For the latter, it has seemed indispensable that your scheme should

provide assistance, equivalent at least to the difficulty which its

adoption must occasion them. Beyond this, I believe you would wish to

disturb as little as possible the ordinary routine of interment; and I

have aimed, therefore, at suggesting assistance only in such kind, and

in such degree, as may least interfere with any interests of trade,

least derange any established habits, least offend any prejudices of the

people.

* * * * *

III. There is no part of the subject which I have considered with more

anxiety than that which relates to delays of interment, and to the

prolonged keeping of dead bodies in the rooms of their living kindred.

Evils arising in this source are unknown to the rich. Soldered in its

leaden coffin, on tressels in some separate and spacious room, a corpse

may await the convenience of survivors with little detriment to their

atmosphere.

Not so in the poor man’s dwelling. The sides of a wooden coffin, often

imperfectly joined, are at best all that divide the decomposition of the

dead from the respiration of the living. A room, tenanted night and day

by the family of mourners, likewise contains the remains of the dead.

For some days the coffin is unclosed. The bare corpse lies there amid

the living; beside them in their sleep; before them at their meals.

The death perhaps has occurred on a Wednesday or Thursday; the next

Sunday is thought too early for the funeral; the body remains unburied

till the Sunday week. Summer or winter makes little difference to this

detention: nor is there sufficient knowledge on the subject, among the

poorer population, for alarm to be excited even by the concurrence of

infectious disease in a room so hurtfully occupied.

I have no means of telling you, with statistical precision, in how many

of your annual deaths the corpse is detained in dangerous proximity to

the living. But I have already quoted an official classification of

deaths, by which it would appear that more than two-thirds of your

deaths are of the artisan class or below it. Among them at least, it

would be exceptional for the corpse to have a room to itself. On an

average, then, there would probably be lying within the City at any

moment, from thirty to forty dead bodies in rooms tenanted by living

persons.

This very serious evil is well known to all persons who have taken an

interest in the sanitary advancement of the poor; and ineffectual

endeavours have been made for its diminution. The law does indeed

empower your Officer of Health, under certain circumstances, to order

the removal of a corpse from any inhabited room. And, under the

Nuisances Removal Act, the General Board of Health may be authorised,

during times of epidemic disease, to issue directions and regulations

for the speedy interment of the dead. Both laws have remained

inoperative, and are likely to remain so.

If one were starting anew--legislating for a people with unformed

habits, nothing might be easier than to devise regulations of a perfect

kind with regard to the sanitary management of the dead. But our case is

widely different. The evils against which we have to contend are among

the deepliest-rooted habits of the country. In defence of what exists

there are many stupid and ignorant prejudices: but, interwoven with

these are feelings of tenderness and affection, to which all

consideration and reverence are due;--feelings which would be shocked

and outraged by any abrupt endeavour to reduce the care of the dead to a

system of fixed regulations.

For myself, having the deepest sense of the evil in question, and having

officially the power to order the removal of the dead, I may repeat that

I have never yet exercised my authority. Practically speaking, I can

hardly conceive an instance in which I should attempt to do so. It would

require the strongest case that could be shown of actual mischief in

progress--of disease and death multiplied day by day through the

presence of some particular dead body, to justify interference even in

that single instance. Nothing like the operation of a general law would

be tolerated;--nothing like including the dead in a compulsory plan of

hygienic police.

After very careful consideration of the subject, I may confess myself

even more impressed with its difficulties than when I first began to

give it my attention; and in the few suggestions which follow I cannot

pretend to do more than intimate where, in my opinion, a beginning may

usefully be made towards an improvement which it will take many years

to accomplish.

Legislative remedies, proposed for the evils which I am bringing under

your notice, have been of two kinds--viz., _first_, to restrict the time

during which it should be lawful to keep a body unburied; _secondly_, to

promote the use of reception-houses (as they have been called) whither

bodies might be removed from within all dwelling-places, and be kept

under certain regulations during the days preceding their interment.

As regards the first point;--there are many foreign countries (and even

some parts of the United Kingdom) where either law or custom has made it

imperative to bury within two, three, or four days of death. Our habit,

unfortunately, is to keep the corpse unburied for twice as long. A week

may probably be considered our medium interval between death and

interment; and with this delay, I need hardly tell you, the body becomes

putrid--sometimes intensely so, before the time for its removal arrives.

Among the wealthier classes, as I have said, this delay is practically

unimportant; except in so far as every repetition maintains the

pernicious custom. Scarcely on account of any risk arising to themselves

in emanations from the dead, but mainly for the sake of influence and

example, would one wish the educated classes of the community to adopt

the usage of earlier burial. Our present practice is upheld by no law of

necessity; nor for the most part does it represent any extravagance of

grief, or fond reluctance of separation. Chiefly it subsists by our

indolent acquiescence in a habit, which former prejudices and former

exigencies established. Fears of premature interment, which had much to

do with it, are now seldom spoken of but with a smile. The longer

interval, once rightly insisted on as necessary for the gathering of

distant friends, has now, in the progress of events, become absurdly

excessive: in a vast majority of cases, all whose presence is needed,

live within a narrow circle; and the more distant mourner, who, fifty

years ago, would have spent several days in coming from Paris or

Edinburgh, can now finish his journey in twelve hours. It is much to be

wished that, under these changed circumstances, an altered practice

might ensue in the upper classes of society, fixing their time of burial

within three or four days of death. Such example of wealthier

neighbours, aided by greater enlightenment and education among

themselves, would greatly tend to detach the poor from many observances

and delays, in relation to the dead, which, in their narrow dwellings

cannot continue with impunity.

But, as regards these poorer classes, cannot anything be done in

connexion with your new arrangements, to abridge the period of delay? As

for any positive regulation, limiting the time during which it should be

allowed to retain dead bodies in certain dwelling-houses,--such could

only be enforced by an extensive organisation of sanitary police, which

you would have to call into existence for the purpose, and which, in the

present state of public opinion, would encounter insurmountable

difficulties on every occasion of its authoritative interference.

It is by indirect means and inducements alone, that I can hope at

present to effect the desired alteration; and by them, I think,

something can be ensured toward shortening the delays of interment.

First, I believe that everything which cheapens the cost of burial, will

conduce to such a result; for, among the poor, one considerable cause of

procrastination must often be the immediate absence of money. The plan

of conveyance and payment which I have suggested, would at least ensure

you against any increase of this difficulty, and might readily be

applied to diminish it. For, under such a system of single payment for

grave and conveyance, it would be practicable, and, I think, most

advantageous, to fix two prices, with a difference of at least five

shillings between them; to charge the lower fee whenever the funeral

should occur within eighty hours of death, the higher whenever this

period should be exceeded. If, by the general adoption of the former

alternative, the Cemetery receipts should be diminished in respect of

artisan funerals, even to the utmost extent--say five or six hundred

pounds per annum--this money, or much more, would have been

advantageously expended in purchasing so great a reform. If, on the

contrary, the immediate option of the working classes should be in

favour of continuing a system so injurious to themselves and to their

neighbours, there would be no injustice in leaving them the incumbrance

of a cost, from which it would require only their own will to escape.

The difference of price would soon be recognised as a municipal tax on

delays of interment;--a tax, rendered legitimate by the public evil

which it is designed to correct, and guarded against remonstrance,

because any man may avoid it who will. And since the delays in question

often arise in a passive habit of the people, founded on no deliberate

intention or reason, I cannot but believe that a well-marked difference

of fee would, as it were, startle the poor into considering the

question, which would come to be of daily argument in their houses:--‘Is

it worth while that our funeral cost should be increased by the amount

of one or two days wages, in order that we may retain within our

dwelling-rooms four days longer, that which every one tells us is

hurtful to ourselves and to others?’

It has been suggested to me, that many delays occur owing to Sunday

being considered specially as a funeral day among the labouring classes;

that an equal distribution of burials over the week would be preferable

to this waiting for a particular day; and that the closure of your

Cemetery on Sundays might accordingly be beneficial for the purposes

under consideration. Many arguments will doubtless occur to you, both

for and against the desirability of Sunday interments; but this probably

may be regarded as a point of detail, more fitly to be considered when

your scheme is complete, or even when it has actually given you some

experience of its operation.

As regards the second point adverted to--the establishment of special

reception-houses for the dead, I do not hesitate to say that, if they

could be brought into general use, their institution would confer great

advantages on the poor. But against this event, at least as an immediate

one, I grieve to see strong probabilities.

A first proposal made to some mourning household, that they should trust

to strangers’ hands the custody of their unburied dead, would in most

instances greatly and suddenly clash with their customs, and prejudices,

and affections. Whatever success you might have in conquering this

difficulty would of necessity be slow: and my practical familiarity with

the poorer classes makes me so little hopeful of their immediate

acquiescence in the plan, that I should hardly feel justified in urging

you to incur any very large expense, or to embarrass yourselves at

starting with any elaborate machinery, for the sake of so scanty an

expectation.

The reception-houses of Germany, as you probably know, are founded with

a double intention; partly for the purpose which I am here chiefly

considering--that the dead may be removed from an injurious contiguity

to the living; partly also, that the bodies may be vigilantly observed,

in case of suspended animation. With the latter view, many of them are

specially furnished and specially officered. In that at Frankfort, for

instance, each body is placed in a separate, warmed and ventilated cell;

cords are attached to the fingers in such manner that the slightest

movement occasions the ringing of an alarum; night and day watch is kept

in a central apartment which looks into each cell, and has the several

alarum-bells hung round it; adjacent is a room designed for acts of

resuscitation, with bath, galvanic apparatus and the like, always in

readiness for instant use; and, so long as any corpse lies within the

reception-house, the medical superintendent of the establishment never

goes beyond its walls. Dr. Sutherland, whose report to the General Board

of Health is full of interesting information on the burial-institutions

of the Continent, praises the completeness and ingenuity of these

contrivances; adding, however, that ‘after careful inquiry at all the

cities where he found them to exist, he could not learn that any case of

resuscitation had as yet occurred.’ I may add, too, as regards my own

personal experience in this country, that, with extensive opportunities,

it has never happened to me, either to see any case of suspended

animation where doubts of death and question of interment could arise,

nor to hear in professional circles of any such occurrence, I therefore

think it quite unnecessary to recommend any arrangement of

reception-houses, with reference to the resuscitation of persons

apparently dead.

The object for which I would desire their institution, is exclusively

that of receiving dead bodies out of the houses of the poor, in order to

mitigate those evils which arise in prolonged retention of the corpse.

That this object is in itself very desirable, and that under the

prevalence of epidemic disease its accomplishment might be of urgent

necessity, you will not doubt: and the responsibility for fulfilling

it--or at least for giving all facilities to its fulfilment, is so

distinctly imposed on you by the letter and spirit of the law, that you

will probably wish to take measures accordingly.

The extent, then, to which my information on the subject would lead me

to recommend provision to be made, is this: I would advise that

accommodation of an appropriate character (savouring in style rather of

an ecclesiastical construction, than of the workhouse or

dissecting-room) be arranged for the reception of fifty coffins. Tor

this purpose I would suggest--not the building of several separate

reception-houses within the City of London, in order to their being

respectively adjacent to the portions of population which might use

them,--but rather the establishment of one only, and that on the site of

your Cemetery. Thus the conveyance of bodies which would take place

under your auspices, might be made with greater economy, since it could

work into the plan I have already suggested. The advantage of having

only a single edifice (especially since its use is likely to be limited)

and of including its superintendence in the general organisation of

your Cemetery, cannot be questioned. And it seems to me, likewise, that

a building designed for the reception of many dead bodies, cannot

conveniently be established in the heart of the City.

I would of course recommend that the use of this building should be

entirely optional with the poor, and that its advantages should be

allowed gratuitously to persons burying in your ground: so that any one

who, in respect of his cemetery-fee, would be entitled to have a corpse

conveyed thither for funeral purposes, might claim this conveyance as

soon as he chose after the occurrence of death, and might have the

coffin kept with all proper formalities in the reception-house, till the

moment fixed for its interment.

On further particulars connected with this part of your arrangements, I

do not think it requisite at present to dwell; especially because, while

I regard the establishment of a reception-house to be quite

indispensable to the complete fulfilment of your new responsibilities, I

still look upon it as an institution to be gradually developed in the

course of years, and according to circumstances yet undetermined, rather

than as something which ought at once to assume its permanent character

and proportions.

* * * * *

Here, too, in concluding this introductory report, I may observe that I

have endeavoured as far as possible to avoid encumbering it with detail.

For myself, in its construction, I have thought it indispensable to

pursue the subject into minuter ramifications, to consider a vast number

of circumstances here scarcely mentioned, to make myself acquainted with

the burial customs of other countries, to review a great variety of

opinions and arguments which have been advanced on the several matters

alluded to, and to consult with persons practically versed in them. But

to have brought all this material before you, would have prolonged my

report to an inconvenient extent with no proportionate utility.

Further, as regards these details of the subject, there are many parts

on which I cannot address you with the confidence that belongs to

personal knowledge. The general principles which I have set before you,

do indeed lie within range of my official and professional observation.

But the next stage of your inquiry relates to matters of special pursuit

with which I am only indirectly conversant: and whatever information I

may have compiled for myself from other sources, you will probably best

obtain at first hand. Practical experience in the construction and

working of Cemeteries has now for many years been the growing knowledge

of persons connected with their administration by ties of business, or

by official appointment. In many instances it has been dearly purchased,

and notorious failures have arisen from its absence. Regard being had to

the magnitude of your undertaking--hitherto unprecedented in the

country, and to the immense interests involved in your success, I cannot

but earnestly hope that such experience may be made available for your

information.

At an early period you will have to determine what appointments will be

requisite, with a view to the architectural and other designs of your

cemetery, to its economical planning and decorations, to the

superintendence of its daily working, to its financial management, to

the conveyance of bodies, and to all intramural organisation connected

therewith. Minute details will be best considered when these

appointments are made, and when you will naturally have the benefit of

such practical experience as may best assist your deliberations.

For the task on which you are engaged extends, I need hardly say, far

beyond the purchase of certain acres for your burial-ground. It implies

for its completion, that you shall possess an adequate plan on which the

interment of your population may be managed during many succeeding

generations; a plan constructed, first of all, with entire regard to the

general good of the public, and next, with as little violence as may be

to those habits, prejudices, and interests, which are involved in the

present system of interment.

The construction of such a plan constitutes a very large question of

municipal policy;--one which, because of its solemn subject, and because

of the degree in which human feelings and affections are involved in it,

requires to be handled with peculiar discretion and delicacy; but which

not the less requires to be contemplated in a large and comprehensive

manner.

I have therefore thought I should best fulfil the object of your

reference, by bringing before you those general principles which lie at

the root of all minute considerations: in order that, having first

determined on them, and having taken one collective view of the subject,

you may better know at what time, and in what order, and to what extent,

you would wish the minor details to be developed for your information.

I have the honour,

&c. &c.

THE END.

STANDARD BOOKS

PUBLISHED BY

JOHN W. PARKER & SON, LONDON.

Annotated Edition of the English Poets. By ROBERT BELL. In monthly

volumes. 2s. 6d., in cloth.

Dryden. Vol. I.

Earl of Surrey, Minor Contemporary Poets, and Sackville, Lord

Buckhurst.

Dryden. Vol. II.

Cowper. Vol. I.

Dryden. Third and concluding Volume.

Companions of my Solitude. Fourth and cheaper Edition. 3s. 6d.

Friends in Council. Cheaper Edition. Two Vols.

Days and Hours. By FREDERICK TENNYSON. 6s.

Of the Plurality of Worlds. An Essay. 8s.

A Year with the Turks. By WARINGTON W. SMYTH, M.A. With Map. 8s.

The Mediterranean: a Memoir, Physical, Historical, and Nautical. By

Admiral SMYTH. 15s.

Cloister Life of the Emperor Charles the Fifth. By WILLIAM STIRLING,

M.P. Third Edition, much enlarged. 8s.

Annals of the Artists of Spain. By the same Author. Three Volumes,

Octavo, with Illustrations. £3 3s.

Meliora; or, Better Times to Come. Edited by Viscount INGESTRE. Two

Series. 5s. each.

Principles of Political Economy. By J. STUART MILL. Second Edition. Two

Volumes. Octavo. 30s.

System of Logic. By the same. Cheaper Edition. Two Volumes. 25s.

Goethe’s Opinions on the World, Mankind, Literature, Science, and Art.

Translated by OTTO WENCKSTERN. 3s. 6d.

On the Methods of Observation and Reasoning in Politics. By G. CORNEWALL

LEWIS. Two Volumes. Octavo. 28s.

On the Influence of Authority in Matters of Opinion. By the same. 10s.

6d.

Lectures on the History of Moral Philosophy in England. By W. WHEWELL,

D.D., Master of Trinity College, Cambridge. 8s.

History of the Whig Ministry of 1830, to the passing of the Reform Bill.

By J. ARTHUR ROEBUCK, M.P. Two Vols. Octavo. 28s.

History of Normandy and of England. By Sir F. PALGRAVE. Vol. I. 21s.

History of Trial by Jury. By W. FORSYTH, M.A. Octavo. 8s. 6d.

The Institutes of Justinian; with English Introduction, Translation, and

Notes. By T. C. SANDARS, M.A., late Fellow of Oriel College, Oxford.

Octavo. 15s.

Varronianus; a Critical and Historical Introduction to the Ethnography

of Ancient Italy, and the Philological Study of the Latin Language. By

J. W. DONALDSON, D.D., Head Master of Bury School. Second Edition,

enlarged. 14s.

The New Cratylus; Contributions towards a more accurate Knowledge of the

Greek Language. By the same Author. Second Edition, much enlarged. 18s.

Leaves from the Note-Book of a Naturalist. By W. J. BRODERIP, F.R.S.

10s. 6d.

Discourse on the Studies of the University of Cambridge. By Professor

SEDGWICK, M.A. Fifth Edition, 12s.

Elements of Logic. By R. WHATELY, D.D., Archbishop of Dublin. Small

Octavo, 4s. 6d. Library Edition, 10s. 6d.

Elements of Rhetoric. By the same Author. Small Octavo, 4s. 6d. Library

Edition, 10s. 6d.

History of the Inductive Sciences. By W. WHEWELL, D.D., F.R.S., Master

of Trinity College, Cambridge. Second Edition, revised. Three Vols. £2

2s.

Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences. By the same Author. Second

Edition. Two Volumes. Octavo. 30s.

Indications of the Creator--Theological Extracts from Dr. WHEWELL’S

History and Philosophy of Inductive Sciences. 5s. 6d.

Great Britain One Empire. On the Union of the Dominions of Great

Britain, by Inter-communication with the Pacific and the East. By

CAPTAIN M. H. SYNGE, R.E. With Maps. 3s. 6d.

Manual of Geographical Science. PART THE FIRST, 10s. 6d., containing--

MATHEMATICAL GEOGRAPHY. By Rev. M. O’BRIEN.

PHYSICAL GEOGRAPHY. By T. D. ANSTED, M.A., F.R.S.

CHARTOGRAPHY. By J. R. JACKSON, F.R.S.

THEORY OF DESCRIPTION AND GEOGRAPHICAL TERMINOLOGY. By Rev. C. G.

NICOLAY.

Atlas of Physical and Historical Geography. Engraved by J. W. LOWRY,

under the direction of Professor ANSTED and Rev. C. G. NICOLAY. 5s.

Bacon’s Essays; with the Colours of Good and Evil. Revised, with the

References and Notes. By T. MARKBY, M.A. 1s. 6d.

Bacon’s Advancement of Learning. Revised, with References and Notes, and

an Index. By T. MARKBY, M.A. 2s.

Principles of Imitative Art. By GEORGE BUTLER, M.A. 6s.

Elements of Morality. By Dr. WHEWELL. Cheaper Edition. Two Volumes. 15s.

English Synonyms. Edited By R. WHATELY, D.D., Archbishop of Dublin.

Third Edition, enlarged. 3s.

Reports Relating to the Sanitary Condition of the City of London · 第 24 / 26 段