METROPOLITAN INTERMENTS BILL. (Hansard, 6 June 1850)

§ SIR G. GREY
said, that if the fees were not to be chargeable until after they received the sanction of Parliament, the effect would be, that the present Bill could not come into operation till next Session. The table of fees might not be ready during the present Session, and the only way then in which they could receive the sanction of Parliament would be by Act of Parliament passed next year; therefore, if the Amendment were agreed to, it would have 857 the effect of altogether suspending the operation of the present measure.

§ LORD D. STUART
observed, that there was the same objection to this clause as there was to every other clause in the Bill—it gave absolute power to the board. The Bill was supposed to be a poor man's Bill, but the clause now under consideration was assuredly a rich man's clause.

§ LORD ASHLEY
denied that it was a rich man's Bill. At present the expense of a faculty was very great, and by the Bill power was given to the board to do that for poor persons at a small expense which they could not at present effect otherwise than at great cost.

§ SIR B. HALL
desired attention to this, that the question of fees had now been raised, and he thought the House ought to be placed in such a position as that they should know what the fees were likely to be. What they wanted to know was, the probable expense of removing a dead body from any parish in the metropolis to an extramural cemetery.

§ LORD ASHLEY
thought that any statement on the subject of fees had better be postponed till they reached the next clause.

§ MR. ROEBUCK
begged to remind the Committee that a fee for a faculty was usually paid under the influence of very painful feelings, and he hoped—nay he had no doubt—that the clergy did not desire to tax the people for seeking to relieve the severity of those feelings; but as to the public he had no difficulty whatever in saying that there were many very serious reasons why the public should not be taxed on account of faculties. The feelings which induced surviving relations to desire the removal of dead bodies certainly did sometimes exist, but they were, on the whole, rare. It seemed to him that the general rule should be to allow "the tree to remain where it fell;" the removal of dead bodies was, generally speaking, objectionable, and there certainly was no reason why the clergy should levy a tax on account of it. He was of opinion that the maximum fee might be put into the Bill then.

§ SIR G. GREY
said, that if so it must, under present circumstances, be high, and he certainly should be unwilling to see a high rate charged to persons of small means.

§ MR. ROEBUCK
maintained that the fee ought to be extremely small, but that general words might be introduced into the Bill, imposing all the proper expenses 858 of removal on those by whose desire the removal was effected.

§ MR. T. DUNCOMBE
thought it would be much better to do away with the faculty altogether. It was idle to talk of removing bodies from metropolitan burial places; they might not he for three weeks at a time in the places where they had been deposited. How could it be otherwise, when 8,000 were buried in one acre, when 136 were all that it could fairly be made to contain? It was under such circumstances a mockery to require that people should ask and pay for the consent of the incumbent.

§ SIR G. GREY
said, that not a farthing of the fees would go to the clergy.

§ MR. ROEBUCK
was willing that there should be a fee for burials and removals, but he would stop there and give nothing for consents.

§ SIR G. GREY
said, that the burial ground was the freehold of the incumbent, and his consent in law was necessary.

The CHAIRMAN
called the attention of the hon. Member for Reading to the circumstance that his Amendment applied to the 20th clause of the reprinted Bill.

§ MR. STANFORD
said, he perceived it was so, and would for the present withdraw his Amendment.

§ MR. ROEBUCK
wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman would dispense with the consent of the incumbent?

§ SIR G. GREY
repeated that he could not consent to any proposal which would interfere with the incumbents' right of freehold in consecrated ground.

§ SIR G. GREY
had no particular objection to such an Amendment, because the words which followed, "or other person having the control or care of any church, &c.," would be sufficient to insure the object in view, namely, the consent of those having the right of freehold.

§ MR. ROEBUCK
might as well state at once that it was his intention afterwards to move the omission of these words also, and to propose the insertion of the words "with the consent of the Board of Health."

§ SIR G. GREY
, after the explanation just given by the hon. and learned Member, would object to the Amendment, for the reasons he had before given.

§ MR. MACKINNON
asked how, in the event of a measure like the present being extended to Manchester and other large towns, the Board of Health in London could be consulted about the removal of dead bodies?

§ SIR G. GREY
, with reference to the question of fees, thought words might be inserted in the next clause to the effect that the incumbent should have no fees, though he still would have the privilege of giving his consent or withholding it.

§ MR. STANFORD
said, the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield proposed to take the fee from the incumbent and give it to the Board of Health, an irresponsible body, which that hon. and learned Gentleman would, in other circumstances, have exerted all his logical acuteness and power of invective to denounce. But, because it gave him an opportunity of taking something from the clergy, he was ready to give the advantage to this irresponsible board.

§ MR. ROEBUCK
would appeal to the House whether that was a fair conclusion from what he had said. He understood that the fees provided by the Bill were to go into a fund from which the claims of the present incumbents were to be paid; and he thought that all sums, even those got by the removal of bodies, would be put into that fund, and appropriated to the purpose he had just stated. There were persons who had a captious desire to find fault, but whose power and capacity for doing so did not equal their wishes.

§ MR. B. OSBORNE
said, the hon. Member for Reading, who had made an observation regarding the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, had certainly not shown much acuteness himself that night, for he had moved an Amendment on the 19th clause, which it turned out should have been made on the 20th, and now he had made a speech which should have been made on a totally different clause also.

§ MR. SADLEIR
thought the Board of Health should be the responsible party. Respecting the remark made by the hon. Member for Lymington, if the provisions of the Bill were extended to other large towns, of course no one would purpose that in that case the consent should be with the Board of Health. The power would then be given to some other body.

§ MR. LACY
thought a certain amount should be paid by way of fine for the removal of bodies. The public health might be endangered if every man were to take 860 out his wife, to carry her to another burying place.

§ MR. AGLIONBY
thought the hon. Gentleman need be under very little alarm on that point. He was mistaken in supposing that anybody would rush into the churchyard to carry off his wife.

§ LORD ASHLEY
said, in the Cemeteries Companies Bill there was no scale of charges, nor any system of cheek or control on the amount of the fees. However, there was this distinction to be observed, and it was a distinction of great importance as to the framing of the Bill, that here they had no view whatever of profit, and their object was that the fees should be constructed on a scale which was just sufficient to meet the necessary expenses, and no more. It was not required that there should be any profit whatever on which to declare a dividend. In comparing the fees of the existing cemeteries with those proposed under this Bill, he found that the fee of the existing cemeteries for the grave of a pauper, including the burial service, and the digging of the grave, and everything, in short, except that which belonged to the undertaker, was 9s. The fee proposed by this Bill, and which he hoped they might hereafter be enabled to reduce, was 7s. Going to the next class, which was the artisan, whose family defrayed his funeral expenses, the fee of the existing cemeteries might be taken at 1l. 8s. 7d., although the general charge very much exceeded that amount. They proposed, instead of 1l. 8s. 7d., to take 1l. 5s. Then, when they came to the private grave, which involved the freehold, the demand in the existing cemeteries was 5l. 1s. 6d.; they proposed to take 4l. It would be very difficult indeed to impose a maximum of fees of an order above that, and for this reason, that it very often happened the parties wanted certain positions. Some great man wished to be interred in a particular spot, and his relatives wished to be interred about that spot. Very often in some of the cemeteries about London there was a monument, and parties were anxious to be interred about that spot. However, that being the case, and some positions being better than others, he 861 thought it very desirable that in the highest department of fees a discretion should be allowed to the board, because, if there was a great demand for interments in given districts, how was the board to decide? If they were not governed by some rule of this description, they would be charged with jobbery. He thought it far better to make payment the rule, and not leave it to the board to say whether this party or that party should be interred there, but if there was a demand for a particular spot, to make it a matter of payment. He thought that would take away from the board a great degree of responsibility. The House would bear in mind that this table of fees, when constructed, was to be submitted to Parliament every year. It was to be submitted in a report to the Secretary of State, who was to lay that report before Parliament for approval, so that there would be an opportunity every year of revising these fees. This condition would be found under the 69th clause.

§ MR. ALDERMAN SIDNEY
said, the noble Lord was misinformed with respect to the charges of cemeteries. In the first place, the noble Lord stated that the charge for a pauper was 9s. Why, he had been making inquiries of parties conversant with the matter, and he found that in churchyards—

§ LORD ASHLEY
We are not talking about churchyards. I am comparing these fees with the demands of cemetery companies, not with churchyards.

§ MR. ALDERMAN SIDNEY
said, 7s. was the charge made under this Bill for the interment of a pauper. Now, there was no charge whatever made for the interment of paupers in churchyards. And, then, with regard to artisans, the charge in the Abney-park Cemetery was 15s., and in another cemetery he was acquainted with, 12s. 4d. The noble Lord said, the charge under this Bill was to be 27s. He took it for granted that the artisan would think there was very little liberality shown towards him. Then, with regard to the third item, the noble Lord stated that the charge in cemeteries for private graves was 5l. 7s. 6d. Now, the charge universally made for a private grave was 3l. 3s., to which was certainly added a fee of 2l. 2s., but then the grave once purchased, the family had a claim to have other bodies put in it, paying 2l. 2s. only. The charge of 4l., as proposed by the noble Lord, was a great advance on the existing companies.

§ MR. ROEBUCK
wished to know why there should be this regulation of fees. The noble Lord said they did not want a dividend, but merely wanted to pay their expenses. The expenses, he supposed, were first for the salaries of the existing incumbents of parishes, and there was also the expenses of management. [Lord ASHLEY: The purchase of land.] Purchase of land undoubtedly. But the expense of burying a rich man was the same as the expense of burying a pauper. The area in which the body lay was the same for a pauper as for a prince. Why not charge 7s. for every body? If they told him that would not be enough to cover the expenses, then he could understand them, and then he should say they had better come to Parliament for the money.

§ MR. STANFORD
rose to move the Amendment of which he had given notice. Profit not being the object of the board, did not, in his opinion, constitute a sufficient guarantee against improvident expenditure and extravagant charges, and of this the conduct of the Sewers Commission afforded a sufficient example. What did the noble Lord mean by saying that Parliament would have a controlling power over the proceedings of the board? A report would be laid on the table every year, and hon. Members might make their complaints, but the only substantial remedy would be to repeal the Act itself. It Was the duty of the Government, if they wanted the Bill to pass—and he was as anxious as any person that it should pass this Session—to have placed all these restrictions on the Bill. He hoped that hon. Members would support him in the Amendment which he now moved, namely— To add, in page 1, line 12 of the Clause, these words, 'such Fees or Sums having been first submitted to, and authorised by, Parliament.

§ SIR B. HALL
wished to call the noble Lord's attention to the charges made at St. John's Wood burying ground, which was remarkably well conducted. There the charges were—for the clergyman and use of the ground, 4s. 4d.; clerk and sexton, 2s. 6d.; and the hell 1s.—making altogether 7s. 10d. for each interment. Now the noble Lord stated that 7s. would, he hoped, be the minimum charge, and that the interment of an artisan would not cost more than 1l. 5s. It was said this measure would not only improve the sanitary condition of the people, but that the expenses of interment would be much cheaper. 863 In his opinion it was a perfect farce. By whom were the expenses of conveyance to be paid?—out of the fees, or by the relatives of the deceased? Were they to have a railroad or a funeral steamer for the purpose? He apprehended it would be a very disgusting undertaking. However, the public were entitled to have every information relative to the proposed financial affairs. Every one had now power to select any ground for the purpose of interment; but under this Bill the matter was compulsory upon the highest Peer of the realm, as well as the poorest artisan. It was a very arbitrary measure, and there should, at all events, be a schedule of the fees attached to the Bill, in order that the hon. Members might have an opportunity of communicating with their constituents, and ascertaining their opinions on the subject. The noble Lord had very candidly stated that an artisan should pay, under this Bill, some 17s. more than he need pay at present.

§ SIR G. GREY
said, that the hon. Baronet had, in his innocence, made an extraordinary discovery that extramural interment was more expensive than intramural. He took the maximum charge fixed on by the noble Lord, and then selected a churchyard where the charges were cheaper than any other about London. [Sir B. HALL: It is only half-a-crown at St. Pancras.] He was at a loss to know how the matter was to be accomplished for a less sum than that suggested by the noble Lord, unless an application was to be made to the Treasury for some of the public funds in support of the movement.

§ MR. B. OSBORNE
did not know what fee was to be exacted for removing the body of the noble Lord the hon. Member for Bath from the Opposition to the Treasury bench. [Lord Ashley, for the convenience of discussion, was occupying a seat amongst the Ministers.] He believed no fee had been paid at present, but he had been told that a high fee was to be paid for removing the body. The right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department had misunderstood the hon. Baronet the Member for Marylebone, for that hon. Baronet had very fairly adduced the cases of St. Pancras and St. Marylebone, two of the largest parishes which could be selected. The noble Lord said, there would be no profit accruing from the proposed arrangement, and he recommended the plan on the ground of its economy. Now, taking 700 acres to the square mile—[An Hon. MEMBER: Only 864 640 acres]—or taking 640 acres on the average, or taking that amount in round numbers—[Laughter.] The noble Lord should not laugh; or, if he laughed, let him confute him in his figures. Now, he calculated that 60l. an acre would cost 40,000l. for a mile; and allowing six square yards for each grave, and 15s. for the interment, the amount realised would be 375,000l. He should like to know into whoso hands the profit was to go?

§ LORD ASHLEY
said, if there were profits they should be applied to the reduction of the fees. The seven shillings he had already stated would include charges for religious services, digging the grave, and every thing except the conveyance of the bodies. The expenses for religious services very considerably increased the cost of burial. Abney-park had been referred to, but no religious services were ever performed there unless specially required.

§ SIR DE. L. EVANS
said, this was a compulsory measure, and it was very desirable that a schedule of the fees should be attached to the Bill. The noble Lord had merely told the House what he hoped would be the minimum charges. That was very vague. The best way to remove the objections to the measure was to prepare a scale of fees. If they were to remain undefined, the measure should be limited to three years or some other particular period.

§ MR. ALDERMAN SIDNEY
said, the public expected not only the observance of greater decency in the system to be pursued under this measure, but that the interments should be much more economical. This was the gist of the matter, and it should be stated with accuracy. If parishes were to be compelled to pay seven shillings for the interment of every pauper, it would make a great difference in their poor-rates.

§ MR. WAKLEY
thought it a duty which the Government owed to the House, that the clause should be postponed, and a schedule of fees prepared such as could substantially be adopted. The Committee were proceeding upon insufficient data; they had not the materials to warrant them in coming to a positive conclusion. The statements made relative to the cost of burials in various cemeteries were correct; and he had no doubt the cost was equally low in others. The noble Lord the Member for Bath said, he hoped the cost would not exceed 1l. 5s. for the burial of an artisan. But the charge in many parishes, at present, was not half that amount. Then 865 the Board of Health might select burial grounds twenty or thirty miles distant. The Committee would be acting most unjustly towards the parishes if the question were not postponed. He should therefore feel it to be his duty to move that the further consideration of the claim he postponed accordingly.

The CHAIRMAN
said, that the hon. Member for Reading must withdraw his Amendment before that of the hon. Member for Finsbury could be nut.

§ MR. STANFORD
said, that he wished to withdraw his Amendment.

§ MR. ROEBUCK
believed that some misapprehension existed with respect to the Bill, and that the effect would be to make burials less expensive than at present, but for different reasons than had been assigned. There were expenses attendant on matters regulated by this Bill, the grave and all the ceremonies of interment. But there were also the expenses of the undertaker. These the community felt to be heavy and expensive, and not the charges for burial ground and cost of services at the grave. By the regulations of the 27th clause, he hoped a much cheaper mode of conducting funerals would be established, and the public expectation be satisfied. The expenditure would be reduced one-half.

§ SIR B. HALL
asked whether, in addition to the 25s., the friends of an artisan must also pay 6s. 2d. to the clergyman of the parish under the 30th clause?

§ SIR G. GREY
thought his noble Friend had stated very distinctly that the maximum charge of 25s. would include every expense attending the ceremony of interment. The 6s. 2d. would not be in addition to the 25s.

§ MR. AGLIONBY
was favourable to the Bill, but thought the Committee had not sufficient data on which to come to a conclusion that should be satisfactory to the public. Statistical information had been procured, from which a schedule of fees might be prepared, to be brought forward at another stage of the Bill. Some estimate of the expense attending the board ought to be furnished.

§ MR. LACY
said, that in the scheme of the Board of Health the estimate of expenditure was 112,000l. per annum, an amount which could not be realised under the Bill, judging from anything that appeared on the face of it. It seemed to have been thought prudent to avoid introducing a schedule.

§ SIR G. GREY
saw no advantage in the postponement of the clause, as some schedule must be fixed in the first instance. The first cost would be great—he hoped not greater than was anticipated; and the fees, on which the hon. Member for Middlesex calculated so much, would come in very slowly.

§ MR. WYLD
said, that at present every parishioner had a common-law right to interment in the parish churchyard or burial ground. Applying this to paupers, it would be seen that a very large additional cost would be imposed on the parishes—probably not less than 18,000l. for pauper funerals.

§ MR. B. OSBORNE
thought the Committee should know whore the Board of Health proposed to purchase land.

§ LORD ASHLEY
said, the board not being yet properly constituted under this Act, could not take any step for the purchase of land. They were not bound to confine their selection to one or two plots of ground. The probability was, that for some months to come they would be obliged to make use of some of the existing cemeteries. As to other spots in the neighbourhood of London, though the hoard had directed their attention to some, they had not decided on any.

§ MR. D'EYNCOURT
urged the postponement of the Bill until the schedule was prepared.

§ MR. T. DUNCOMBE
wished to ask the noble Lord the Member for Bath if Erith had not been selected as one of the places for metropolitan interments; also, whether steamers were not to be employed to carry the bodies down the river to the place known as "The Happy Land?" He considered the noble Lord's former answers as so uncandid, that he was obliged to ask thus particularly.

§ LORD ASHLEY
said, he should be much obliged to the hon. Gentleman if he would point out anything which had been uncandid in his answers. It was perfectly true that the Board of Health had thought of "The Happy Land," as it was called; the ground at Erith had been the subject of consideration, as well as other places; and an inspection of that and other sites had been directed, but nothing further.

§ LORD R. GROSVENOR
could not understand this extraordinary jealousy of the present Bill and the Board of Health. The great point was to put a stop to intramural burials. With regard to the 867 schedule of fees, who could tell what it would be? He should be glad to see such a schedule annexed to the Act if it would lead to any useful results; but as no one could say what the fees would be, it was necessary to take a very high maximum. The whole question would come before Parliament next year, and then would be the time for the House to call for a schedule of fees.

§ LORD D. STUART
said, the Committee was about to agree to a clause of which they knew nothing at all. They did not even know of whom the Board of Health consisted. The noble Lord the Member for Bath, a man of sanguine temperament, hoped the expense would not be very great; but, like other framers of estimates, it was very probable he might be deceived in his calculations. From the statistics which had been given of Marylebone, it was evident that scheme would be much better carried out by the several parishes; otherwise one would be paying for the expenses of another, and great discontent would be the result. That was a very good reason why the clause should be postponed. He hoped his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury would persevere in his Motion.

§ LORD J. RUSSELL
said, that his noble Friend's speech divided itself into two parts. In the first he stated that it was impossible to give a correct estimate; and in the second he said that the Government were bound to give a very accurate estimate of the cost of burials. With regard to the Motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury, it meant that they were to remain content with the present system. ["No, no!"] If that were not the meaning of it, then there was no reason for postponing the clause. If they were to continue the practice which was so shocking to their feelings, of casting only a small covering of earth over the dead body, no doubt a very small fee might be sufficient. But if they determined on putting an end to that practice, and that the burials should take place at a distance from the metropolis, there must be some means of paying the expenses of the interments. The Board of Health could in some respects cause a diminution of the expenses of interments, but still there was a large expense to be incurred in the purchase of ground, and there was the cost of the funeral service. These expenses must be provided for in some way or other. One way was, by voting a large amount of the public money. 868 No person proposed such a scheme. Another way was, by levying a rate on the different parishes of the metropolis. No one advocated that plan. The only remaining mode, therefore, was, by a system of fees; and then the question arose, what the amount of these fees was to be. He did not think that the Board of Health, or any other body, could determine, previous to experience, what the amount of fees should be; nor did he think that by postponing the clause for three or four days they would be able to obtain sufficient information on that point. That being the case, he thought it better that a discretion as to the amount of fees should be vested in the Board of Health; and as they were not to be a private company, which had to make a profit on burials, but a great public board, he considered such discretion might be safely left in their hands. If they found that the fees they fixed on in the first instance were too high, and left a surplus, they would of course reduce the fees. But as a further security he intended to propose to insert words by which the fees to be fixed were to receive the approbation of one of Her Majesty's Secretaries of State. He would have to give his approbation to the scale of fees, and they might be at any time moved for in Parliament. All that would be asked for was as much as would be sufficient to pay the interest on the sum required for the purchase of the ground in the first place, and to pay for the funeral service in the next place. Of course there must be a larger fee demanded for a choice of spots, and the board would have to take that circumstance into their consideration. He hoped the Committee would assent to the clause with the addition he proposed.

§ MR. ROEBUCK
thought that the question of fees could not be left in better hands than those proposed by the noble Lord.

COLONEL THOMPSON
asked whether the solution of the difficulty was not in the fact, that there was a subsequent clause, 69, which provided that an annual report and abstract of the accounts should be laid before Parliament?

§ MR. T. DUNCOMBE
said, that the Bill required a table of the fees to be publicly exhibited, so that there would be no necessity for waiting till a report was made to Parliament.

§ MR. SADLEIR
said, that he would resist the Amendment, the practical effect of which would be to postpone the operation of the Bill, to the principle of which he 869 was favourable, for twelve months. But it had been estimated that 112,000l. would be required, If that were so, taking this clause in connexion with the 53rd, it was probable that they should have recourse to the rate in addition to the fees. He did not agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary that larger fees would be necessary because the interment was to take place at a greater distance. The distance might increase the funeral expenses, but it had nothing to do with the fees. Indeed he should have thought that the fees would be somewhat less for extramural interments.

§ LORD J. RUSSELL
proposed the addition of the words, "with the approbation of one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State."

§ MR. WAKLEY
supported the Amendment, and begged of the noble Lord to adopt it.

§ LORD J. RUSSELL
said, it seemed to him impossible to lay down any fixed rule of fees, seeing that there must necessarily be a great diversity of charges.

§ SIR B. HALL
inquired of whom the board was to be composed; the salaries, if any, to be paid; the officers; and what the expenses of the board were likely to be?

§ SIR G. GREY
replied, that the board would consist of Lords Seymour and Ashley as unpaid commissioners, with Mr. Chadwick as paid commissioner. It was also contemplated to add a second paid commissioner.

§ LORD D. STUART
wished for some explanations as to the wording of the clause.

§ MR. BRIGHT
said, that as regarded the present clause, they were in danger in running in the opposite extreme, that of economy. At present houses clustered round all the graveyards; but by the present clause all graves should be made 200 yards distant from any house. The result would be, that, taking 200 yards on every side from the grave, they would be com- 870 pelled to purchase twice as much land as they otherwise would. In his opinion, 50 yards' distance between a grave and a house would be quite sufficient for all sanitary regulations, certainly 100 yards would be quite ample for all purposes of health; and therefore if some alteration were not made in the clause, he would move an Amendment to that effect.

§ LORD ASHLEY
observed, that they had been called to account by several scientific gentlemen for limiting the belt of ground to 200 yards, inasmuch as the gases arising from decomposition were most injurious, and also the quality of the water in the various localities should be preserved from contamination. In his opinion 200 yards were the very minimum that could be named.

§ SIR G. GREY
said, that 200 yards had been provided for by the Cemetery Act.

§ MR. BRIGHT
did not sec why 200 yards should be imported into this Bill because it was in the Cemetery Act. He hoped the clause would be allowed to stand over for the present, in order that the proper parties might be consulted on the subject, and then, if the 200 yards should be considered necessary, of course he should withdraw his opposition to the clause. He warned the Government against implicitly taking and relying upon the opinion of scientific men, inasmuch as that class of persons would very probably involve the metropolis in immense expense.