EXTRA MURAL INTERMENTS BILL. (Hansard, 8 May 1850)

§ MR. LACY
rose to move the Second Beading of the Extra Mural Interments Bill, which, he was satisfied, embodied the best mode of securing interments without the metropolis that could at present be adopted. He was convinced that the most effectual way of taking the dead out of town 20 or 30 miles was to do it through the medium of railways. If they adopted the ordinary hearse conveyances they could go only a few miles, and in a short time it would be found that they had a belt of graveyards surrounding the metropolis; whereas if they went out 20 or 30 miles, they would only be spots here and there. He was of opinion that every person ought to have a grave for himself, and one acre of land would not contain more than 1,500 corpses. If 60,000 corpses a-year were to be taken from London—and that would soon be the average—not less than 40 acres of land would be required annually. Only let the House consider, if this was the case, what, in a few years, would be the difficulties experienced with regard to land. The Bill proposed by the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary had for its object to carry out the recommendations of the report issued by the Board of Health; but he (Mr. Lacy) thought it would not be difficult to show the utter impracticability of the plan proposed by the board. Their report pointed to a great national cemetery down the river, including Abbeywood, Belvidere- 1272 park, &c., amounting in all to 400 acres; but that extent of burying ground would not serve for more than 10 years; and in the course of 100 years, about 4,000 acres of land would be required. Then it was proposed to take all the bodies in vessels down the river; and the report spoke of this mode of conveyance as superior on account of the quietude of the waters. Now, he contended, that it would very often be impossible to preserve that order and decorum on board a boat which was desirable on such solemn occasions. Such a plan he conceived to be quite impracticable; and in opposition to the statement of the water being the must quiet mode of conveyance, he needed only refer to the crowded state of the river, and the numerous pleasure parties with bands of music which were constantly upon it. What would be the feeling of these mourners and attendants on the 40 or 50 corpses borne on a steamer down the river on going by or meeting these pleasure parties? Such a mode of conveyance was not comparable to that of the railway train. The report of the Board of Health Commissioners stated that a singularly eligible site for a cemetery had been found at a sufficient distance from any town or village (meaning Abbeywood), and which rose by a gentle ascent from the bank. He was able to state, however, that, before they could approach the site from the river, a considerable quantity of marsh, full a mile and a half, intervened, and the other ground was so broken that it would be almost impossible to carry bodies over it. The report stated that the water was not got but at a depth of 270 feet; but that was a mistake; for he could show, on the authority of Mr. Barlow and other eminent engineers, that water was constantly flowing out of the hill, under such circumstances as proved that it could not be at such a depth, and that it did so to the extent of 1,500,000 gallons daily. His proposal was that, under certain limitations, railway companies should be allowed to purchase waste lands, and on those lands to establish cemeteries. He was aware that some persons might be ready to characterise this as merely a railway job; but he was not instigated by any one, and he was not disposed to pay much attention to such remarks. He had been a humble promoter of the railway system, and had assisted in bringing it to its present height; and though he had lost a good deal, yet he did not regret it. He thought that advantage ought to be 1273 taken of this great system for burying the dead; and as the report referred to the subject of railway transit, as though collisions were frequent, he might mention that during the last six months, 35,000,000 of people had each had a journey by railway, and all of them came back with their lives safe—the only casualties being a limb or so broken. When he first brought forward this Bill, he had no idea that any measure would have been introduced by the Government on the subject. He had introduced a clause into the Bill to refer it to the Railway Commissioners to determine whether such lands as might have been sought to be purchased by the directors should or should not be taken for the purposes of a cemetery. The system suggested by the Government would impose a higher charge upon parties who had to bury a poor man than if his Bill were adopted, when a much lower charge would be made. The Bill proposed by the Government applied only to the metropolis; but his Bill had reference to the whole of the kingdom. Upwards of 200 towns had asked to be placed under sanitary regulations; that showed that something was wanting in the country. He would ask the House to let this Bill be read a second time, and be referred to a Select Committee, together with the Bill of the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department, in order to see whether any good could be made out of the two. The scheme of the Government suggested that a poor man might be buried for fifty shillings, but be calculated that it might be done for 1l.

§ MR. ALDERMAN SIDNEY
seconded the Motion. The measure which had been introduced by the Government on this subject was open to many objections, and he certainly preferred the course which was re-commanded by his hon. Friend. The enormous expense which would be incurred by the plan proposed by Government, was a Strong objection to its being adopted. If any measure of this kind were to be made the subject of legislation, it would fee imperative on the Government to avail itself of railway conveyance. He strongly objected to the provision which made the payment of any deficiency attending the Government measure to be provided for out of the poor-rates. He did not presume that the Bill of his hon. Friend was per- 1274 fect; but he hoped it would be made so by its being referred to a Committee together with the Government measure.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
entertained the strongest objection to the second reading of this Bill. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin had criticised the report of the Board of Health; but as another opportunity would be afforded for discussing that subject, as well as the measure which had been proposed by his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, he would not now touch upon either of those topics. The question at present before the House was, whether the Bill of his hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin should be read a second time. Now, that Bill appeared to him (Mr. Labouchere) to involve a principle which made it impossible for the House to accede to it. Even if the House agreed in opinion with the hon. Gentleman that the Bill introduced by the Secretary of State for the Home Department ought not to be sanctioned, he (Mr. Labouchere) should still object to the present Bill. The Bill empowered railway companies, with the sanction of the Railway Commissioners, to undertake and conduct the business heretofore carried on by cemetery companies. He would not enter into a discussion of the sanitary branch of the subject; but this he would say, that it was contrary to all principle to allow railway companies to embark in any description of traffic different from that which was the real and legitimate object of such companies. Even the transmission of passengers by steamboats was considered a departure from the proper functions of a railway company; it was impossible, therefore, to allow such a company to perform all the duties of a cemetery company. He felt, therefore, bound to oppose the second reading of the Bill. He might just observe that, in all his consultations with persons connected with railways—including railway directors—he had not met with any one who did not altogether repudiate such a measure as this. He should, therefore, move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

List of the AYES.
Blair, S.	TELLERS.
Macnaghten, Sir E.	Lacy, H. C.
O'Connor, F.	Sidney, Mr. Ald.
Stanford, J. F.