All
these cemeteries rightly have their constant visitors and sometimes their
places in books on London but the City of London Cemetery and Crematorium at
Manor Park (1856) should equally be visited. The contrast with Kensal Green at
the other end of London is remarkable. The site iS flat, but planted with
magnificent planes and one of its chapels is in a most elegant style of gothic,
exceptionally good for cemetery architecture. Here the solid merchant worth of
the City is symbolised by sheer weight of simple polished granite; there is no
fantasy and the most remarkable tomb only has a life-size white marble Descent
from the Cross, but there is a curious circus of huge granite books with cord
markers, and another of passionate angels (the largest angel is elsewhere, on
the tomb of the Elfes, monumental masons). There are also some special plots
consecrated to the re-interment of the dead taken from some of the scandalous
old City graveyards, A good solemn cemetery.
Barbara Jones ‘Design for Death’ (1967)
The
condition of the churchyards in the City of London was a national scandal by
the start of the 1850’s. The City authorities had been slow to react to the
threat to health that the overcrowded city churchyards represented; concern
over intermural burials had resulted in the establishment of the ‘magnificent
seven’ cemeteries in London starting with Kensal Green in 1832 and ending with
Tower Hamlets in 1841 but in the City the authority of the Church of England went
unchallenged and all attempts at burial reform were passively resisted. The
City authorities were belatedly stirred into action when the 1852 Metropolitan burial
act allowed the secretary of state to prohibit further burials in any
churchyard or burial ground deemed a health risk anywhere in London. The act
also made the Commissioner of Sewers a burial authority and so William Haywood,
the City Surveyor, found himself given the job of finding a site for the City
to open its own cemetery. Haywood’s report to the authorities called the city
churchyards ‘overgorged’ and ‘disgusting’ and recommended the purchase of 200
acres of arable, pasture and meadow land at Aldersbrook to the east of London,
between Manor Park and Ilford.
Haywood’s
proposition met with stiff opposition from some senior church members.
Archdeacon Hale, a High Tory and staunch opponent of any attempt to disrupt
traditional burial arrangements was particularly vocal. The Banner of Ulster
found the Archdeacons attempts to thwart the opening of a new cemetery so
ridiculous that it could only assume that the most reverend William Hale was
joking “let the journalist relate how Archdeacon Hale jested with his clergy
and hoaxed the City Commissioners of Sewers. It is, indeed, a pity that he did
not find a more appropriate theme upon which to display his talent than the
sepulchre. The mirth is rather ghastly; but, after all, there are few personages
that excite more laughter in theatre than the gravediggers,” it remarked in
1855. The newspapers correspondent was exasperated that the Archdeacon’s
objections were taken at all seriously and that William Haywood’s time was
wasted having to respond to them. One of Hale’s objections to the new cemetery
was that it was not divided into 108 compartments, each one allotted to one of
the city parishes, “that all the parishioners, having lived together and
traded together, may die together and lie together, and that none presume to
mingle their dust with their neighbours of the next parish” the newspaper
noted. Another objection to the cemetery was that dissenters should not be
suffered to be interred with churchmen; “Excellent! Dissenter may to Heaven
and the angels in company with Churchman, but he shan't to the grave and the
worms.” His final objection was that there was no need for a cemetery, that
the City’s churchyards still had plenty of room, were not overcrowded and were
not a health risk, a demurral so risible that it drove the Banner’s journalist
to a paroxysm of mockery; “so, far from being unhealthy to inhabitants in the
houses around, they are rather the reverse; look at sextons, how old those men
generally are; in fact, as the gravedigger says in Hamlet, ‘There is no ancient
gentlemen but gardeners, ditchers, and gravemakers; therefore —no occasion for
the Ilford Cemetery. Here he has risen to the height of his great argument, to
the climax of his jest. It would appear that the only thing which prevents the
authorities from taming our churchyards into a resort for invalids, such as Bath
or Brighton, is the extreme difficulty, perhaps also the impropriety, of
finding suitable amusements in their precincts. If people would only reconcile
themselves to playing at bowls with skulls, and fencing with crossbones, and
turning the tombstones into billiard tables, nothing can possibly more
salubrious than a graveyard, especially a city one- Pray don’t mention the
odours of the place; medicines are odorous, and the stronger the smell, the more
potent the medicine, the more certain the cure. “Death is as natural as life;”
therefore it is as good as life; it is, in fact, a form of life.”
Haywood’s
chosen site at Aldersbrook was on the edge of Wanstead Flats, an area of what
was, back in the Pleistocene when mammoths grazed the water meadows, the
alluvial plain formed by the Thames. The course of the river has moved
southwards by four or five miles over the last 100,000 years but the clay and
gravel deposited by the river are well drained and are not too difficult to dig
for graves. The land formerly belonged to the Manor of Aldersbrook; the manor
house had been demolished by the most recent owner and the formal gardens dug
up and converted to pasturage but the site still retained a farmhouse and a
large pond. The Evening Standard noted that “the situation of the cemetery, though
not picturesque, is nevertheless admirably well adapted for its purposes. It is
flat, but at the same time well drained, the land being particularly fertile,
which fact is amply testified by the unusually flourishing aspect of the recent
horticultural improvements.” The owner of the land was the Earl of Mornington but
the purchase was delayed because of a dispute between the Earl and his son
about whether the profligate father actually had the right to sell. The dispute
was eventually settled and the City Corporation bought the land in 1854. With
Haywood in charge work on the site proceeded at a brisk pace; all existing
buildings on the land were demolished, the lake was drained and drains and
roads laid out. Two chapels were built, one Anglican and the other non-denominational,
an impressive entrance was built on Aldersbrook Road along with lodges and
houses for the staff. The last features
to be constructed in the impressive layout of the cemetery were the catacombs, built in their own valley and intended to be a centrepiece of the overall
design. The draining of the lake had created a natural amphitheatre and Haywood
utilised this to create the catacombs. They were not a commercial success
though as the initial enthusiasm for catacombs which had led to their construction
in most of the new garden cemeteries had worn off by the time City of London
opened in 1856. They became more important as a landscape feature and a
promenading spot than as a place of burial and were never more than half filled.
Although
the cemetery opened for business in June 1856 consecration was delayed until
November of the following year as the Bishop of London was unwilling to go
through with the ceremony unless all 108 parishes were in agreement (Archdeacon
Hale had clearly got to him). Many of the parish priests were concerned at the potential
loss of income but it soon became obvious that most of their flock didn’t care if
the cemetery were consecrated or not and were quite happy to be buried there
regardless. The clergy bowed to the inevitable and on Monday 16 November 1857
the consecration ceremony took place with all due pomp and circumstance as The
Evening Standard described the following day:
Yesterday
the new cemetery at Little Ilford, which has just been completed by the burial
board of the City of London, was consecrated with the usual ceremonials by the
Lord Bishop of London…. At about eleven o'clock in the morning the Lord Mayor,
accompanied by a large proportion of the aldermen and common councilmen,
arrived at the ground, and, in company with the committee of the burial board,
received the Bishop of London on his arrival, a little before twelve; soon
after which the procession, consisting of the committee of the burial board and
the choristers of St. Paul's; the chaplain of the cemetery, followed by the
Lord Mayor and corporation of the City; the Bishop of London, accompanied by
his chaplain, chancellor, registrar, and the clergy of the City of London,
moved forward from the gate through the grounds to the church. Those composing
the procession having taken their places in the church, morning prayers were
read by the appointed chaplain of the cemetery, the Rev. Mr. Taylor, the first
and second lessons being taken from, the 23d chapter of Genesis and the 19th
chapter of St. John. During the service the 39th and 90th Psalms were chanted
by the choir. At the conclusion of the service the commission of the burial
board was read by the registrar, when the Lord Mayor presented the authorisation
of the corporation for the consecration to the bishop, after which the
authorisation was read aloud, and subsequently signed by the bishop. The
procession again formed, and proceeded out of the church in the same order, and
passed through the ground to be consecrated, the choir chanting the 16th and
49th Psalms. The procession then again returned to the church, when the
chairman of the burial board presented the deed of conveyance to the bishop,
who then offered up the final prayer. The procession again formed outside the
church, when three verses of the 39th Psalm were chanted by the choir.
To
show there were no hard feelings the Bishop delivered one of his better
sermons:
The
service having concluded, the Lord Bishop of London came forward and said, that
on an occasion such as had brought them together he did not think they ought to
separate without considering well the impressive and important ceremonial which
they had assisted at. They had been assisting at the consecration of a
metropolitan mausoleum, or city of the dead, as much as the busy throng which
they had but recently left was a city of the living. The condition of man would
indeed be dangerous in the extreme if it were not that God is continually
giving him warning that the state of security in which he reposes cannot last
for ever. In assisting at the consecration of this city of the dead they were
irresistibly reminded that the great and busy throng which filled the streets
of London must in a few years become its inhabitants. It had been an ancient
and a holy custom to bury the dead within and in the immediate vicinity of the
churches, in order that the survivors might in times of prayer be reminded of
the uncertainty of their condition. This it had recently been considered
necessary for the health of the public to discontinue, but at the same time it
was thought right to embellish the cemeteries wherever they were placed, in
order to induce people to take their recreation in them, that a true sense of
their mortal condition might at least occasionally be brought to their minds. A
slight collation was provided by the corporation for those present, which was
under the admirable superintendence of Messrs. Staples.
For
the members of the Improvement Committee of the Commissioners of Sewers the
annual inspection of the Cemetery proved to be a popular event (certainly more
popular than the annual inspection of drains and sewers would have been)
involving as it did a leisurely drive down to Little Ilford along the Mile End
and Romford Roads in the company of the incumbents and churchwardens of many of
the city parishes. July was the month chosen for the inspection and the inspection
party generally left the Guildhall at 1.00pm in six open carriages. The party
would arrive at the cemetery sometime after two and would be met at the main
gate by the Superintendent, Mr. Stacey, Mr. Haywood, the Engineer to the
Commissioners of Sewers, the Reverend J. F. Taylor, the Chaplain of the
cemetery, and the Reverend Mr. Hibbitt, the Rector of Little Ilford. The
Committee would inspect the books and the cemetery plans in the lodge and would
then visit the chapels and catacombs and then do a round of the cemetery
grounds. Having found everything in the most perfect order and having worked up
quite an appetite during their drive down and perambulation of the grounds the
entire party would be driven to the Castle Hotel in Woodford where a five-course
dinner would be served. (see London City Press - Saturday 14 July 1866).
In
January 1900 the Corporation was presented with a bill to build a crematorium
at the cemetery. The idea was controversial and the aldermen instinctively
backed away from such a radical proposal. The following year the idea was
debated again this time the Sanitary Committee were charged with considering
and reporting on the most suitable sight to potentially construct a crematorium
within the grounds of the cemetery and to submit plans and estimates for the
work. It took until October 1903 for the Corporation to pluck up enough courage
to pass the plan and agree to the building of the first municipal crematorium
in the country at a cost of £7000. The crematorium was completed the following year (costs
having, of course, gone over budget) and in December 1904 the Essex Newsman was able
to report that “the Home Office has approved the scale of fees which the
City Corporation has prepared in connection with the new crematorium the City
of London Cemetery, Ilford, recently erected at a cost of nearly £10,000. The
cost of cremation has been reduced to four guineas, which fee includes an urn
for the reception of the cinerary remains. These will be kept for twelve
months, and if not claimed and removed they will be buried in a portion of the
cemetery which been set apart for the purpose.” The cost of cremation was
later reduced even further to £3 16s 6d and the cremation services offered by
the cemetery heavily advertised in the local press; an indication perhaps that
take up of the service was not as brisk as the corporation would have liked.
Ironically
overcrowding of burial space has once again become an issue, this time in the
‘new’ cemetery. The Guardian reported in September 2000:
Something
is stirring amid the reverential quiet of the City of London cemetery at Manor
Park, the country's largest burial ground. Hushed tones and respectful silences
may be the usual mode of behaviour, but Ian Hussein, director of the city's
cemeteries, can barely contain his frustration. A suspicion he has been
harbouring for years is rapidly becoming a crisis, but he believes few in power
are listening to his warning: we are running out of space to bury the dead.
Mr
Hussein was keen for the Government to change the law to allow existing graves
to be reused:
Since
the 1970s they have been permitted to reclaim plots after between 50 and 100
years, and to exploit any grave spaces within them that were never used. But
archaic laws - dating from an era when grave robbing was rife - mean they are
banned from disturbing any bones below. This renders impossible their preferred
solution, "lift and deepen", in which an old grave is reopened, the
remains removed and reburied more deeply, leaving space above for the newly
deceased. It is already an accepted practice in much of Europe. "You can
disturb human remains in this country for any reason you care to name - housing
development, shopping complexes, road widening, you name it," said Mr Hussein,
whose organisation has for years been buying back plots it is banned from
redigging. "But the one thing the government will not allow is for graves
to be disturbed for the purposes of creating more graves." Nor, he adds,
should talk of a crisis be lightly dismissed. "Death is, after all, one
subject which affects everyone in the end."
The
law was changed. You can now purchase a used grave in the City of London
Cemetery and be buried on top of the old occupant. If the monument on the grave
is not of historic significance or does not occupy a key position in the
cemetery landscape you are allowed to reuse it, turning it around and
inscribing the new deceased’s details on the unused face of the grave stone. If
the monument is historically significant or occupies a key position in the
landscape you may add a small plaque to the existing details.
No comments:
Post a Comment