FROM FREEMAN’S JOURNAL AND DAILY COMMERCIAL ADVERTISER FRIDAY MARCH 22 1872
DESECRATION OF THE DEAD
On Monday, Tuesday and Thursday last a sickening scene was witnessed at the old burial ground, Upper Richmond Road, Putney . The estate of the late Mr. Henry Scarth of Putney, is being administered by the Court of Chancery, to the possession of which there are several claimants. One applied to the Home Secretary, through a “genealogist”, for permission to open the grave of the father of the deceased, a Mr James Scarth who was buried in 1828, with a view to see that the inscription on the coffin agreed with the burial register, and on the supposition that a variance existed in the age of the deceased. The Home Secretary gave his consent, on the allegations that there was a discrepancy between the age as stated on the tombstone and in the burial register, without inquiry or consulting the relatives of the deceased. Certain graves were then opened, and several bodies disturbed, including that of Alice Scarth, the widow of James, whose coffin was brought to the surface, while the burrow was continued underneath. When at a depth of twelve feet that of Ann Scarth, a daughter buried there, was exposed to view; but the coffin of James was not discovered. Ground in three other places was then tested with a sharply pointed iron rod and opened, and other bodies strangers to the family, disturbed. The details of this investigation are too revolting to relate. After three days the search – such as we hope may never occur again – was given up on information given by the descendant of sextant who buried the deceased, who produced an extract from the Sexton’s book, taken from the inscription plate at the time of the internment, showing the deceased was 59 years of age at the time of death, which agreed with the burial register. The genealogist was present directing operations. The relatives of the deceased were represented by a solicitor. After the all-powerful Home Secretary had sanctioned the proceeding, the distressed realtives could no nothing but join in the vicar’s representation in requiring and insisting that unnecessary indecency, such as lifting one coffin up, on its head whilst those underneath were dug for and examined was avoided. The tombstone stated the deceased was in his 59th year; and the burial register described him as to be aged 39. The Home Office might had easily have inquired that the discrepancy really was, instead of accepting as true the statement in the genealogist’s application that a discrepancy did exist. It remains to be seen whether the Home Secretary has power to order the opening of graves without good reason being assigned.; and if so whether he ought to exercise it upon exparte application of a stranger, and without making any inquiry whether the representations were true., and without regard to the feelings of the distressed relatives of the deceased person, where no suspicion existed as to the cause of death, but simply to gratify a whim.
