LONDON NECROPOLIS AND NATIONAL MAUSOLEUM BILL. (Hansard, 8 June 1852)

§ The EARL of SHAFTESBURY
rose to oppose the second reading. He thought their Lordships ought to pause before they gave their assent to this measure. They ought at least to satisfy themselves as to the probable success of the proposed plan; for by rashly increasing the number of these joint-stock companies, which must of necessity be broken up before any general system of extramural burial could be carried out, they would greatly increase the difficulties against which the Government would have to contend. There were several objections to this particular scheme. In the first place, there was the great distance of this necropolis from the metropolis. Then it was quite clear that, as soon as the graveyards of the metropolis were finally closed, there would be a great competition among the existing cemetery companies in order to secure the greatest number of corpses. The calculation of this company was, that it would be able to secure for itself one-half, if not two-thirds, of the corpses of persons dying in and about London. He considered that this was an exaggerated calculation. If it gained anything like such a number, it would find itself under the necessity of bringing half the number of those corpses to the Waterloo station from the distance of six, seven, or eight miles, from the different districts of London. If it could not secure 30,000 or 40,000 corpses annually, it would not be able to meet its preliminary expenses. He protested also against the 191 passing of this Bill into law, on the ground that it was subversive of the principle of the Act which the House had passed last year (the Metropolitan Interment Act), upon the discussion of which a most emphatic opinion was expressed against any private speculation in the burial of the dead. The plan proposed by this company was exceedingly objectionable; and he was therefore most anxious to lay before their Lordships his objections to this measure, and to call their attention to the consequences which would result under its provisions, if it were passed into law. First of all, he understood that the corpses were to be collected in great numbers, and were to be deposited in the dry arches under the Waterloo station, until it suited the railway company to convey them to the necropolis. They were to be sent to the station at night; the mourners were not to be allowed to accompany them, but were to meet them at the cemetery the next morning, or, it might be, later; and thus they were to be separated from their deceased relatives or friends at any rate for twenty-four hours. This would be a deep wound to the feelings of individuals, and a gross violation of public decency. His next objection was to those provisions of the Bill which made provision for the interment of paupers, who were to be buried as cheaply as possible. When these pauper corpses reached the place of interment, no distinction was to be made in the ground in which they were to be buried. The artisan might be interred in a single grave, with a guarantee that it should not be opened again within seven years. The paupers, however, were to be interred in a common grave, and the company were to be at liberty to reopen the grave-ground of the paupers as often as they pleased. To this provision he objected, not only on the score of public health, but also on the score of public decency, and of our common humanity. He had seen the consequences of this practice in France and some other parts of the Continent, and to him it appeared that nothing could be more revolting and disgusting than the system by which men could be thrown by hundreds into one common hole, which might be opened and reopened at the pleasure of the directors of the cemetery, for the reception of additional corpses. He hoped that the House would defer to public feeling on this subject, and that it would, at any rate, so far improve this measure as to prevent it from inflicting a great and oppressive evil on the noblest sentiments 192 of our common nature. He would not offer any opposition to the second reading of the Bill, as he believed that its object was to remedy a great and crying evil, but which evil he believed might be removed without doing violence to public feeling.

The BISHOP of LONDON
expressed his concurrence in the objections taken to this measure by the noble Earl. If the Government had interfered to carry out the measure proposed last year by the Board of Health, great benefits must have accrued to the metropolis, and many of the mischiefs now so justly complained of would have been removed. He entertained great doubts as to the propriety of allowing any private parties to speculate in a traffic in the dead. In populous districts the interment of the poor ought to be a matter of public supervision, and the increase of the number of private companies formed for objects similar to those contemplated in this Bill, would generally interfere with the carrying out of a system of effective supervision. He hoped that the noble Earl would introduce into this Bill, such Amendments as would prevent many of the evils which must flow from it if passed in its present state.

§ The EARL of CHICHESTER,
who was quite inaudible, was understood to support the Bill.

§ The EARL of CARLISLE
said, he should have had great reluctance in assenting to the second reading of a private Bill of this description, if he had seen any chance of the passing of a general public Act on the subject. But, as he considered that there was no chance of any such measure, he would not deny to the promoters of it an opportunity of having it considered in Committee. When he saw the Amendments which were made in Committee, he should be able to decide whether he would support the Bill on its third reading.