METROPOLITAN INTERMENTS BILL. (Hansard, 11 June 1850)

The CHAIRMAN
said, they were at the 30th clause, in which he understood the Government had some amendments to introduce.

§ SIR G. GREY
said, he proposed to introduce certain amendments in this clause (the clause giving compensation to clergymen), which he conceived would meet the objections that had been raised against it. It had been decided, when the House was last in Committee, that the compensation should not be limited to existing incumbents; but the amount of that compensation, and the distribution of it, were still open to consideration. The House seemed generally to assent to the principle of giving a just and fair compensation to existing incumbents. With regard to future incumbents, it had been thought necessary that some payment should be continued to them, with a view to obviate the deficiency of income which would be caused in many parishes were these fees withdrawn. In several parishes these fees formed a considerable portion of the income of the incumbent, especially of that class of the clergy for whom great sympathy had always been expressed in that House, the working clergy. The average payment on each interment had been fixed at 6s. 2d., which would be below the general average at present received, and would therefore operate with some degree of injustice in some cases. He had received communications from several clergymen, stating that they were in the receipt of fees of a much larger amount; while those received in the more populous parishes were considerably less. The effect of the Amendment which he now proposed was this, he would leave the gross amount of compensation untouched; he still proposed that 6s. 2d. should be the fee payable on each interment, for bodies removed from any of the metropolitan parishes; but, instead of its being paid in the first instance to the clergyman of the parish whence the body was brought, the fees would be carried to a separate account, and that account would be charged, in the first instance, with the payment of salaries to the chaplains, then the incumbents would receive out of it a compensation calculated on their average receipts from burial fees for the five years next before the passing of this Act. Therefore, so far from any of the clergy receiv- 1069 ing more than they had hitherto received, the amount would be regulated by their past receipts; and the board would be enabled, with the consent of the Treasury, to award to incumbents who had been receiving a higher amount, a sum calculated on the average of their last five years' receipts. That would be strictly in accordance with the principle on which compensation was generally awarded; and he believed it would remove one great objection on the part of the clergy to a provision which certainly would have operated with injustice. With regard to future incumbents, he thought it would be necessary to continue the payments; at the same time full power would be given to reduce the amount on the death of an incumbent, should circumstances be found to justify a reduction. If this proposal were carried into effect, it was probable that, with the increasing population in the manufacturing districts, there would ultimately be a surplus to divide out of the fund arising from the payment of those fees. Various propositions had been made for the disposal of that surplus; but he would not then enter into it. He would move the insertion of words in accordance with the alteration he had stated at the end of line 5.

§ SIR B. HALL
was glad of the alteration, which he thought would do away with much of the objection to the clause as it stood. Its effect would have been, had the compensation been given by fees on each body, to double the income of some of the clergy in about forty years; for in the parishes of St. Marylebone and St. Pancras the population had doubled in the last forty years. He had been anxious to prevent one clergyman receiving the whole of the fees, and would move a proviso to that effect, requiring a separate fund to be kept for every parish. Those parishes near the centre of the metropolis could not increase much in population; the great increase was in those on the outskirts; the proviso was therefore necessary to prevent the amount paid to the incumbents of the latter parishes from continually increasing, and ultimately doubling or quadrupling itself. This proviso would prevent the amount paid to any incumbent ever exceeding the average of his receipts for the five years preceding the passing of the Act.

§ SIR G. GREY
would take time to consider the proposition of the hon. Baronet.

COLONEL THOMPSON
said, he wanted to propound distinctly a principle which had only been as it were accidentally men- 1070 tioned; and that was, that the number of clergy must or ought, if there was any reason in the thing at all, to keep pace with the increase of population. If, for in stance, the population in any extensive district was ever quadrupled, it was plain the number of clergymen must increase in something like the same proportion. If he was asked why he put himself forward on this occasion, he would say it was, because he thought that an unfair idea had gone forth, that the clergy of the Establishment were opposed to the contemplated reforms. His personal experience had been exaetly the contrary. He recently attended a public meeting in a metropolitan borough on this subject, the chairman of which meeting was a clergyman of the Established Church, and a number of others were present and assisting; and they said very fairly, that they were aware their incomes might be affected by the present measure, and hoped some care might be taken of them; but they would not submit to the imputation that they were opposed to the contemplated reforms.

§ MR. ALDERMAN SIDNEY
concurred in the propriety of compensating the present incumbents, but doubted the accuracy of the calculation whereby 6s. 2d. had been arrived at as the average amount of fees now payable. The inquiries he had made showed the amount to be much smaller in many parishes. He wished to know if the amount was to include compensation for the hatbands and scarfs now received.

§ SIR G. GREY
said, the 6s. 2d. was not the average of any one parish, but of the whole. In populous parishes, the average of fees was much lower; in others higher. The matter of hatbands and scarfs had never entered into his consideration.

§ LORD D. STUART
would refer to the evidence of the Bishop of London, in 1843, in proof of the importance of scarfs and hatbands as a source of revenue to the clergy. Was the five years' average to be calculated on a sum inclusive or exclusive of those receipts? He also wished to know who was to have the disposal of the surplus, if any should be left after compensating the incumbents?

§ SIR G. GREY
said, the average would be calculated on the number of funerals, and the number of fees received, exclusive of any presents to the clergymen. The disposal of the surplus, after paying the chaplains and compensating the clergy, would be applied for church purposes in connexion with the growing population.

§ MR. B. OSBORNE
said, the evidence taken, before the Select Committee in 1843 showed that the vicars received more "fittings," as they were called, than the curates. It was a mistake to say that the clergy had never been hostile to sanitary reforms; they were the parties who had most stood in their way; for, like lawyers, they would never teach their own profession with a reforming hand. The Bishop of London, in his evidence, stated that he had never enjoyed better health than when he resided in Bishopsgate-street, near the churchyard of St. Helen's. The same noble Prelate also stated that the "fittings" received by the vicars were purchased by the undertakers, on an average, for 10s.; while the curates only received about 2s. 6d. for theirs. He therefore wished to know whether there was to be a sort of sliding scale of compensation, according to the amount which had been received by the different parties in the shape either of fees or "fittings."

§ LORD ASHLEY
having had personal communication with the clergy on the subject of the Bill, was bound to say that as a body they had shown the greatest desire to assist in the advancement of this measure, even at the expense of their own fees. The clergy, in fact, were entitled to a fee of 8s. for each funeral; but in order that they should not stand in the way of the Bill, they had consented to take the 6s. 2d., as proposed by Government, and he was therefore bound to acknowledge with admiration and gratitude the assistance which they had rendered this great measure.

§ LORD R. GROSVENOR
said, he wished to make one observation on a subject which had been referred to by his hon. Colleague. He meant the salubrity of graveyards. A few weeks ago three grave gentlemen who had invested capital in funeral paraphernalia waited upon him to point out the injustice which the measure would inflict upon them. They insisted that there was no necessity whatever for it, and scouted the very idea of a churchyard being at all unhealthy. In proof of this they wished him to go to a neighbouring church and see the sexton, whose children lived in the yard, and were remarkable for their roseate and healthy appearance. He, however, declined the invitation, much to the disappointment of the deputation, who seemed to think that the best place a worn-out Member could repair to at the close of a fatiguing Ses- 1072 sion was not to a salubrious park in the country, but to some lodging house in the immediate neighbourhood of a metropolitan churchyard.

§ LORD D. STUART
said, it was the custom of the House to print amendments before they were agreed to. He knew that it was not absolutely necessary; but in a difficult clause like this, the custom ought to be enforced to enable hon. Members to understand it.

§ LORD R. GROSVENOR
said, it would only waste time to print the clause, and he therefore hoped his noble Friend would not press his proposal.

§ MR. ALDERMAN COPELAND
said, he had great objection to the 30th clause with respect to the amount of compensation. He would ask the promoters of the Bill if they thought they were dealing fairly with the public? The rate of 6s. 2d. for each interment would very greatly increase the amount of burial fees to be paid. Taking Shoreditch, he found the average amount of fees on each burial was 2s. 4d. In Islington it was, certainly, 6s. 6d. In Bethnal-green it sank to 1s. 6d., and in Lambeth to 3s. 6d. Now was the right hon. Baronet prepared to increase the fees of burials in those districts where, though the people were poor, they still took an honest pride in burying their own dead, from 1s. 6d. to 6s. 2d.? It would have the effect of arising the expense of interment fees very materially indeed to all but the pauper classes. In Bethnal Green the increase would be 400 per cent. He would venture to enter into a statistical argument with the noble Lord at the head of the Board of Health, and to maintain that instead of 8s. being the average amount, 4s. was more correct, and that with respect to all classes. He would urge upon the Government to lower the sum of 6s. 2d. to 4s. 4d., which he was convinced was a much more just amount.

§ SIR G. GREY
said, that he believed the statistics of the noble Lord the Member for Bath were the most correct, and he could not consent to lower the standard.

§ LORD D. STUART
said, he must again put the question which had not yet been answered, and that was whether the Board of Health was to have the disposal of the surplus fund which it was expected might perhaps accrue, and if not, who was to have the disposal of it?

§ SIR G. GREY
said, that it would be devoted to make some provision for the 1073 spiritual aid of the large and growing population of those districts. He thought the principle was one which was well worthy of being entertained by the Committee.

§ LORD D. STUART
said, the right hon. Baronet had stated the objects of the fund, but had not mentioned who was to have the disposal of it.

§ SIR G. GREY
could not answer that question at present.

§ SIR B. HALL
thought the House ought to confine compensation for burial fees to the number of burials of persons who had resided within the parish and had been buried within it. He begged to repeat what he had stated on a former occasion, that the metropolitan clergy had acted in the most objectionable manner with regard to encouraging the interment of persons who were strangers in the parish. [Mr. B. OSBORNE: Speak louder.] It was utterly impossible for him to speak louder. He had addressed thousands of persons within the borough which he represented, and his voice had been pretty well heard by them. The fact that he could not make himself heard in that House, showed the necessity of appointing a Committee to see what could be done with the House to remedy this defect. Some of the clergy of London had made a traffic of their burial grounds, and when they found that the fees were too high they lowered them, in order to induce parties to bring a greater number of bodies for interment than the ground ought to have been made to hold. And yet the House, by this clause, was about to give compensation to persons who had practised this improper trafficking. The disgusting scenes which had taken place in St. Giles's Cemetery, Old St. Pancras-road, had been given in evidence. Sometimes, when they buried a poor person, they threw a little earth over him, but as soon as the burial was over, and the mourners gone, the coffin was removed to a neighbouring vault. In 1846 there were 896 deaths in the parish of St. Giles, but there were 2,323 burials in the ground to which he was referring. In 1847 the deaths were 1,298, and the burials 2,877; in 1848 the deaths were 1,111, and the burials 3,578; while for one-half of 1849 the deaths were 573, and the burials, 3,440. A case could be proved in which a body was entirely broken up, the head being separated from the other parts, and the whole in this disgusting con- 1074 dition put into a wheelbarrow and removed to another part of the ground, where they were thrown into a hole. This was for the purpose of making room for others; yet the rector, when under examination, described the cemetery as in an admirable state. It was indeed notorious that inducements were held out to people to bury in this ground in order to increase as much as possible the fees; and the success which attended these efforts was shown by the great number of burials compared with the deaths in the parish which he had just pointed out to the House. Indeed, there was a part of the ground kept in reserve for the bodies of the rich, as an inducement to the people of the better class. Now, these things were done under the sanction of the rector himself, the Rev. Mr. Tyler. The sexton of the rev. gentleman, the rector of St. Giles, began his life as a soldier, was afterwards a parson, then he became sexton to this rev. gentleman who made those exactions, and then he became, as the natural course, an undertaker and stonemason. It was impossible for him to think of compensating a clergyman in the way proposed by the Bill, who had resorted to such practices as he had pointed out for the purpose of increasing his fees; and, therefore, on the bringing up of the report, he would move a clause for the purpose of dealing with such cases.

§ SIR G. GREY
said, that he had no knowledge of the facts to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but he had known the Rev. Dr. Tyler for a long time, and, from what be knew of that gentleman's character, he believed that he was incapable of giving his sanction to any such proceedings as had been detailed by the hon. Gentleman. If any parties had been guilty of the facts stated, they would be liable to be proceeded against for a misdemeanour. He did not know whether the hon. Gentlemen was misinformed as to his facts, but he felt assured that he was misinformed as to the Rev. Dr. Tyler's having any connexion with them.

§ SIR B. HALL
said, that when an inquiry was ordered by the Board of Health, Dr. Tyler objected to the press being admitted, and to have any report of the evidence appear in the newspapers. It came out, however, on the evidence of one of the gravediggers, that the practice was to pretend to fill up the grave whilst the mourners were present, but as soon as they were gone, the bodies were removed to a family vault to make room for others. He 1075 should certainly object to give any compensation in such gross cases.

§ MR. GOULBURN
said, it was not very likely that persons would send dead bodies from neighbouring parishes to be interred in the burial ground of St. Giles, if the practices referred to by the hon. Gentleman had been going on.

§ SIR B. HALL
said, that the public had not been aware of them till they came out in the inquiry which took place in November last.

§ MR. WAKLEY
said, that all that had been stated by his hon. Friend the Member for Marylebone was true; but he believed the Rev. Dr. Tyler was not aware of what was going on till the inquiry took place, for the funeral service was performed by the rev. sexton. He would ask the noble Lord the Member for Bath, whether he was not aware of the facts, as a Member of the Board of Health?

§ LORD ASHLEY
was understood to say that he had no knowledge whatever of the facts, beyond the circumstance that the bodies were removed to a family vault.

§ MR. BRIGHT
said, there appeared to be little doubt that this reverend soldier and stonemason had been carrying on a trade in this burying ground. He understood that this graveyard was purchased for the parish by the funds of the parish, levied on the ratepayers for the purpose. And such being the case, it did appear a monstrous thing that the ratepayers should be called on to pay the money to purchase the burial ground, and then that persons should be invited from the surrounding parishes to bury their dead in this graveyard—that the clergymen should put into their pockets the proceeds of this system, and then, when this Bill passed, that they should be empowered to receive in perpetuity—so long as these impostures and evils were permitted—a sum equivalent to what they had received on an average of the last five years. Why, they were trading on the capital and expenditure of the parish; and it appeared astonishing to him that such a system should be suffered to continue. Perhaps he as a Dissenter had not so much right to complain; but he could not understand how Churchmen could tolerate such a system in their Church. A system like that only made him wish that every Churchman should carry a parson on his back till the last day of his life.

§ SIR B. HALL
gave notice that, on the 1076 bringing up of the report, he would move that no compensation be given to parish clerks and sextons. The abominations practised in some of the metropolitan graveyards were truly revolting. It was notorious that in St. Pancras graveyard coffins were deposited within nine inches of the surface. It also appeared by the evidence of a woman residing in the locality, who had been examined before the Committee, that on Friday the 19th of November, whilst looking through a back window she saw two men working in the graveyard—one engaged in dissevering a human body, and the other in making a hole in the ground in which to deposit the mutilated remains, which were finally huddled on a wheelbarrow and thrown into the hole. The witness also stated that she had no doubt the body was one interred some five weeks previously.

COLONEL THOMPSON
was anxious to keep au courant with the arguments of hon. Members around him, but found it difficult. Were these tales of horror brought forward to induce them to make all possible haste with the Bill? On one point, however, he felt a difficulty. There was a story told of a merry monarch, who put the question to the Royal Society, why a dead fish weighed more than a living one? The Society, it was stated, occupied a considerable time in endeavouring to solve the problem, and at last thought of asking whether the fact was so to begin with. Now he would like to know, as a simple mathematical question, how much less ground it took to bury the parts of a body than the whole? He could not help thinking the hon. Member had yielded to the pleasing horror attendant on a frightful story, and had allowed his imagination to run away with his powers of examination.

§ SIR E. BUXTON
thought the fees of graveyards should be limited to those members of families interred within them, and that the fees accruing from the interments of strangers ought to be appropriated to those parishes that were in need of them.

§ LORD D. STUART
stated his determination to oppose the clause, as being most objectionable, and involving the abolition of a constitutional principle—the principle of self-government. The clause gave power to the Commissioners to levy a rate of 1d. in the pound on the inhabitants of 1077 the metropolis; and be called on the Committee to resist that, as being unjust and oppressive, and also because they had the authority of the promoters of the Bill for saying it was unnecessary. The objections to the clause were so obvious that every man must be struck with them; and he, therefore, considered the Committee would not be doing its duty if it did not endeavour to reject the clause. So strongly did he feel on the matter, that he felt bound to take the sense of the Committee on it.

§ SIR B. HALL
said, the tax thus levied would realise some 35,000l. a year. If the Government were anxious to carry out the object of their Bill—as he believed they were—why not allow the parochial districts to regulate their own affairs? It was, therefore, his intention to move, that "Vestries acting under local Acts may provide burial grounds at their own expense, with the sanction of the Board of Health."

§ MR. T. DUNCOMBE
wished to know how much money the promoters of the Bill expected to derive from this penny rate, the proceeds of which were to be placed at the disposal of an irresponsible board. He objected to the clause altogether, as one that was giving to an irresponsible board the power of taxation, a right that belonged only to the House of Commons, as the representatives of the people. He maintained that they were exceeding their power in thus transferring to another body the right to impose taxes. It was to be a penny in the pound this year, but it might be twopence next year; and it would be found that Dissenters as well as Churchmen had to pay, for there was no exemption. There was no precedent for so unconstitutional an act as this on the part of the House of Commons.

§ MR. STANFORD
thought the rate should be a halfpenny in the pound instead of a penny, and moved an Amendment to that effect; but, after some conversation, finding no support in the House, the hon. Member withdrew it.

§ SIR G. PECHELL
objected to both halfpence and pence. The system of entrusting taxation to an irresponsible board was most disagreeable to all classes, and he should therefore oppose the clause.

§ MR. ALDERMAN SIDNEY
complained that the rate would operate unequally in many of the Loudon parishes if the valuation was to be that acted upon in assessing the county rate.

§ SIR B. HALL
then moved the proviso giving power to vestries to provide burial grounds at their own expense.

§ SIR G. GREY
hoped it would not be necessary for the board to have recourse to the rating clause; but it was clear that, if the fees did not meet the expenses, it would be necessary to have some other mode of providing the necessary funds to fall back upon, otherwise the whole machinery might come to a dead lock. The propriety of having a central board, rather than leaving the whole matter to parochial management, had been amply discussed, and very substantial reasons given why a central board ought to be preferred. As to the remarks which had been made with reference to the unconstitutional character of the rate, he must remind the House that the object was to substitute burial grounds for the existing churchyards in the various parishes, and that, though the machinery by which the rate was to be raised might be new, yet there was nothing new in the imposition of the rate itself. He was certainly surprised that the hon. Member for Marylebone should propose to give power to the parochial authorities to provide burial places after the statements they had heard from him relative to one of the parochial churchyards. He would certainly oppose the proviso he had moved, and he hoped the House would give its sanction to the clause.

§ LORD D. STUART
then moved the rejection of the clause.

§ MR. T. D'EYNCOURT
begged to remind hon. Members that this was a model Bill, and that their own constituencies would eventually, as well as the inhabitants of London, be subjected to this tax.

§ MR. WAKLEY
said, the noble Lord the Member for Bath had stated, that he did not believe it would be necessary for the Board of Health to resort to this tax. Now, the noble Lord must have made that statement on calculations made by the board; and what, therefore, he would suggest was, that this clause should be postponed for the present, or, as he thought, until the next Session, in order that they might have more information on the subject. If it should be proved that the regulations of the board could not be carried into effect without this additional outlay, he believed there would be no hos- 1079 tility in or out of the House to such a proposition.

§ MR. S. CRAWFORD
opposed the clause on great constitutional principles. This Bill was to be confined to the metropolitan districts, but he objected to a precedent of this nature.