HL Deb 13 June 1837 vol 38 cc1439-41
The Bishop of London

had two petitions to present. One was from certain incumbents within the metropolis, and the other was from the large parish of St. Pancras. It was within the knowledge of their Lordships that many of these schemes had been presented to Parliament, and two or three had passed into law; and he need hardly inform their Lordships that great hardships had resulted to incumbents in London from what they had already done. Let him not be understood as disposed to stand in the way of great public improvements, as he was at once willing to admit that the practice of burying the dead in the most crowded parts of the metropolis was injurious to health, and in many instances an infringement upon decency. But their Lordships had refused to pass the Bill for establishing the cemetery in the Harrow road, without first providing that a certain compensation should be allotted to the clergymen from whose parishes the dead were removed to the cemetery. He was sorry, however, to see that an objection prevailed amongst many of their Lordships to awarding compensation to clergymen under these circumstances. Their Lordships ought to be aware that in several parishes a great part of the income of the clergymen arose from fees, and more especially from mortuary fees. Many new parishes had been created a century or somewhat more ago, which were wholly unendowed, it being supposed that owing to the great increase of the population a sufficient income would be raised for the clergymen by fees. By the institution of these cemeteries in every direction, and thus taking away a great portion of such fees, they were doing, he would not say an injustice to the clergy, but they were inflicting a hardship upon them, and he therefore thought that the clergy were not to blame if, with reference to the passing of those measures, they paid some attention to their own interests. He knew a particular parish within his own gift, the income of the incumbent of which had been already reduced by 150l. a-year, and that diminution was still going on. This, he could assure the House, was not by any means a solitary instance. When such facts were proved in Committee he trusted that their consideration would have due influence with their Lordships. There were other considerations of a moral and religious nature, such as the improper and promiscuous interment of the dead, which he was sure would have due weight with their Lordships, and induce them not to go too far, and not to carry the provisions of these measures to an extent which was not required by considerations of a public nature. Their Lordships all knew in their melancholy experience what a control was exercised over the minds of the survivors when the friend or relative whom they loved was consigned to the tomb amid the solemnities of our holy religion. He was sure from his own observation, and he spoke more with reference to the lower and middling classes, that the fact of the clergyman performing the last rights to his parishioners became a powerful bond of friendship and regard with surviving friends of the deceased. This bond was effectually severed by the parties burying the dead in cemeteries. He was fully aware that this consideration had weight rather with reference to its moral aspect or equitable claim, than to any legal right; but he was anxious to press it upon their Lordships both on behalf of the clergyman and the parishioners. He had no hesitation in saying that if these cemeteries were suffered to multiply, without affording a reasonable compensation to the clergy, there must be either some legislative grant, or the voluntary system must be adopted in some parishes for the maintenance of their clergy; ay, for many incumbents who were now considered the richest in the metropolis. The prayer of the petitions was, that the petitioners might be heard by counsel against the Necropolis Cemetery Bill.

Petitions laid on the table.

Back to