On this page

• Text (1)

  Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

  • 

    Untitled Article

• Transcript

  • Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

    Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.

    Untitled Article

    It being assumed that the Court is justified ia holding this opinion , upon the feet of comparative duration , the pretension of these coffins to be admitted on equal terms , roust resort to the other proposition , which declares that the difference of duration ought to make no difference in the terms of

    admission . Accordingly , it has been argued , that the ground once given to the interment of a body , is appropriated for ever to that body ; that it is not only the domus ultima , but the domus eeterna of that tenant , who is never to be disturbed , be the condition

    of that tenant himself what it may . It is his for ever , and the insertion of any other body into that space , at any other time , however distant , is an unwarrantable intrusion . If these positions be true , the question of comparative duration sinks into utter insignificance .

    In support of them it seems to be assumed , that the tenant himself is imperishable $ for surely there cannot be an inextinguishable title , a perpetuity of possession , belonging" to a perishable thing ; but the fact is , that * ' man" and " for ever" are terms

    quite incompatible in any state of his existence , dead or alive , in this world . The time must come when his posthumous remains must mingle with and compose a part of the soil in which they have been deposited . Precious embalmments and splendid monuments may preserve for centuries the remains of those who have filled the more

    commanding stations of human life ; but the common lot of mankind furnishes them with no such means of conservation . With reference to men , the domus deterna is a mere flourish of rhetoric . The process of nature will resolve them into an intimate mixture

    with their kindred earth , and will furnish a place of repose for other occupants or the grave in succession . It is objected , that no precise time can be fixed , at which the mortal remains and even the chest which contains them , shall undergo the complete process of

    dissolution ; afrd it certainly cannot , being dependent upon circumstances that differ , upon difference of soils and exposure of climate and seasons ; but observation can ascertain it sufficiently for practical use . The experience of not many years , is required , to furnish a certainty sufficient for such purposes . Founded on these facts and considera-

    Untitled Article

    tions , the legal doctrine certainly is , and remains unaffected , that the common cemetery is not res unius cetatis ^ the exclusive property of one generation , now departed ; but is likewise the common property of the living-, and of generations yet unborn , and subject

    only to temporary appropriation . There exists a right of succession in the whole , a right which can only be lawfully obstructed in a portion of it , by public authority , that of the ecclesiastical magistrate , who gives occasionally an exclusive title in a part of the public

    cemetery , to the succession of a single family , or to an individual who has a claim to such a distinction ; but does not do that with just consideration of its expediency , and a due attention to the objections of those who oppose such an alienation from the common

    use . Even a brick grave without such authority , is an aggression upon the common freehold interest , and carries the pretensions of the dead to an extent that violates the just rights of the living .

    If this view of the matter be just , all contrivances that , whether intentionally or not , prolong the time of dissolution beyond the period at which common local usage has fixed it , is an act of injustice , unless compensated in one way or other . In country parishes , where the population is small ,

    and the cemeteries are large , it is a matter less worthy of consideration . More can be spared , and less is wanting . But in populous parishes , in large and crowded cities , the exclusive possession is unavoidably limited ; for unless limited , evils of formidable magnitude would take place . Churchyards cannot be made commensurate

    to a large and increasing population : the period of decay and dissolution does not arrive fast enough in the accustomed mode of depositing bodies in the earth , to evacuate the ground for the use of succeeding claimants . Now

    cemeteries are to be purchased at an enormous expense to the parish , and to be used at an increased expense to the families , and at the inconvenience of their being compelled to resort to

    very incommodious distances for attendance upon the offices of interment : three additional burial-grounds in this very parish have been so bought . This is the known progress of things in their ordinary course , and if to this is

    Untitled Article

    700 Sir JV . Scott ' s Judgment on the Patent Coffin Case .

• Citation
  • Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Dec. 2, 1820, page 700, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2495/page/12/