BURIAL GROUNDS—QUESTION. (Hansard, 23 March 1855)

§ MR. APSLEY PELLATT
said, he considered the question as to the burial of the dead of so important a nature, that he thought it right to take this opportunity to ask the Government how they intended to deal with the 60,000 deaths that annually occurred in London. There were but eight cemeteries in the neighbourhood of London, which could not take more than 20,000 annually. There had been 500 burial grounds closed in the country and 150 within the bills of mortality. He considered that the Dissenters were unjustly dealt with, with regard to consecrated ground. In one case that had come under his knowledge a charge was made 986 of 5l. for interment in consecrated ground, out of which 2l. was paid to the clergyman; and the same charge was made to the Dissenters, though they had not the services of the clergyman. He thought that the burial boards were sowing the seeds of dissension. In France and Germany there was no distinction whatever in the national cemeteries. Not so in England, for the law said expressly that a Dissenter should not be buried in consecrated ground, and therefore they were excommunicated in Protestant England. Ireland had an Act of Parliament, passed in the reign of George III., by which the cemeteries were common to all. If the rector refused to bury, he must state his grounds of refusal to the bishop and the Lord Lieutenant. Practically there was no exclusion whatever. Dissenters had no objection to consecrated ground; they thought that consecration did neither good nor evil, but they thought it right that they should have the liberty of burying their friends in consecrated ground, though they did happen to be Dissenters. In many parts of the country great inconvenience had been caused by the closing of burial grounds, and in some cases the bodies had to be conveyed many miles. Then there was another question—the question of compensation to the owners of burial grounds. There was a person named Jones, whose father left him a freehold (New Bunhill Fields) which was used as a burial ground, and brought him in 500l. a year; and now, the ground being closed, he was in a state of penury. There was another case at Manchester. Dr. Burton erected a church at considerable expense, and he had a burial ground which brought him in from 400l. to 500l. a year in fees. All at once it was closed, because it was within the limits of the borough of Manchester. But was that a reason for robbing a man of his rights? In such cases he considered that there ought to be compensation. With regard to consecration, he thought it ought to be taken altogether out of the hands of the bishops.

§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON
said, he did not rise to answer the speech of the hon. Member, but merely to answer one part of it which resembled a question—namely, as to where the dead of large towns were to be buried? His answer was that no burial grounds had been shut up in the metropolis or any other large towns, unless on its being shown that it was dangerous to health. In the greater number of parishes 987 new burial-grounds had (to their honour) been provided, while others chose to make arrangements with the cemetery companies, as at Woking Common and other places. He had no reason to suppose that either in London or in the country any difficulty would be found in procuring sufficient space for burials, if only the different parishes did their duty.

MR. FITZROY
said, he had had some experience in the working of the new Act, and he was in possession of some facts that would have controverted the statements of his hon. Friend; but as his hon. Friend had taken the House by surprise in bringing the subject forward to-night, he was not at that moment prepared with the documents. He was prepared yesterday, if the hon. Member could have persuaded the House to make a House to hear him. Of course it was impossible to carry these matters accurately in one's head, but he would state some facts from memory. Now with regard to the provision for the interment of the dead. In the first place, cemeteries had been provided by the City, for the whole of the parishes in the city of London, comprising a population of 120,000. The large parishes of St. Marylebone, St. Pancras, St. George's (Hanover-square), Lambeth, St. Margaret's, and St. Anne's, which contained an aggregate population amounting to 550,000 persons, had also provided new cemeteries. In the country the measure had also been very extensively accepted, and though he could not then repeat the list which he had prepared for use on the former evening, he might say that there were no fewer than from seventy to eighty places which had already obtained ground for cemeteries under the Act. With respect to the Act passed last year, to enable town councils to take measures on the subject, he could only say that the provisions of the Act had been very generally entertained. From the towns of New Windsor, Salisbury, Chichester, and several other towns, applications had been received for the purposes of proceeding under the provisions of the Act. He was surprised to hear from the hon. Member that the parochial system introduced by the Act inflicted any injury or hardship upon the dissenting body. The provision for the ground was made out of the poor rate, and consequently, Dissenters and Churchmen contributed in equal proportions. The question of compensation was a difficult but not a new one; it had been fully dis- 988 cussed in the year 1852, upon the motion of his right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of the Board of Works, who proposed to provide compensation out of the Consolidated Fund. So averse was the House, however, to the scheme, that the right hon. Gentleman was not able to find so much as a teller for his motion. Besides, was it fair to compensate persons for having so long kept up a dangerous nuisance? Nothing could be more unwise than to unsettle people's minds by inducing them to believe that fresh legislation was intended: and as no complaints had been made by parties who had carried the Act into execution, he hoped that no further steps would be taken on the subject.

§ MR. HADFIELD
said, he by no means thought that the subject was closed, and he considered that the House ought to be much obliged to his hon. Friend (Mr. Pellatt) for having taken so much trouble to bring the subject before them. His hon. Friend had in effect been counted out twice upon this motion.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, he thought the question referred to by the hon. Member was an important one, and deserving the attention of the House.

§ MR. MALINS
said, he had had many applications made to him by clergymen who had accepted benefices within the metropolis on the understanding that they were to receive certain emoluments for the support of their families, and whose income had been seriously diminished by the operation of the Act in question. For instance, one reverend gentleman had been appointed to a living of 700l. a year; and had insured his life and made provision for his family on the supposition that that income would be secured to him. The effect of the Act, however, had been to cut down his stipend to 300l. a year, and he was thus reduced almost to a state of penury. The clergy were anxious to know whether it was intended to make them any compensation; and certainly it seemed right that, as the measure was passed for the public benefit, the public should bear the loss.

§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON
said, that by the first Bill it was proposed to make provision for giving compensation; but the proposition was not agreed to by the House, and the other Bill was brought in without any provision for compensation at all. It might be hard upon some persons, but he thought it was the duty of the parishes, if of anybody, to compensate the 989 clergy for the loss of income they had sustained.