Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 5.djvu/341

Rh C E M E T E Li Y 329 appropriately applied in modern times to the burial grounds, generally extra-mural, which have been substituted for the overcrowded churchyards of populous parishes both urban and rural. From 1840 to 1855, attention was repeatedly called to the condition of the London churchyards by correspondence in the press and by the reports of Parliamentary committees, the first of which, that of Mr Chad wick, appeared in 1843. The vaults under the pavement of the churches, and the small spaces of open ground surrounding them, were literally crammed with coffins. In many of the buildings the air was so tainted with the products of corruption as to be a direct and palpable source of disease and death to those who frequented them. In the churchyards coffins were placed tier above tier in the graves until they were within a few feet (or sometimes even a few inches) of the surface, and the level of the ground was often raised to that of the lower windows of the church. To make room for fresh interments the sextons had recourse to the surreptitious removal of bones and partially-decayed remains, and in some cases the contents of the graves were systematically transferred to pits adjacent to the site, the grave-diggers appropriating the coffin-plates, handles, and nails to be sold as waste metal. The daily papers of thirty years ago contain numerous lecords of scandals of this kind ; while from the official reports it appears that the neigh bourhood of the churchyards was always unhealthy, the air being vitiated by the gaseous emanations from the graves, and the water, wherever it was obtained from wells, con taining organic matter, the source of which could not be mistaken. The vaults of many of the London churches are still crowded with coffins deposited in them during this period of iutra-mural interments. In the vault of Eow Church, Cheapside, the leaden coffins form a huge mass 30 feet high, covered with fungi and cobwebs. In all the other large towns the evil prevailed in a greater or less degree, but in London, on account of the immense popula tion and the consequent mortality, it forced itself more readily upon public attention, and after more than one partial measure of relief had been passed the churchyards were, with a few exceptions, finally closed by the Act of 1855, and the cemeteries which now occupy a large extent of ground to the north, south, east, and west, became henceforth the burial places of the metropolis. Several of them had been already established by private enterprize before the passing of the Burial Act of 1855 (Kensal Green Cemetery dates from 1832), but that enactment forms the epoch from which the general development of cemeteries in Great Britain and Ireland began. Burial within the limits of cities and towns is now almost everywhere abolished, and where it is still in use it is surrounded by such safeguards as make it practically innocuous. At a large expenditure of money London and most of our chief provincial cities and towns have been provided with spacious and well-situated cemeteries, which are under the supervi sion of the Local Burial Boards and of the inspectors appointed by Government, and anything like a recurrence to the scandalous state of things which existed as late as twenty-five years ago is now impossible. But though there need be no fear of retrogression there may be a change in another direction. Our present system of burial has been made the subject of very severe strictures on the part of Sir Henry Thompson and others, and it has been proposed that we should abandon inhuma tion altogether and return to the ancient practice of cremation. We shall not discuss this proposal here, as the importance of the subject requires a separate treatment, but we must briefly refer to the criticisms upon our cemeteries to which it gave rise. The practice of burial has been very ably defended by Mr Holland, M.E.C.S., who as Medical Inspector of Burials for England and Wales has perhaps a greater practical knowledge of the subject than any other man living, and on the same side were found Dr Pdchardson and Mr Seymour Haden, who proposed, however, some important modifications of the system with a view to its improvement. Amongst the objec tions urged against the present practice, it is alleged that in three ways our cemeteries are a source of danger to the health of the living, viz. : (1) by the gases rising from, the surface of the soil causing air-pollution ; (2) by their drainage introducing noxious matter into wells used for drinking purposes ; (3) by the possibility that the re opening of ground in which persons who have died of an infectious disease are interred might sometimes be the means of reproducing an epidemic. Now there is really no evidence in support of these serious allegations ; on the contrary there is much concurrent testimony which tends to completely discredit them. Of course it is not for a moment contended that cemeteries may not be mismanaged so as to become a source of danger. But this is beside and beyond the question, for in a matter of this kind we cannot argue from individual cases of abuse against the general use, and under the existing system of inspection and superintendence, with local authorities in every district specially charged with the care of the public health, it is difficult to see how any dangerous case of mismanagement could be allowed to develop itself without becoming the subject of immediate investigation and reform. Only very ordinary precautions are required to render a cemetery perfectly safe. &quot;If,&quot; says Mr Holland, &quot;no more dead be buried in the soil than the free oxygen contained in rain and dew carried through it will decompose, and if such soil be left undisturbed until the process of decay is completed, and if, as is almost certain to be the case, the use of such ground for burial be discontinued at latest when it becomes full of the remains that do not decay, and probably long before, such places will be neither harmful while they are used for burial, iior any thing but beneficial vhen such use of them is discontinued, as then they will become large decorative gardens or small parks reservoirs of fresh air.&quot; With regard to the alleged peril from air-pollution, it may be replied that there can be no danger so long as the dead are laid in a sufficient space of properly planted ground, and at a moderate distance from any considerable number of houses, and for this purpose a mile is quite sufficient. The gases evolved are to a great extent absorbed by the vegetable produce of the soil, and what little does filter upwards and escape from the surface of the ground cannot accumu late to any pernicious extent, and must necessarily be dispersed and diluted in the air. Who ever perceives any unpleasant odour in a well-kept cemetery 1 Yet if danger were present the sense of smell would give unmistakable warning of it. As to the question of water-pollution, especial care is always taken to study the drainage of our cemeteries with reference to the neighbouring sources of water supply. Shallow surface wells near a cemetery are open to suspicion, as the water may be tainted by organic matter filtering through the soil, but suspected wells can le closed by the authorities, and it must be remembered that shallow wells are nearly always dangerous whether they are near cemeteries or not. Deep wells are almost invariably safe even near a cemetery, and in most places the water is brought from a distance in mains in such a way that pollution from cemeteries is impossible. As to the danger of infection, if it existed anywhere, assuredly we should have some practical evidence of it from the great cemeteries of the metropolis. Yet there is not a particle of such evidence forthcoming. On the contrary, it is now very generally conceded that there need be little if any V. 42