers' meat. By this Bill they were going to pay the church incumbents out of the rates of the parishes. That was in the nature of a church rate, and was objectionable. It was also proposed to pay the chaplains of the new cemeteries. Under these circumstances, he thought it best that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. The Government had delayed the Bill to a very late period of the Session without any necessity, and they now refused sufficient time to the public to consider its provisions. In the first instance they procrastinated the Bill, and when the year was far advanced, they precipitated it through the House without allowing time to those who were affected by it to give it due consideration. A new Bill had been laid on the table the other evening, containing nine new clauses, which they had not time to consider or even to comprehend, for some of them were of a most complicated and minute nature. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would explain the meaning of these clauses. How was the system of tenders for funerals to be carried out? Was it to be done by means of advertisement? He was afraid this part of the Bill would lead to favouritism. Then, were the contractors to have no discretion as to whom they would have for customers? Were they to be compelled to carry out contracts for those whom they believed to be insolvent? By Clauses 30, 31 and 32, compensation was to be given to incumbents, and as he understood the clauses, it was to be given two or three times over. There was a great deal of what was objectionable in these clauses which he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would explain.

SIR G. GREY

said, there were two questions now before the House. One was that the Speaker leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of the whole House, to consider the clauses of this Bill in detail; and the other was an Amendment that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee. Now he could not help thinking that the House ought at once to adopt one of these courses, instead of allowing itself to be led, with the Speaker in the chair, into an irregular discussion that could not be carried on satisfactorily until the clauses in detail were under consideration. He felt it his duty to oppose the proposition for referring the Bill to a Select Committee, because the measure had been fully considered and canvassed in the metropolis, and he believed its provisions were fully understood. The House would be able, in a Committee of the whole House, to consider the clauses one by one in their regular order. But the noble Lord asked for an explanation of some of the clauses before being asked to agree to them. That was a perfectly reasonable request; and when the Committee came to the particular clauses in rotation, he (Sir G. Grey) would be prepared to give any explanation of their purport or effect that might be required. Delay in bringing the Bill forward had been also complained of. Now, it would have been defeating the object of the measure, if, before they were in possession of the valuable report of the Board of Health, the Government had precipitately laid on the table of the House a Bill framed irrespective of the recommendations of that report. After the Bill was read a second time, he had felt it his duty to receive the suggestions of par- ties who had waited upon, and who were officially connected with, the metropolitan parishes; and he believed he had now succeeded in removing the objections they had entertained to the details of the Bill. The noble Lord objected to the large powers to be given to the Board of Health; but if that objection was to be considered, it ought to be considered in Committee of the whole House, and not in a Committee upstairs; because the decision of a Committee upstairs would have to be reconsidered in that House, and reconsidered at so late a period of the Session that if the Bill were sent to a Select Committee it would be practically throwing it over to another Session. He was not prepared to adopt that course, and therefore he hoped the House would at once go into a Committee of the whole House.

MR. LUSHINGTON

would support the Motion of the hon. Member for Bodmin. The principle of the measure was never discussed. Any discussion that took place occurred when the Bill was in Committee pro formâ, and when the right hon. Gentleman was chairman, and some Mrs. Harris, for he believed no one else, had been present. More time should be allowed for proper and careful consideration. He protested against that clause in the Bill which made a distinction between Christians after they were dead. He protested against an unchristian clause by which dissensions and theological differences were carried to the burial ground.

MR. B. OSBORNE

thought the principle of the Bill laudable, and one well to be commended; for no one could read the report of the Sanitary Commission without seeing that the comfort, the well-being, the morals, and—what was of greater importance—the health of the population, was at stake. There were two points involved in it—the health, and, what was of greater importance, the morals of the people. [A laugh.] Yes, the morals of the people were at stake, and the smiles of hon. Gentlemen when he used the expression only showed how little attention they had given to the subject. They were not aware how long corpses were kept in the houses of the poor, and they had not read the evidence, or they would fully agree with him that the morals of the people were at stake. The hon. Member for Bodmin had moved that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee. Now, if he thought the effect of that Motion would be so to impede the present Bill that they could not have a better one before the end of the Session, he would not vote for it; but as he thought they had a chance, and a good one, of bringing in a better measure, he would give it his humble support, the more especially as the effect of the present Bill would be to upset the whole of the parochial arrangements of the country, and because it proposed to place an enormous power in the hands of the Commissioners, a power of taxing the people to a very large extent. Although it was only a penny rate, he understood it would amount to some 30,000l It would confer enormous taxing powers, and he could not agree to allow it to go to the Board of Health. If, instead of bringing in a Bill encumbered with 73 clauses, many of which were highly objectionable, the Government had chosen to introduce a measure simply prohibiting interments in all large towns, and not in the city of London alone, a course infinitely wiser and more likely to succeed would have been pursued. As it was, however, he gave the Government credit for the principle of the Bill; but he must say there was one man who had been treated infamously in connexion with this Bill—a man who had made this subject his business for fifteen years of his life, and had devoted a great portion of his property in promoting it—and what had been his fate? He alluded to Mr. Walker, the individual who had instigated all the Committees of that House which had taken up the subject; but Mr. Chadwick, in the late report of the Board of Health, gave the whole of the credit to the Sanitary Commission; whilst Mr. Walker, the original pioneer of this reform, was thrown overboard. Why, if they were to have a Commission under this Bill, Mr. Walker's name ought to be at the head of it. And what was Mr. Walker's opinion of this Bill? Why, desirous as he was of legislation on this subject, he thought this measure would do more to impede the progress of sanitary reform by its objectionable clauses, than If they brought in no Bill at all.

SIR DE L. EVANS

said, that he would support the Motion of the hon. Member for Bodmin, on the ground that sufficient time was not allowed for the consideration of the measure. All they asked was a few days' delay, and it was but just to the inhabitants of this great metropolis that this delay should be granted. With regard to the inhabitants of the city of Westminster, it was only that day that an Important general meeting of the inhabitants of St. James's parish had been held, and what their opinion was with regard to the measure he had not time to be informed. For these reasons, he hoped the Government would consent to postpone the Bill.

SIR B. HALL

said, the metropolitan Members had been told by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, that if they voted for the Bill going before a Select Committee, they would perhaps throw over the Bill for the Session, and thus postpone for another year the great principle they were all so desirous to carry out; but would that be the fault of the metropolitan Members? The Bill was mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, was brought in on the 15th of April, and read a second time on the 22nd of April, and now it was proposed to go into Committee on the 3rd of June. Were any of the Members of that House to blame for the delay which had thus taken place? He would tell the noble Lord at the head of the Government why the Bill was not referred to a Select Committee. It was because it would have been necessary to place on the Committee a great number of the metropolitan Members, and there were not two out of the sixteen who sat for the metropolis who would have agreed to a measure of this kind. It was a measure that went, in fact, to abolish the whole of the local self-government that now distinguished the metropolitan parishes, so far as burial places were concerned. There were two persons in the metropolis of whom the inhabitants entertained great suspicions, and these were the Bishop of London, as regarded ecclesiastical matters, and Mr. Chadwick, as regarded sanitary measures. Through the one they were in danger of having fixed upon them fees in perpetuity to pay the clergy; and the other was establishing a board, of which he was the prime mover, and of which perhaps he would hereafter be the head. He would not now go into the details of the Bill. It was his intention to support the proposal for sending it before a Select Committee, and when the time came for considering the details, he hoped that both as regarded the payment of fees in perpetuity, and the board, they would be rejected by a majority of that House.

MR. MASTERMAN

regretted that he felt himself compelled to oppose the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary, but as his belief was the Bill would be better con- sidered by a Select Committee than by a Committee of the whole House, he had made up his mind to vote for the Motion of the hon. Member for Bodmin.

MR. T. BUNCOMBE

said, he was sorry to say that he had only a feeble voice to raise in opposition to this measure. He could not find a provision in the Bill which deserved the support of the House, with the single exception of the provision that the dead should no longer be buried among the living. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department thought he might save time by not referring the Bill to a Select Committee; but he (Mr. Buncombe) felt persuaded that the right hon. Gentleman would save time by so doing. He believed that the recommendations of a Select Committee which should have been impartially chosen, and which should have carefully considered the subject, would be respectfully received on all sides of the House; and after such recommendations should have been submitted to them, he, for one, should not oppose any Motion for their immediately proceeding to legislate in the matter. He understood that hon. Gentlemen had the other night attached great importance to petitions presented on the subject of Sunday labour in the Post Office, and that, in Consequence of those petitions, the House had decided on addressing the Crown for a cessation of such labour. Now, he would venture to say that of all the impositions ever practised on that House, those petitions were the greatest. He believed that the great majority of the people of this country were opposed to that address. But how stood the facts in the present instance? If petitions were to sway the votes of hon. Members, they certainly ought not to adopt that measure. Then, again, where, he would ask, was the metropolitan Member who had stood up and said that he was for "the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill?" Why, there was not one; and he certainly should be surprised to hear anything so contrary to the opinion of the people of the metropolis. The noble Lord at the head of the Government was, he supposed, an exception in favour of the Bill; but the Corporation of London, or, at all events, the Court of Common Council, were opposed to the measure, and that court had lately passed a resolution praying that the City might be exempt from the operation of the Bill. He would tell the country Gentlemen that, if that measure were to pass into law, one of a similar character would soon be extended to the rest of the kingdom. He thought it was a most reasonable proposal that the subject should then be referred to a Select Committee. He believed that such a Committee would soon be able to frame a far better measure, containing only from ten to twenty clauses. All that the public required was, that the dead should no longer be buried among the living. But the Bill, as it then stood, would not effectually carry out even that principle, while it abounded in details of a most preposterous character. It was a Bill of plunder, sacrilege, injustice, and wrong. He could describe it in no other terms. When the Government refused to refer the question to a Select Committee, the House might depend upon it that some jobbing and unjustifiable transaction must be involved in the measure. He might not be able to oppose the measure in its future stages; but he was sure that other metropolitan Members would oppose it, and, in so doing, he believed they would be fairly representing the feelings of the great majority of their constituents.

MR. D'EYNCOURT

regretted that Government should oppose the Bill going before a Select Committee. He highly approved the object of the Bill, but disapproved the mode in which it was proposed to carry it out. He thought parishes should take the duty laid down in the Bill upon themselves; it would be more in accordance with the spirit of our institutions, and opposed to the centralising course so much pursued by the Government. The Amendments in the Bill having only been made known on Friday, he had not yet had an opportunity of learning the opinions of his constitutents regarding them.

LORD J. RUSSELL

rejoiced to see his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury again in his place, though he certainly found himself under the necessity of not concurring with his hon. Friend in the conclusions to which he had come on the present occasion. The question before them really was, whether it was desirable, to refer the Bill for preventing intramural interments to a Select Committee. His hon. Friend said that if they did so they would have before them a number of witnesses, all of whom would have plans to propose, and suggestions to make, and objections to urge, and that after all those plans, and suggestions, and objections had been made, they would have to be fully considered by the Committee. If so, then they might consider themselves fortunate if some time at the end of July that Committee should make a report. The more likely result, however, would be that the Committee would report that they had found it impossible to come to a decision, but that they hoped they would be allowed to sit again next Session. Then with respect to the Bill, he would not enter into its defence, for he had not heard one reason urged why the House was not able to give its consideration to the clauses of the Bill as well as a Select Committee. If the House found that the Board of Health had by some clauses more powers than were absolutely necessary to carry into effect what all considered necessary, let those clauses be altered, or removed from the Bill. If, on the contrary, it was found that those clauses were necessary, they could be passed either without any alteration, or with such alteration as might be required. His right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had proposed some new clauses; but he thought it hard that, because they had listened to deputations and adopted recommendations which they had made, the House should, on that account, be asked not to go into Committee, on the Bill.

MR. ALDERMAN SIDNEY

said, the corporation of London felt grateful to the Government for undertaking the question of sanitary reform as regarded the principle of the measure; but if asked whether they would prefer to undergo the evils of the existing system, or to accept the measure then before the House, he doubted not they would prefer the chances and risks of the existing system. The corporation of London had got the credit of being able to manage their own affairs, and of knowing as well what belonged to their condition as any other number of gentlemen no matter whether they sat in Gwydyr House, or in the Treasury Chambers. Why should Government thrust upon them a measure calculated to take from them the control of their own affairs? He hoped from the opposition raised to the Bill the Government would see the hopelessness of endeavouring to press it. He was in favour of referring the measure to a Select Committee, because he believed it would have the effect of removing much opposition that at present existed. He besought the House not to treat the measure as an unimportant one; and, as it had been introduced for the good of the public, to at least show some little regard for the wishes of that public by complying with the request of its representatives.

SIR. R. PEEL

thought the argument of the hon. Alderman was one which rather showed the impolicy than otherwise of sending the Bill to a Select Committee. The question of centralisation was no doubt a very important one. There were certain duties exercised by the parochial authorities in the city of London which it was proposed by the Bill should be taken into the hands of Government; but surely that was a question so important that it ought to be decided by the whole House. He had every respect for the corporation of the city of London; but at the same time there were points of local management on which some persons ventured to take a different opinion from them. Take, for example, the question of the removal of Smithfield-market. Speaking generally, the corporation of the city of London must be presumed best qualified to judge of local affairs; yet that was a point on which many persons ventured to take a different opinion from them. The Bill before the House had been read a second time, and the question now was, whether they should go into Committee, or send it before a Select Committee upstairs. If the Bill was sent to a Select Committee, everybody must admit that it would be one of the most extraordinary cases of extramural interment ever heard of; and therefore he thought it would better to dispose of it rather within than without the walls of that House.

MR. HUME

had intended to vote for the Motion that the House go into Committee, and took great blame to himself that he had not, up to that moment, looked more narrowly into its clauses. Had he examined it, he would never have allowed the Bill to be read a second time without recording his vote against it. He had long since recommended extramural interments, and was the first to move for a return of the number of burials in metropolitan churchyards; but to a measure so arbitrary and so unconstitutional he would never assent. Was that House prepared to appoint three honourable Members—the noble Lord and two others—and to delegate to that Board perpetual powers? ["No, no!"] But he said, yes. And what were they to do? They were to provide burial ground for 50,000 to 60,000 interments annually; and they might purchase ground wherever they pleased, and they were to invest the money without check or control, except from the Treasury; nay, more, they were to have the appointment of the clergy who were to officiate in the cemeteries, and the power of levying such fees as they might think fit; they were, in a word, to have almost uncontrolled patronage and power. He thought it would be much wiser to enact that, if the parishioners did not themselves take measures for promoting the sanitary objects which the Bill had in view, the board would then interfere. One of his main reasons for objecting to the measure was, that it would take out of the hands of Englishmen that principle of self-government which was one of the main causes of their freedom. Other nations no sooner obtained liberty than they abused it; but Englishmen, from the experience which the management of their local affairs afforded them, were taught to appreciate it. This power of self-taxation and local management was now about to be wrested from them and conferred upon a board who could have no local knowledge, and who would act arbitrarily and irresponsibly. If this Bill were passed, the next step probably would be to extend its provisions to Ireland and Scotland.

LORD R. GROSVENOR

said, the hon. Member for Finsbury had asked whether any metropolitan Member would support the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill. He was not a metropolitan Member, but he was something like it, and he would say he was not prepared to support the whole Bill, but he would vote against the Motion of the hon. Member for Bodmin. There had been a number of petitions in favour the Bill. Several deputations had waited on the Secretary of State for the Home Department respecting it, and he did not know that any persons had directly condemned the principle of the Bill. He could not consent to send this Bill to a Select Committee, for he felt that it materially affected the working classes. He certainly could not consent to devote the Bill to that species of extramural interment which the hon. Gentleman proposed, and which had been so well remarked upon by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth.

MR. WAKLEY

said, he attended there with his hon. Colleague that evening, much to their own injury, at the request of their constituents, who considered many of the provisions of the Bill most obnoxious, to oppose this measure. They believed it contained enactments the most arbitrary and unconstitutional, and that it involved a principle which that House, in modern times and enlightened constituencies, had always repudiated. No one could say that any large portion of the metropolis was in favour of it, and almost every Member for London had spoken against it. The noble Lord at the head of the Government had not attempted to justify a single one of its details, but confined himself to the question of general propriety and policy of legislation on the subject, which was not denied. He thought the Government ought to consent to the reasonable proposal of the hon. Member for Bodmin, and refer the Bill to a Select Committee. The Board of Health, which had been alluded to, had discharged its duties—duties of the most onerous and important nature—in a manner highly creditable and praiseworthy. The metropolitan parishes wished it to be understood that they did not desire to prevent a supervision on the part of the Board of Health; but what they asked was, and their wish was most reasonable, that a measure which interfered so much with their most important rights and privileges should not be hastily forced upon them, but should be calmly, fairly, and fully considered, and only sanctioned when the House had thoroughly sifted and examined its provisions—that would be best done in a Select Committee, and therefore he would support the amendment that it be so referred.

SIR. W. CLAY

thought no reason had been given for additional inquiry before a Select Committee. On the contrary, the discussion proved plainly that the question was one better suited to that House than to a Select Committee.

MR. WYLD

said, that the metropolis did not object to the extramural system. However, out of the two millions of population, he ventured to say that 800,000 adults were opposed to the measure. He was in favour of a Select Committee. The question was, whether the Board of Health or the citizens should have the management of their own affairs. He should conclude by moving that the House do then adjourn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the debate be now adjourned."

MR. BRIGHT

did not intend to say a word on the question before the House, but he should protest against the mode in which matters, important matters, of that kind were treated by the House. The other evening, when the question of the Post Office was discussed, the Members who took part early in the debate were attempted to be hooted down by some hon. Gentlemen who preferred at the time go- ing to dinner. On a matter of such importance as was then before them, he rose to call attention to the fact that in that part of the House—[pointing to the seats about the Bar]—there were assembled many followers of the Government who were prepared to vote for the measure whether right or wrong, good or bad. They were there assembled, standing and sitting, and creating a great outcry and uproar, with a view to stifle the question before the House, namely, whether they should refer the measure to a Select Committee or not. He had not risen for the purpose of expressing an opinion upon this matter except that he should vote for the Motion of the hon. Member opposite; but he protested against a system which very frequently rendered it quite impossible at this hour of the evening to discuss matters of great moment, and he said that the noble Lord at the head of the Government, or those who were under him, ought to keep their subordinate Members of the Government in order.

MR. B. OSBORNE

would ask his hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin to withdraw his Motion for an adjournment; believing, as he did, that if they were now to divide on the main question they would get a majority.

MR. FITZROY

thought the hon. Member for Bodmin had to thank himself for the interruption he had experienced, by not having confined himself to the question before the House.

SIR DE L. EVANS

considered the rebuke of the hon. Gentleman to have been perfectly undeserved. He hoped for the sake of the respectability and decency of their proceedings, that his hon. Friend would persist in his Motion for an adjournment of the debate,

MR. WYLD

said, that he would bow with the utmost deference to any rebuke that might proceed from the Speaker, but protested against the language used towards him by the hon. Member for Lewes.

LORD D. STUART

advised his hon. Friend not to withdraw his Motion for adjournment. If the House was not in a temper to listen to the discussion, it was better to adjourn the discussion till another day, when hon. Gentlemen might be prepared to listen with patience and deliberation, He really thought it not decent that this Bill, which was so important to the interests of the inhabitants of the me tropolis, should be discussed in this man- ner. And he must say to hon. Gentlemen who displayed such impatience that, though this Bill did not affect them, if it passed, another Bill would soon be brought in in which their constituents would be interested, and then they would look at it in a different light.

LORD J. RUSSELL

did not think the remedy prescribed by the hon. Member for Manchester for preventing the noise arising from conversation in the House would be effectual. There might be one or two Members belonging to the Government sitting at the bottom of the House who might have joined in the expression of the general impatience, but he (Lord J. Russell) believed that if those hon. Members had been entirely silent and completely dumb the impatience of the House would have been manifested to almost quite as great a degree. He had not perceived that there had been on this Bill any extraordinary impatience evinced, or what was more than usual when a division was expected at that particular hour of the evening. It was not for him to say what the reason could be. But when a division was expected, whatever might be the question, between half-past seven and eight o'clock, there certainly was a sort of impatience shown by hon. Members which was not usual at any other period of the evening. After this explanation he hoped the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin would go on with his speech. When the question under discussion was concerning the interment of the dead of the metropolis, it would not be creditable at that hour of the evening to adjourn the debate.

SIR B. HALL

said, during the twenty years he had sat in that House, he had hardly ever seen more impatience than had been manifested on this Bill. It was his anxious desire to have expressed himself more fully on the subject, but in deference to the feeling of the House he refrained. But if they were come to this, that matters of this description were not to be freely considered and discussed, and that though they did not bring forward any extraneous matter they were not to be listened to, he thought they had better declare at once, when matters of this sort were to be brought forward, that they would adjourn till after dinner.

MR. WYLD

said, he had moved the adjournment of the debate, because he thought he was entitled to be heard, and for this reason that there was no debate on the second reading of the Bill, and the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department distinctly pledged himself that there should be a discussion on the Motion for going into Committee. The principle of this Bill was government by a commission. Now governments by commissions were inimical to our constitution, and had entirely failed. As a proof he would point to the City Commission for Sewers. In 1849 that commission expended 50,309l., and the expenses of management were 22,400l., and their liabilities at this moment were more than 100,000l. He hoped, if this Bill were referred to a Select Committee, to be able to show that the object of this Bill might be carried out by the local authorities of the metropolis. He would withdraw his Motion for the adjournment of the debate.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 159; Noes 57: Majority 102.

List of the NOES.
Best, J.	Lennard, T. B.
Blair, S.	Lockhart, A. E.
Bright, J.	Lushington, C.
Brocklehurst, J.	Macnaghten, Sir E.
Cabbell, B. B.	M'Taggart, Sir J.
Chatterton, Col.	Meagher, T.
Cochrane, A. D. R. W. B.	Masterman, J.
Cubitt, W.	Mowatt, F.
D'Eyncourt, rt. hon. C. T.	Mullings, J. R.
Dodd, G.	Muntz, G. F.
Duncan, G.	Newdegate, C. N
Duncombe, T.	O'Connor, F.
Duncuft, J.	O'Flaherty, A.
Ellis, J.	Osborne, R.
Evans, Sir D. L.	Pechell, Sir G. B.
Ewart, W.	Pilkington, J.
Farnham, E. B.	Sadleir, J.
Forbes, W.	Salwey, Col.
Fox, W. J.	Scholefield, W.
Gibson, rt. hon. T. M	Sidney, Ald.
Greene, J.	Stanford, J. F.
Gwyn, H.	Verner, Sir. W.
Hall, Sir B.	Vyvyan, Sir R. R.
Harris, R.	Wakley, T.
Hastie, A.	Walnisley, Sir J.
Henry, A.	Williams, J.
Hume, J.	Wyld, J.
Humphery, Ald.	TELLERS.
Keating, R.	Lacy, H. C.
Kershaw, J.	Stuart, Lord D.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

House in Committee; Mr. Bernal in the chair.

Clause 1 agreed to.

On Clause 2,

MR. T. DUNCOMBE

wished to draw the attention of the Committee to the unfair position in which he was placed as regarded some amendments of which he had given notice three days before the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had given notice of his intention of committing the Bill pro formâ. The amendments to which he alluded were important, inasmuch as they were for the purpose of doing away with the board, which he denounced as a job and nuisance—a board attended with its usual accompaniments of clerks, treasurers, secretaries, chaplains, and God knew what; the salaries of whom were all to be chargeable on the ratepayers. Now, the right hon. Gentleman having given notice of his intention of committing the Bill pro formâ, he (Mr. Duncombe) was informed that there would be no necessity for printing his amendments, for, as alterations would have to be made in the Bill when printed, his amendments must necessarily meet those alterations. The new Bill was only reprinted on Friday last, and he was then told that it was impossible to have his amendments printed in time. They would therefore be brought forward under a disadvantage, entailing much loss of time. The Government had told them they had plenty of time to spare. He was very glad to hear it; but still he thought that an unnecessary delay in the public business must be anything but advantageous. His first Amendment was to omit clause 2; for he objected, and the majority of the metropolitan parishes—the parishes of London, Middlesex, Kent, and Surrey, who would be all affected by this Bill—objected to the formation of a board. The board might be composed of very excellent; men, such as Lord Ashley or Mr. Chadwick; but, without intending any disrespect to either, the metropolitan districts had no confidence in them; they thought they could administer their own affairs far better than these gentlemen could. The metropolitan districts wanted no board at all, but required that vestries should make arrangements for the interment of the dead out of the metropolis. The Bill did not take the dead out of the metropolis, for the words were, in or near the metropolis. If the noble Lord was determined to go on, and to ram this Bill down their throats, he might go on as well as he could; but he (Mr. Buncombe) proposed, and he did so with no feeling of hostility towards the Government, that no such board should be constituted. And if it were to be constituted, why should they be ashamed of their name? It was to be called the Metropolitan Board of Health, and the Bill was the Metropolitan Burial Bill. Why should not the board be called the Metropolitan Burial Board? They objected to this low term, lest they should be called a set of undertakers. Why, they were a set of undertakers who made jobs, and buried people where and how they liked. The object of his amendments was that parishes should unite and find places for burial within a certain distance of the metropolis. He would now move that the clause should be omitted, for the purpose of introducing a clause not taking away parochial powers.

MR. HUME

wished to know what the expense of this board was to be. He was opposed to taking away the power from the parochial authorities. No one was more desirous that burial places should be provided at a distance from the metropolis than he was, but he could not trust this board. And what necessity was there to make the board perpetual?

SIR G. GREY

said, he could remove the misapprehension that existed with regard to the perpetual existence of the board. It was necessary in order to enable the board to hold property to constitute them a corporation, but that could only be during the continuance of the Board of Health. When he introduced the Bill, he stated that the Board of Health, unless renewed by Parliament, would expire in 1853. The subject must necessarily come under the consideration of Parliament again before that period elapsed, and if it were requisite to take away these powers. Parliament could take them away. As regarded the expenses of the board, it consisted now of three members. One was paid, and it was proposed that another paid member should be added to it for the purposes of this Bill, and that officers should be appointed. A great deal had been said about the principle of centralisation, and that it would be quite enough to pass a short Bill to prevent future interments in the metropolis, and that it would be sufficient to give the parish authorities power. But without a central power the parish officers might refuse to carry the Act into execution; and if they were to go to law with them to compel them, there might be a delay of two or three years. And then look at the number of parishes in London, and each parish was to have its separate burial ground. ["No!"] Then if they had to make voluntary arrangements, per se, it was not probable that they would close the burial grounds that now disgraced this metropolis, the only one in Europe which was so dis- graced, by burying the dead among the living. The parochial system did not meet the exigencies of the case. It was well known by those who had paid attention to the matter that the worst burial grounds were not parochial but private burial grounds; they belonged to parties who were deriving a large revenue from them. Some belonged to Dissenters, some to Quakers, some to Catholics, and some to Jews. How were they to shut these up, or how were the parochial authorities to provide substitutes for them? And a great hardship would be imposed upon all who were not members of the Church of England. They said they would compel parishes to provide other burial places. If they did, it must he by a rate upon Dissenters as well as Churchmen, and that, he thought, would be open to greater objections than this Bill. The hon. Member for Finsbury stated that, in bringing forward the amendments of which he had given notice, he would labour under great disadvantage, inasmuch as the clauses to which his amendments bore reference had been altered. However, not one syllable of those clauses had been altered; they stood just as they did when the hon. Member gave notice.

MR. M. GIBSON

said, that this was a question of very great importance, and that the Bill now before the House was felt to be the first of a series of measures; in fact, it was looked upon as a model Bill. With regard to this clause, he thought that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State must admit that it was very defective, even on the grounds which he himself set forth, because even supposing that a central body was admitted to be desirable, and that parochial management was not adapted to the regulation of the many districts to be created by this Bill, it did not therefore follow that they were to have a corporation, the members of which were to be nominated by the Crown, who should be totally irresponsible to the ratepayers and the public. He was of opinion that a close corporation, appointed by the Crown, for the purpose of levying taxes, and spending the money independently of the sanction of the public, was not to be defended. He thought that there might be a central supervision, but it should be responsible to the ratepayers and the public.

MR. MACKINNON

said, that about six years ago he brought in a Bill laying down the principle that each parish or union of parishes might carry out the object now desired; but upon consideration, looking to the multiplicity of interests concerned, he came to the conclusion that it would be physically impossible to carry it out if it were left to parishes alone. He believed, therefore, although he would not defend all the provisions of this Bill, that it would be impossible to abate the nuisance complained of, and to carry on extramural interments without some such heard as was now proposed. He did not wish to centralise—the less of centralisation the better—but there might be peculiar cases where self-government was improper. Take Smithfield-market—would they leave that entirely in the hands of the Corporation of London? And there were other similar cases. He believed that it would be better for the people to accept this Bill than to run the risk of losing it altogether, and have the possibility of the cholera again occurring. The Bill was absolutely necessary for the welfare of the country—it was loudly called for by the people, and ought to pass into law.

SIR B. HALL

thought the statements made by the hon. Member who had just sat down were most extraordinary inasmuch as he supported the principle of centralisation, though he admitted that it produced a great many evils. The statement, too, which had been made by the right hon. Secretary of State was most unsatisfactory. The hon. Member for Montrose had asked what would be the expense and the operations of the Commission? To this no answer was given, but that in the year 1853 the matter would come before Parliament for revision, and that then it would be left to their option to continue the board or not. They all knew very well what promises of that kind were. The same thing was held out when the income tax was passed; but since that they never heard of it. Once they established a board of that kind and appointed officers, it would be impossible to get rid of them, as they would be able to engender work for themselves, and would induce the Secretary of State to continue the commission. The real question was not whether they should appoint a central board for a limited period or not, but it was whether they should take from the metropolitan districts and the parochial boards all power of interfering in the matter. He (Sir B. Hall) represented three parishes which paid taxes to the amount of 2,000,000l. a year, and this Bill would take 7,0001. a year from the inhabitants. and place it in the hands of persons who would not be responsible to them for the way in which it was expended. He would now draw a comparison between the ways in which central boards and parochial boards did their business. The Commission of the Woods and Forests had under their control the streets from Oxford-street down to Cockspur street, and there the inhabitants were obliged to pay a rate of 14d. in the pound for what the inhabitants of St. James's, which was under the management of a parochial board, had to pay 4d. in the pound. The United Service Club and the Athenæum had to pay 14d. in the pound for what the Travellers' Club and the Reform Club had only to pay 4d. This was one of the disadvantages of having an irresponsible board. If the object of this Bill were, as no doubt it was, to take out of the hands of the parochial boards all power of interfering, why not say so? He was of opinion that the people of the metropolis had quite enough intelligence to enable them to mind their own business. He himself assented to the principle of extramural interments to the fullest extent; but he was of opinion that when there was such intelligence and activity amongst those who represented the parishes of Loudon, it would be much better to leave the carrying out of these measures in their hands.

The CHAIRMAN

said, that as the Amendment of the hon. Member for Finsbury was to expunge the second clause, it could not be taken before the others, which were amendments on that clause. The latter, therefore, should be taken first.

SIR W. CLAY

said, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester had put this question in its true light. It was a question as to the best mode of constituting a central board. There were eighty-seven parishes comprehended in the metropolitan districts, and he wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman meant to say that each of these parishes should send a representative to the central board; if so, he must say that there could not be a more ineffective body. If, however, the central body was to be composed of three or four members, he could not see how they could possibly be made to represent so many districts. The fact was, that they had a great and difficult work before them. The right hon. Gentleman could not object to centralisation more strongly than he did; but he must say that in this case the initiative step must be taken by such a body as the Board of Health.

LORD ASHLEY

said, that the hon. Member for Montrose had said, that it was desirable that some explanation should be given as to the amount of expense to be incurred. He thought he might safely say, that no expense whatever would be thrown on Marylebone or any of the parishes in the metropolis. A power was certainly given in some of the latter clauses of the Bill to levy a penny rate, but that power was given to the board to enable them to raise a sufficient security for the sums required to be laid out in the purchase of grounds, &c. The repayment of the principal and interest would be provided for by the funds received for the use of these grounds; and he had no doubt that all these transactions would be carried on without the slightest burden, direct or indirect, being thrown on the metropolitan parishes. The estimated receipts from the burial grounds, supposing the number interred in the course of the year to reach the usual average, 52,000 persons, would more than pay all expenses. The rate was simply a nominal security, and no demand would be made on any of the metropolitan parishes on account of this Bill. An hon. Member had expressed some distrust of the measure on the ground that it had originated with the Bishop of London and Mr. Chadwick. With regard to the Bishop of London, he could state that the Bill was all arranged and drawn up before his opinion was asked; in no way did the right rev. Prelate interfere. With regard to Mr. Chadwick, he was hound to bear testimony to the valuable and important services he had rendered to the public interest. He regarded that gentleman as one of the most diligent, most intelligent, and most assiduous servants the Crown ever possessed. He was perfectly astonished at Mr. Chadwick's powers of labour. Not only did that gentleman discharge the duties which fell to his share, but he looked out for other work. The Board of Health had a great desire, if possible, to carry out the parochial system to its full extent; but that after a long and anxious inquiry, they had come to the conclusion that the parochial system, as at present existing in London, was altogether inadequate to the performance of the duties which must be discharged in carrying the Act into operation. They found that if the parishes were to attempt to carry out the Act singly, they would be far too weak for the purpose, and if they tried to carry it out in combination, far too unwieldy. If they tried to carry it out singly, the expense to each parish would be intolerable. Each parish would have its own ground, its own establishment charges, and its own officers; and if the parishes were to act in combination, hon. Gentlemen would perceive that they at once approached the very principle and machinery of the plan which was now proposed, though on a larger scale. There was another subject which was worthy of attention. The Bill proposed to make extramural interments compulsory, which, as things now stood, would impose on the relatives of the deceased a very great additional expense. Instead of a quarter of a mile or so, the corpse would have to be carried out six or seven miles, and something must, therefore, be done to reduce the expense of interment to the working man, which could only be accomplished by dealing with those things on a large scale. If it were left to the parish alone the expense would be greatly increased, and an additional burden would be imposed on the working classes. He must say, also, that the experience which he had had during August and September last year, when hundreds died of the cholera daily, did not induce him to think that parochial boards could be safely entrusted with the administration of these matters. In affairs of this kind there must be some strong independent body to carry the schemes proposed into full effect; while he thought that such a central authority would present a more direct and personal responsibility than any authority which could be wielded by the parochial system. What, in fact, was responsibility to the ratepayers compared with the responsibility, direct and personal, afforded by the members of the board being also Members of that House? He thought that the latter form of responsibility, as it was more direct, was likely to be more efficient. They must recollect that the parochial system had been going on for many years, and that under it had arisen the very abominations which were now so much complained of. The system of extramural interment had been carried into effect in almost all civilised countries—in France, Germany, Italy, and even Turkey. It was desirable to ascertain what had been the experience of these countries; and they found in every instance that the working of the system had not been entrusted to any local body, but to a central authority. Seeing, then, the gigantic task which they had to deal with—the means for the suitable interment of upwards of 52,000 corpses per annum—he believed that it would be impossible to come to any conclusion other than that the old parochial system was utterly inadequate to meet the requirements of the case.

MR. M. GIBSON

inquired what power the ratepayers would have of checking the expenditure of the central board, that board having authority to levy rates?

LORD ASHLEY

said, that the responsibility of the board—its principal members sitting in Parliament—would be more direct than it could be made by any parochial arrangement.

MR. ALDERMAN SIDNEY

was at a loss to know by what power of reasoning two gentlemen and one paid officer should be presumed to be equal to the ialent and industry of the community at large. There were many persons equally as capable of forming a judgment as Mr. Chadwick. It was stated in the report that 700,000l. would be required to launch the scheme, and 112,000l. per annum; but the noble Lord had not stated by what means he would obtain the 112,000l. He strongly objected to this centralising principle, particularly in so offensive a form as that of burying the dead. As far as the city of London was concerned, they had an Act not to allow burials in the city. Parishes had been constituted into unions, and he thought unions would be much better, with their general knowledge of mankind, than the knowledge of three individuals shut up in a room, imagining that all wisdom was centered in their views. He should support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Finsbury; he believed that if the Bill were passed in the present shape it would be productive of great dissatisfaction. He did not know any reason why, because the evil of intramural sepulture existed, that it should be met by a greater evil.

MR. DRUMMOND

said, that he had a great many objections to make to almost every clause in this Bill. Two years ago they had had a Bill about the health of towns, a Bill, if possible, containing worse provisions than this Bill. However, it turned out that the bad Bill was entirely changed, and made much better. They must watch this Bill very narrowly; it had come in a very bad Bill, but he hoped they might amend, so that it might go out a very good one.

SIR Dr L. EVANS

asked whether re- sponsibility was to be established, and thus a great change to be made in the spirit of the constitution of this country. Three gentlemen had come to a resolution that parochial boards were not to be trusted. These three gentlemen had laid it down as a fact that the system of self-government which had prevailed in this country for three centuries was not to continue. He supposed that the next thing proposed would be, that the Poor Law Commissioners should put down the authority of the boards of guardians altogether. They now administered about six millions of money. That was the great question at issue, and not extramural interments. The people were as firmly convinced of the necessity of extramural interments as the Board of Health. The noble Lord had said that there was only a conditional security of Id. in the pound, but there was nothing to show how long that would last. He hoped they would not affirm this second clause until time was allowed to the Members of this House to suggest the substitution of other clauses.

LORD J. RUSSELL

said, that all the opposers of the clause seemed to have fallen into two errors: first, that our parishes had been for the last 300 years in the practice of burying the dead; and, secondly, that the proposed board would be irresponsible. He had always understood that if a pauper died in a workhouse, the parish had to take care he should be decently interred; but as to parishes having any general control over the burial of all persons, he need not say it was a power they had never exercised, and one which could only be conferred on them now by an Act of Parliament. Therefore the whole of the declarations they had heard about self-government fell to the ground, and the parishes had no more claim to exercise that power than they had to say to the Admiralty, "We can build ships better than you, and ought to build them exclusively." It was admitted, without a dissentient voice, that interments in that great metropolis and in the thickly-inhabited suburbs should no longer take place, because the burial of the dead was a cause of disease and mortality among the living. It being necessary to alter that system, let the House consider in whose hands they could best place the power of carrying the alteration into effect. If they could obtain a better body than the Board of Health, they would be wise to give it that power; but let them not run away with the notion that because they had parochial bodies already, those bodies were the best fitted to exercise that power. Was each parish to find a separate burial ground, and to provide a cemetery according to its requirements? In that way the Bill could never be carried into effect at all. Hon Gentlemen talked of the expense of this Bill; but the expense to which the ratepayers of the metropolis would be put by such a proposition would be something quite beyond contemplation, and persons of small means would be utterly ruined. Then, as to a combination of parishes, was this a sort of business a combination of parishes ought to undertake? Let them recollect that in adopting that plan they were departing from the parochial constitution and self-government they prized so highly. If they had 80 or 90 parishes taking on themselves the burial of all persons, it would be as great an innovation as the proposal of Government. It was, in fact, necessary to create a new power, because what was proposed was new, and their means of effecting it must be new also. If 80 or 90 parishes were to combine it would be necessary to have some place of meeting, which would, of course, be distant from the residence of some of the parish representatives; the attendance, consequently, could not be always relied on, and a board so constituted would be utterly unfit to carry on the business. He came, then, to the conclusion that they must have some small body of persons—he would not say with the precise powers proposed, but with such powers as would enable them to carry out the object as to which all were agreed. As to the irresponsibility of the Board of Health, it was to be remembered that the chief commissioner of that board was also Chief Commissioner of the Woods and Forests, and that, in the case of any abuse or of any complaint, he would be responsible for anything done in his department. No one had suggested any better body to intrust with these powers; and, if they determined to do away with the present system, they had better take the means open to them. The hon. Member for Finsbury had declared himself convinced of the necessity of doing something for the preservation of the public health, and then said the Government Bill was a gigantic job. If it was advisable to indulge in imputations of that kind, it might be easy to make them with respect to the opposition to the Bill, and to the motives of the op- posers, which would be quite as valid as the imputations of the hon. Member. He gave the hon. Gentleman full credit for wishing to preserve the public health, and hoped he would give the same credit to Government. An hon. Alderman had stated that this scheme involved an expense of 112,000l. a year. Supposing that to be the amount, it should be recollected that the saving in the metropolitan interments had been estimated by the Board of Health, in round numbers, at 350,000l. Hon. Gentlemen who talked of the great amount which interments would cost in future, must admit that according to all the calculations which had been made on the subject, there would be, not an increase, but a great diminution of expense.

MR. MOWATT

believed that all parties were agreed as to the necessity of bringing to a close as soon as possible the present deplorable system of burying the dead among the living. When, however, the noble Lord said that those who admitted the necessity for a change should adopt the proposed means of effecting it, he must say that the necessity for vesting such vast powers in a body to be wholly irresponsible had not been established. He regretted the necessity for opposing a Bill having such an object; but he considered the measure to involve a principle which, if sanctioned, would form a dangerous precedent. The Government having postponed action in this matter last Session, now presented an objectionable measure, saying, "Take this or none." It was unfair to say that those who opposed the measure were favourers of the evil it was designed to remedy. The onus lay on the Government of showing that such arbitrary powers were necessary for the accomplishment of the object. Was there no other mode of effecting this great object than the appointment of an irresponsible body? The measure would probably lead to the ratepayers being called upon, not merely for a penny in the pound annually, but for five or six pennies. [Lord J. RUSSELL: The Commissioners could not, under the provisions of the Bill, take more than a penny.] But could any one doubt that the principle being sanctioned, if an application were made for extended powers next year, it would be acceded to? His grand objection to the Bill was, that it was opposed to the principle which he believed to be one of the chief sources of this country's prosperity—namely, that those who levied the rates should be responsible to those who paid them. Ad- mitting the absolute necessity for passing some measure, he could not reconcile it to his duty to vote for the Bill before the House.

MR. SLANEY

said, the two great objections urged against the Bill were, that it was unnecessarily expensive, and that it was unconstitutional. In his opinion, it was neither the one nor the other. He denied that there would be any interference with rates. Had burial fees ever been paid from parochial rates? So great a change could not be carried out without the appointment of a Commission. As regarded the constitutional objection, he would observe, that they would have the noble Lord the Member for Bath in the House to answer any question which might be put to him. Some hon. Members might say, "Why not have the elective principle?" [Mr. M.GIBSON: The municipal.] He believed that if the municipal bodies were assembled for such a purpose, there would be as much wrangling amongst them as in a convocation. As a Commissioner of the Board of Health he had visited many of the humblest and most wretched portions of the metropolis; and what he had seen had led him to feel how great was the necessity for improved parochial management. The dwellings of the rich might be attended to, but those of the poor were almost entirely neglected. He wished before he sat down to say a kind word with regard to a class of persons who were out of spirits in reference to this Bill—the undertakers. Power was given in the Bill to make contracts; and the undertakers were, of course, very likely parties to share in those contracts. He would be sorry to see the interests of that body injured by the sudden change; but their experience, knowledge, and capital rendered it probable that they would be employed. At all events, the Bill was necessary for the health and comfort of the poorer classes.

LORD D. STUART

said, all he had heard recently in the debate had confirmed him in the opinion that the best course was that which the Government had rejected, namely, to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. All the defenders of the Bill proceeded on the ground that what they all wished could not be carried out in any other way than that proposed; but he believed that by a union of parishes, it might be secured quite as effectually and at less expense. The expense of management alone in the case of the commission of sewers amounted to 25 per cent of the amount collected. Where was the parochial board which could not do better than that? The expense of managing the Marylebone police, at the time when it was in the hands of the parish, was 9,000l. a year; at present it was 24,000l. a year, though the number of police employed was less, and the parish not better watched than formerly. He hoped the clause under consideration would be rejected, and the Bill changed in consequence for the better.

MR. HUME

wished to know what salary the second commissioner was to receive.

SIR G. GREY

said, the salary of the chief commissioner was 1,500l. a year; it would rest with Parliament to fix that of the second commissioner.

MR. HUME

said, that if it should be shown that the parish of Marylebone, or any other parish, would not provide sufficient accommodation for extramural interment, the appointment of a central board might be justified, but not otherwise. Referring to Mr. Chadwick, he said he knew no one who had been a more useful public servant; no one had taken so much pains to establish a system for reducing the charges on funerals; and this Bill proposed to carry out such a reduction. But why should the power be wholly centred in one board? How was the cost of the land to be defrayed except by fees or parochial rates? Was it likely that 85 parishes would all submit to have their contracts entered into by one board, when the circumstances of each were so different? After the example of the power given to the Lord Chancellor of compensating the six clerks, he must object to any board of three persons having the power to pay fees or compensation to clergymen, and others, beyond the duration of their lives. He would suggest that this Bill should simply prohibit interments within a certain distance, three years being allowed to make the arrangements, and that each parish should be required and empowered to conduct its own interments.

MR. WYLD

said, that the parishes had been blamed for not conducting their interments properly, but they had been impeded in their efforts by all kinds of obstructions from both the civil and ecclesiastical law. The parish of St. Martin's, for instance, had had great difficulty in establishing an additional burial ground; and, at present, an expense of 15l. or 20l. must be incurred for each interment, out of a parish. There were only fifty-nine parishes within the limits of the Bill; but the number was amply sufficient to carry out the machinery proposed for conducting interments. Bach parish might appoint a delegate; there would then be six for Westminster, and these might appoint a commissioner. The Government might still retain the power of appointing officers to regulate the proceedings of the parochial delegates.

MR. FITZROY

said, the parishes were perfectly aware that their machinery might require to be regulated by the general Board of Health; but they were anxious to have the conducting of the interments in their own hands, being confident in their ability to provide the necessary funds without seriously burdening the ratepayers. But they felt it a great grievance that the Commissioners should have the power of directly taxing the ratepayers instead of their own officers, in whom they had confidence. They believed that funds administered by those who had no interest in them were invariably administered at greater expense than when placed in responsible hands. The Commissioners of Sewers were a notorious instance of this fact. After the most mature consideration of the question, he felt bound to vote for the Amendment.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 135; Noes 57: Majority 78.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 6,

MR. HUME

asked if there would be any objection to introduce a proviso that the board should only interfere in the event of the parishes neglecting for three years to make the required arrangements?

SIR G. GREY

said, the only effect of this would be to postpone the operation of the Bill for three years.

MR. D'EYNCOURT

hoped that every facility would be given to the parishes by providing burial grounds in their immediate neighbourhood, so that the families of deceased persons might have an opportunity of being present at the interments. In the borough which he represented there were large tracts of land in the immediate neighbourhood which might be available for the purpose of burial grounds.

MR. HUME

said, he should move the omission of the words "either within or" from the clause, the effect of which was to allow the continuance of the existing nuisances arising from burial grounds.

SIR G. GREY

opposed the omission of the words, on the ground that there were many eligible sites in open places yet within the metropolitan districts, which might he advantageously selected by the heard as burial grounds.

MR. HUME

said, that St. John's Wood was such a district some years ago; now it was filled with a dense population, and the burial grounds there were as great a nuisance as those in the heart of the metropolis. It was only tampering with the evil to remove the burial places to the outskirts, as the population would soon enclose them.

Sir Gr. GREY

said, that the greater the distance the heavier would be the expense; and the effect of the Amendment would be to preclude the board from adopting any site, however eligible, within the district comprised in the schedule.

MR. HUME

withdrew his Amendment.

MR. WAKLEY

said, the difficulties in providing for extramural sepulture had always arisen from the ecclesiastical influence which was at work, whereby the parishes had been prevented carrying out the necessary reforms. It was too bad that these parties should now have the first Consideration, He wished to know the minimum distance to which it was proposed to carry bodies.

LORD ASHLEY

said, it was not one cemetery but several that it was proposed to establish, and that they would be found at greater distances as the population kept increasing.

Clause 6 agreed to.

On Clause 7,

SIR W. CLAY

said, that this clause Lore very hardly upon the proprietors of cemeteries, because it allowed the board a period of two years, within which they could purchase their cemeteries. Before that time, however, the board might form new cemeteries contiguous to the old ones, which would, of course, depreciate their value; and they might then compel a sale when thus depreciated. He, therefore, thought that the board, if they desired to purchase any of these cemeteries, should be obliged to do so within five or six months, instead of two years.

MR. MOFFATT

thought the clause should be expunged altogether, and moved that it be struck out.

Sir G. GREY

said, that he had no objection to the clause being struck out, but he knew that the cemetery companies themselves were anxious that it should not be struck out. What they wanted, in fact, was that it should be made more stringent for their protection. It was intended to take these cemeteries, if necessary, by mutual agreement if possible, but if not by compulsory process under the Land Clauses Compensation Act. He did not think it would be advisable to compel the board to purchase, when perhaps they might not have money in hand. But it was not probable that any new cemeteries would be built in the neighbourhood of old ones.

LORD D. STUART

said, that time had not been allowed to consult those who were interested in the measure.

SIR G. GREY

said, that this clause had been before the House for six weeks, and the only change made in it was one giving the companies increased protection.

LORD R. GROSVENOR

said, that no person could say that the cemetery companies were taken by surprise.

SIR B. HALL

said, that many persons had relatives interred in these cemeteries, and had acquired rights in them. He thought that their feelings should be consulted before the Government struck any bargain with the proprietors of cemeteries.

MR. HUME

suggested that words should be introduced declaring that no cemeteries should be built within a certain distance of those in existence at present.

LORD ASHLEY

said, that the duties and obligations of the existing companies were to be transferred by the Bill to the new board, who, he thought, were likely to discharge those duties with as much benefit and credit as any irresponsible heard of directors.

Motion withdrawn. Clause agreed to.

Clause 8.

MR. LUSHINGTON

objected to the distinction that was made between Christians in this clause. For himself, he laid no stress on the rite of consecration, he-cause he did not find it enjoined in any part of the New Testament; yet he respected the feelings of others on this head. He considered that this clause contained a great act of national intolerance. On the Continent, in Ireland, and in India, all Christians might be buried in consecrated ground; but provision was made by this clause for the separations of the members of the Church of England from all others. It was disgraceful to perpetuate distinctions of that kind beyond the grave. It appeared that they were the only intolerant set of Christiana in the world.

MR. DRUMMOND

asked whether the hon. Gentleman would have the burial ground ploughed up and sown, because if it was not consecrated there was no reason why they should not do so.

SIR G. GREY

said, that the clause introduced nothing new. The General Cemetery Bill indeed contained a more stringent clause for separate burial.

The EARL of ARUNDEL and SURREY

said, that the hon. Member for Westminster was mistaken in saying that the Church of England was the only intolerant Church—if intolerant was the proper word to use—in this matter; because there was another great body of Christians who required consecration, and valued none but their own.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 9.

MR. LENNARD

wished that the power which this clause proposed to give to the Bishop of London of withdrawing the licence from a chaplain after his appointment should be expunged from the clause. He did not think that any necessity existed for increasing thus unreasonably the power of the bishops at the expense of the clergy.

SIR G. GREY

said, that no new power was given to the bishop. He had now the power of withdrawing the licence from curates. The only variation made by this clause was that the board empowered to remove the chaplain, even though the bishop should not withdraw his licence.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 10.

LORD D. STUART

wished to know if persons not belonging to the Church of England would have the privilege of consecrating any portion of the ground according to the rites of their own faith.

SIR G. GREY

said, that if the interpretation clause was referred to, it would be seen that, by the word consecration was meant, consecration according to the rites of the Church of England and Ireland.

COLONEL THOMPSON

said, the most valued point about the Church of England's rite of consecration, was the security it was supposed to give against seeing the bones of our relatives scattered about the country through the agency of bone-mills. This security was a civil right, and as such should be equally given to the Catholic, the Dissenter, and the heretic of every degree. His object was now to ask whether this security was to be given?

SIR G. GREY

replied that it would be found to be secured.

Clause agreed to; as were also, with some verbal amendments,

Clauses 11 to 17, inclusive.

The House resumed.

Committee report progress. on Thursday.