HL Deb 01 May 1855 vol 137 cc2042-3
THE EARL OF SANDWICH

presented a petition from inhabitants of Huntingdon, asking for an alteration of the law respecting the burial of the dead (16 & 17 Vict. c. 134). They complained of the operation of certain clauses in the Acts which prevented the opening of vaults, and a correspondence had taken place between them and the Home Office on the subject. The vaults might have been opened without the least prejudice to the health of the inhabitants, and he considered, therefore, that a great injustice and hardship had been inflicted upon the owners. He begged to ask whether it was the intention of the Government to send down inspectors to examine the vaults, and to grant licences for interment in them?

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

said, that the notice put by the noble Earl on the notice paper had not given sufficient indication of the nature of the question which he intended to put, and he was afraid there was no Member of the Government present in the house who could give a reply off-hand. He had to request, therefore, that the noble Earl would allow the question to stand over till some subsequent day.

THE BISHOP OF CHICHESTER

said, he also had to appeal to the Government on behalf of a large proportion of the population of his diocese whose places of burial had been closed, and who really had no places of sepulture for their dead. He would instance the case of Brighton to show the condition to which large places were reduced in consequence of the shutting up of burial-grounds. Here was this large town, with 73,000 inhabitants, which at present, and for some time past, was in a state of the greatest distress for want of places for interment—no person dying within the limits of this vast parish having a right to burial there or elsewhere. The noble Earl had felt it a strong ground of complaint with respect to a limited number of persons in Huntingdon, but the ground was much stronger in respect to Brighton and its 70,000 inhabitants. He (the right rev. Prelate), in conjunction with the petitioners who addressed the House, asked their Lordships not only that there should be an alteration but an amendment of the law, and that the provisions to be framed for that purpose should be sufficient and effectual. Unless the law was made compulsory there would be found the same resistance to it as was found in Brighton and elsewhere.