Lords Sitting of 8 June 1855

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a County Palatine of Lancaster Trials.
Reported—Roman Catholic Charities; Education of Poor Children.

METROPOLITAN BURIAL-GROUNDS— THE BURIAL ACTS.
THE BISHOP OF LONDON,who had a notice on the paper to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty—
"To inform Her Majesty that it appears, by Petitions presented to this House, that the Want of adequate Provisions for the decent Interment of the Dead in some parts of the Metropolis is now producing very injurious Effects on the Welfare of its Inhabitants, and much Suffering, which falls especially on the poorer Classes:
"To express to Her Majesty the Opinion of this House that this Evil has been aggravated by Orders in Council which Her Majesty has been advised to make, under the Authority of an Act of Parliament passed in the Sixteenth Year of Her Majesty's Reign (1852), whereby certain Burial Grounds have been prematurely closed before other Places of Sepulture had been provided in lieu of them.
"And humbly to pray that Her Majesty will be graciously pleased to direct Her Servants to adopt such Measures as may be necessary for applying an immediate Remedy to an Evil, which this House considers to be most serious and urgent:"
said, he rose for the purpose of once more directing the attention of their Lordships to a subject of great importance to the best interests of the country, as involving the interests of morality and religion. Their Lordships would recollect that on a former occasion he drew a picture of the present state of things in the metropolis, occasioned by the Metropolitan Burial Act; and the noble Earl who was then at the head of the Government (the Earl of Aberdeen) admitted that the subject was one of great importance; that the picture he had drawn of the actual state of things was most painful and distressing, and that it demanded the imme-

1635
diate attention of the Government, with the view of seeing whether something could not be done by way of removing the evils which existed. Another noble Earl (Earl Grey) had advised him on the same occasion to press for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the subject; but he forbore from doing so, because he placed implicit confidence in the assurance of the noble Earl at the head of the Government that some measure would be devised for the purpose, if not of entirely removing, at least of mitigating the evils which he had described. In that hope he had been disappointed. He had made repeated applications to the noble Earl and his colleagues, and had renewed those applications to the present Ministers, but nothing had been done. The evils which he complained of still existed—they were becoming every year more numerous and more aggravated—and he really thought it was the bounden duty of the Government of a Christian country to take some measures for remedying a state of things which he could not describe otherwise than as disgraceful and indecent. The Motion of which he had given notice was for an Address to Her Majesty. On full consideration, he thought it would be inexpedient to persevere in proposing that Resolution. If he did, he feared he should have no hope of carrying it, and he did not wish to do anything which should have the appearance of casting censure on the Government. What he wanted was, to call attention to the actual state of the case, and, if possible, to elicit from their Lordships some opinion which, if it did not constrain the Government to move in the matter, would at least stimulate them to consider whether something could not be done to alleviate and mitigate the serious evils to which he referred. He was the more disposed not to press his Motion for an Address to Her Majesty because he believed that the Government were willing to take the subject into consideration, and were not altogether unprepared to inquire whether some remedial measure might not be devised. He would, therefore, respectfully entreat their Lordships to accede to the Motion of which notice had been given by a noble Earl (the Earl of Waldegrave) for the appointment of a Select Committee. The evidence taken before that Committee would show the absolute necessity of something being done, and would guide the Government in the choice of a mode of providing for the wants of the metropolitan
1636
districts. With reference to the continued existence of the evils which he had described to their Lordships, he did not think that he could state his own opinions as to the facts of the case more clearly and emphatically than it had been stated to him by a gentleman who had devoted a great part of his life to the consideration of sanitary questions, and who expressed his belief that the Metropolitan Burial Act had augmented, instead of diminished, the expenses of interment to the poor, and had produced many sanitary as well as moral evils—had diminished the solemnity of sepulture, and occasioned scenes of the most distressing character. He wished their Lordships to understand that the remarks with which he would trouble them regarding the present state of interments within the metropolis would relate chiefly to the eastern districts of London. Many of the western parishes, which were principally inhabited by the more wealthy classes, had done their duty in providing suitable and convenient places of sepulture in lieu of those which had been closed; while the various cemetery companies recently established, of the decency of whose proceedings he had no cause to complain, had no question, to some extent, lessened and mitigated the evil; but in the eastern districts no adequate provision had been made for the interment of the dead. Before the passing of the Metropolitan Burial Act, in the eastern districts of London, containing a population of 500,000 souls, and furnishing at least 13,000 burials annually, there were forty-three burial-grounds, a number confessedly too small to meet the wants of the population. Of these forty-three burial grounds, thirty-six had been closed, while not a single new one had been provided. One evil, of which the poor inhabitants of London justly complained, was, that they were obliged to bury their dead in unconsecrated ground, without the due performance of religious service, and where the remains of their relatives were subjected to every kind of indignity. He was informed by a respectable undertaker that in Cambridge Heath burial-ground no fewer than sixty interments took place in one day. There was one burial-ground still open in Bethnal Green, and so great was the pressure in that district that no fewer than 3,663 interments had taken place in less than one acre. But, even to reach unconsecrated ground, the poor people had to travel great distances; and the consequence was, that a dead body was often

1637
kept in a single room, occupied by a poor family, for ten days or a fortnight, or even three weeks, until they had scraped together a sufficient sum to pay the increased expenses of the funeral. The corpses of children were frequently carried to the places of sepulture in cabs, and it was no uncommon sight to see a string of such vehicles, filled with dead bodies, waiting at the gate of an unconsecrated burial-ground until they could be admitted. He need not say that on such occasions the solemn services of the Church were performed in a slovenly, irregular, and indecent manner. He was informed that at some of these unconsecrated grounds there was no clergyman in attendance on the burials. Sometimes the undertaker's man threw a surplice over his shoulders, and read a portion of that service in which the poorer members of the Church took a special interest, and from which they derived special consolation; and the friends of the persons interred conceiving that the service had been performed by clergymen, had on some occasions complained to him that the service had been mutilated in such a manner. With regard to the sanitary state of the case, there could be no doubt that many evils arose from the retention of dead bodies in a state of decomposition. The clergyman of one of the largest eastern parishes stated that liquid corruption had been seen dropping from coffins as they were carried along the streets; and nothing could exceed the distressing statements with respect to the hardships inflicted upon the poor by the premature closing of burial-grounds which had been made to him by both clerical and lay correspondents in the eastern districts of the metropolis. Even the bodies of paupers were interred in unconsecrated ground, although by the poor law it was enacted that they should be placed in consecrated grounds. Some time ago an application was made to the Secretary of State to allow the reopening of a burial-ground, which might have been done without any inconvenience. The application was refused on the ground that, according to the opinion of the law officers of the Crown, no person could authorise the reopening of a burial-ground which had been closed by an Order in Council. Since then, however, the Secretary of State had authorised the reopening of a burial-ground in Shoreditch, and his conduct, therefore, might fairly be called somewhat inconsistent. At the same time he (the Bishop of
1638
London) thought the practice of interment in churches was so objectionable that the Secretary of State was justified in prohibiting it. But the Metropolitan Burials Bill, while it operated with great hardship on the poor, inflicted another grievous injury upon the parochial clergy. By this Bill the parochial clergy were deprived of that which was the chief source of their incomes—namely, burial fees. In the parish of Whitechapel, with 50,000 inhabitants, the income of the incumbent had been reduced from 600 l. to 300 l., upon which he had to support himself, a wife, and eight children, and two curates. The same thing occurred in St. George's-in-the-East, and other parishes, and it was evident that where the fees were so reduced it was impossible adequately to supply the spiritual wants of the inhabitants, and that the number of curates in such cases must be limited. Not only, however, was the income of the clergy diminished, but the fund for the repair of the churches had been cut off, so that the clergyman and his church would go to decay together. But both he and the clergy felt most deeply the evils of the system in its operation upon the poor. As it now worked, it broke down their religious feelings, destroyed their respect for the holy ordinances of religion, and led them to regard with indifference those rites and ceremonies which, when duly performed according to the ordinances of the Church, were calculated to call forth the best feelings of the heart. He hoped their Lordships would think it incumbent upon a Christian Government to remedy the painful evils he had pointed out, and he called upon them, at least, to consent to the Motion of his noble Friend (Earl Waldegrave), who meant to move for the appointment of a Select Committee.
EARL WALDEGRAVE,having called the attention of the Government to the state of the law concerning the interment of the dead, to see how far these laws require amendment, so that they may be made effective,
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to take into consideration the 15 & 16 of Vict. , c. 83, the 16 & 17 of Vict., c. 134, and the 17 & 18 of Vict., c. 87.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that everything which fell from the right rev. Prelate on this subject must have great weight with their Lordships, not only in consequence of the interest which he must

1639
naturally take in a question of this kind, but from the great personal interest which at all times he had taken in matters of a sanitary description; and he trusted that, in the few remarks which he felt it his duty to make, he should show no want of consideration for a question so important, or say one word that would indicate insensibility to the painful and melancholy interest that attached to the subject. He thought that, in considering the evils existing under the present state of the law, their Lordships must not forget what were the evils which that law was intended to remedy. Their Lordships could not but recollect how the public indignation was roused by the accounts which were daily published of the manner in which burials were conducted in this great metropolis before this measure was adopted. It was not his wish to harrow their Lordships' feelings by any description of those pit burials in which bodies were thrown one after another into one common grave, or of the stench and noisome pestilence arising from churchyards reeking with the pestilent products of accumulated centuries of burial; but he simply referred to this because he thought they should not lose sight of the evils that had called forth legislation on this subject. The first measure that was brought forward to cure these evils was one in which power was conferred on the Board of Health to provide more spacious burial grounds at a distance from the metropolis. It would be useless to enter into a speculative inquiry as to whether that body would or would not have been able to carry out a plan for that object; it was enough to say that the Government of Lord J. Russell and that of his noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Aberdeen) found it inexpedient to give the Board of Health the assistance they required, and the result was that a Bill of a different character was introduced by the Government of his noble Friend opposite. The chief feature of that Bill was that it made it compulsory in parishes to close certain burying-grounds, and to provide others beyond the bounds of the metropolis. There had been great complaints, however, of the manner in which the Bill had been acted upon, and the premature manner in which it was supposed Orders in Council had been issued for closing parochial burying-grounds. Some time had now elapsed since the passing of the Act? but it would be recollected that there were then great fears of the cholera, and a be-
1640
lief that the progress of the disease was aggravated by the continued existence of interments in the burial-grounds of the metropolis. He believed that under all the circumstances of the case there was no reason to complain of the manner in which the Act had been put into operation. With regard to the number of graveyards that had been closed, the 'right rev. Prelate complained principally with respect to the defect of cemetery accommodation in the eastern part of London; and he must admit that it was deficient. Being struck with the enormous number of burial-grounds closed, he had ascertained, on further inquiry that many of them were ordered to be shut, and, in fact, were disused by order of the parochial authorities—the number disused in this way amounting to no fewer than thirty-eight. The right rev. Prelate had drawn a distressing picture of the evils that had followed. No doubt hardships had occurred, but the evils he described had been chiefly confined to the eastern part of the metropolis; for the north-western portion of the metropolis ample provision had now been made, and, indeed, it was highly creditable to some of the larger parishes that they had exerted themselves most effectually to meet the acknowleged evils which existed. Public cemeteries had been established—one on an enormous extent of ground at Woking—having a central terminus in town—and with capabilities, as they said, for supplying burial places for the whole metropolis. With reference to the expense and inconvenience caused to the poorer inhabitants of the metropolis, he thought it was quite clear, when the Legislature resolved to close these burial-places, and have others established away from the vicinity of the poor, that they must necessarily be exposed to some inconvenience. He was not now speaking of paupers, but of those who depended on their own industry and were compelled to take the bodies of their deceased relatives to a great distance; but, at the same time, he thought the sanitary considerations involved in the question overbalanced the disadvantages arising from expense and inconvenience. The right rev. Prelate spoke of the indecent manner in which interments were conducted under the existing state of the law, but he could not help thinking that if inquiry were made into the cases referred to they would be found to be greatly exaggerated. He was able to state that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the

1641
Home Department, though he daily received complaints of individual hardship and of injury done to property, had not received more than two complaints of indecency as applicable to interments. The right rev. Prelate last year distressed their Lordships with an account of the dreadful state in which bodies had been tumbled pell-mell into water at Mile End. On that occasion a Government inspection was ordered, and the right rev. Prelate himself afterwards came down to the House and admitted that the facts were not as he had originally stated them to the House. The right rev. Prelate complained that the dead bodies of the poor were frequently left unburied for two or three weeks in consequence of the increased expense and inconvenience of interment; but, in reply, he must remind their Lordships that by the existing law a permissive power was given to parishes to erect dead-houses for the reception of bodies that could not be immediately interred—a provision that was of great importance in a sanitary point of view. The right rev. Prelate had stated that thirty-eight burial grounds had been closed by the interference of the Home Secretary, and he said that he believed the return was imperfect. It was imperfect certainly; but it was so inasmuch as it did not show that many of the graveyards to which the order of the Home Secretary applied had been previously closed by the parish authorities themselves. With regard to the re-opening of graveyards after being closed, there could be no doubt that the law was not such as to justify the Secretary of State in doing so; and in this respect he thought some amendment might wisely be introduced into the law. The question now was, how far it would be right to give the Secretary of State a compulsory power to provide for graveyards which had been closed. This was not so easy a matter to settle as some might suppose. It was a difficult thing to make a parish which was not a corporate body, provide itself with a burial-ground, but still the evil had risen to such a point that the Secretary of State for the Home Department was of opinion that some measure should be introduced on the subject. In that Bill he should take power to rectify the grievances complained of by his right rev. Friend. At the same time, if the House considered it more desirable that the subject should be investigated by a Select Committee, he had no objection to refer it. But, on the other hand, if it
1642
were not so referred, Her Majesty's Government would not fail to introduce a Bill upon the subject.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, that the Act of 1852, which was passed by the Government of his noble Friend (the Earl of Derby), and which applied to the metropolis alone, had been followed by another in 1853, referring to the country districts, and which had created greater difficulty than the previous one. He thought the reason there was no complaint of indecency as to the manner of carrying out burials under the late Act was, that persons who were shocked by such scenes as had been adverted to by the right rev. Prelate, would not refer their complaints to the Secretary of State, who was powerless to remedy the evils complained of; but he feared there could be no doubt that scenes of the kind which had been described had taken place too often; and he must say that he thought nothing was more to be deprecated than that there should be any diminution in the feelings of horror with which the desecration of the dead was regarded in this country. His noble Friend had passed over with too little consideration the fact, that there were no compulsory powers in these Bills, with respect to the provision of new burial-grounds by parishes. The fact was, that it would be very difficult to do so in the first place; and in the next, even if the parishes were willing to buy, it was impossible to compel the owners of land to sell sites. That point, he thought, had been passed over with less consideration than it deserved; for the practical result was, that in some instances parishes which had been reduced to the absolute necessity of opening new burial-grounds had been compelled to pay from 100 l. to 150 l. per acre for a site for their cemeteries. Another obstacle interposed in the way of the provision of new cemeteries was this—By the Act of 1852 it was provided that a new chapel might be built in a new cemetery; but in the Act of 1853, which extended to the whole country, it was provided that if one chapel was built two chapels must be built; one for members of the Church and another for the Dissenters. The Act did not, however, compel any chapel whatever to be built. He knew the case of a parish some of the parts of which were actually twelve miles from the parish church; when that burial ground was closed it occurred to the burial board of the parish that it would be desirable to have three cemeteries instead of

1643
one for the accommodation of the parish. They were, however, met by the objection that they would in that case be obliged to build six chapels. That being the case, it was impossible from economical considerations to carry out this plan, so desirable in many respects. Another difficulty arose from the conscientious objections entertained by many of the right rev. Prelates to consecrate a burial-ground when there was not a chapel. Now, there were many parishes in which the Dissenters were so few in number that they were not inclined to insist upon their right to have a chapel built for themselves; and he thought it was, therefore, very desirable that some relaxation of the law should take place in this respect, so that only one chapel might be built when only one was required to meet the wants and wishes of the inhabitants of the parish. He hoped, if the matter went to a Committee, or if a new measure were introduced, that these points would not be lost sight of, but that some means might be adopted to meet the wishes of the people upon a subject which was now agitating every parish in England.
THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, after what had occurred in the discussion, he should not think it expedient to press his Resolutions, and was content to let the matter rest where it was.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, he fully understood the delicacy of feeling by which the right rev. Prelate was actuated; but he could not suffer the opportunity to pass without observing that the right rev. Prelate had certainly understated the grievance as it pressed upon the parochial clergy. He (the Earl of Shaftesbury) complained not only on behalf of the clergy, but also in the interests of the poor. The fact was, that the present law limited the power of the clergy to do good; and every one acquainted with the parochial clergy knew that they, in proportion to their means and numbers, expended more to benefit the poor than all the wealthy magnates of the land put together. There could be no doubt that by the operation of the Act of 1852, which sanctioned the closing of burial-grounds, the poor were deprived of that which they very much cherished—their parochial right to inter their dead in the burial-ground of their own parish. It had, at the same time, imposed upon them additional expense for interments. It compelled them to resort to that which some years ago the Legislature used all its efforts to prevent, and
1644
which, of all things that afflicted the poor, was most material, namely, the long retention of the dead corpse within the walls of their dwellings; in short, the worst moral and sanitary evils proceeded from the operation of the law. We were endeavouring to teach the poor the knowledge and value of the sanitary principles which science had established; but this sanitary teaching was rendered utterly nugatory by the system that now existed, and which he knew had produced the most exasperated feelings in the minds of the people. It was said that an attempt had been made to provide a remedy for the evils which formerly existed, and a certain form of remedy had been introduced; but what he complained of was, that when this remedy turned out to be insufficient, no forward movement was made to improve it. His noble Friend said there was difficulty in executing a compulsory Act. Let him give his noble Friend an instance to the contrary. Before the Act of 1845 for the compulsory construction of lunatic asylums was introduced, the power was only permissive, and during fourteen years only nine county lunatic asylums had been erected in the whole of England and Wales. With in a very few years after the passing of the Act of 1845 there was scarcely a county without its lunatic asylum, and at this moment there were few counties or boroughs that either had not asylums of their own or were in connection with some adjacent county or borough; so that every pauper lunatic in the country might find refuge in a public asylum. So, by acting with the same vigour and upon the same principle now, their Lordships might rely upon it that churchyards and burial-grounds would be provided to any amount sufficient for the interment of the population. It was perfectly true, as the right rev. Prelate had observed, that the mode of interment in some of the yards was positively indecent and unnatural. The corpses were carried there in omnibuses and cabs, which were driven along the roads at a furious pace to save time; when they reached the yard they were huddled together as so much rubbish, with a white sheet thrown over them by the undertaker or an attendant, and the burial service, which from its impressive character was calculated to do so much good, was hurried over as if in mockery and jest, or curtailed in a manner that deprived it of all its religious influence. He did not hesitate to say that the system adopted with regard

1645
to the burial of the dead tended very much to reverse all the efforts of the clergy, the City missionaries, and the various agents of religion among the poor in the metropolis. He (the Earl of Shaftesbury) had seen the most savage and brutal people, at moments when the word of kindness, of advice, or of religion, might have produced the most blessed effects; but if they were left to believe that their dead were to be looked on only as so much offal, which they were to get out of their sight as soon as possible, or which, on account of the heavy expense imposed upon them, they must keep festering within the walls of their dwellings, in his judgment an amount of degradation would be thereby produced of which their Lordships could form no conception. They might depend upon it that it was in vain to send out missionaries for the purpose of educating the people, and inducing them to adopt habits of decency and respect for the moralities of life, so long as this state of things was permitted to continue; and he could assure their Lordships that the matter was well worthy of their serious consideration, and the consideration of every man who had the moral, social, and religious improvement of the people at heart.
LORD REDESDALEthought a great deal might be done towards remedying the evil complained of by removing certain provisions which were contained in the existing Burial Acts. It was a remarkable circumstance that a parish which desired to establish a new parochial burial-ground upon the same footing as the old, had no power to do so under those Acts; and if this were altered, he was sure there would not be wanting persons ready to assist with their private subscriptions, for the purpose of obtaining new burial-grounds.
Motion, by leave of the House, withdrawn.

EDUCATION OF POOR CHILDREN BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF BURLINGTON,in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, that its object was to enable the boards of guardians to provide for the education of the children of the poor who were supported by the parish rates out of the workhouses. The reports of the Poor Law inspectors contained many remarks and suggestions on this subject, and proved that the outdoor pauper children were a very numerous class, and that no provision was made for their education.
1646
The boards of guardians were empowered to make provisions for the education of the indoor pauper children, and, as no strong distinction could be drawn between the cases of the indoor and the outdoor pauper children, he saw no reason why the powers of the boards of guardians should not be enlarged and extended to the latter class, as was proposed by the present Bill. The workhouse schools were capable of affording accommodation to double the number of children at present receiving instruction in them. It was true it appeared from the reports of the inspectors that many of those schools were in a very unsatisfactory condition; but he thought the effect of this Bill would probably be to improve their character. The Bill had received the full approval of the President of the Poor Law Board and of his predecessor in the same office; it was also approved by many Members of both Houses who took an interest in matters connected with the education of the poor, and he hoped it would receive their Lordships' assent.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
LORD COLCHESTERdid not rise to oppose the measure. It had always appeared to him that the best possible mode of relieving poor persons was by taking their children off their hands, and providing for them in the union schools. So far, therefore, he agreed in the object of the Bill. But he did not see how far it was to go; and whether the education to be provided was to be extended to the children of the poorer classes generally, or confined to the children of those who came within the scope of the Poor Law.
Lord REDESDALEsaid, he should have no objection to the Bill passing, but would like to allow any quality of children to receive education. He should advise the education to be given to the children of people who were struggling, but who were not receiving relief; and that was the only way to make the Act popular. He suggested to strike out the words confining the admission of children of paupers, and should propose the omission of those words as an Amendment in Committee; and, if agreed to, he thought the Bill would require no other alteration. To let the children go to the workhouse, while the parents remained out of it, would be highly objectionable.
LORD LYTTELTONsaid, he agreed with what had fallen from the two noble Lords who had just sat down. It was the duty of the poor to educate their children

1647
as much as it was to provide them with food; and it would be the duty of the board to ascertain that the parents really could not pay for their children's education before they admitted them.
THE BISHOP OF ST. ASAPHsaid, it should he made incumbent upon the guardians not to allow children to be paid for by the public whose parents could pay for themselves. Provided that were done, he believed they could not do a better thing than establish the principle that a poor person who was really unable to pay for the education of his children should have a right to that education being supplied by the public. But they must be cautious with regard to the schools to which those children were admitted, and he confessed he had very great doubts whether the workhouse school would be a proper place. He had formerly the spiritual care of a workhouse himself, and he observed that when once a child had been introduced there, the greatest difficulty was experienced in keeping him out of it for the rest of his life. The preferable course would therefore be to have the proposed school out of the workhouse rather than in it. He bad no doubt in his own mind that this Bill contained the nucleus of the solution of the difficulty of education. The great thing was, not to interfere with the choice of the parent.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, as he read the Bill it meant that the guardians were to have the power of sending to school children of all persons receiving indoor relief. He certainly agreed with the right rev. Prelate in what he said as to the disadvantage of sending children into the workhouse when it was not necessary to do so, because it gave the children the habit of looking to the workhouse as their home, and produced those habits of continuous pauperism which were so much to be deprecated. In regard to the extension of the system of education to the children of persons receiving outdoor relief, although that was a great temptation to those who wished to see the principle of education extended, yet he thought there would be a great risk incurred by adopting such a principle in this Bill, as it would entirely alter its character. This measure had the credit of having passed unanimously through the other House of Parliament, and he would, therefore, recommend the noble Earl to consider the question carefully before he adopted the suggestion of the noble Lord opposite.
Motion agreed to
Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Tuesday next.
House adjourned to Monday next.