1
10
4
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/cb0de6ef7363b65eb851fa4a15bfd190.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=i3chqoqRto9OfHJAqgrqs4DSm8pnyysxMJ8JPkxNG2lRsiJuUFdlHrx93LSx2YaovWkUGjc1RbtwiTP4L1NGDwgZ-qdpRDRP2iTIvlO8dZ%7EBA5-5%7ES2auODw%7El%7E92t8KI9HKTDg6PRInxUvg%7EDCrORFl1Mr6LBVtZrwI0HSeoQ2nblcFW8lEgvWziZx6oJNiEzGk4JaUKeix-enS8zhMwECuN9DpK141supcWGiECdgAd-0E53gbydRDBf6u9HE2MrwXfFzl2CohLgRy49BNlOYiJNrOJzAdymh7pb2NLFFLD8EnoQ-Uzbp8X%7EdATFE0zltErRTzFnQoFfIR98Tbyg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
9520394cdd0bcc750d6c6146bc6ef50f
PDF Text
Text
REFORM IN BURIAL RITES.
LETTER
BY
REV. CHARLES VOYSEY, B.A.,
IN THE “INDEX,” Aran. 12, 1873.
Editor of the Index,
Sib,—'Without waiting to know the effect upon your
readers of my last letter about Euthanasia, I proceed to give
them another violent shock.
From my past experience of human kind, I feel convinced
that it is much more difficult to effect a change in their social
customs than in their ethics. In every country the births,
marriages, and deaths are attended by certain social rites which
are more imperious than any demands of conscience, and it
would be easier far to relax or to tighten the restraints of
morality than to alter one of the social ceremonies. I half
expect then that, for every one whom I may have startled by
my last letter, there will be a score to be horrified by what I
am going to say in this.
I wish to revolutionize our funeral rites. I want to abolish
the burial of the dead, and the wearing of •‘mourning.”
If the reader should lose his breath here, let me pause for a
moment and tell him that my object originates in pure pity. I
desire to relieve mankind of a great and needless burden; to
remove some of the greatest aggravations to which we have
foolishly submitted in times of our deepest grief; and to insti
tute customs which will be an unspeakable relief to the poor.
My objections to the present system of interment, with its
distressing paraphernalia of Under takerism, are as follows :—
To
the
�The first and least important objection is that it is needlessly
expensive and an undoubted hardship on the poor. Second,
that it is sooner or later a source of great injury to the public
health. Third, that our cemeteries occupy a vast amount of
space which could be more profitably filled. Fourth,—and this
I reckon to be the chief of all objections,—it is a needless and
' cruel aggravation of our physical and mental pain in bereave
ment, to witness the process of interment.
There may be some persons whose feelings are not harrowed
by this sight; but I can speak for myself and for thousands of
persons of equally sensitive nerves and strong imagination, that
it is positive torture to witness the burial of the body of a very
near and dear relative. The outward form which we have loved
and caressed we place in a coffin, close fitting to the outline of
a human body (a coffin is in itself a melancholy object, quite
apart from its associations); and this gloomy case, containing
our beloved dead, we follow to the dark vault or deep grave,
into which it is lowered amid choking sobs and a dead weight
at our hearts. We leave the loved object at the bottom of a
cold, dark pit, in which we picture to ourselves, for months and
years afterwards, all the foul and revolting processes of chemical
decay, our thoughts being positively scourged by this haunting
picture. It is bad enough to lose our friends and to miss them
• day by day ; but it is a monstrous aggravation of our physical
pain in losing them, to be tortured by such visions, such
memories.
Now what I would propose is this. As soon as death is per
fectly assured,—after such an interval as would render it
impossible for a medical man to doubt that death had ensued,—
the body should be chemically destroyed. It should be placed in
some receptacle containing those powerful agents known to
chemical science, which would simply annihilate the outward
forip. and practically destroy it. There would necessarily be
some deposit, which one might call the “ashes” of the dead;
and these might be reverently gathered and placed in a beauti
ful urn or vase, to be disposed of according to the wishes of the
.survivors. They might easily be deposited in consecrated places,
in niches in the walls of churches, or in mortuary chapels
designed for their reception. This, too, might be accompanied
by a religious service ; so that. the religious element is left
untouched by my revolutionary proposal.
The advantage of all this to people of highly-wrought feel
ings would be immense. I can imagine the peaceful calm which
would steal over the mind when one could take reverently into
�3
one’s hands the sacred urn and say, “ This holds all that remains
of my beloved.” No horror of dark vaults and damp graves,
with their seething corruption. No precious body being eaten
piecemeal by worms of the earth, or melting away in a loath• some stream. The form is changed; the substance really
remaining after chemical burning is not in the least degree sug
gestive of the past or the future. The body is saved thereby
from every possible dishonour, purified from every decay. No
words can describe the relief which such a process would bring
to many and many an afflicted soul.
On the ground of health to the community, it would also
be most salutary. We little know, in England at least, what
mischief is brewing for us in our seething cemeteries. They
are getting fuller and fuller, at the rate of I know not how
many hundreds of corpses a day, the later ones being nearer
and nearer the surface. Many are within four feet of the turf,
and that is not enough to prevent the escape of the most foul
and pestilential gases. I know of one old cemetery which is
now occupied by a cooperage, and which is constantly wet
with stagnant water. All around it typhus fever is perpetually
raging. The danger would not be so great if the bodies were
buried without a coffin. The earth would sooner disinfect
them; but as it is, the mischief is nursed and multiplied a
hundred-fold by the process of decay being delayed.
It is quite possible that an outcry might be made on the plea
of my scheme being impracticable. I can only say that our
Undertakers might take this' subject into their consideration,
* and see whether they could not furnish all that was necessary,
and conduct the business of destroying the body with decency
and skill. Science will not fail to furnish the best chemi cal
agents for performing this service speedily and inoffensively.
I should not have touched on the question of economy but
for my sad experience amongst the poor. The most ordinary
burial costs them five pounds; that is a fearful sum for a really
poor family to contribute, and that often after heavy medical
expenses. Whereas my plan ought to be quite within the cost
of a fifth of that sum, let it be done in the best manner
possible.
As for the rites of burial in themselves, no wise man would
care what became of his own dead body, so long as it was not
left to be an injury to the living. I should not mind being sent
to the dissecting room, or to the kennels. But the rites of
burial assume a very important aspect in the interests of the
surviving relatives and friends. And for their sakes I plead
�4
that those rites may be made as little harrowing as possible ;
may conduce as much as possible to console and cheer them, and
leave no artificially cruel memories and associations behind
them. It is on this ground that I object to the barbarous prac
tice of‘ ‘Christian” burial and would do my utmost to revolutionize
our customs in this matter, and introduce -a refined method of
burning instead. Christianity is deeply to blame for aggrava
ting our fear of death, and for aggravating our grief when
death visits our homes. It is time that we turned such a reli
gion out of doors; not only expelling it from our hearts and
minds, but driving out its offensive and oppressive customs,—thus
claiming the privileges of consolation under bereavement,
which are ours by nature.
In another letter I must write a word or two on the subj ect
of wearing 11 mourning.’’
I am very sincerely yours,
Charles Voysey.
Camden House,
Dulwich, S.E., March 14, 1873.
P. S. I have mentioned the subject to some of my most
admired and cultivated friends, and I never met yet with a
disc ouraging remark from them. All we want is for some brave
family to set the example.
The Index is published weekly in Toledo, Ohio.
Wertheimer, Lea and Co., Printers, Finsbury Circus, London.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Reform in burial rites: letter by Rev. Charles Voysey
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Voysey, Charles
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [s.l.]
Collation: 9 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed by Wertheimer, Lea and Co., Finsbury Circus, London. Reprinted from The Index, April 12 1873. The Index is published weekly in Toledo, Ohio.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[s.n.]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1873
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5527
Subject
The topic of the resource
Death
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Reform in burial rites: letter by Rev. Charles Voysey), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Burial
Conway Tracts
Funeral Rites and Ceremonies
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/df4508f5bad97194e3f9827c6d14c934.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=JF5jpbdQDzTpaXITiYNflBIRcY2TtjPVb4fZpUjirfLFshATl2DOGfIcvY6CUG1jeePx9cFd1-ZnvXU4M%7Ep3GfDGSYVTWwmFym48oaUkxeC3vvoIZbOzvjEWPTgFDKoJvRW5H2pyMj3QBzsW7GDv%7EEktU2uZI-t9IxMSE9GW4LWeBkYoXxws6voptgJ2QEynlKYvXGl0V7O5YrS5ERytLq3v-BTuE3UsaicGV2LBPbi7km2PdbnCpErRrQZ7orR4DhulpZ17hViFtxZO0CSK33pKdraiwh81zgV%7Eanu3rryNy5RwzQjenZjPvU6B4B8EmHwdjKsqn9zC2T9SgabHaQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
52d88b744ccd6caa311de8f534d29c7a
PDF Text
Text
CREMATION
THE TREATMENT OF THE BODY AFTER DEATH
BY
SIR HENRY THOMPSON, F.R.C.S., M.B.Lond.
SURGEON EXTRAORDINARY TO H.M. THE KING OF THE BELGIANS
PROFESSOR OF SURGERY AND PATHOLOGY TO THE ROYAL COLLEGE OF SURGEONS
CONSULTING SURGEON TO UNIVERSITY COLLEGE HOSPITAL
ETC.
THIRD EDITION
TOGETHER WITH A PAPER ENTITLED
‘CREMATION OB BURIAL’
By Sir T. Spencer Wells, Bart.
LATE PRESIDENT OF THE
ROYAL
COLLEGE
OF SURGEONS
AND THE
CHARGE OE SIB JAMES STEPHEN
RECENTLY DELIVERED AT CARDIFF
LONDON
SMITH, ELDER, & CO., 15 WATERLOO PLACE
1884
[All rights reserved]
��INTRODUCTION.
Early in the year 1874, I introduced the subject of Cremation
to the English public by an article in the ‘ Contemporary
Review.’
It attracted a good deal of favourable attention,
and also much adverse criticism; a notable example of the
latter being an elaborate reply from the Medical Inspector of
Burials for England and Wales, which was presented in the
following number of the Review.
And my rejoinder to this
appeared in the succeeding issue.
My two Papers were shortly afterwards published in the
form of a pamphlet, a large edition of which was soon
exhausted, but no further reprint took place.
The result of the interest thus excited was the formation
of the ‘Cremation Society of England’ in the year 1875.
This Society has quietly but unceasingly pursued its ob
jects ; viz., the dissemination of information on the subject of
Cremation; co-operation with similar Societies on the Conti
nent, and the purchase of a freehold site (at Woking), with the
construction of a crematorium there on the most approved
principles.
Ever since its foundation, the Council of the Society has
encountered serious opposition in certain official quarters, and
for some years felt it therefore desirable to maintain a cautious
attitude.
By this means they escaped hostile action on the
pqrt of their antagonists, who had threatened to take steps
to make the employment of cremation illegal, or at all events
extremely difficult.
�VI
INTRODUCTION.
Recent events, however, have greatly altered the situation.
Sir Janies Stephen’s late decision has dispelled all doubts as
to the legality of the Society’s aims, and created anew interest
in them throughout the country.
A reprint of the two Papers
referred to has been widely demanded.
The Council of the
Society, of which I have the honour to be President, have
decided to republish them, together with a very able paper
presented by Sir Spencer Wells to the British Medical Associ
ation at their meeting in Cambridge in 1880.
They think it
desirable also to publish the correspondence which took place
between themselves and Her Majesty’s Government in 187980, referred to in the preceding paragraph.
And last, but
not least, the elaborate judgment of Sir James Stephen is
appended, appropriately completing a collection of material,
which it is hoped may be useful to those who are seeking
information upon this important subject.
Henry Thompson.
April,
1884.
�CONTENTS.
PAGE
INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................. v
CREMATION. By Sir Henry Thompson................................................... 1
CREMATION OR BURIAL ? By Sir T. S. Wells, Bart.
CORRESPONDENCE
BETWEEN
THE
CREMATION
.
.
39
SOCIETY
AND HER MAJESTY’S GOVERNMENT.........................................50
MR. JUSTICE STEPHEN ON THE LAW OF CREMATION
.
59
��CREMATION :
THE TREATMENT OF THE BODY AFTER DEATH.
By Sir Henry Thompson.
After Death ! The last faint breath had been noted, and
another watched for so long, but in vain. The body lies there,
pale and motionless, except only that the jaw sinks slowly but
perceptibly. The pallor visibly increases, becomes more leaden
in hue, and the profound tranquil sleep of Death reigns where
just now were life and movement. Here, then, begins the
eternal rest.
Rest! no, not for an instant. Never was there greater
activity than at this moment exists in that still corpse.
Activity, but of a different kind to that which was before.
Already a thousand changes have commenced. Forces in
numerable have attacked the dead.
The rapidity of the
vulture, with its keen scent for animal decay, is nothing to
that of Nature’s ceaseless agents now at full work before us.
That marvellously complex machine, but this moment the
theatre of phenomena too subtle and too recondite to be
comprehendeddenotable only by phraseology which stands
for the unknown and incomputable-—vital, because more than
physical, more than chemical—is now consigned to the action
of physical and chemical agencies alone.
And these all
operating in a direction the reverse of that which they held
before death. A synthesis, then, developing the animal being.
The stages of that synthesis, now, retraced, with another end,
still formative, in view. Stages of decomposition, of decay,
B
�2
CREMATION.
with its attendant putrescence; process abhorrent to the
living, who therefore desire its removal. ‘ Bury the dead out
of my sight,’ is the wholly natural sentiment of the survivor.
But Nature does nothing without ample meaning; nothing
without an object desirable in the interest of the body politic.
It may then be useful to inquire what must of necessity happen
if, instead of burying or attempting to preserve the dead,
Nature follows an unimpeded course, and the lifeless animal is
left to the action of laws in such case provided.
It is necessary first to state more exactly the conditions
supposed to exist. Thus, the body must be exposed to air ;
and must not be consumed as prey by some living animal.
If it is closely covered with earth or left in water, the same
result is attained as in the condition first named, although the
steps of the process may be dissimilar.
The problem which Nature sets herself to work in dispos
ing of dead animal matter is always one and the same. The
order of the universe requires its performance ; no other end
is possible. The problem may be slowly worked, or quickly
worked: the end is always one.
It may be thus stated : The animal must be resolved into—
a. Carbonic Acid [CO2], Water [HO,], and Ammonia
[NH3].
&. Mineral constituents, more or less oxidised, elements
of the earth’s structure: Lime, Phosphorus, Iron, Sulphur,
Magnesia, &c.
The first group, gaseous in form, go into the atmosphere.
The second group, ponderous and solid, remain where the
body lies, until dissolved and washed into the earth by rain.
Nature’s object remains still unstated: the constant result
of her work is before us; but wherefore are these changes ?
In her wonderful economy she must form and bountifully
nourish her vegetable progeny; twin-brother life, to her, with
that of animals. The perfect balance between plant exist
ences and animal existences must always be maintained,
while ‘ matter ’ courses through the eternal circle, becoming
each in turn.
To state this more intelligibly by illustration: If an
�3
CREMATION.
■animal be resolved into its ultimate constituents in a period,
according to the surrounding circumstances, say, of four
hours, of four months, of four years, or even of four thousand
years—for it is impossible to deny that there may be instances
of all these periods during which the process has continued—
those elements which assume the gaseous form mingle at once
with the atmosphere, and are taken up from it without delay
by the ever open mouths of vegetable life. By a thousand
pores in every leaf the carbonic acid which renders the
atmosphere unfit for animal life is absorbed, the carbon being
separated and assimilated to form the vegetable fibre, which,
as wood, makes and furnishes our houses and ships, is burned
for our warmth, or is stored up under pressure for coal. All
this carbon has played its part, ‘ and many parts,’ in its time,
as animal existences from monad up to man. Our mahogany
of to-day has been many negroes in its turn, and before the
African existed was integral portions of many a generation of
extinct species. And when the table which has borne so well
some twenty thousand dinners, shall be broken up from pure
debility and consigned to the fire, thence it will issue into the
atmosphere once more as carbonic acid, again to be devoured
by the nearest troop of hungry vegetables—green peas or
cabbages in a London market garden, say—to be daintily
served on the table which now stands in that other table’s
place, and where they will speedily go to the making of ‘ Lords
of the Creation.’ And so on, again and again, as long as the
world lasts.
Thus it is that an even balance is kept—demonstrable to
the very last grain if we could only collect the data—between
the total amounts of animal and of vegetable life existing to
gether at any instant on our globe. There must be an un
varying relation between the decay of animal life and the food
produced by that process for the elder twin, the vegetable
world. Vegetables first, consumed by animals either directly
or indirectly, as when they eat the flesh of animals who live
on vegetables. Secondly, these animals daily casting off effete
matters, and by decay after death providing the staple food
for vegetation of every description. One the necessary comB 2
�4
CREMATION.
plement of the other. The atmosphere, polluted by every
animal whose breath is poison to every other animal, being
every instant purified by plants, which, taking out the deadly
carbonic acid and assimilating carbon, restore to the air its
oxygen, first necessary of animal existence.
I suppose that these facts are known to most readers, but
I require a clear statement of them here as preliminary to my
next subject; and in any case it can do no harm to reproducea brief history of this marvellous and beautiful example of
intimate relation between the two kingdoms.
I return to consider man’s interference with the process in
question just hinted at in the quotation, ‘ Bury the dead out
of my sight.’
The process of decomposition affecting an animal body is
one that has a disagreeable, injurious, often fatal influence
on the living man if sufficiently exposed to it. Thousands of
human lives have been cut short by the poison of slowly de
caying, and often diseased animal matter. Even the putre
faction of some of the most insignificant animals has sufficed
to destroy the noblest. To give an illustration which comes
nearly home to some of us—the grave-yard pollution of air
and water alone has probably found a victim in some social
circle known to more than one who may chance to read this
paper. And I need hardly add that in times of pestilence
its continuance has been often due mainly to the poisonous
influence of the buried victims.
Man, then, throughout all historic periods, has got rid of
his dead kin after some fashion. He has either hidden the
body in a cave and closed the opening to protect its tenant
from wild beasts, for the instinct of affection follows most
naturally even the sadly changed remains of our dearest
relative; or, the same instinct has led him to embalm and
preserve as much as may be so preservable—a delay only of
Nature’s certain work;—-or, the body is buried beneath the
earth’s surface, in soil, in wood, in stone, or metal:—each
mode another contrivance to delay, but never to prevent, the
inevitable change. Or, the body is burned, and so restored
at once to its original elements, in which case Nature’s work
�CREMATION.
5
is hastened, her design anticipated, that is all. And after
burning, the ashes may be wholly or in part preserved in
some receptacle in obedience to the instinct of the survivor,
referred to above. All forms of sepulture come more or less
under one of these heads.1
One of the many social questions waiting to be solved, and
which must be solved at no very remote period, is, Which of
these various forms of treatment of the dead is the best for
survivors ?
This question may be regarded from two points of view,
both possessing importance, not equal in degree perhaps; but
neither can be ignored.
A. From the point of view of Utility : as to what is best
for the entire community.
B. From the point of view of Sentiment: the sentiment of
affectionate memory for the deceased, which is cherished by
the survivor.
I assume that there is no point of view to be regarded as
specially belonging to the deceased person, and that no one
believes that the dead has any interest in the matter. We
who live may anxiously hope—as I should hope at least—to
■do no evil to survivors after death, whatever we may have
■done of harm to others during life. But, being deceased, I
take it we can have no wishes or feelings touching this subject.
What is best to be done with the dead is then mainly a ques
tion for the living, and to them it is one of extreme import
ance. When the globe was thinly peopled, and when there
were no large bodies of men living in close neighbourhood,
the subject was an inconsiderable one and could afford to wait,
•and might indeed be left for its solution to sentiment of any
kind. But the rapid increase of population forces it into
notice, and especially man’s tendency to live in crowded cities.
There is no necessity to prove, as the fact is too patent, that
-our present mode of treating the dead, namely, that by burial
beneath the soil, is full of danger to the living. Hence intra
mural interment has been recently forbidden, first step in
1 ‘ Burial at Sea ’ is a form of exposure, the body being rapidly devoured by
marine animals.
�6
CREMATION.
a series of reforms which must follow. At present we whodwell in towns are able to escape much evil by selecting a
portion of ground distant—in this year of grace 1873—some
five or ten miles from any very populous neighbourhood, and
by sending our dead to be buried there:—laying by poison,
nevertheless, it is certain, for our children’s children, who will
find our remains polluting their water sources, when that now
distant plot is covered, as it will be, more or less closely by
human dwellings. For it can be a question of time only when
every now waste spot will be utilized for food-production or
for shelter, and when some other mode of disposing of the
dead than that of burial must be adopted. If, therefore,
burial in the soil be certainly injurious either now or in the
future, has not the time already come to discuss the possi
bility of replacing it by a better process ? We cannot too
soon cease to do evil and learn to do well. Is it not indeed a
social sin of no small magnitude to sow the seeds of disease
and death broadcast, caring only to be certain that they
cannot do much harm to our own generation ? It may be
granted, to anticipate objection, that it is quite possible that
the bodies now buried may have lost most, if not all, of their
faculty for doing mischief by the time that the particular soil
they inhabit is turned up again to the sun’s rays, although
this is by no means certain; but it is beyond dispute that the
margin of safety as to time grows narrower year by year, and
that pollution of wells and streams which supply the living
must ere long arise wherever we bury our dead in this country.
Well, then, since every buried dead body enters sooner or later
into the vegetable kingdom, why should we permit it, as it
does in many cases, to cause an infinity of mischief during
the long process ?
Let us at this point glance at the economic view of the
subject, for it is not so unimportant as, unconsidered, it may
appear. For it is an economic subject whether we will it or
not. No doubt a sentiment repugnant to any such view must
arise in many minds, a sentiment altogether to be held in
respect and.sympathy. Be it so, the question remains strictly
a question of prime necessity in the economic system of a
�CREMATION.
7
crowded country. Nature will have it so, whether we like it
or not. She destines the material elements of my body to
enter the vegetable world on purpose to supply another animal
organism which takes my place. She wants me, and I must
go. There is no help for it. When shall I follow—with quick
obedience, or unwillingly, truant-like, traitor-like, to her and
her grand design ? Her capital is intended to bear good
interest and to yield quick return : all her ways prove it—
‘ increase and multiply ’ is her first and constant law. Shall
her riches be hid in earth to corrupt and bear no present fruit;
or be utilised, without loss of time, value, and interest, for the
benefit of starving survivors ? Nature hides no talent in a
napkin; we, her unprofitable servants only, thwart her ways
and delay the consummation of her will.
Is a practical illustration required ? Nothing is easier.
London was computed, by the census of 1871, to contain
3,254,260 persons, of whom 80,430 died within the year.
I have come to the conclusion, after a very carefully made
estimate, that the amount of ashes and bone earth, such as is
derived by perfect combustion, belonging to and buried with
those persons, is by weight about 206,820 lbs. The pecuniary
value of this highly concentrated form of animal solids is very
considerable. For this bone-earth may be regarded as equi
valent to at least six or seven times its weight of dried but
unburned bones, as they ordinarily exist in commerce. The
amount of other solid matters resolvable by burning into the
gaseous food of plants, but rendered unavailable by burial for,
say, fifty or a hundred years or more, is about 5,584,000 lbs.,
the value of which is quite incalculable, but it is certainly
enormous as compared with the preceding.
This is for the population of the metropolis only : that of
the United Kingdom for the same year amounted to 31,483,700
persons, or nearly ten times the population of London. Taking
into consideration a somewhat lower death-rate for the imperial
average, it will at all events be quite within the limit of truthful
statement to multiply the above quantities by nine in order to
obtain the amount of valuable economic material annually
diverted in the United Kingdom for a long term of years
�8
CREMATION.
from its ultimate destiny by our present method of inter
ment.
The necessary complement of this ceaseless waste of com
modity most precious to organic life, and which must be
replaced, or the population could not exist, is the purchase by
this country of that same material from other countries less
populous than our own, and which can, therefore, at present
spare it. This we do to the amount of much more than half
a million pounds sterling per annum.1
Few persons, I believe, have any notion that these impor
tations of foreign bones are rendered absolutely necessary by
the hoarding of our own some six feet below the surface. The
former we acquire at a large cost for the original purchase and
for freight. The latter we place, not in the upper soil where
they would be utilised, but in the lower soil, where they are
not merely useless, but where they often mingle with and
pollute the streams which furnish our tables. And in order
to effect this absurd, if not wicked, result, we incur a lavish
expenditure ! I refer, of course, to the enormous sums which
are wasted in effecting burial according to our present custom,
a part of the question which can by no means be passed over.
For the funeral rites of the 80,000 in London last year, let
a mean cost of ten pounds per head be accepted as an estimate
which certainly does not err on the side of excess.2 Eight
1 Value of Bones imported into the United Kingdom, of which by far the
larger part is employed for manure, was, in—
1866 ............................................................£409,590
1869
600,029
1872
753,185
Statistical Abstract, 20th Number. Spottiswoode, 1873.
2 Items comprised in the calculation—
1. Cost of shroud, coffin, labour of digging a grave—essential now in all
burials.
2. Cost of funeral carriages, horses, trappings, and accoutrements.
Ornamental coffins in wood and metal.
Vaults and monumental art—more or less employed in all funerals
above the rank of pauper.
The cost of simple modes of transit are not included in the calculation,
because necessary in any case, whatever the destination of the body. The
above-named items are only necessary in the case of interment in a grave, and
not one would be required, for example, in the case of cremation or burning of
the body.
�CREMATION.
9
hundred thousand pounds must therefore be reckoned as
absolute loss, to the costs already incurred in the mainte
nance of the system. Thus we pay every way and doubly for
our folly.
What, then, is it proposed to substitute for this custom of
burial ? The answer is easy and simple. Do that which is
■done in all good work of every kind—follow Nature’s indica
tion, and do the work she does, but do it better and more
rapidly. For example, in the human body she sometimes
throws off a diseased portion in order to save life, by slow and
clumsy efforts, it is true, and productive of much suffering;
the surgeon performs the same task more rapidly and better,
follows her lead, and improves on it. Nature’s many agents,
laden with power, the over-action of which is harmful, we
■cannot stop, but we tame, guide, and make them our most
profitable servants. So here, also, let us follow her. The
naturally slow and disagreeable process of decomposition
which we have made by one mode of treatment infinitely
more slow and not less repulsive, we can by another mode of
treatment greatly shorten and accomplish without offence to
the living. What in this particular matter is naturally the
work of weeks or months, can be perfectly done in an hour or
two.
The Problem to be worked is : Given a dead body, to
resolve it into carbonic acid, water, and ammonia, and the
mineral elements, rapidly, safely, and not unpleasantly.
The answer may be practically supplied in a properly con
structed furnace. The gases can be driven off without offen
sive odour, the mineral constituents will remain in a crucible.
The gases will ere night be consumed by plants and trees.
The ashes or any portion of them may be preserved in a
funeral urn, or may be scattered on the fields, which latter is
their righteous destination. No scents or balsams are needed,
as on Greek and Roman piles, to overcome the noxious effluvia
of a corpse burned in open air. Modern science is equal to
the task of thus removing the dead of a great city without
instituting any form of nuisance; none such as those we
tolerate everywhere from many factories, both to air and
�10
CREMATION.
streams. Plans for the accomplishment of this have been
considered; but discussion of the subject alone is aimed at
here. To treat our dead after this fashion would return
millions of capital without delay to the bosom of mother earth,
who would give us back large returns at compound interest for
the deposit.
Who can doubt now that the question is one of vital
economy to the people of this country ? This is still no reason
why it should not be considered from the point of view of sen
timent. And what has sentiment to urge on behalf of the
present process ? Let us see what the process by burial is.
So far as I dare ! for could I paint in its true colours the
ghastly picture of that which happens to the mortal remains
of the dearest we have lost, the page would be too deeply
stained for publication. I forbear, therefore, to trace the steps
of the process which begins so soon and so painfully to mani
fest itself after that brief hour has passed, when ‘ she lay
beautiful in death.’ Such loveliness as that I agree it might
be treason to destroy, could its existence be perpetuated, and
did not Nature so ruthlessly and so rapidly blight her own
handy-work, in furtherance of her own grand purpose. The
sentiment of the survivor on behalf of preserving the beauty
of form and expression, were it possible to do so, would, I
confess, go far to neutralise the argument based on utility,
powerful as it is. But a glimpse of the reality which we
achieve by burial would annihilate in an instant every senti
ment for continuing that process. Nay, more ; it would arouse
a powerful repugnance to the horrible notion that we too must
some day become so vile and offensive, and, it may be, so
dangerous; a repugnance surmountable only through the firm
belief that after death the condition of the body is a matter of
utter indifference to its dead life-tenant. Surely if we, the
living, are to have sentiments, or to exercise any choice about
the condition of our bodies after death, those sentiments and
that choice must be in favour of a physical condition which
cannot be thought of either as repulsive in itself or as injurious
to others.
There is a source of very painful dread, as I have reason
�CREMATION.
11
to know, little talked of, it is true, but keenly felt by many
persons at some time or another, the horror of which to some
is inexpressible. It is the dread of a premature burial; the
fear lest some deep trance should be mistaken for death, and
that the awakening should take place too late. Happily such
occurrences must be exceedingly rare, especially in this country,
where the interval between death and burial is considerable,
and the fear is almost a groundless one. Still, the conviction
that such a fate is possible, which cannot be altogether denied
—will always be a source of severe trial to some. With
cremation no such catastrophe could ever occur ; and the com
pleteness of a properly conducted process would render death
instantaneous and painless if by any unhappy chance an in
dividual so circumstanced were submitted to it.
But the
guarantee against this danger would be doubled, since inspec
tion of the entire body must of necessity immediately precede
the act of cremation, no such inspection being possible under
the present system.
In order to meet a possible objection to the substitution
of cremation for burial, let me observe that the former is
equally susceptible with the latter of association with religious
funereal rites, if not more so. Never could the solemn and
touching words ‘ashes to ashes, dust to dust,’ be more appro
priately uttered than over a body about to be consigned to the
furnace; while, with a view to metaphor, the dissipation of
almost the whole body in the atmosphere in the ethereal form
of gaseous matter is far more suggestive as a type of another
and a brighter life, than the consignment of the body to the
abhorred prison of the tomb.
I do not propose to describe here the processes which have
been employed, or any improved system which might be
adopted for the purpose of ensuring rapid and perfect combus
tion of the body, although much might be said in reference to
these matters. There is no doubt that further experiments
and research are wanting for the practical improvement of the
process, especially if required to be conducted on a large scale.
Something has been already accomplished and with excellent
results. I refer to recent examples of the process as practised by
�12
CREMATION.
Dr. L. Brunetti, Professor of Pathological Anatomy in the
University of Padua. These were exhibited at the Exposition
of Vienna, where I had the opportunity of examining them
with care. Professor Brunetti exposed the residue from bodies
and parts of bodies on which he had practised cremation by
different methods, and the results of his latest experience may
be summarised as follows : The whole process of incineration
of a human adult body occupied three and a half hours. The
ashes and bone earth weighed 1*70 kilo., about three pounds
and three-quarters avoirdupois. They were of a delicate white,
and were contained in a glass box about twelve inches long,
by eight inches wide, and eight deep. The quantity of wood
used to effect absolute and complete incineration, may be
estimated from its weight, about 150 pounds. He adds that
‘ its cost was one florin and twenty kreuzers,’ about two
shillings and fourpence English. The box was that marked
No. IX. in the case, which was No. 4149 in the Catalogue :
Italian.1
In an adjacent case was an example of mummification by
the latest and most successful method. By a series of chemical
processes it has been attempted to preserve in the corpse the
appearance natural to life, as regards colour and form. Ad
mirable as the result appears to be in preserving anatomical
and pathological specimens of the body, it is, in my opinion,
very far from successful when applied to the face and hand.
At best a condition is produced which resembles a badlycoloured and not well-formed waxen image. And the conscious
ness that this imperfect achievement is the real person and
not a likeness, so far from being calculated to enhance its
value to the survivor, produces the very painful impression, as
it were, of a debased original; while, moreover, it is impos
sible not to be aware that the substitution of such an image
for the reality must in time replace the mental picture which
exists, of the once living face lighted by emotion and intelli
gence, of which the preserved face is wholly destitute.
To return to the process of cremation. There are still
numerous considerations in its favour which might be adduced,
1 Far better results have been since attained (1884).
�CREMATION.
13.
of which I shall name only one; namely, the opportunity it
offers of escape from the ghastly but costly ceremonial which
mostly awaits our remains after death. How often have the
slender shares of the widow and orphan been diminished in
order to testify, and so unnecessarily, their loving memory of
the deceased, by display of plumes and silken scarves about
the unconscious clay. And again, how prolific of mischief to
the living is the attendance at the burial ground, with un
covered head, and dampstruck feet, in pitiless weather, at the
chilling rite of sepulture. Not a few deaths have been clearly
traceable to the act of offering that ‘ last tribute of respect.’
Perhaps no great change can be expected at present in the
public opinions current, or rather in the conventional views
which obtain, on the subject of burial, so ancient is the prac
tice, and so closely associated is it with sentiments of affection
and reverence for the deceased. To many persons, any kind
of change in our treatment of the dead will be suggestive of
sacrilegious interference, however remote, either in fact or by
resemblance to it, such change may be. Millions still cherish
deep emotions connected both with the past and the future in
relation to the ‘ Campo Santo,’ and the annual ‘ Jour des
Morts.’ And many of these might be slow to learn that, if
the preservation of concrete remains and the ability to offer
the tribute of devotion at a shrine be desired, cremation equally,
if not better than burial, secures those ends. On the other
hand, I know how many there are, both in this country and
abroad, who only require the assurance that cremation is
practically attainable to declare their strong preference for it,,
and to substitute it for what they conceive to be the present
defective and repulsive procedure. A few such might, by com
bination for the purpose, easily examine the subject still further
by experiment, and would ultimately secure the power if they
desired to put it in practice for themselves. And the con
sideration of the subject which such examples would afford
could not fail to hasten the adoption of what I am fairly
entitled to call the Natural, in place of the present Artificial*
Treatment of the body after death.
�14
CREMATION.
[ The foregoing paper having appeared in the 1 Contemporary ’ of January, 1873,
a reply from Mr. Holland took place in February; the following paper,
defending his original statements, was published by Sir Henry Thompson
in the March number of that journal.]
CREMATION :
A REPLY TO CRITICS AND AN EXPOSITION OF THE PROCESS.
I confess that it is not without some surprise that I find my
proposal to substitute Cremation for Burial as a sanitary
reform formally opposed in the last number of the ‘ Contem
porary ’ by a member of the Medical Profession. From the
general public, on account of its natural and tender sympathy
with ancient customs, especially when hallowed by religious
rite, I had expected adverse criticism. From those who are
interested, or believe themselves to be so, in the celebration
of funereal pomps and ceremonials of all kinds, a protest was
also not unlikely to be heard.
In all this, however, I have been mistaken. So far from
encountering opposition, I have received encouragement and
support from all classes to an extent which would have been
to me almost incredible had I not witnessed it.
Clergymen are anxious to demonstrate how few are the
words requiring change in our Burial Service to render it
wholly applicable to Cremation. The public Press has all but
unanimously spoken favourably of the scheme, demanding
only to be assured on certain grounds of possible objection,
with which presently I shall have to deal. Persons in all ranks
and stations of life write me to say there is nothing they
would more gladly obtain than the assurance that their wish
to be burned after death could be realised without difficulty.
And, lastly, I am bound to say that the much—perhaps
too much—abused undertaker, with a knowledge of the world
and a breadth of view for which some might not have given
�CREMATION.
15
him credit, has said to me: ‘I only desire to supply the
public want: as long as the public demands funeral cars,
magnificent horses, display of feathers, and a host of atten
dants in black, I must furnish them ; but I am equally ready
to perform Cremation to-morrow if the public demand it, and
if you will tell me how to do it properly.’ And I find him an
ally at once, and not an enemy.
Surprised, then, as I am, equally at the number of my
friends, and at the quarter from whence my one opponent
arises, it is with no little satisfaction, since I am to have an
opponent, that I find him to be one so well qualified for the
task; the writer of the article in question being no less an
authority than the Medical Inspector of Burials for England
and Wales to the Home Department. I feel sure, then, that
all which can be said in defence of Burial and in opposition
to Cremation will be urged by so experienced and redoubtable
an antagonist: one who, according to his own showing, has
had a large share in controlling and directing the public money
for the establishment of Cemeteries during the last twenty
years. And, after all, I cannot wonder, seeing how extensive
is his acquaintance with the present state of these matters,
and how closely he himself is identified with them, that he
should intimate at the outset that in itself my paper ‘ is not
worth a reply,’ ‘ the theory on which its main conclusion is
based being so entirely without reasonable foundation.’
He, nevertheless, consents to discuss the subject, although
he fails to specify the theory thus stigmatised. As I intend
to examine the article carefully, the omission will probably
not be important. The following may be accepted as a fair
summary of the views expressed in it. Mr. Holland admits
the great evils of burial when it is adopted within the limits
of the town; but believes that ‘ amply large and well-situated
Cemeteries ’ having been established, for which ‘ a heavy
expense has been incurred ; ’ if, furthermore, they are not too
much crowded at first, and are not too soon disturbed after
wards, it is ‘ possible for burial to be continued without
danger, that is, without, not the possibility, but the proba
bility of injury.’ All these advantages granted, even then
*
�16
CREMATION.
Cemeteries ‘ may be mismanaged so as to become unsafe/
‘ for so long as men are men, mistakes, and worse than mis
takes, will occasionally occur; ’ and he states that ‘ the real
danger from a well-situated and well-managed Cemetery, large
in proportion to the number of its burials, is not larger than
that of a well-managed railway.’
We learn, then, from her Majesty’s Inspector that Burial
is by no means a certainly innocuous procedure : although,
provided all the conditions named above are present, which,
by the way, is by no means always the case in our very
popular suburban Cemeteries, much mischief may not occur.
In addition to this he combats at some length views which
he quite erroneously attributes to me; and also imputes in
accuracy in a statement of mine relative to chemical changes,
which imputation I shall prove to be wholly without foundation.
It is on these grounds that Mr. Holland advocates burial,
and he is bold enough to assert its superiority to Cremation,
although, it appears, he has had no experience whatever of
the latter process ! I doubt whether he ever witnessed an
experiment, much less has performed one himself; indeed, I
am compelled to infer from his remarks that he knows nothing
of it beyond the account which in my last paper I gave of the
experiments by Brunetti of Padua, the results of which, al
though excellent, are, as I intimated more than once, very
inferior to those which might easily be attained. He feels
bound to admit that, ‘ no doubt, if sufficient care be taken, no
actual nuisance need be caused ’ by Cremation, but qualifies
the admission by suggesting that the process ‘ is far more
liable to mishaps ’ than burial, ‘ such mishaps as must be
occasionally expected causing far more disgusting nuisance,
far more difficult of concealment.’
To all this I shall reply : first, that the evils of Burial are
far too lightly estimated by Mr. Holland, respecting which I
will adduce overwhelming testimony of a kind that he will not
question or deny.
Secondly, that the plan of Cremation I have myself
adopted and will now advise, is wholly free from objections of
the kind Mr. Holland has imagined to exist: that it is com
�CREMATION.
17
plete in its results, and is absolutely causeless of danger or
■offence to others.
The evils inflicted on the living by the burial of the dead,
I find myself compelled to demonstrate. In my original article
I assumed these to be well known and universally admitted, and
had no idea that evidence on this subject could be required.
This, however, was an error. Thus I have several times been
asked quite gravely by young men, well educated and intelli
gent, if it were an ascertained fact that decaying dead bodies
within a grave could really induce disease in the living: true,
they might give rise to horrible effluvia, and be very disagree
able, but were they positively harmful ? And one respectable
journal suggests, as worthy of consideration, whether solicitude
on these matters does not betray an undue care for the pre
servation of life, and regards an attempt to control this fertile
source of disease, as dictated by ‘ a constant and morbid fear
of death ’ ! For all this remarkable ignorance of the subject
I can only account by the fact, that a generation has risen up
since there was made that notable revelation of horrors in the
London churchyards which the older men of our time can
never forget, but which the younger men never knew.
Some five-and-twenty years have now elapsed since a
systematic examination of the churches and graveyards of the
Metropolis was made by the most eminent and trustworthy
men of the day, when details were brought to light which, at
that time, smote the public with horror.
The result was that Acts of Parliament were passed pro
hibiting intramural interment. The poisonous abominations
were removed, vaults were hermetically sealed, and the dead
were carried miles away; nevertheless the same detestable
process of putrefaction goes on, although it is, at present,
beyond the reach of our senses, and only now and then
obtrudes itself on our notice.
My task, however, becomes yet more necessary, since we
have before us to-day a Medical Inspector of Burials, who,
while admitting, with manifest reluctance, that some danger
still attaches to the process of interment, comes forward to
advise the public, with all the weight of his experience, to
c
�18
CREMATION.
continue that practice, instead of inquiring, which he has not
done, whether a mode of disposing of the body may not exist
which is absolutely harmless and devoid of all the evils named
above.
It is clear then that, for the sake of the general reader at
all events, it is necessary to refer, although briefly, to the in
dubitable evidence which exists relative to this subject.
For his information let me state that the 1 General Board
of Health ’ made, in 1849, a special investigation, commission
ing for the purpose Southwood Smith, Chadwick, Milroy,
Sutherland, Waller Lewis, and others, to conduct a searching
inquiry into the state of the burial-grounds of London and
large provincial towns : and to devise a scheme for extramural
sepulture. From their report,1 which abounds in information,
I shall make two or three extracts.
Happily, any minute description of the state of the grave
yards and their contents which resulted from ‘ the present
practice of interment in towns ’ need not be given. It will
suffice for our purpose to observe that the reporters say
‘ We shall be under the necessity of making statements of a
very painful nature, and sometimes of representing scenes
which we feel most reluctant publicly to exhibit; but we
should ill discharge the duty entrusted to us if we were to
shrink from the full disclosure of the truth; more especially
as a thorough knowledge of the evil is indispensable to an
appreciation of the only effectual remedy.’2
Passing over these details, I quote again as follows :—‘ We,’
say the reporters, ‘ may safely rest the sanitary part of the
1 Report on a General Scheme for Extramural Sepulture. (Clowes and
Sons, 1850.)
(Signed)
Carlisle.
Ashley.
Edwin Chadwick.
T. Southwood Smith.
The subject had been examined before by official authority; and at an earlyperiod by Walker, whose work on Graveyards is well known, and contains much
information. (Longmans, London, 1839.)
A Special Inquiry into the Practice of Interment in Toions; by Edwin
Chadwick (London, 1843), is replete with evidence, and should be read by those
who desire to pursue the inquiry further.
- Report on a General Scheme, &c., p. 5.
�CREMATION.
19
case on the single fact, that the placing of the dead body in a
grave and covering it with a few feet of earth does not prevent
the gases generated by decomposition, together with putrescent
matters which they hold in suspension, from permeating the
surrounding soil, and escaping into the air above and the
water beneath.’
After supporting this statement by illustrations of the
enormous force exercised by gases of decomposition, in burst
ing open leaden coffins whence they issue without restraint,
the reporters quote the evidence of Dr. Lyon Playfair (late
H.M. Postmaster-General) to the following effect:—
4 I have examined,’ he says, ‘ various churchyards and
burial-grounds for the purpose of ascertaining whether the
layer of earth above the bodies is sufficient to absorb the
putrid gases evolved. The slightest inspection shows that
they are not thoroughly absorbed by the soil lying over the
bodies. I know several churchyards from which most foetid
smells are evolved; and gases with similar odour are emitted
from the sides of sewers passing in the vicinity of churchyards,
although they may be more than thirty feet from them.’
.... He goes on to estimate the amount of gases which
issue from the graveyard, and estimates that for the 52,000
annual interments of the Metropolis 1 no less a quantity than
2,572,580 cubic feet of gases is emitted, ‘the whole of which,
beyond what is absorbed by the soil, must pass into the water
below or the atmosphere above.’
The foregoing is but one small item from the long list of
illustrative cases proving the fact that no dead body is ever
buried within the earth without polluting the soil, the water,
and the air around and above it: the extent of the offence
produced corresponding with the amount of decaying animal
matter subjected to the process.
But ‘ offence ’ only is proved : is the result not only dis
agreeable but injurious to the living ?
1 A number which has already reached 80,000, in 1873, so rapid is the
increase of population. The above was written in 1849.
It has been stated by some that the mere contact of the corpse with fresh
earth suffices for safe disinfection! Such a monstrous delusion is disposed of
by this evidence.
c 2
�20
CREMATION.
The Report referred to gives notable examples of the fatal
influence of such effluvia when encountered in a concentrated
form ; one being that of two gravediggers who, in 1841,
perished in descending into a grave in St. Botolph’s church
yard, Aidgate. Such are, however, extremely exceptional in
stances ; but our reporter goes on to say that there is abundant
evidence of the injurious action of these gases in a more
diluted state, and cites the well-demonstrated fact that ‘ cholera
was unusually prevalent in the immediate neighbourhood of
London graveyards.’ I cannot cite, on account of its length,
a paragraph by Dr. Sutherland attesting this fact: while the
many pages detailing Dr. Milroy’s inspection of numerous
graveyards are filled with evidence which is quite conclusive,
and describes scenes which must be read by those who desire
further acquaintance with the subject.1
Dr. Waller Lewis reports the mischievous results of breath
ing the pestiferous air of vaults and the kind of illness pro
duced by it.2 His long and elaborate report of the condition
of these excavations beneath the churches of the metropolis,
presents a marvellous view of the phenomena, which, ordi
narily hidden in the grave, could be examined here, illustrating
the many stages of decay; a condition which he describes as
a ‘ disgrace to any civilisation.’ But it may be said all this
is changed now ; intramural interment no longer exists : why
produce these shocking records of the past ?
Precisely because they enable us to know what it is which
we have only banished to our suburban cemeteries ; that we
may be reminded that the process has not changed, that all
this horrible decomposition removed from our doors—although
this will not long be the case, either at Kensal Green or
Norwood, to say nothing of some other cemeteries—goes on as
ever, and will one day be found in dangerous vicinity to our
homes. And here I must make an explanation which I think
can be necessary to very few who read my former article,
although Mr. Holland misunderstands me, and bases the
1 See independent examples on each of pages 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 21, 26, 28,
43-46, and many others in the Report above quoted, p. 29.
2 See also Chadwick’s Special Inquiry, for numerous illustrations.
�CREMATION.
21
greater part of his paper upon the utter misrepresentation of
my meaning he is pleased to make. Because I said that in
burying the corpses of to-day in distant graves we were £ lay
ing by poison for our children’s children,’ he takes special
pains to inform me that probably these particular corpses
must at that future time be as innocuous as if they had been
burned. No doubt they will be so ; but as years pass on, the
close neighbourhood and ultimate contact of the putrefying
dead with our living descendants must arrive.
It is only a question of time. And it was expressly for the
purpose of guarding against the misapprehension I complain
of, and which has furnished my opponent with such large
opportunity of needless remark, that I added the following
passage, which it is only charitable to suppose he must have
overlooked (although it forms the immediate sequel to that
which he quoted) :—
£ It may be granted, to anticipate objection, that it is quite
possible that the bodies now buried may have lost most, if not
all, their power of doing mischief by the time that the par
ticular soil they inhabit is turned up again to the sun’s rays,
although this is by no means certain ; but it is beyond dispute
that the margin of safety as to time grows narrower and
narrower year by year, and that pollution of wells and streams
which supply the living must ere long arise wherever we bury
our dead in this country.’
Now there is no doubt that the passage which has been
thus unfairly separated from its context, and so made to
appear the exponent of views I do not hold, and have, indeed,
expressly disclaimed, is that in which he professes to find
ground for his statement that the £ theory on which my main
conclusion is based is entirely without reasonable foundation.’
What then becomes of this sweeping assertion ?
At this point let me call another witness on this important
subject.
Perhaps it would be difficult to name a higher
authority in this country on any question of public health,
than that of Dr. Edmund Parkes, Professor of Military
Hygiene of the Army Medical School at Netley. With the
particular part of his writings which I am about to quote, I
�22
CREMATION.
was unacquainted until the last few days, perhaps because they
appear in a work ‘ prepared especially for use in the medical
service of the army.’ That at all events must be my excuse
for not having them within reach before.1 In a short, but
suggestive, chapter ‘ on the disposal of the dead,’ he proposes
the following question :—
‘ What, then, is the best plan of disposing of the dead so
that the living may not suffer ? At present the question is not
an urgent one ; but if peace continue, and if the population of
Europe increase, it will become so in another century or two.
Already in this country we have seen, in our own time, a great
change; the objectionable practice of interment under and
around churches in towns has been given up, and the popula
tion is buried at a distance from their habitations. For the
present, that measure will probably suffice, but in a few years
the question will again inevitably present itself.
‘ Burying in the ground appears certainly the most in
sanitary plan of the three methods.2 The air over cemeteries is
constantly contaminated (see p. 76), and water (which maybe
used for drinking) is often highly impure. Hence in the
vicinity of graveyards two dangers to the population arise, and
in addition, from time to time, the disturbance of an old
graveyard has given rise to disease. It is a matter of noto
riety that the vicinity of graveyards is unhealthy.’
To return to our reporters: we have seen the condition of
graveyards in towns, but it will not be undesirable to glance
at the evidence relating to the condition of provincial church
yards, where, in the midst of a sparse population, the pure
country air circulates with natural freedom—numbers of such
spots are mentioned—let one single example be ‘ Cadoxton
Churchyard, near Neath.’
Respecting this, the reporter
writes :—‘ I do not know how otherwise to describe the state
of this churchyard than by saying that it is truly and
thoroughly abominable. The smell from it is revolting. I
could distinctly perceive it in every one of the neighbouring
houses which I visited, and in every one of these houses there
1 A Manual of Practical Hygiene. (London, Churchill, 1864.)
2 Burial in the Land, or at Sea, and Burning, p. 458.
�CREMATION.
23,
have been cases of cholera or severe diarrhoea.’ This is, not a
selected specimen, some are even worse ; for further examples
see below.1
I next complain that there is insufficient recognition in
Mr. Holland’s paper, of the unhealthy character of the ema
nations which result from the process of putrefaction when,
affecting the human body. He lays great stress on the fact
that at the encl of those long stages of decay which burial
renders necessary, the result is as harmless as at the end of
the process of Cremation, passing over as not worth notice the
fact that for long years the corpse is replete with influences,
which are mischievous to anything which may come within
them range; absolute isolation being the only condition of
safety. Conversely stated, this is precisely my own argument,
and demonstrates triumphantly the superiority of Cremation.
I affirm that, by burning, we arrive in one hour, without
offence or danger, at the very stage of harmless result which
burying requires years to produce. True, indeed, it is, 1 that
the ultimate result is the same,’ but an infinity of mischief
may happen by his process, and none can happen by mine.
And, after all, he can only on his own showing claim a perfect
result by burial ‘if no more dead be buried than the free oxy
gen contained in rain and dew carried through it, will decom
pose; and if such soil be left undisturbed, &c., and i/the use
of such ground for burial be discontinued,’ &c., &c. Again,
there is another instance of Mr. Holland’s insufficient recog
nition of the unhealthy character of cadaveric emanations
which I must particularly call attention to. I had stated that
in the resolution of an animal body the gaseous products
were carbonic acid, water, and ammonia. He impeaches my
correctness, saying that I am—
‘ Not, however, quite accurate in describing that result to
be the formation of water, of ammonia, and of carbonic acid,
as the chief products; for if the decomposition either with or
without fire be complete, no ammonia will be formed in the
soil; or, if formed, it will be converted before it need escape
1 Op. cit., p. 48. Report of Mr. Bowie, describing graveyards at Merthyr
Tydvil; Hawick, Roxburghshire ; Greenock, and other places.
�24
CREMATION.
either into the air, or be carried off by water, in the form either
of uncombined nitrogen, or changed into some compound of that
element with oxygen, such as nitric or nitrous acid, &c.’
I never said the ultimate result of the resolution in question
was ammonia, but I repeat that ammonia is an intermediate
formation in large quantity, by which nitrogen passes off be
fore it comes to be ‘the nitric or nitrous acid ’ he speaks of, the
latter being, by the way, no more an ultimate step in the process
than is ammonia. At what point shall we stop if we are to
trace to their last stages the volatile component elements of
the body ? Why, certainly not at ammonia, nor at nitric acid,
but at carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, and oxygen. I chose to
rest at ammonia, because the evolution of ammonia is an im
portant fact, and I re-assert that it is largely produced. So
much for the a priori statement. Now what is the evidence
from observation in this matter ? Was I right or was I wrong,
as Mr. Holland says I am, in stating that the body is resolved
among other things into ammonia ? Any intelligent witness
will do for me, but we have Dr. Parkes still in the box: let us
interrogate him. That same short chapter almost commences
with the following passage:—
‘ After death the buried body returns to its elements, and
gradually, and often by the means of other forms of life which
prey on it, a large amount of it forms carbonic acid, ammonia,
sulphuretted and carburetted hydrogen, nitrous and nitrie
acid, and various more complex gaseous products, many of
which are very foetid, but which, however, are eventually all
oxygenised into the simpler combinations.’1
In another part of the volume, in speaking of the air of
churchyards, he writes :—
‘ The decomposition of bodies gives rise to a very large
amount, of carbonic acid..............Ammonia and an offensive
putrid vapour are also given off.’
‘ In vaults, the air contains much carbonic acid, carbonate
or sulphide of ammonium, nitrogen, hydrosulphuric acid, and
organic matter.’2
Parkes, p. 457.
2 Op. tit., p. 76.
�CREMATION.
25
My readers will agree with me, I think, that this matter is
disposed of.
I now arrive at the second part of my subject, in which I
have to show that the plan of Cremation I have myself adopted,
and will now advise, is wholly free from objections of the kind
Mr. Holland has imagined to exist; that it is complete in its
results, and is absolutely causeless of danger or of offence to
any.
Many persons have expressed to me the opinion that I ought
in my first paper to have described what I believed to be the
best mode of performing Cremation. May I say that this was
also desired by the Editor of this Journal. I felt, however,
although I was prepared to give the information in question,
that it was impossible to judge beforehand what might be the
reception by the public of my project, and that I might per
haps go too far and weight it too heavily if I actually sketched
the process by which each reader could realise for himself its
nature and mode of operation. I think the reticence was
prudent, although it might possibly have been unnecessary.
I think it is fair to myself to say that, before that first
article was published, a scheme for burning two thousand
bodies a week for London (the average present requirement
being about sixteen hundred) was quite completed, and that I
had satisfied myself that to accomplish this would not be a
difficult task, and that it would occasion no nuisance whatever.
Without entering on those details, I will give an example
of what I have done in the matter of resolving the body into
its ultimate elements by heat.
And first of all I must request the reader to dismiss from
his mind all the allegations against the practice of Cremation
which Mr. Holland has made, grounded on what he imagines
that process to be. He states that it ‘ would necessarily
require the active superintendence of a class of men whose
services for such an office it wTould be scarcely possible always
to obtain : while it is evident that imperfectly conducted
burning of the dead would be inexpressibly shocking, and apt
not rarely to occur.’ The point first named is a matter barely
worth contesting; but the last five words are absolutely with
�26
CREMATION.
out foundation, and I challenge him to show a tittle of evidence
to support the very grave allegation they contain.
A powerful reverberating furnace will reduce a body of
more than average size and weight, leaving only a few white
and fragile portions of earthy material, in less than one hour.
I have myself personally superintended the burning of two
entire bodies, one small and emaciated of 47 lbs. weight, and
one of 140 lbs. weight, not emaciated, and possess the pro
ducts—in the former case, weighing 1| lbs.; in the latter,
weighing about 4 lbs. The former was completed in twentyfive minutes, the latter in fifty. No trace of odour was per
ceived—indeed, such a thing is impossible,—and not the
slightest difficulty presented itself. The remains already de
scribed were not withdrawal till the process was complete, and
nothing can be more pure, tested by sight or smell, than they
are, and nothing less suggestive of decay or decomposition.
It is a refined sublimate, and not a portion of refuse, which I
have before me. The experiments took place in the presence
of several persons. Among the witnesses of the second ex
periment was Dr. George Buchanan, the well-known medical
officer of the Local Government Board, who can testify to the
completeness of the process.
I challenge my opponent to produce so fair a result from
all the costly and carefully-managed cemeteries in the king
dom, and I offer him twenty years in which to elaborate the
process.
In the proceedings above described, the gases which leave
the furnace chimney during the first three or four minutes
of combustion are noxious: after that time they cease to be
so, and no smoke would be seen. But those noxious gases
are not to be permitted to escape by any chimney, and will
pass through a flue into a second furnace, where they are
entirely consumed ; and the chimney of the latter is smokeless
—no organic products whatever can issue by it. A complete,
combustion is thus attained.
Not even a tall chimney is
necessary, which might be pointed at as that which marked
the site where Cremation is performed. A small jet of steam
quickening the draught of a low chimney is all that is requisite.
�CREMATION.
27
If the process is required on a large scale, the second furnace
could be utilised for Cremation also, and its products passed
through another, and so on without limit.
Subsequent experiments, however, by another method,
have resulted in a still greater success. By means of one of
the furnaces invented by Dr. Wm. Siemens, I have obtained
even a more rapid and more complete combustion than before.
The body employed was a severe test of its powers, for it
weighed no less than 227 lbs., and was not emaciated. It
was placed in a cylindrical vessel about seven feet long by
five or six in diameter, the interior of which was already heated
to about 2000° Bahr. The inner surface of the cylinder is
smooth, almost polished, and no solid matter but that of the
body is introduced into it.
The product, therefore, can be
nothing more than the ashes of the body. No foreign dust
can be introduced, no coal or other solid combustible being
near it: nothing but a heated hydrocarbon in a gaseous form
and heated air. Nothing is visible in the cylinder before using
it but a pure almost white interior, the lining having acquired
a temperature of white heat. In this case, the gases given
off from the body so abundantly at first, pass through a highly
heated chamber among thousands of interstices made by in
tersecting fire-bricks, laid throughout the entire chamber,
lattice-fashion, in order to minutely divide and delay the
current, and expose it to an immense area of heated surface.
By this means they were rapidly oxidised, and not a particle
of smoke issued by the chimney : no second furnace, therefore,
is necessary by this method to consume any noxious matters,
since none escape. The process was completed in fifty-five
minutes, and the ashes, which weighed about five pounds,
were removed with ease.
The foregoing is a very meagre
sketch of Dr. Siemens’ furnace, the principle of which is well
known to engineers, and to scientific men generally, and need
not be described in detail here.
I will now add—not that it affects the process in the
slightest degree as to results—that all my experiments
hitherto have been made with the lower animals.
As a rough and unfinished sketch of a system to be
�28
CREMATION.
followed when Cremation is generally adopted, I would suggest
the following :—
When death occurs and the necessary certificate has been
given (relative to which an important suggestion will be made
hereafter), the body is placed in a light wood shell, then in a
suitable outside receptacle preparatory to removal for religious
rites or otherwise. After a proper time has elapsed, it is
conveyed to the spot where Cremation is to be performed.
There, nothing need be seen by the last attendant or atten
dants than the placing of a shell within a small compartment,
and the closing of the door upon it. It slides down into the
heated chamber, and is left there an hour, till the necessary
changes have taken place. The ashes are then placed at the
disposal of the attendants.
I now come to a very serious matter, treated of by Mr.
Holland in a manner of which I am compelled to complain.
He is pleased to make merry himself, and to suggest that
I am joking—or, to use his own phraseology, ‘ poking fun ’—
when calling attention to my remarks relative to the ‘ econo
mical ’ view of Cremation.
In speaking of this, I stated that ‘ it is an economic sub
ject, whether we will it or not.’ Now I wish him and all my
readers to understand that I was never more serious, never
more earnest in my life than I was then and am at this
moment, and in consideration of this question of ‘ economy.’
Anything like ‘ fun ’ or a ‘joke,’ wherever else it may be
tolerated, is wholly out of place here. Seeing that the Great
Power which has ordained the marvellous and ceaseless
action which transmutes every animal body as quickly as
possible into vegetable matter and rice versa, and has
arranged that this harmonious cycle should be the absolute
and necessary law for all existence, I have space for no other
sentiments than those of submission, wonder, and admira
tion. If any say that it is in bad taste, or does violence to
some right feeling, to speak of the fate that inevitably awaits
every one of us, in that, on some future day, the elements of
our bodies must enter into that other life of the vegetable
world, whence once they came, let the complaint thereof be
�CREMATION.
29
carried to the Highest Court of the Universe, and let the
question be asked there, Whether ‘ the Judge of all the earth
doth right ’ ?
Meantime it suffices us to know that the very existence of
these cavillers is solely due to that Divine fecundity which
pervades all nature, and is regulated by economical principles,
the beneficent operation of which we may feebly postpone,
doing some notable harm thereby, but happily can never
resist in the end.
My charge against Mr. Holland, however, is not this, but
something much more serious. Alluding to the small modi
cum of remains in the form of ashes after Cremation, and
which I was content should be preserved in an urn, stating
only that the fields were their ‘ righteous ’ destination—as
they are—he speaks of the latter suggestion as a ‘ desecra
tion ’ and as ‘ outraging family affection ; ’ and actually
associates it in some fashion with savagery and cannibalism.
Yet, can we believe it, he, so tender of sentiment on this
subject of deceased remains, himself actually advocates and
practises the utilising of by far the greater part of those
remains for the production of grass and other vegetables for
the express purpose of keeping his cemeteries sweet and
wholesome!
The gaseous elements of these buried bodies,
which, as I particularly insisted upon when dealing with that
question of economy, are by far the greater part, being incal
culable in amount in relation to the ashes, which are by
comparison a mere trifle, and which alone he is pleased to
mention. That greater part, I say, he not only uses himself,
but he knows that this very utilisation of it is the only way
he has of preserving a cemetery in a tolerable condition. He
knows perfectly well that the presence of abundant plant
growth is essential in the cemetery to assimilate the noxious
gases arising from the buried bodies before alluded to, and
that those plants owe their life and structure to the very ele
ments of our ‘ friends and relatives,’ about whom he professes
to be so utterly shocked that I should conceive it possible to
utilise them for any economical purpose ! I charge my oppo
nent then, his professions notwithstanding, as in part the
�30
CREMATION.
manager of the cemeteries of this country during twenty
years, with having presided over perhaps the largest institution that ever existed for transmuting the human body into
vegetable growth of various kinds. My one objection to his
system is that it does it so slowly, so offensively, and so
dangerously.
Now, lest perchance someone not himself acquainted with
the facts alluded to may desire, for such a statement, other
authority than my own, let us listen once more, and for the
last time, to Dr. Parkes. In order to oxidise the foetid organic
exhalations of the burying-ground, he says : ‘ The only means
which present themselves, as applicable in all cases, are the
deep burial and the use of plants closely placed in the ceme
tery. There is no plan which is more efficacious for the
absorption of the organic substances, and perhaps of the
carbonic acid, than plants; but it would seem a mistake
to use only the dark, slow-growing evergreens ; the object
should be to get the most rapidly growing trees and shrubs,’
&C.1
But even this is not my opponent’s crowning inconsistency.
So determined is he not to accept Cremation, that he suggests
another mode, ‘ that of sinking the dead in the depths of the
ocean,’ as having ‘ far more to recommend it.’ No doubt
there is much to be said in its favour ; much more certainly
than for burial. Yet shocked as he is at the notion that his
father’s ashes should ever fertilise the field, he would consign
the body to a place whence, almost instantly, it would be
devoured by fish and crustaceans, whose numbers would be
multiplied correspondingly by their benefactor’s enormous
contribution of food, as the public markets soon would tes
tify. No animal multiplies more rapidly than fish, and the
‘ economic ’ question would be determined in a manner more
complete, and more direct, and with a more remunerative result
than any which I had ever dared, or still should dare, to
suggest!
This remarkable proposal appears actually on the same
page as that in which he affects to be outraged by my sugges1 P. 458. Dr. Sutherland also strongly! nsists on the same practice.
�CREMATION.
31
tion that burning the body would necessarily contribute to the
‘ food production ’ of the earth.
And here I shall take leave of Mr. Holland, to seek some
less formidable antagonist. Possibly in this light may be
regarded the writer of an article in the ‘ Spectator ’ newspaper,1
whose objection, supposing it to be seriously urged, is almost
the only one besides those already noticed which has appeared
within the range of our periodical literature.
By stretch of charity one might almost imagine it to be a
joke, seeing it is the writer’s only way of retreat from a wholly
untenable position. He urges that as the present generation
is doing its best to exhaust ‘ the rivers, the rainfall, the mines,
and the natural fertility of the earth,’ we ought to leave our
dead remains ‘ in bank for our descendants; ’ or, in other
words—for the generous sentiment is repeated—‘ it is well that
such a deposit as the dead of generations should be left to our
posterity ! ’ Waiving altogether the greatest objection to this
testamentary provision for our grandchildren—viz., the amount
of disease and death which is unquestionably produced by
burial in the soil—the writer ought to have known that the
‘ bank ’ in question, to use his own simile, pays no interest ■
and that it is perfectly certain that such capital rendered pro
ductive at once, according to nature’s design, must yield a far
greater profit, even for posterity, than his own notable one of
burying this one talent in a napkin as an offset against what
he is pleased to consider our present exhaustion of ‘ rivers and
rainfall,’ which he declares is taking place at ‘ railway speed ! ’
As if consumption of water in any form, were it a million-fold
what it is, could exhaust or diminish the common stock a
single drop ! No modern schoolboy could make such a blunder
as this; nevertheless, it is only a specimen of others existing
within the short limits of that article, and equally easy to ex
pose, if need be. I cannot pass over, however, one statement
that this writer has dared to make. He speaks of my figures
relative to the number buried in London in 1873, and esti
mating the amount of bone-earth and ashes belonging thereto
as ‘ very debateable,’ and, further, that they ‘ arc open to
1 Spectator, January 3, 1874.
�32
CREMATION.
question.’ After saying this, he declines ‘ to fight so eminent
a physicist on so small a point of detail.’ Is the point so
small ? I declare those figures to be below, and not above,
the truth, and am amply prepared to prove it. My veracity
is at stake, for I know no higher crime than to issue mislead
ing or exaggerated numerical statements in order to prove a
case, unless, indeed, it be to utter insinuations, without offer
ing a tittle of proof to support them, that an accurate
numerical statement is untrue.
I now desire to afford explanations which have been asked
relative to the following very important subject. It has been
said, and most naturally, what guarantee is there against
poisoning if the remains are burned, and it is no longer
possible, as after burial, to reproduce the body for the purpose
of examination ? It is to my mind a sufficient reply that, re
garding only ‘ the greatest good for the greatest number,’ the
amount of evil in the shape of disease and death, which results
from the present system of burial in earth, is infinitely larger
than the evil caused by secret poisoning is or could be, even
if the practice of the crime were very considerably to increase.
Further, the appointment of officers to examine and certify in
all cases of death would be an additional and very efficient
safeguard. But,—and here I touch on a very important
subject,—Is there reason to believe that our present precau
tions in the matter of death-certificate against the danger of
poisoning are what they ought to be ? I think that it must
be confessed that they are defective, for not only is our system
inadequate to the end proposed, but it is less efficient by
comparison than that adopted by foreign governments. Our
existing arrangements for ascertaining and registering the
cause of death are very lax, and give rise, as we shall see, to
serious errors. In order to attain an approach to certitude
in this important matter, I contend that it would be most
desirable to nominate in every district a properly qualified
inspector to certify in all cases to the fact that death has
taken place, to satisfy himself as far as possible that no foul
play has existed, and to give the certificate accordingly. This
would relieve the medical attendant of the deceased from any
�33
CREMATION.
disagreeable duty, relative to inquiry concerning suspicious
circumstances, if any have been observed. Such officers exist
throughout the large cities of France and Germany, and the
system is more or less pursued throughout the provinces. In
Paris, no burial can take place without the written permission
of the ‘ Medecin-Verificateur; ’ and whether we adopt Crema
tion or not, such an officer might, with advantage, be appointed
here.1
For perhaps it is not generally known, even, as it would
seem, by those who have emphasized so notably the objection
in question to Cremation, that many bodies are buried in this
country without any medical certificate at all; and that among
these any number of deaths by poison may have taken place
for anything that anybody knows. Is it in the provinces
chiefly that this lax practice exists ? No doubt, and more
1 The practice referred to is thus regulated :—
The following is the text of the French law. Code Napoleon, Article 77.
‘ Aucune inhumation ne sera faite sans une autorisation, sur papier libre et
sans frais, de l’officier de l’btat civil, qui ne pourra la delivrer qu’apres s’etre
transports aupres de la personne decedee pour s’assurer du decbs, et que 24
heures apres le decSs, hors les cas prevus par les rSglements de police.’
Thus the verification of the deceased must always be made by a civil officer
in person; viz., by the Mayor of the town, or by someone he shall appoint. The
law, however, is executed differently in Paris and in the provinces. In Paris,
the verification is made exclusively by medical men appointed for this purpose
in each ‘ quartier.’ Their functions are defined by an Act of the 31st of
December, 1821. As soon as a death is reported, the civil officer communicates
with the medical man of the ‘ quartier ’ in which the deceased resided, and
awaits the report to decide (in concert with the deceased’s friends) at what hour
burial should take place. The medical man attends at the residence indicated,
acquaints himself with all the circumstances of the illness, and reports in
writing relative to the following particulars:—1. The Christian and surname
of the deceased; 2. The sex; 3. If married or not; 4. The age ; 5. The pro
fession ; 6. The exact date and hour of the decease ; 7. The ‘ quartier,’ the
street, the number and story of the house in which it occurred ; 8. The nature
of the illness, and if there be any reason for making an autopsy ; 9. The
duration of the illness ; 10. The name of the persons who provided the medi
cines ; 11. The names of the doctors and others who attended the case.
Besides this verification made by the doctors belonging to each ‘ quartier ’ of
Paris, by an order of the Prefect of the Seine, April, 1839, a committee was
formed to watch over the service. The medical men who attest the facts
connected with death at Paris are called the ‘ Medecins-V6rificateurs des d£c£s.’
In Vienna, a similar document is always prepared, and perhaps with still
greater care and minuteness. The same may be said of Munich, Frankfort,
Geneva, and other Continental cities.
D
�34
CREMATION.
particularly in the principality of Wales. But it occurs also
in the heart of London. A good many certificates of death
are signed every year in London by some non-medical persons.
In one metropolitan parish, not long ago, which I can name,
but do not, above forty deaths were registered in a year on
the mere statement of neighbours of the deceased. No medical
certificate was procurable, and no inquest was held ; the bodies
were buried without inquiry. This practice is not illegal;
and, in my opinion, it goes far to make a case for the appoint
ment of a ‘ Medecin-Verificateur.’ During the existence of
pestilence especially, such a safeguard is necessary. Before I
quit this subject, let me make a brief extract from evidence
given by Mr. Simon before the Royal Sanitary Commission in
186.9, from which it appears that medical certification of death
is not the rule, but the exception, in some districts of Wales.
He says :—
‘ The returns of death made to the Registrar-General are
necessarily imperfect. . . . We had to make inquiry on one
occasion as to the supposed very large prevalence of phthisis
in some of the South Wales counties. ... It turned out
that this great appearance of phthisis in the death registers
depended upon the fact that the causes, of death were only
exceptionally certified by medical men. I remember that in
one case only 15 per cent, of the deaths had been medically
certified. The non-medical certifiers of death thought that
“ consumption ” was a good word to cover death generally,
so that any one who died somewhat slowly was put down as
dying of “consumption,” and this appeared in the RegistrarGeneral’s returns as phthisis.’
Dr. Sutherland long ago called attention to this matter.
I quote his remarks from the work above named. Referring
to Paris, Munich, and other cities, he says:—
‘ Where there are regularly appointed verificators ....
who are generally medical men in practice .... the districts
of the city are divided between them. . . . The instructions
under which these officers act are of a very stringent cha
racter, and the procedure is intended to obviate premature
interment, and to detect crime. The French and the German
�35
CREMATION.
method of verification is intended to
preventive. A number
of instances were mentioned to me in which crimes which
would otherwise have escaped notice were detected by the
keen and practised eye of the Verificator, and the general
opinion certainly was that much crime was prevented.’ 1
This is but an episode in treating of Cremation; a very
important one nevertheless. I have therefore thought it right
to take this opportunity of advocating a more stringent pro
vision than now exists for an official inspection and certificate
in all cases of death.
Lastly, it would be possible, at much less cost than is at
present incurred for burial, to preserve, in every case of death,
the stomach, and a portion of one of the viscera, say for fifteen
or twenty years or thereabouts, so that in the event of any
suspicion subsequently occurring, greater facility for examina
tion would exist than by the present method of exhumation.
Nothing could be more certain to check the designs of the
poisoner than the knowledge that the proofs of his crime, in
stead of being buried in the. earth (from whence, as a fact,
not one in a hundred thousand is ever disinterred for exami
nation) are safely preserved in a public office, and that they
can be produced against him at any moment. The universal
application of this plan, although easily practicable, is how
ever obviously unnecessary. It is quite certain that no pretext
for such conservation can exist in more than one instance in
every five hundred deaths. In the remainder, the fatal result
would be attributed without mistake to some natural cause—
as decay, fever, consumption, or other malady, the signs of
which are clear even to a tyro in the medical art. But in
any case in which the slightest doubt arises in the mind of
the medical attendant, or in which the precaution is desired
or suggested by a relative, or whenever the subject himself
may have desired it, nothing would be easier than to make
the requisite conservation. As before stated, the existence of
an official verificator would relieve the ordinary medical at
tendant of the case from active interference in the matter. If
then the public is earnest in its endeavour to render exceedOp. cit.
d
2
�36
CREMATION.
ingly difficult or impossible the crime of secret poisoning,—
and it ought to be so if the objection to Cremation on this
ground is a valid one, the sooner some measures are taken to
this end the better, whether burial in earth or Cremation be
the future method of treating our dead.
I must add one word in reply to a critic who rather hastily
objected that the estimate in my original paper of the mean
cost of burials in London as about 10Z. per head is too high.
I have re-examined my calculations and find it, if in error at
all, too low. Curiously enough, in going through Dr. Edwin
Chadwick’s work, already referred to, for other purposes, I
find that he also made a similar calculation thirty years ago,
and that his estimate is rather higher than mine. He puts it
at more than 600,000Z. for the metropolis, when the popula
tion was a little more than one-half what it is now; I reck
oned 800,000Z. for the year 1873. And he considers the cost
of funerals for England and Wales to be, at that time, nearly
five millions sterling. He includes cost of transit, which I
omit, as being necessary equally with Cremation and burial,
so that the difference between us is not considerable.
To sum up :—
For the purposes of Cremation nothing is required but an
apparatus of a suitable kind, the construction of which is well
understood and easy to accomplish. With such apparatus the
process is rapid and inoffensive, and the result is perfect.
The space necessary for the purpose is small, and but little
skilled labour is wanted.
Not only is its employment compatible with religious rites,
but it enables them to be conducted with greater ease and
with far greater safety to the attendants than at a cemetery.
For example, burial takes place in the open air, and necessi
tates exposure to all weathers, while Cremation is necessarily
conducted within a building, which may be constructed to
meet the requirements of mourners and attendants in relation
to comfort and taste.
Cremation destroys instantly all infectious quality in the
body submitted to the process, and effectually prevents the
possibility of other injury to the living from the remains at
�37
CREMATION.
any future time. All care to prevent such evil is obviously
unnecessary, and ceases from the moment the process com
mences. The aim of Cremation is to prevent the process of
putrefaction.
On the other hand, Burial cannot be conducted without
serious risks to the living, and great care is required to ren
der them inconsiderable with our present population. Costly
cemeteries also are necessary with ample space for all possible
demands upon it, and complete isolation from the vicinity of
the living, to ensure, as far as possible, the absence of danger
io them.
It is a process designed essentially to prolong decay and
putrefaction with all its attendant mischief; and the best that
can be affirmed of it is, that in the course of many years it
arrives, by a process which is antagonistic to the health of
survivors, at results similar to, but less complete, than Cre
mation produces in an hour without injury to any.
Henry Thompson.
��CBEMATION OB BUBIAL P
BY
SIR T. SPENCER WELLS, Bart.,
Late President of the Royal College of Surgeons, Surgeon to the Queen's
Household, <&c.
A Paper
read at the Meeting of the British Medical
Association in Cambridge, August 1880.
There are, no doubt, many members of the British Medical
Association who have not thought very much about the evils
of the present mode of burying the dead in this and many
other parts of the world. There are many more who have not
heard at all, or have thought very little, of recent proposals to
reform the present system, or to substitute for it one which
can be proved to be far better. It is scarcely forty years since
the causes of the high rate of mortality, and the means of pre
venting disease, attracted much attention in our profession ;
and the necessity for sanitary regulations was impressed upon
public opinion. The influence of light and air, of a supply of
pure water, of good drainage, ventilation, and cleanliness, as
means of preventing disease and prolonging life in large towns,
populous districts, and the country generally ; the influence of
employments upon health; the habits of different classes of the
people; the condition of their dwellings ; the injurious effects
of many nuisances, and the inadequacy of power for prevent
ing them, are all subjects of recent study, and do not yet form
a sufficiently defined part of medical education.
It is quite unnecessary here to remind you of the beneficial
influence upon the public health and the longevity of the nation
exercised by our profession during the last forty years; but
it does appear to me to be necessary to call for the earnest
�40
. CREMATION OR BURIAL ?
attention of the Association to one source of danger which is
increasing every year—the burial of the dead. It is about
forty years since a member of our body, Mr. Walker, wrote
the remarkable work on graveyards which led to the special
inquiry into the practice of interment in towns, and the
admirable report of Mr. Edwin Chadwick, which was presented
to Parliament in 1843. The evidence he adduced as to the
propagation of disease from decaying or putrefying human
bodies was amply sufficient to prove the dangerous tendency
of all interments in churches or in towns, and led to the
removal of many burial-places from towns or crowded districts
into suburban cemeteries.
The effects have been salutary.
But, with a rapid increase of population, we are now beginning
to suffer from the evils which Mr. Chadwick foretold, namely,
‘ shifting the evil from the centre of the populous districts to
the suburbs, and deteriorating them ’ ... ‘ increasing the
duration and sum of the existing evils.’ Many of our sub
urban cemeteries are now very much in the condition of town
graveyards forty years ago; and the attention of thoughtful
men outside the bounds of our profession has already been
directed to a growing evil. Only last year, at the opening of
the Social Science Congress at Manchester, the respected and
beloved bishop of the diocese, in opening the congress, thus
referred to the recent consecration of anew cemetery. ‘ Here,’
he said, ‘ is another hundred acres of land withdrawn from
the food-producing area of the country for ever.’ And he
added, ‘ I feel convinced that, before long, we shall have to
face this problem, How to bury our dead out of our sight,
more practically and more seriously than we have hitherto
done. In the same sense in which the “ Sabbath was made for
man, and not man for the Sabbath,” I hold that the earth was
made, not for the dead, but for the living. No intelligent faith
can suppose that any Christian doctrine is affected by the
manner in which, or the time in which, this mortal body of
ours crumbles into dust and sees corruption.’ And he con
cludes : ‘ This is a subject that will have to be seriously con
sidered before long. Cemeteries are becoming not only a diffi
culty, an expense, and an inconvenience, but an actual danger.’
�CREMATION OR BURIAL ?
41
In the debate on the Burials Bill in the House of Lords on
June 24th, the Earl of Beaconsfield said that what is called
‘ God’s acre ’ is ‘ really not adapted to the country which we
inhabit, the times in which we live, and the spirit of the age.
What I should like to see would be a settlement of this ques
tion by the shutting up of all God’s acres throughout the
country. I think the churchyard of the ordained minister, and
the graveyard of the dissenting minister, alike, are institutions
which are very prejudicial to. the health of the people of this
country ; and their health ought to be, if not the first, at any
rate, one of the first considerations of a statesman. Now we
have been moving gradually in the direction of these views,
and there has been for some years a notion, soon about to
amount, I believe, to a conviction, that the institution of
churchyards is one which is highly prejudicial to the public
health. I think it would be a much wiser step if we were to
say that the time has arrived, seeing the vast increase of
population in this country and the increase which we may
contemplate, when we should close all these churchyards, and
when we should take steps for furnishing every community
with a capacious and ample cemetery, placed in a situation in
which, while it would meet all the requirements of the society
for which it was intended, would exercise no prejudicial in
fluence on the public health.’ And he concluded his speech
in these terms :—‘ I think the direction in which we ought to
have moved would have been to shut all these churchyards
and graveyards, and to have assisted the Government in some
adequate proposal which would have furnished the country
with cemeteries in which none of these painful controversies
could have occurred, and which would have conduced to the
preservation of the health and welfare of the country.’
The impressive exhortation of the Bishop of Manchester,
from which I have just quoted, was the result, as he tells us,
of the perusal of two very able papers written by one of the
most distinguished members of our own body, Sir H. Thomp
son, and published in the ‘ Contemporary Review ’ in 1874.
The first paper, on the ‘ Treatment of the Body after Death,,
led to a reply from Mr. Holland, then Medical Inspector of
�42
CREMATION OR BURIAL ?
Burials in England, which contains a summary of all that can
be said in defence of cemeteries. But the rejoinder of Sir H.
Thompson is a masterly exposition of the evils of our present
mode of interment, with an answer to many of the objections
to cremation as a substitute for burial, and some account of
modern improved apparatus for burning dead bodies at a
moderate expense, without any nuisance, and with due regard
to the sentiments of surviving relatives. I trust that Sir
Henry may be induced to reprint his papers in a form easily
accessible to the people. One of the first effects of the perusal
of Sir H. Thompson’s papers was the association together of
a small number of men, and the formation of the Cremation
Society of England, numbering, among members of this
Association, notably Mr. Ernest Hart and Mr. Lord. I have
here the first part of the Transactions of this Society. It
forms a pamphlet of only sixty-six pages, but it contains a
great deal of information as to cremation at home and abroad,
up to the date of the sixth anniversary of the Society last
January. It may surprise many to learn that cremation is
already legalised in parts of Germany and in Italy ; that cre
matoria have been erected and used in Gotha and in Milan
and Lodi, and that a society has been established in Rome.
A phrase in the sanitary laws of Switzerland which forbade
cremation has been removed, and a piece of ground in the new
cemetery at Zurich has been set apart for the erection of a
crematorium.
On June 16tli last, Professor Polli (whose researches on the
antiseptic action of the sulphites and hyposulphites I brought
before the Association in this town sixteen years ago, in an
address on the causes of excessive mortality after surgical
operations) who, in late years, had been one of the most
ardent supporters of cremation, who had himself proposed a
method which was the first tried in Italy, had his body, by his
own express desire, cremated, and his ashes were consigned
to their resting-place, with all due solemnity, in the presence
of mourning relatives. This cremation was the sixty-eighth
which has taken place in Milan since January 1876.
Several large cremation societies have been formed in
�CREMATION OR BURIAL?
43
Switzerland. One large society in Holland has several branches.
In France, the Paris Municipality has called for designs for
the best form of furnace. In Belgium, one society in Brussels
has more than four hundred members, and M. Creteur has
been thanked by the Government for the successful cremation
of the bodies of soldiers killed near Sedan. In America, cre
mation has already been practised at Washington, and several
societies have been formed; and the Brazilian Government is
about to erect a crematorium at Bio de Janeiro.
While all this has been going on in the European continent
and in America, the Cremation Society of England has been
working on quietly but earnestly, has purchased an acre of
freehold land near Woking, has erected a Crematorium on the
model of the Gorini furnace, which is the most approved in
Italy, and has experimentally proved that the body of an
animal may be reduced to a clean innocuous ash, weighing
about a twentieth of the unburnt body, at a very small cost,
and without any appreciable odour or visible smoke.
The Society has obtained the very highest legal authority,
and the admission of the late Home Secretary, that cremation
is not illegal, provided it be practised without nuisance, or
leading to a breach of the peace. But Sir B. Cross obtained
from the Council a promise that, before burning a human
body, they would endeavour to carry a short Bill through
Parliament, or to obtain the insertion of a clause in some
Burial Bill, affirming that cremation might be legally prac
tised, and under proper regulations. Hitherto, the Council
have been unable to obtain this parliamentary sanction, and
it remains to be seen how far Sir William Harcourt will con
sider the Council bound to the present Government by their
promise to his predecessor in the Home Office. After any
discussion which may follow this paper, I trust many of you
will sign an address to him, which I will read after I have
asked you whether the time has not arrived when cremation
should be supported by the British Medical Association, col
lectively, and by each of its branches. The sanitary advan
tages over burial in coffins, or in wicker baskets, are undeniable
and very great. Most of them are so well known to you all,
�44
CREMATION OR BURIAL ?
that I may pass them by without further mention ; but I
must allude to one most remarkable argument in favour of
cremation which has just been advanced by Pasteur, after his
examination of the soil of fields where cattle had been buried,
whose death had been caused by that fatal disease known as
‘ charbon,’ or splenic fever. The observations of our own Dar
win ‘on the formation of mould,’ made more than forty years
ago, when he was a young man, are curiously confirmatory of
the recent conclusions of Pasteur. In Darwin’s paper, read
at the Geological Society of London, in 1837, he proved that,
in old pasture-land, every particle of the superficial layer of
earth, overlying different kinds of subsoil, has passed through
the intestines of earth-worms. The wTorms swallow earthy
matter, and, after separating the digestible or serviceable por
tion, they eject the remainder in little coils or heaps at the
mouth of their burrows. In dry weather the worm descends
to a considerable depth, and brings up to the surface the
particles which it ejects. This agency of earth-worms is not
so trivial as it might appear. By observation in different
fields, Mr. Darwin proved, in one case, that a depth of more
than three inches of this worm-mould had been accumulated
in fifteen years; and, in another, that the earth-worms had
covered a bed of marl with their mould in eighty years to an
average depth of thirteen inches.
Pasteur’s recent researches on the etiology of ‘ charbon ’
show that this earth-mould positively contains the specific
germs which propagate the disease ; and that the same specific
germs are found within the intestines of the worms. The
parasitic organism, or bacteridium, which, inoculated from a
diseased to a healthy animal, propagates the specific disease,
may be destroyed by putrefaction after burial. But, before
this process has been completed, germs or spores may have
been formed which will resist the putrefactive process for
many years, and lie in a condition of latent life, like a grain
of corn, or any flower-seed, ready to germinate, and commu
nicate the specific disease. In a field in the Jura, where a
diseased cow had been buried two years before, at a depth of
nearly seven feet, the surface-earth not having been disturbed
�CREMATION OR BURIAL ?
45
in the interval, Pasteur found that the mould contained germs
which, introduced by inoculation into a guinea-pig, produced
charbon and death. And, further, if a worm be taken from
an infected spot, the earth in the alimentary canal of the worm
contains these spores or germs of charbon, which, inoculated,
propagate the disease. And the mould deposited on the sur
face by the worms, when dried into dust, is blown over the
grass and plants on which the cattle feed, and may thus spread
the disease. After various farming operations of tilling and
harvest, Pasteur has found the germs just over the graves of
the diseased cattle, but not to any great distance. After rains,
or morning dews, the germs of charbon, with a quantity of
other germs, were found about the neighbouring plants : and
Pasteur suggests that, in cemeteries, it is very possible that
germs capable of propagating specific diseases of different
kin da, quite harmless to the earth-worm, may be carried to
the surface of the soil ready to cause disease in the proper
animals. The practical inferences in favour of cremation are
so strong that, in Pasteur’s words, they ‘ need not be enforced.’
And now a word as to the sentimental objections to cre
mation. The Bishop of Manchester, in the address to which I
before alluded, admits that his sentiments are ‘ somewhat
revolted by the idea of cremation; ’ but he adds, ‘ they are,
perhaps, illogical and unreasonable sentiments.’ We all know
how difficult it is to convince illogical and unreasonable people ,*
they must be left to the influence of time and example. But
it is of importance to show to all that reason, and true senti
ment, and good feeling of reverence for the dead, of affection
ate regard for their memory, are more logically and reason
ably associated with a purifying fire than with decay, putre
faction, and danger to the living; and on this important part
of the subject I am glad to bring before you the book of my
friend Mr. Robinson, who has done so much of late years to
improve our gardens, parks, and open spaces, and who is one of
the Council of the Cremation Society. He calls this book ‘ God’s
Acre Beautiful, or the Cemeteries of the Future.’ He argues
that the resting-places of the dead should be ‘ permanent, un
polluted, inviolate ; ’ that permanent beautiful cemeteries could
�46
CREMATION OR BURIAL ?
be easily maintained if urn-burial were practised; that existing
graveyards and cemeteries can only be of temporary use; that
their monuments and memorial stones soon decay or crumble
away; and that urn-burial might lead in the future, as it has
done in the past, to more noble and enduring monuments.
Let me read to you a page from Mr. Robinson’s book.
‘ By the adoption of urn-burial, all that relates to the
artistic embellishment of a cemetery would be at once placed
on a very different footing. One of the larger burial-grounds
now closed, perforce, in a less time than that of an ordinary
life, would accommodate a like number of burials on an im
proved system for many ages. The neglect and desecration
of the resting-places of the dead, inherent to the present
system, would give place to unremitting and loving care, for
the simple, reason that each living generation would be as much
interested in the preservation of the cemetery as those that
had gone before were at any previous time in its history. We
should at once have what is so much to be desired from artistic
and other points of view—a permanent resting-place for our
dead. With this would come the certainty that any memorials
erected to their memory would be carefully preserved in the
coming years, and free from the sacrilege and neglect so often
seen. Hence an incentive to art which might be not unworthy
of such places. The knowledge that our cemeteries would be
sacred—would be sacred to all, and jealously preserved by
all, through the coming generations—would effect much in
this new field for artistic effort. In days when careful attention
is bestowed upon the designs of trifling details of our houses,
it is to be hoped that we shall soon be ashamed of the present
state of what should be the beautiful and unpolluted rest
garden of all that remains of those whom we have known, or
loved, or honoured in life, or heard of in death as having lived
not unworthy of their kind. Such a revolution in our burial
arrangements will not come suddenly ; but perhaps a little
reflection may serve to convince those who have feelings of
repulsion to urn-burial that, as a matter of fact, less dis
honour is done to the remains of those whom one loves in
subjecting them to a fire which reduces them to ashes which
�CREMATION OR BURIAL ?
47
can be carefully preserved, than in allowing them to become
the subjects of the loathsome process of corruption first, and
then subjecting them to the chance of being ultimately carted
away to make room for some metropolitan or local improve
ment.’
The preservation of inscriptions and memorials,
whether in or around churches and public buildings, the
erection of beautiful tombs with urns as family burying-places,
would be worthy objects for the best efforts of artistic design.
As to the ceremony of burial and performance of any
religious service, distinguished members of the clergy of the
Church of England have shown that scarcely any alteration
would be called for in our burial-service ; and it is felt that,
as urn-burial might be practised to any extent and for any
length of time in or around churches and public buildings, in
towns as well as in distant cemeteries, and without the ex
pensive transport and ugly expensive forms of our present
system of burial, men might again, as of old, rest in death
near the scene of their work in life ; and the restoration of
the family tomb to the chapel or crypt would renew and add
to the tie between the family and the church. Our places of
worship and the spaces which surround them, if urn-burial
became general, would be amply sufficient for the preservation
of the remains of our dead for generations to come, and would
enable us to convert existing cemeteries, which are rapidly
becoming sources of danger to the public health, into perma
nently beautiful gardens. Instead of filling up large spaces
with decaying dead bodies, we should have natural gardens,
open lawns, pure air, fine trees, lovely flowers, and receptacles
for vases, which, as well as the cinerary urns and chests
themselves, might be made important helps in the culture of
art. In country houses, urn-burial would lead to family
burial places within the grounds, and encourage monumental
work of high artistic merit; and, in the country church, the
ashes of the people might repose in the place where they
worshipped, instead of polluting the earth of the surrounding
churchyard and the water drunk by the surviving population,
or being carried to a distant cemetery, which overcrowding
must in time make only a very temporary resting-place.
�48
CREMATION OR BURIAL ?
The ‘ earth to earth ’ system, as it is called, so ably advo
cated by my friend Mr. Haden—the burial in porous wicker
baskets, instead of wooden or leaden coffins—has some advan
tages. It is somewhat cheaper, and decay is more rapid; but
the ground is for a long time occupied by what pollutes earth,
air, and water. Mr. Haden’s argument that, as a body, after
coffinless burial, decays away in about six years, we may
‘ bury again in the same ground with no other effect than to
increase its substance and to raise its surface,’ surely strikes
at the root of all sentiment of reverence or affection for the
dead—and, with what hazard to the living, the recent re
searches of Pasteur are amply sufficient to prove. In addition
to the dangers from simple putrefaction polluting earth, air,
and water, we have to consider the dissemination of the germs
of specific contagious diseases. Liquid animal matter oozing
from putrefying corpses in a churchyard may possibly be so
purified by the oxidising power of a few feet of earth as to be
bright, clear, and inoffensive to any of our senses ; but water
which is neither cloudy nor stinking, but rather enticing and
popular, like the water of the Broad Street pump in 1874,
has carried cholera to those who drank it.
How often
typhoid fever has been caused in the same manner, who
can tell ?
But I must not detain you longer. Here is the Address
to the Home Secretary, and I hope it may be signed by many
who are convinced that the present custom of burying the
dead is associated with evils which ought to be remedied.
‘ We, the undersigned members of the British Medical
Association assembled at Cambridge, disapprove the present
custom of burying the dead, and desire to substitute some
mode which shall rapidly resolve the body into its component
elements by a process which cannot offend the living, and
may render the remains absolutely innocuous. Until some
better mode is devised, we desire to promote that usually
known as cremation. As this process can now be carried out
without anything approaching to nuisance, and as it is not
illegal, we trust the Government will not oppose the practice
when convinced that proper regulations are observed, and
�CREMATION OR BURIAL ?
49
that ampler guarantees of death having occurred from natural
causes are obtained than are now required for burial.’
In conclusion, let me ask you to think on the following
propositions :—
Decomposing human remains so pollute earth, air, and
water, as to diminish the general health and average duration
of the life of our people.
Existing churchyards and cemeteries are not well fitted as
safe, secure, permanent, innocuous places of repose for the
remains of our dead.
The expense of funerals and interment in graves presses
unduly upon the means of the middle and labouring classes.
The present system of registration of death is so imperfect,
that common causes of preventible disease are not detected ;
and life is also rendered insecure by the omission of efficient
arrangements for the due verification of the fact and causes
of death.
These evils might be mitigated or prevented—(1) if
national cemeteries were provided and maintained, under the
direction of duly qualified officers of public health, and not
left, as now, to be sources of private gain to commercial
companies; (2) if no interment were allowed without a cer
tificate of the fact and the cause of death by an officer of
public health.
All this should be urged by those who are content to im
prove on our present mode of burial. Those who will go
further, who will assist in the attempt to arrest the evils in
separable from even the very best mode of burial, who would
add to our reverence for the remains of the dead, ensure an
impressive religious service, and at a reduced expenditure
provide for permanent monuments in beautiful open public
spaces, may at the same time prove the influence which our
Association can exert, and ought to exert, upon the health
and morals of the Nation.
�50
CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE CREMATION SOCIETY
THE RELATIONS BETWEEN THE CREMATION
SOCIETY OF ENGLAND AND HER MAJESTY’S
GOVERNMENT. 1879-80.
A considerable amount of correspondence has taken place
between the Cremation Society of England and the two
Secretaries of State for the Home Department, Sir Richard
A. Cross and Sir William V. Harcourt; and the Council of
the Cremation Society has published the following corre
spondence. The whole will doubtless be read with consider
able interest, seeing that this sanitary reform has been
already practised in Italy and in Germany.
The Cremation Society was founded in January 1874 by
a number of gentlemen eminent in science and art, and has
since been more or less actively occupied in prosecuting the
objects for which it was instituted. These have on one occa
sion only been brought before Parliament—viz. in March,
1879, when the action of the Society was made the subject of
a question in the House of Lords, followed, however, by no
practical result.
The following is a copy of the correspondence referred to,
which began immediately after the reception by Sir R. Cross
of a deputation from Woking and the neighbourhood, protest
ing against the building of a crematorium, which was then
in course of erection near that place.
The Secretary of the Cremation Society to the Right Hon. R. A.
Cross, Secretary of State for the Home Department.
11 Argyll Street, London : Feb. 3, 1879.
Sir,—Referring to the published report of the proceedings on
the occasion of a deputation which waited upon you relative to the
establishment of a crematory at Woking, I am instructed by the
�51
AND HER MAJESTY’S GOVERNMENT.
executive body of the council of the Cremation Society, for -which I
act, a list of which council is herewith attached, to lay before you
the following facts :—
The Cremation Society of England was founded in 1874, with
purely public objects, and not for gain, by a number of scientific
and other gentlemen, on the basis of the following declaration, which
has been very numerously signed. Cremation Society.—Crema
tion having now been performed with perfect success, a society has
been constituted on the basis of the following declaration, which
has been influentially signed :—‘ We disapprove the present custom
of burying the dead, and desire to substitute some mode which shall
rapidly resolve the body into its component elements by a process
which cannot offend the living, and shall render the remains abso
lutely innocuous. Until some better method is devised we desire
to adopt that usually known as cremation.’ A great number of
adhesions to this were afterwards sent in, and subscriptions were
received. The earliest duty of the council was to ascertain whether
cremation could be legally performed in this country, and a case
was drawn up and submitted to eminent counsel. A copy of
opinion is enclosed herewith, and being in favour of the proposed
reform the council decided to go on. A still more decidedly favour
able opinion was given in writing, although unofficially, by Lord
Selborne to one of the council. In 1875 it was proposed to erect a
building for the performance of the rite, and a large sum of money
was subscribed for the purpose. A piece of ground was offered to
the society in the Great Northern Cemetery of London, and a
building would have been at once erected had the bishop of the
diocese not objected to its establishment in consecrated ground.
The history of the society at this stage will be seen in the report
sent herewith. Soon after this it appeared that in several parts of
Europe and in America cremation was becoming permissive, and
several cremations took place in Milan, Dresden, and other places.
Still later on, cremation was permitted in Gotha. A paper, de
scriptive of the systems in use in Europe and America, also accom
panies this communication. This paper also furnishes a list of the
modern cremations up to that date. The last cremation at Gotha
was attended by a great many of the clergy. A short translation
from a journal describing this ceremony is enclosed. After much
seeking for a secluded yet accessible spot, a piece of ground not far
from the cemetery at Woking was obtained, and the council of the
society thought this a suitable site for a crematory pyre, as being
near the Necropolis, and having a service of trains suitable for the
conveyance of the dead. It may here be repeated that the society
E 2
�52
CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE CREMATION SOCIETY
is not in any way a trading society, but simply a scientific society.
In order that the scope and aim of the society may be fully under
stood, I enclose a copy of No. 1 of the Transactions of the society,,
in which are set forth its rules and regulations. I am further in
structed to say that some of the members of council will be happy towait upon you, if agreeable to your wish, with further information, or
for the purpose of learning your views in the matter of their further
procedure, at any time you may appoint. The society have through
out aimed at carrying on what they believe to be hygienic reform,
with thoughtful consideration of the sentiments and interests of
other persons concerned, and they are anxious at this stage, as at
all others, to proceed in the same spirit.—I am, &c.,
W. Eassie, C.E.,
Engineer and Secretary to the Society.
The Under-Secretary of State to the Secretary of the Cremation
Society.
Whitehall: Feb. 7, 1879.
Sir,—I am directed by the Secretary of State 'to acknowledge1
the receipt of your letter of the 3rd inst., and enclosures explaining
the objects of the society calling itself the Cremation Society, and
giving the names of the principal members constituting the council
of the society; and with reference to the wish conveyed in your
letter of the council of the society to see the Secretary of State on
the subject of the objections in the way of carrying out the design
of the society, I am to inform you that the Secretary of State will
shortly make an appointment for the purpose of receiving such a
deputation.—I am, &c.,
A. F. 0. Liddell.
W. Eassie, Esq., C.E., 11 Argyll Street, W.
The Assistant Under-Secretary of State to the Secretary of the
Cremation Society.
Whitehall: Feb. 21, 1879.
Sir,—With reference to your letter and enclosures of the 3rd
inst., I am directed by Mr. Secretary Cross to request that you will
bring before the gentlemen, forming the council of the association
calling itself the Cremation Society, the following observations on
the subject of the introduction into this country of the practice of
burning the remains of the dead, now generally known as the prac
tice of cremation, which it appears that the above society has been
organised to promote. Mr. Cross does not propose to enter intothe question whether or not the system of cremation is in accord-
�AND HER MAJESTY’S GOVERNMENT.
53
aneo with the feelings of the public, or with respect due by law to
-dead bodies ; it is sufficient for him to point out that it is a system
which, in this country, is entirely novel, and that, whether or not
the law forbids it altogether, the public interest requires that it
should not be adopted until many matters of great social import
have been duly considered and provided for. Burial can be followed
by exhumation, but the process of cremation is final; the result of
the practice therefore would be, that it would tend, in cases where
death has been occasioned by violence or poison, to defeat the
-ends of justice ; there will no longer be an opportunity for that ex
amination, which, in so many cases, has led to the detection and
punishment of crime. The practice of ordinary burial has become
interwoven with the legislative arrangements of the country, and is
■closely connected with various safeguards respecting death, with
the statistics of death, and with the evidence of death. The
minister buries a corpse on the production of a certificate of death
and its cause ; the burial ensures the certificate, the certificate
ensures the certainty of death, and is a check against foul practices.
Again, the form in which the certificate is produced to the minister
is that given by the Registrar, who issues the certificate in exchange
for that of the medical attendant, and thus the statistical object is
secured. Further, the certificate of burial is, in all legal proceed
ings, the proper and most economical form of the evidence of death.
All these objects would be frustrated by the practice of cremation,
unless that practice were in its turn surrounded by legislative pro
visions analogous to those which surround burial. I am, therefore,
to acquaint you, for the information of the promoters of the Crema
tion Society, that Mr. Cross cannot acquiesce in the continuance of
the undertaking of the society to carry out the practice of cremation,
either at their works now in progress at Woking or elsewhere in
this country, until Parliament has authorised such a practice by
either a special or general Act, and that if the undertaking is
persisted in it will be his duty either to test its legality in a court
of law or to apply to Parliament for an Act to prohibit it until
Parliament has had an opportunity of considering the whole subject.
-—I am, &c.,
Godfrey Lushington.
The Secretary of the Cremation Society,
11 Argyll Street, London, W.
�54
CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE CREMATION SOCIETY
The Secretary of the Cremation Society to the Right ITon. R. A.
Cross, Her Majesty1 s Secretary of State, Home Department.
11 Argyll Street, London : Feb. 28, 1879.
Sir, I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your
letter referring to the practice of cremation, and beg to state that I
will, as soon as possible, call a meeting of the council of the
Cremation Society, and lay it before them, after which I will take
the first opportunity of communicating to you the results of that
meeting.—I am, &c.,
W. Eassie.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department to the Secretary
of the Cremation Society. •
March 18, 1879.
Sir,—I am desired by the Secretary of State to acknowledge
the receipt of your letter of the 17th inst., and to acquaint you, in
reply, that he will be glad to receive a deputation from the pro
moters of inquiry into the value of cremation at 12.30 o’clock on
Tuesday, the 20th inst.
I am to add that the Secretary of State particularly requests
that the deputation may be as few in number as possible.—I am,
&c.,
A. F. 0. Liddell.
A deputation, consisting of the President, Sir Henry
Thompson, T. Spencer Wells, Esq., Ernest Hart, Esq.,
W. Robinson, Esq., and other members of Council, with the
Hon. Sec., Mr. W. Eassie, C.E., waited upon the Secretary
of State, and explained to him their views upon the subject
of cremation, and several members of the deputation briefly
addressed him.
Some portions of the bones of a horse
burned in the society’s crematory near Woking, on March 17$
a few days previously, were also exhibited to Mr. Secretary
Cross, in order to show the perfection of the process.
Mr. Cross, in reply, suggested that a bill might be brought
into the House of Lords so as to determine the matter upon
a legal basis, and remove any doubt as to the wisdom of
permitting cremation, as well as with a view of establishing
a proper system of registration.
On the receipt of a note from the President of the Cre
�AND HER MAJESTY’S GOVERNMENT.
55
mation Society, stating that the society wished to act in
conformity with the Government, in their procedure in the
matter, the next following letter was addressed to the Presi
dent of the society :—-
The Secretary of State for the Home Department to Sir Henry
Thompson.
Whitehall: March 24, 1879.
Sir,—I am directed by the Secretary of State to acknowledge
the receipt of your letter of the 20th inst., stating that it is the
intention of yourself and friends to act in strict conformity with the
wishes and directions of the Government in regard to the practice
of cremation.—I am, Sir,
A. F. 0. Liddell.
A change of Government having taken place, and the
council wishing to ascertain the views of the present Govern
ment, the Secretary wrote as follows :—
The Right Hon. Sir W. Harcourt, Secretary of State to the Home
Department.
11 Argyll Street, London, W.: Dec. 11,1880.
Sir,—I am instructed by the council of the Cremation Society
of England to write and ask you when it will be convenient for you
to receive a small deputation from the council, who desire to hand
you a memorial in favour of cremation, signed by members of the
British Association and others.—I have the honour to be, Sir, your
most obedient servant,
W. Eassie, Hon. Sec.
The Assistant Under-Secretary of State to the Secretary of the
Cremation Society.
Whitehall: Dec. 16,1880.
Sir,—I am directed by the Secretary of State to acknowledge
the receipt of your letter of the 11th inst., requesting him to receive
a deputation from the council of the Cremation Society who desire
to present a memorial on the subject of cremation, and I am to
acquaint you that the Secretary of State is unable to receive the
proposed deputation, and to suggest that the council will submit
their views in writing.—I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
Godfrey Lushington.
�56
CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE CREMATION SOCIETY
The Secretary of the Cremation Society to the Hight Hon. Sir
William Harcourt, Her Majesty's Secretary of State for the
Home Department.
11 Argyll Street, London, W.: Dec. 24, 1880.
Sir,—In a letter of the 16th inst. you desire that, instead of
receiving a deputation from the Cremation Society, the council
should submit to you their views in writing. I am desired by the
council of the society to forward for your consideration an address
which was agreed to at a meeting, held last August in Cambridge,
of the Public Health section of the British Medical Association, and
which has been signed by one hundred and forty-three gentlemen,
whose names are appended to the address.
I also forward copies of a paper which was read at Cambridge
by Mr. T. Spencer Wells, one of the council of the Cremation
Society, and also a copy of the first part of the Transactions of the
society. Passages are marked both in the paper and in the Trans
actions, which set forth the result of a correspondence and of an
nterview with the late Secretary for the Home Department.
The present object of the council is to support the concluding
request of the Cambridge address, and to express the hope that we
may receive from you an assurance that the Government will not
oppose the practice of cremation in their crematorium, on the widertaking by the council that nothing like a nuisance can be caused
there, and that more ample guarantees of death having occurred
from natural causes will be insisted upon than are now required for
burial in churchyards or cemeteries.
The council desire at the same time to inform you that they
have found so much difficulty in acting upon the suggestion of Sir
Bichard Cross, as to obtaining a discussion in either House of Par
liament, that they do not consider the promise made to him as any
longer binding upon them, and they express the confident hope that
you will not consider Sir Richard Cross’s alternative of introducing
a prohibitory Act into Parliament as binding upon you.—I have the
honour to be, Sir, your most obedient servant,
W. Eassie, Hon. Sec.
The address agreed to at Cambridge, mentioned above,
was as follows :—
4 We, the undersigned members of the British Medical Association
assembled at Cambridge, disapprove the present custom of burying
the dead, and desire to substitute some mode which shall rapidly
resolve the body into its component elements by a process which
�AND HER MAJESTY’S GOVERNMENT.
57
cannot offend the living, and may render the remains abso
lutely innocuous. Until some better mode is devised, we desire to
promote that usually known as cremation. As this process can
now be carried out without anything approaching to nuisance,
and as it is not illegal, we trust the Government will not oppose
the practice when convinced that proper regulations are observed,
and that ampler guarantees of death having occurred from natural
causes are obtained than are now required for burial.’
The Secretary of State for the Some Department to the Secretary
of the Cremation Society.
Whitehall: Dec. 31, 1880.
Sir,—I am directed by Secretary Sir William Harcourt to
acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 24th inst., forwarding
a memorial signed by members of the British Medical Association
assembled at Cambridge (and other papers), praying that Her
Majesty’s Government may think fit not to interfere in the event
of the practice of cremation of bodies of the dead being adopted in
this country.—I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
A. F. 0. Liddell.
W. Eassie, Esq., 11 Argyll Street, London, W.
To the Hon. A. F. 0. Liddell, Home Office, Whitehall.
11 Argyll Street, London, W.: Jan. 28, 1882.
Sir,—Referring to my letter of December 24, 1880, as Secre
tary of the Cremation Society, and your letter of December 81
acknowledging its receipt, the council not having received any
further reply to the questions submitted to the Secretary of State
for the Home Department, Sir William Harcourt, begs leave now
to.submit the following question addressed to them by one of the
trustees of the society, Mr. Higford Burr :—‘ Supposing I were to
die now, directing my executors to have my body burnt in our
crematory at Woking, would my executors be liable to prosecution ? ’
They have also been asked to cremate the bodies of the mother
and wife of Captain Hanham, R.N., who have been buried under the
usual certificates, but who had expressed an earnest desire that
their bodies should be cremated. As the council are extremely
unwilling to proceed with any cremation without the knowledge
of the Home Secretary, and under conditions which shall ensure
the legality of the proceedings, I am desired to ask you to favour
the council with his decision as to the legality of cremation as
proposed by them. I am also instructed to ask if you will allow
�58
CORRESPONDENCE WITH HER MAJESTY’S GOVERNMENT,
the council to submit to you for approval regulations in the practice
of cremation intended to prevent the destruction of evidence of
poisoning.—I am, Sir, your most obedient servant,
W. Eassie,- Hon. Sec.
Whitehall: Feb. 14, 1882.
Sir,—I am directed by Secretary Sir William Vernon Harcourt
to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 28th ultimo, in
quiring in behalf of the Cremation Society as to the legality of
their proposed method of disposing of the remains of the dead by
process of burning. And I am to acquaint you, for the information
of the gentlemen forming the above society, that Sir William Har
court can give no opinion in matters which belong to the jurisdiction
and decisions of courts of law. He can only refer the society to
the letters addressed to you from this department on February 21,
1879.
In Sir William Harcourt’s opinion the practice of cremation
ought not to be sanctioned except under the authority and regula
tion of an Act of Parliament.
It is the duty of those who desire to pursue such a practice to
obtain such an authority, and, until it is granted, Sir William Har
court must adhere to the view expressed by his predecessor in
office, as stated hi the letter above referred to.—I am, Sir, your
obedient servant,
Godfrey Lushington.
The correspondence up to the present time here closes.
�MB. JUSTICE STEPHEN
ON
THE LAW OF CREMATION.
Charge
to the
Grand Jury, at
in
the
Crown Court, Cardiff,
February 1884.
Gentlemen of the Grand Jury,—There are a considerable
number of cases on the calendar, but, with one exception, they
are of the most ordinary kind, and the circumstances attending
them are of such a usual character that I shall not weary you
with dwelling upon them at all. One of the cases to be brought
before you is so singular in its character, and involves a legal
question of so much novelty and of such general interest, that
I propose to state at some length what I believe to be the law
upon the matter. I have given this subject all the considera
tion I could, and I am permitted to say that, although I alone
am responsible for what I am about to read to you, Lord
Justice Fry takes the same view of the subject as I do, and
for the same reasons. William Price is charged with a mis
demeanour under the following circumstances. He had in his
house a child five months old, of which he is said to be the
father. The child died. Mr. Price did not register its death.
The coroner accordingly gave him notice on a Saturday that
unless he sent a medical certificate of the cause of death, he
(the coroner) would hold an inquest on the body on the
following Monday. Mr. Price on the Sunday afternoon took
the body of the child to an open space, put it into a ten gallon
cask of petroleum, and set the petroleum on fire. A crowd
collected; the body of the child, which was burning, was
covered with earth and the flames extinguished, and Mr. Price
�60
MB. JUSTICE STEPHEN ON
was brought before the magistrates and committed for trial.
He will be indicted before you on a charge which in different
forms imputes to him as criminal two parts of what he is said
to have done—first, in having prevented the holding of an
inquest on the body; and secondly, in his having attempted to
burn the child’s body. With respect to the prevention of the
inquest, the law is that it is a misdemeanour to prevent the
holding of an inquest, which ought to be held, by disposing of
the body. It is essential to this offence that the inquest which
it is proposed to hold is one which ought to be held. The
coroner has not an absolute right to hold inquests in every
case in which he chooses to do so. It would be intolerable
if he had power to intrude without adequate cause upon
the privacy of a family in distress, and to interfere in their
arrangements for a funeral. Nothing can justify such an
interference, except a reasonable suspicion that there may
have been something peculiar in the death, and that it may
have been due to other causes than common illness. In such
cases the coroner not only may, but ought, to hold an inquest,
and to prevent him from doing so by disposing of the body in
any way—for an inquest must be held on the view of the
body—is a misdemeanour.
The depositions in the present
case do not very clearly show why the coroner considered an
inquest necessary. If you think that the conduct of Dr. Price
was such as to give him fair grounds for holding one, you
ought to find a true bill, for beyond all question he did as
much as in him lay to dispose of the body in such a manner
as to make an inquest impossible. The other part charged as
criminal is the attempt made by Dr. Price to burn his child’s
body, and this raises, in a form which makes it my duty to
direct you upon it, a question which has been several times
discussed, and which has attracted some public attention,
though, so far as I know, no legal decision upon it has
ever been given—the question, namely, whether it is a
misdemeanour at common law to burn a dead body
instead of burying it.
As there is no direct authority
upon the question, I have found it necessary in order to
form an opinion to examine several branches of the law
�THE LAW OF CREMATION.
61
which bear upon it more or less remotely, in order to
ascertain the principles on which it depends. The practice of
burning dead bodies prevailed to a considerable extent under
the Romans, as it does to this day among the Hindoos, though
it is said that the practice of burial is both older and more
general. It appears to have been discontinued in this country
and in other parts of Europe when Christianity was fully
established, as the destruction of the body by fire was con
sidered, for reasons to which I need not refer here, to be
opposed to Christian sentiment; but this change took place
so long ago, and the substitution of burial for burning was so
complete, that the burning of the dead has never been for
mally forbidden, or even mentioned or referred to, so far as I
know, in any part of our law. The subject of burial was
formerly and for many centuries a branch of the ecclesiastical
or canon law. Among the English writers on this subject little
is to be found relating to burial. The subject was much more
elaborately and systematically studied in Roman Catholic
countries than in England, because the law itself prevailed
much more extensively in those countries. In the ‘ Jus Ecclesiasticum’ of Van Espen, a great authority on the subject,
there is an elaborate discourse, filling twenty-two folio pages
in double column, on the subject of burial, in which every
branch of the subject is systematically arranged and discussed,
with references to numerous authorities. The only import
ance of it is that it shares the view of the Canonists on thesubject, which view had great influence on our own eccle
siastical lawyers, though only a small part of the canon law
itself was ever introduced into this country. Without giving
specific reference, I may say that the whole of the title in Van
Espen regards the participation in funeral rites as a privilege
to which, subject to certain conditions, all the members of the
Church were entitled, and the deprivation of which was a kind
of posthumous punishment analogous to the excommunication
of the living. The great question with which the writer
occupies himself is—In what cases ought burial to-be denied?
The general principle is that those who are not worthy of
Church privileges in life are also to be excluded from them in
�62
MR. JUSTICE STEPHEN ON
death. As to the manner in which the dead bodies of persons
deprived of burial were to be disposed of, Van Espen says only
that although in some instances the civil power may have
entirely forbidden burial, whereby bodies may remain un
buried or exposed to the sight of all, to be devoured by beasts
or destroyed by the weather (he considers the dissection of
criminals as a case of this kind), the Church has never made
such a provision, and has never prohibited the covering of
dead corpses with the earth. This way of looking at the sub
ject seems to explain how the law came to be silent on ex
ceptional ways of disposing of dead bodies. The question was
in what cases burial must be refused. As for the way of dis
posing of bodies to which it was refused, the matter escaped
attention, being probably regarded as a matter which affected
those only who were so unfortunate as to have charge
of such corpses.
The famous judgment of Lord Stowell
in the case of iron coffins (Gilbert v. Buzzard, 2 Haggard,
Consistory Reports 333) which constitutes an elaborate trea
tise on burial, proceeds upon the same principles.
The
law presumes that every one will wish that the bodies
of those in whom he was interested in their lifetime should
have Christian burial. The probability of a man enter
taining and acting upon a different view is not considered.
These considerations explain the reason why the law is silent
as to the practice of burning the dead. Before I come to con-,
sider its legality directly, it will be well to examine some analo
gous topics which throw light upon it. There is one practice
which has an analogy to funereal burning, inasmuch as it
constitutes an exceptional method of dealing with dead bodies.
I refer to anatomy. Anatomy was practised in England as
far back as the very beginning of the seventeenth century. It
continued to be practised, so far as I know, without any inter
ference on the part of the legislature, down to the year 1832,
in which year was passed the Act for regulating the Schools of
Anatomy. This Act recites * the importance of anatomy, and
that the legal supply of human bodies for such anatomical
study is insufficient fully to provide the means of such know
ledge.’ It then makes provision for the supply of such bodies
�THE LAW OF CREMATION.
63
by enabling any executor or other party having lawful posses
sion of the body of any deceased person to permit the body to
be dissected except in certain cases. The effect of this has
been that the bodies of persons dying in various public in
stitutions, whose relatives were unknown, were so dissected.
The Act establishes other requisitions not material to the
present question, and enacts that after examination the bodies
shall be decently interred. This Act appears to me to prove
clearly that Parliament regarded anatomy as a legal practice;
and, further, that it considered that there was such a thing
as a ‘ legal supply of human bodies,’ though that supply was
insufficient for the purpose. This is inconsistent with the
opinion that it is an absolute duty on the part of persons in
charge of dead bodies to bury them, and this conclusion is
rather strengthened than otherwise by the provision in Sec. 13
of the Act, ‘ the party removing the body shall provide for its
decent burial after examination.’ This seems to imply that
apart from the Act the obligation to bury would not exist,
and it is remarkable that the words are not as in the earlier
section, ‘ executor or other party,’ which seems to point to the
inference that the executor stood in a different position as to
burial from the party having ‘ lawful possession,’ and has a
wider discretion on the matter. I come now to a series of
cases more clearly connected with the present case. As is
well known, the great demand for bodies for anatomical
purposes not only led in some cases to murders the object
of which was to sell the bodies of the murdered persons, but
also to robberies of churchyards by what were commonly
called ‘resurrection men.’ This practice prevailed for a con
siderable length of time, as appears from the case of E. v.
Lynn (2 T. E. 738) decided in 1788, forty-four years before
the Anatomy Act. In that case it was held to be a misde
meanour to disinter a body for the purpose of dissection,
the court saying that common decency required that the
practice should be put a stop" to, that the offence was cog
nizable in a criminal court as being highly indecent and contra
bonos mores, at the bare idea alone of which nature revolted.
Many also said that ‘ it had been the regular practice of the
�64
MR. JUSTICE STEPHEN ON
Old Bailey in modern times to try charges of this nature.’
It is to be observed in reference to this case that the act
done would have been a peculiarly indecent theft if it had not
been for the technical reason that a dead body is not the
subject of property. A case, however, has been carried a step
further in modern times. It was held in Reg. v. Sharp (1 Dew
and Bell, 160) to be a misdemeanour to disinter a body at
all without lawful authority, even when the motive of the
offender was pious and laudable, the case being one in
which the son disinterred his mother in order to bury her
in his father’s grave, but he got access to her grave and
opened it by false pretence. The law to be extracted from
these authorities seems to me to be this : the practice of ana
tomy is lawful and useful, though it may involve an un
usual means of disposing of dead bodies; but to open a
grave and disinter a dead body without authority is a mis
demeanour even if it is done for a laudable purpose. These
cases, for the reasons I have given, have some analogy to the
case of burning a dead body, but they are remote from it.
They certainly do not in themselves warrant the proposition
that to burn a dead body is in itself a misdemeanour. There
are two other cases which come rather nearer to the point.
They are R. v. Van, 2 Den. 325, and R. v. Stewart, 12 A. and
E. 773-779. Each of these cases lays down in unqualified
terms that it is the duty of certain specified persons to bury
in particular cases. The case of R. v. Stewart lays down the
following principles:—‘ Every person dying in this country,
and not within certain exclusions laid down by the ecclesiastical
law, has a right to Christian burial, and that implies the right
to be carried from the place where his body lies to the parish
cemetery.’ It adds, ‘ the individual under whose roof a poor
person dies, is bound (i.e. if no one else is so bound, as appears
from the rest of the case) to carry the body, decently covered,
to the place of burial. He cannot keep him unburied, nor do
anything which prevents Christian burial. He cannot, there
fore, cast him out, so as to expose the body to violation, or to
offend the feelings or endanger the health of the living; for
those reasons he cannot carry him uncovered to the grave?
�THE LAW OF CREMATION.
65
In the case of R. v. Van, the court held 1 that a man is bound
to give Christian burial to his deceased child if he has the
means of doing so; but he is not liable to be indicted for a
nuisance if he has not the means of providing burial for it.’
These cases are the nearest approach which I have been able
to find to an authority directly upon the present point; for if
there is an absolute duty upon a man having the means to
bury his child, and if it is a duty to give every corpse Christian
burial, the duty must be violated by burning it. I do not
think, however, that the cases really mean to lay down any
such rule. The question of burning was not before the court
in either case. In R. v. Stewart the question was whether
the duty of burial lay upon the parish officers or on some
other person. In R. v. Van the question was whether a man
who has not the means to bury his child was bound to incur
a debt in order to do so. In neither case can the court have
intended to express themselves with complete verbal accuracy,
for in the case of R. v. Stewart the court speaks of the ‘ right ’
of a dead body, which is obviously a popular form of expression,
a corpse not being capable of rights, and in both cases the
expression Christian burial is used, which is obviously inapplic
able to persons who are not Christians—Jews, for instance, Mahommedans, or Hindoos. To this I may add that the attention
of neither court was called to the subject of anatomy already
referred to. Skeletons and anatomical preparations could not
be innocently obtained if the language of the cases referred to
was construed, as it was intended to be, severely, and literally
accurate. There is only one other case to be mentioned.
This is the case of Williams v. Williams, which was decided
two years ago by Mr. Justice Kay in the Chancery Division of
the High Court, and is reported in the L.R. 20 Ch. Div. 659.
In this case one H. Crockenden directed his friend, Eliza
Williams, to burn his body, and directed his executors to pay
her expenses. The executors buried the body. Miss Williams
got leave from the Secretary of State to disinter it, in order,
as she said, to be buried elsewhere. Having obtained posses
sion of it by misrepresentation, she burnt it, and sued the
executors for her expenses. I need not trace out all the
�66
mb;’ justice stephen on
points in the case, as it avowedly leaves the question now
before us undecided. The purpose was, says Mr. Justice
Kay, ‘ confessedly to have the body buried, and thereupon
arises a very considerable question whether that is or is not a
lawful purpose according to the law of this country. That is
a question which I am not going to decide.’ He held that in
the particular case the removal of the body and its burning
were both illegal, according to the decision of R. v. Sharp,
already referred to. ‘ Giving the lady credit,’ he said, 1 for
the best of motives, there can be no kind of doubt that the
act of removing the body by that licence and then burning it
was as distinct a fraud on that licence as anything could
possibly be.’ This was enough for the particular case, and
the learned judge accordingly expressed no opinion- on- the
question on' which it now becomes my duty to direct you.
It arises in the present case' in a perfectly clear and simple
form, unembarrassed by any consideration as applied to the
other cases to which I have referred. There is no question
here of the gross illegality which marked the conduct of those
described as resurrection men, of the artifices, not indeed
criminal, but certainly disingenuous, by which the possession
of the body was obtained in the cases of R. v. Sharpe, and
Williams v. Williams. Dr. Price had lawful possession of the
child’s body, and it was certainly not only his right but his
duty to dispose of it by burying, or in any other manner not
in itself illegal. Here I must consider the question whether
to burn a dead body instead of burying it is in itself an illegal
act. After full consideration, I am of opinion that a person
who burns instead of burying a dead body does mot commit a
criminal act unless he does it in such a manner as to amount
to a public nuisance at common law. The reason for this
opinion is, that upon the fullest examination of the authorities,
I have, as the present review of them shows, been unable
to discover any authority for the proposition that it is a
misdemeanour to burn a dead body, and in the absence of
such authority I feel that I have no right to declare it to
be one.
There are some instances, no doubt, in which
courts of justice have declared acts to be misdemeanours
�THE LAW OF CREMATION.
67
which had never previously been decided to be so ; but
I think it would be found that in every such case the act
involved great public mischief or moral scandal. It is not
my place to offer any opinion of the comparative methods
of burning and burying corpses, but before I could hold that
it must be a misdemeanour to burn a dead body I must be
satisfied not only that some people, or even many people,
object to the practice, but that it is on plain, undeniable
grounds highly mischievous, or grossly scandalous ; even then
I should pause long before I held it to be a misdemeanour,
but I cannot even take the first step. Sir Thomas Browne
finishes his famous essay on Urn Burial with a quotation from
Lucan, which in eight Latin words translated by eight English
words seems to sum up the matter, ‘ Tabesne cadavera solvat
an rogus haud refert.’ ‘ Whether decay or fire destroys
corpses matters not.’ The difference between the two pro
cesses is, the one is quick, the other slow. Each is so horrible
that every earthly imagination would turn away from its
details, but one or the other is inevitable, and each may be
concealed from observation by proper precautions. There
are, no doubt, religious considerations and feelings connected
with the subject which every one would wish to treat with
respect and tenderness, and I suppose there is no doubt that
as a matter of historical fact the disuse of burning bodies was
due to the force of religious sentiments. I do not think, how
ever, that it can be said that every practice which startles and
jars upon the religious sentiments of the majority of the
population is for that reason a misdemeanour at common law.
The statement of such a proposition is a sufficient refutation
of it, but nothing short of this will support the conclusion
that to burn a dead body must be a misdemeanour. As for
the public interest in the matter, burning, on the one hand,
effectively prevents the bodies of the dead from poisoning the
living; on the other hand, it might, no doubt, destroy the
evidences of crime. These, however, are matters for the legis
lature and not for me. The great leading rule of criminal
law is that nothing is a crime unless it is plainly forbidden by
law. This rule is, no doubt, subject to exceptions, but they
�68
MR. JUSTICE STEPHEN ON THE LAW OF CREMATION.
are rare, narrow, and to be administered with the greatest
reluctance, and only upon the strongest reasons. This brings
me to the last observation I have to make. Though I think
that to burn a body decently and inoffensively is lawful, or at
the very least not criminal, it is obvious that if it is done in
such a manner as to be offensive to others, it is a nuisance,
and one of an aggravated kind. A common nuisance is an
act which obstructs or causes inconvenience or damage to the
public in the exercise of right common to all her Majesty’s
subjects. To burn a dead body in such a place, or in such a
manner, as to annoy persons passing along public roads, or
other places where they have a right to go, is beyond all doubt
a nuisance, as nothing more offensive, both to sight and
smell, can be imagined. The depositions in this case do not
state very distinctly the nature of the place where the act was
done; but if you think, upon inquiry, that there is evidence of
its having been done in such a situation and manner as to be
offensive to any considerable number of persons, you should
find a true bill. This must depend upon details on which it
would be improper, and, indeed, impossible to address you.
I must conclude with a few words explanatory of the reasons
which have led me to address you at so much length. The
novelty of the matter, and the interest which many persons
take in it, are a reason for going into it fully. The difficulty
which a petty jury would find is avoided by my addressing
myself to you rather than to them. The fact also that if I
am wrong my error is in favour of the defendant, is another
reason for staring my views fully to you, for if he should be
acquitted upon my direction there would be no means of car
rying the case to the Court for Crown Cases Reserved.
�CREMATION.
69
The Cremation Society, in consequence of the foregoing
decision, issued at once the following paper, embodying their
views and intentions :—
‘ The Cremation Society of England.
‘ The Council of the Cremation Society of England purchased,
in the year 1878, a freehold site at St. John’s, Woking, in
Surrey, especially adapted by position for the purpose, and
erected thereon a building, with an apparatus of the most
approved kind for effecting cremation of the dead.
‘ They next tested it by experiment, and found that
it accomplished the purpose required without occasioning
nuisance of any kind.
‘ Since that time the place has been maintained in perfect
order, but has not been used, owing to a doubt raised, soon
after the date referred to, as to the legality of adopting the
process at present in this country.
‘ A recent decision, however, of Mr. Justice Stephen declares
that the cremation of a dead body, if effected without nuisance
to others, is a legal proceeding.
‘ Under these circumstances the Cremation Society feel it
a duty to indicate, without delay, those safeguards which they
deem it essential to associate with the proceeding in order to
prevent the destruction of a body which may have met death,
by unfair means. They are aware that the chief practical
objection which can be urged against the employment of cre
mation consists in the opportunity which it offers, apart from
such precautions, for removing the traces of poison or other
injury which are retained by an undestroyed body.
‘ The following, therefore, are the conditions on which the
employment of the Crematorium will alone be permitted by
the Council:—
‘ I. An application in writing must be made by the friends
or executors of the deceased—unless it has been made by the
�70
CREMATION.
deceased person himself. during life—stating that it was the
wish of the deceased to be cremated after death.
‘ II. A certificate must be sent in by one qualified medical
man at least, who attended the deceased until the time of death,
unhesitatingly stating that the cause of death was natural, and
what that cause was.
‘ III. If no medical man attended during the illness, an
autopsy must be made by a medical officer appointed by the
Society, or no cremation can take place.
‘ These conditions being complied with, the Council of the
Society reserve the right in all cases of refusing permission
for the performance of the cremation, and, in the event of
permitting it, will offer every facility for its accomplishment
in the best manner.
‘ Signed on behalf of the Executive Council,
‘Wm. Eassie, C.E.,
‘ Hon. Secretary.
‘ To whom communications may be addressed, as well as sub
scriptions and donations to the funds of the Society; which, in
present circumstances, are much icanted.
111 Argyll Street, Regent Street, W.:
March, 1884.’
LONDON : PRINTED BY
SPOTTISWOODB AND CO., NEW-STREET 6QUARB
AND PARLIAMENT STREET
�SMITH, ELDER, & CO.’S PUBLICATIONS.
Crown 8vo. With Illustrations.
CREMATION
OF
85. 6d.
THE DEAD.
By WILLIAM EASSIE, C.E.
With Illustrations. Demy 8vo. Is.
TRANSACTIONS of the CREMATION SOCIETY of ENGLAND.
Containing a Short History of the Subject of Cremation at Home and Abroad
up to the date of the Eighth Anniversary of the Society, January 13, 1880.
Edited by W. EASSIE, C.E.,
Engineer and Eon. Secretary of the Society,
AND PUBLISHED BY ORDER OF THE COUNCIL.
Crown 8vo. 6s.
HANDBOOK of RURAL SANITARY SCIENCE. Illustrating the
best means of securing Health and preventing Disease. Edited by Lory
Marsh, M.D., Member of the Royal College of Physicians, London; Member
of the Royal College of Surgeons, England.
‘ The essays- are all of a high order of merit,
and are full of suggestions and hints invaluable
alike to landlords, tenants, and sanitary boards.’
'' Standard.
‘ Such facts should quicken the general desire
for the inauguration of a policy of drainage.
The essays are of a practical kind, and are full
of suggestive hints, not only to the medical pro
fession, but to all who study the law of health
and the prevention of illness.’—Globe.
Demy 8vo. 6s.
PURIFICATION of WATER-CARRIED SEWAGE. Data for the
Guidance of Corporations, Local Boards of Health, and Sanitary Authorities.
By Henry Robinson, M.Inst. C.E., and John Charles Melliss, A.Inst. C.E.
8vo. 10s. 6<Z.
LECTURES on STATE MEDICINE. Delivered before the Society
of Apothecaries, at their Hall in Blackfriars, in May and June 1875. By
F. S. B. Francois de Chaumont, M.D., F.R.C.S., &c. &c.
8 vo. 12s.
ESSAYS and PAPERS on SOME FALLACIES of STATISTICS
CONCERNING LIFE and DEATH, HEALTH and DISEASE, with Sug
gestions towards an Improved System of Registration. By Henry W. Rumsey,
M.D., F.R.S., Author of ‘ Essays on State Medicine,’ ‘ Sanitary Legislation,’ &c.
Eleventh Edition, with numerous Illustrations. Demy 8vo. 12s. 6d.
HOUSEHOLD MEDICINE : containing a Familiar Description of
Diseases, their Nature, Causes, and Symptoms, the most approved Methods
of Treatment-, the Properties and Uses of Remedies, &c., and Rules for the
Management of the Sick Room. Expressly adapted for Family Use. By
John Gardner, M.D.
Second Edition.. Crown 8vo. 10s. Qd.
A MANUAL of DIET in HEALTH and DISEASE. By Thomas King
Chamrkrs, M.D. Oxon., F.R.C.P. Lond.; Honorary Physician to H.R.H. the
Prince of Wales: Consulting Physician to St. Mary’s and the Lock Hospitals;
Lecturer on Medicine at St. Mary’s School; Corresponding Fellow of the
Academy of Medicine, New York, &c.
London : SMITH, ELDER, & CO., 15 Waterloo Place.
�THE
SANITARY
RECORD:
A MONTHLY JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH.
EDITED BY ERNEST HART.
The SANITARY RECORD is a Monthly Journal of the progress of the Hygiene of
Cities, Towns, Rural Districts, Mines, Factories, and Habitations; the Food, Water,
Gas Supply, and Drainage of Towns, and Rural Districts; the Vital Statistics of
Population ; the Influence on Health of Trades and Occupations and the Operation of
Acts bearing upon Public Health.
Annual Subscription, 10s. per annum, paid in advance.
London: SMITH, ELDER, & CO., 15 Waterloo Place.
nitrnatianHl
SOUTII
KEJSTSIISTGrTOISr,
1884.
The Proprietors of the Sanitary Record have much pleasure in intimating
that they have decided to publish a Weekly Supplement, to be termed the
‘SANITARY RECORD EXHIBITION SUPPLEMENT,’
commencing simultaneously with the opening of the Exhibition. The Supplement
will be devoted exclusively to a description of the various Exhibits, Illustrations will
be used where practicable, and the publication will be continued until a full report
of the Exhibition has been given, when it will be withdrawn.
This Supplement will not in any way interfere with the Sanitary Record proper,
which will be published as usual on the 15th of each month; but the contents of
the Supplement will afterwards appear in the Sanitary Record and London
Medical Record, so that a full report of the Exhibition, as it will affect the readers
of both of these Journals, will be provided to the Subscribers.
The Supplement will be sold in the Building at 2<Z. per copy.
London: SMITH, ELDER, & CO., 15 Waterloo Place.
WHERE TO TAKE A HOLIDAY.
Under this Title will be published, on June lsif next, Price One Shilling, the Second
Annual Issue
OF THE
HOLIDAY
NUMBER
OF the
LONDON MEDICAL RECORD.
The leading features of this issue will he an account of the principal Watering-Places and Health
Resorts of the United Kingdom and the Continent, as regards their salubrity, sanitary condition,
climatic and meteorological influences, Hotel and Lodging-House accommodation, &c.
There will be a large circulation of the Number, which will be distributed in every wateringplace mentioned in it, as well as amongst the profession and a selected portion of the public.
London: SMITH, ELDER," & CO., 15 Waterloo Place.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Modern cremation: the treatment of the body after death
Description
An account of the resource
Edition: 3rd
Place of publication: London
Collation: vi, 70, [2] p. ; 21 cm.
Notes: Together with a paper entitled 'Cremation or Burial' by Sir. T. Spencer Wells and the Charge of Sir James Stephen recently delivered at Cardiff. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Publisher's selection of titles of related interest on unnumbered pages at the end. Contains 'Mr Justice Stephen on the Law of Cremation' given to the Grand Jury, at the Crown Court, Cardiff in February 1884.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Thompson, Henry [1820-1904]
Wells, T. Spencer Wells [Sir]
Stephen, James Fitzjames
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Smith, Elder & Co.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1884
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5216
Subject
The topic of the resource
Death
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Cremation: the treatment of the body after death), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Burial
Conway Tracts
Cremation
Death
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/713e3a63908e9da4db3d6fa70b004c67.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=MhqkNispXGWJ-NHJ46pvierwZlO5VCYFTNUka-RFqyk2hvbySMvneh1u3iMvKNYQcYgiM-yNKZhvu3-LviUdUshNMFsi9L98F1eFm1lcxW4ediVcWn8ZwiHSGsG10nX39n5Kdkv6KR1-FSH-mI-zkmUxLEeJLFRL-TLdyaN-77Nc%7EkjAZrXkz-roIDjPdcnSM3OXuZEN2gbtJwXCx2CL6M3jY4RSiFNymztqrX5XAWLmpzswX%7EnlsbF1iD8gsDx8ro0QGXB5pHPampHSHQra%7E8-VIoRJhPf-EbZaQmvWyYUnhuoOdbrT4iNHWHzMgEfVKFIPHhO-toMgZQg3qqz4yw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
9759235cc68687ed8f7f56b3f7defe60
PDF Text
Text
mtltir tamtmits.
A BURIAL SERVICE.
BY AUSTIN HOLYOAKE.
�I
�A BURIAL SERVICE.
The following is designed as one of the services for the little
Manual of Secular Ceremonies. Having lost the nearest and
dearest relatives a man can know—having passed, I may say,
through a baptism of bereavement, I know but too well the
agony of the grave side. I have endeavoured—but very
inadequately, I am sure—to produce a short service which
shall afford consolation and reconcilement to the sorrowing,
from a Secular point of view. The service as it now stands
is suitable to be said over the grave of an adult male; it
may, with slight effort, by altering the gender, be made
suitable for a female also. It is almost impossible to write
that which would be applicable to all persons of all ages. It
■can always be sufficiently individualised by some friend of
the deceased introducing a few remarks of a personal nature.
We this day consign to the earth the body of
our departed friend ; for him life’s fitful dream
is over, with its toils, and sufferings, and dis
appointments. He derived his being from the
bountiful mother of all ; he returns to her capa
cious bosom, to again mingle with the elements.
He basked in life’s sunshine for his allotted time,
and has passed into the shadow of death, where
sorrow and pain are unknown. Nobly he per-
�4
A Burial Service.
formed life’s duties on the stage of earth; the
impenetrable curtain of futurity has fallen, and
we see him no more. But he leaves to his
sorrowing relatives and friends a legacy in the
remembrance of his virtues, his services, his
honour, and truth. He fought the good fight
of Free Inquiry, and triumphed over prejudice
and the results of misdirected education. His
voyage through life was not always on tranquil
seas, but his strong judgment steered him clear
of the rocks and quicksands of ignorance, and
for years he rested placidly in the haven of selfknowledge. He had long been free from the
fears and misgivings of superstitious belief. He
worked out for himself the problem of life, and
no man was the keeper of his conscience. His
religion was of this world—the service of human
ity his highest aspiration. He recognised no
authority but that of Nature ; adopted no
methods but those of science and philosophy ;
and respected in practice no rule but that of
conscience, illustrated by the common sense of
mankind. He valued the lessons of the past,
but disowned tradition as a ground of belief,
whether miracles and supernaturalism be claimed
or not claimed on its side. No sacred Scripture
or ancient Church formed the basis of his faith.
By his example, he vindicated the right to think
and to act upon conscientious conviction. By a
career so noble, who shall say that his domestic
affections were impaired, or that his love for those
near and dear to him was weakened ? On the
contrary, his independent method of thought
�A Burial Service.
5
tended to develop those sentiments which have
their source in human nature—which impel and
ennoble all morality—which are grounded upon
intelligent personal conviction, and which mani
fest themselves in worthy and. heroic actions,
especially in the promotion of Truth, Justice,
and Love. For worship of the unknown, he sub
stituted Duty; for prayer, Work; and the record
of his life bears testimony to his purity of heart;
and the bereaved ones know but too well the
treasure that is lost to them for ever. If perfect
reliance upon any particular belief in the hour
of death were any proof of its truth, then in the
death of our friend the principles of Secularism
would be triumphantly established. His belief
sustained him in health ; during his illness, with
the certainty of death before him at no distant
period, it afforded him consolation and en
couragement ; and in the last solemn moments
of his life, when he was gazing as it were into
his own grave, it procured him the most perfect
tranquillity of mind. There were no misgivings,
no doubts, no tremblings lest he should have
missed the right path; but he went undaunted
into the land of the great departed, into the
silent land. It may be truly said of him, that
nothing in life became him more than the manner
of his leaving it. Death has no terrors for the
enlightened; it may bring regrets at the thought
of leaving those we hold dearest on earth, but
the consciousness of a well-spent life is allsufficient in the last sad hour of humanity. Death
is but the shadow of a shade, and there is noth-
�6
A Buriat Service.
ing in the name that should blanch the cheek
or inspire the timid with fear. In its presence,
pain and care give place to rest and peace. The
sorrow-laden and the forlorn, the unfortunate
and the despairing, find repose in the tomb—all
the woes and ills of life are swallowed up in
death. The atoms of this earth once were living
man, and in dying, we do but return to our
kindred who have existed through myriads of
generations.
[Here introduce any personal matters relating to the
deceased.]
Now our departed brother has been removed,
death, like a mirror, shows us his true reflex.
We see his character undistorted by the pas
sions, the prejudices, and the infirmities of life.
And how poor seem all the petty ambitions
which are wont to sway mankind, and how
small the advantages of revenge. Death is so
genuine a fact, that it excludes falsehood, or
betrays its emptiness; it is a touchstone that
proves the gold, and dishonours the baser metal.
Our friend has entered upon that eternal rest,
that happy ease, which is the heritage of all.
The sorrow and grief of those who remain,
alone mar the thought that the tranquil sleep
of death has succeeded that fever of the brain
called living. Death comes as the soothing
anodyne to all our woes and struggles, and we
inherit the earth as a reward for the toils of life.
The pain of parting is poignant, and cannot for
�A Burial Service.
7
a time be subdued; but regrets are vain. Every
form that lives must die, for the penalty of life
is death. No power can break the stern decree
that all on earth must part; though the chain
be weaved by affection or kindred, the beloved
ones who weep for us will only for a while re
main. There is not a flower that scents the
mountain or the plain, there is not a rose-bud
that opes its perfumed lips to the morning sun,
but, ere evening comes, may perish. Man
springs up like the tree: at first the tender plant,
he puts forth buds of promise, then blossoms for
a time, and gradually decays and passes away.
His hopes, like the countless leaves of the forest,
may wither and be blown about by the adverse
winds of fate, but his efforts, springing from
the fruitful soil of wise endeavour, will fructify
the earth, from which will rise a blooming
harvest of happy results to mankind. In the
solemn presence of death—solemn, because a
mystery which no living being has penetrated—
on the brink of that bourne from whence no
traveller returns, our obvious duty is to emu
late the good deeds of the departed, and to
resolve so to shape our course through life, that
when our hour comes we can say, that though
our temptations were great—though our educa
tion was defective—though our toils and priva
tions were sore—we never wilfully did a bad
act, never deliberately injured our fellow-man.
The reward of a useful and virtuous life is the
conviction that our memory will be cherished
by those who come after us, as we revere the
�8
A Burial Service.
memories of the great and good who have gone
before. This is the only immortality of which
we know—the immortality of the great ones of
the world, who have benefitted their age and
race by their noble deeds, their brilliant thoughts,
their burning words. Their example is ever
with us, and their influence hovers round the
haunts of men, and stimulates to the highest
and happiest daring Man has a heaven too,
but not that dreamed of by some—far, far away,
beyond the clouds ; but here on earth, created by
the fireside, and built up of the love and respect
of kindred and friends, and within the reach of
tlie humblest who work for the good of others
and the perfectibility of humanity. As we drop
the tear of sympathy at the grave now about
to close over the once loved form, may the
earth lie lightly on him, may the flowers bloom
o’er his head, and may the winds sigh softly as
they herald the coming night. Peace and re
spect be with his memory. Farewell, a long
farewell!
LONDON":
AUSTIN & Co., 17, JOHNSON’S COUBT, FLEET STBEET, E.C.
PEICE ONE PENNY.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Secular ceremonies. A burial service.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Holyoake, Austin [1826-1874]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [London]
Collation: 8 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Inscription in ink on the title page: "M.D. Conway for P. Truelove Dec 2/74". From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed by Austin & Co., Fleet Street, London. Tentative date of publication from KVK.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[Austin & Co]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1869?]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
CT19
Subject
The topic of the resource
Death
Secularism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Secular ceremonies. A burial service.), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Burial
Ceremonies
Conway Tracts
Funerals
Secularism
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/b321981cec15d8d473d6096971c4a3e2.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=Asp%7EXDox-Qmk9mlO-%7EHlD1Z4Sgokz5WUiRxwbcixvD8DdAsQhr-r%7ExFwqV07b7drH4xX0Kr11SDoUtv5trFgsLTYGNwuQEIJmjOmtRxcADsRm-GNKb1kTx4Vhot11bMx0gExrrudX%7EGLfDELFB3bF7K85eFFFdFQfM8wixA28ip%7ELoXC-GpyVB9K6zmCNu6T3mqTyfPn-UTnK7VG4-tBA5GKufOAS%7E5rOGQtHHRUrcM597XhAJrqQCATC6xHuTwxk2YikeDwhzbD8YqHoSUzgaU04wkEed88%7E7OOsV3LZmEqEqwlF-z8VSkbO29gMWSp5-oqGmPYujMVDTpNghpTlw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
e6473fe14090a97be9623c00c2851226
PDF Text
Text
�����������������������
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Fire-burial among our German forefathers: a record of the poetry and history of Teutonic cremation
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Blind, Karl
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 24 p. ; 22 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed in double columns. Printed by Spottiswoode and Co., New Street Square and Parliament Street, London. Includes bibliographical references.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Longmans, Green, and Co.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1875
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5170
CT39
Subject
The topic of the resource
Death
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Fire-burial among our German forefathers: a record of the poetry and history of Teutonic cremation), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Burial
Conway Tracts
Cremation
Death
Germany