View report page

124
CHAPEL OF REST FOR THE DEAD.
The Council resolved last year to provide a place for the temporary reception of dead bodies
at North Kensington consequent upon presentation of my third report (March 29, p. 64), which dealt
with the need of such accommodation to the following effect-
" It is not unusual among the poor to prolong, unduly, the interval between the death and
burial of deceased relatives, whose bodies frequently are retained in houses (generally lodgings)
unsuitable for the purpose. This fact has. on more than one occasion, given rise to the question of
the desirability of providing a mortuary chapel, more especially for the use of the poorer classes,
at North Kensington, and the subject has been under the consideration of the Public Health
Committee on a notice of motion.
" The need for such provision engaged the attention of the Sanitary Committee of the late
Vestry when the mortuary in the Churchyard was established, in 1883 : but it having been ascertained
that an undertaker's charge for carriage of a body thereto was the same from any part of the
parish, it was thought that, if the accommodation proved sufficient, there would be no necessity for
a second building. But, whether on account of the remoteness of the site from the more densely
populated parts of North Kensington, or from whatever other cause, few bodies have been deposited,
except of the pauper class, and these mostly at the request of the relieving officers, or (the great
majority of admissions) on the order of the coroner in inquest cases. It has been suggested that
association with the mortuary of the " place for the making of post-mortem examinations " may
explain the disinclination of the poor to avail themselves of the convenience provided for their
benefit; and, therefore, in considering the recent proposal, it was decided to be, in any event,
undesirable to provide anything beyond a mortuary chapel, pure and simple, as a temporary resting
place for the dead awaiting burial.
" With a view to the information of the Cemeteries Sub-Committee, to which the matter was
referred, I instituted inquiries, the result of which seemed sufficiently interesting to be brought to
the knowledge of the Council.
" About one-sixth of the deaths in the borough occur at the infirmary, and of the poorest of the
people, the majority of them of North Kensington persons. It was natural, therefore, to turn in
the first instance, to Mr. Rutherglen, the Clerk to the Guardians, who, with the approval of the
Infirmary Committee, furnished me with all desired information. The inquiry was primarily
directed to ascertain ' the practice of the Guardians in relation to the burial, or removal for burial,
of the bodies of persons who had died in the Infirmary.' The specific questions asked were, as to
—(a) the number of bodies buried from the Infirmary mortuary in 1901; (6) the number removed
thence to the former homes, or to the homes of surviving relatives of the deceased ; (c) the steps
taken to ascertain the suitability of the place of deposit; (d) whether any of the removed bodies
were buried at the cost of the rates; (e) whether it was on account of want of accommodation at
the Infirmary mortuary that bodies were permitted to be removed therefrom to places that might be
unsuitable; or (/) whether it was that the Guardians had no legal power to detain bodies till the
time of burial; or (g) that they yielded to the natural desire of the survivors to pay the last offices
to the dead, ' at home,' without regard to the suitability of the available accommodation.
" In his reply, Mr. Rutherglen stated that of 486 persons who died in the infirmary in 1901,
the bodies of 231 were removed for the purpose of being privately buried by their friends, none of
them having been subsequently buried at the cost of the Guardians. In respect of these cases, he
said :—
' The Guardians have no means of knowing whether the bodies are removed to the homes
from which the persons were admitted, to the houses of the relatives and friends who may be
undertaking the burial, or to the premises of the undertaker who is carrying out the funeral:
there is no staff available for embarking on an inquiry as to whether the place to which the body
is to be removed is sanitarily suitable for its reception and detention ; nor do I think that the
Guardians would be justified in refusing to give up a body to the friends or relatives, even if they
were not satisfied with the proposed accommodation. If the relatives or friends of a patient have
the desire and the means to bury the body of their departed friend, the Guardiaus have always
felt—firstly, that they have no power to refuse to allow them to do so; secondly, that it is
desirable to encourage so natural a desire ; and thirdly, that the rates should not be saddled with
the outlay when there are friends able and willing to incur it; and therefore applications for
permission to remove a body for private burial are, practically without exception, at once acceded
to. As I have already said, the question of ' suitability of accommodation ' does not enter into
the question in allowing the removal of a body, and the permission for such removal has never
had to be given because of insufficient accommodation in the Infirmary mortuary.'
" Mr. Rutherglen was subsequently requested to favour the sub-committee ' with the addresses
of the places to which the 231 bodies were removed,' in order that they might be ' in a position
to form an opinion as to the probable sanitary suitability, or otherwise, of the accommodation/