Do you conceive that the experience of the parish of St. Martin, of a separate parochial cemetery, is applicable as an index to the general charge upon the rate-payers in the other parishes of the metropolis, resulting from the simple prohibition of interments in the town, and the permission to any two or more parishes to provide cemeteries for; in other words, to the transference of burial grounds from the centre of the town to the midst of the suburbs?—Yes, I do consider it applicable: moreover, that at the present time, it would be still more difficult to obtain sites within a reasonable distance than it was in 1804: the expenses of separate parochial grounds must therefore be much more considerable.
§ 109. The Rev. Wm. Stone, the rector of Spitalfields, whose position, as the minister of a large and populous parish, possessing one of the best managed places of burial in the metropolis, gives him peculiar opportunities of judging of the most advantageous administrative arrangements, and entitles his observations to peculiar weight, concludes his testimony in the following terms:—
1. As the clergyman of a poor and populous parish, I should regret the necessity of imposing any additional rate upon my parishioners, especially any one which was likely to be regarded as a church rate; and I feel certain, that a rate assessed for the burial of the dead, and collected under the authority of the rector and churchwardens, would be so regarded. Under our present system, the burial of the dead is a source of profit; it yields an annual surplus towards defraying the other expenses of the church; and it thus conspires with other circumstances to make the church-rate fall light upon my parishioners. But in a population like mine any additional impost would be felt; and confounded, as in such a population it certainly would be, with church-rate, it might operate mischievously or even fatally against the church establishment of my parish. The same objection would apply in principle to all poor and populous parishes. As a clergyman, too, I might add more personal considerations; for, though the incumbent, as the only permanent member of the committee of health, might have some local prominence and weight, more, perhaps, than might everywhere be satisfactory to dissenters; yet, in imposing pecuniary charges on his parishioners, and levying penalties for the non-payment of those charges, he would have duties unpopular enough to outweigh the advantage of any distinction conferred on him.
2. If it is said, that a rate of 1d. in the pound would be too light to be felt; it may be said also that it would be too much so to answer its purpose. It is commonly calculated, that, in my parish, a rate of 6d. in the pound realizes barely 500l., yet the population to be provided with interment is above 20,000. And as all the parishes about us are in much the same circumstances this objection would apply equally to a union of parishes.
3. There is much that is objectionable in the proposed local committees of health.
A local board would be less likely to possess the confidence of the people. Indeed, it would be exposed to the influence of personal interest and local partialities; and still more so, if the majority of its members were in office for a year or two only. A board of this kind may be said to exist already in my own parish, where a local Act of Parliament places the burial ground in the hands of the parish officers. And it is but a few years since my attention was forcibly called to the insecurity of this local arrangement by one of my parishioners. This parishioner, who was intimately and practically acquainted with the working of our parochial system, represented to me the necessity of adopting increased precautions for the protection of our burial ground, “for,” said he, “a partial or interested parish officer might do almost anything he pleased with it;” and he proceeded to name an individual, who had even intimated his intention to do so as soon as he should come into office. There can be no doubt, indeed, that any individual might do so. It is impossible to say, to what extent a tradesman so disposed might oblige his friends and customers, and benefit himself; for as senior officer of the year he would have the sole disposal of the burial ground, and receive all payments for burials, private graves, vaults, and the erection of monumental tablets, without any demand upon those receipts, but a limited sum payable to the rector, and without any inspective control over them but that of a board of auditors chosen from his brother vestrymen. From my own observation, I do not think that parish auditors are generally very accurate in their investigations. But on a subject like the one in question, they hardly could be so. Even supposing what is seldom, if ever, the case, that they had a practical knowledge of the subject, and conducted their investigations with the authorized table of fees before them, they might in many instances be eluded. During the first four years of my incumbency, the parish officers reported their receipts for burials at the average amount of 215l. a-year, which sum, after the deduction of 125l. secured to the rector, left an annual surplus of 90l. At that time it was generally held to be a point of official honour, that the amount of this surplus should be kept secret out of doors. It was kept secret even from the rector; and it may serve at once to show the impolicy of secrecy, and the extent to which local authorities are distrusted, that my predecessor always had his misgivings on the subject. Though remarkable for the mildness and amiability of his disposition, he could never surmise any more innocent misapplication of this surplus, than that it was alienated from the church for the relief of the poor rate.
A constant change in the majority of a local board would be most unfavourable to uniformity of system, efficiency, and economy. Upon this ground I believe the church to be a great loser by the office of churchwarden. An individual charged with raising and expending the ecclesiastical finances of a parish for a year only is little likely to perform those duties as well as if he had a more permanent authority. To say nothing of his having more temptation to indolence, and to an ostentatious or interested profusion, he labours under the unavoidable disadvantage of inexperience. By the time that he becomes efficient in his office, he is called upon to retire from it.
A local board would want many other advantages of a more publicly constituted authority. Supplied with members by the casualties of parochial office, it could not always command a high order of intelligence. It would necessarily be limited in its opportunities of observation; and, as it could not make its purchases and regulate its current expenditure to the same advantage as if it acted on a more extensive scale, it would, of course, prove less economical to the public.
In fact, from all my local observation, I am led to hope that, in removing the interment of the dead from populous towns, the Legislature will adopt not a parochial but a comprehensive national plan for the purpose.
Mr. Drew, the vestry clerk and superintendent registrar of Bermondsey, makes similar objections to the proposed machinery; that “the persons nominated to carry out such a measure in parishes would not be satisfactory to the inhabitants, even if they were disposed to act.”