USA > Massachusetts > Suffolk County > Boston > Old Copp's Hill and Burial Ground : with historical sketches, March 1, 1882 > Part 7
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13
22 Bell, Edward, p't.
9 Blake, Henry, p't.
20 Beal, p't.
3 Bromfield, p't.
4 Broaders, p't.
7 Baker, Luke, p't.
11 Bigelow, Alpheus, p't.
2
NO. OF TOMB. OWNERS.
16 Brown, Enoch, p't.
20 Brinley, George.
25 Bass, Moses, p't.
1 Bulfinch, Thomas.
7 Blanchard, Edward.
14 Box, John, p't.
15 Barrell, Joseph.
17 Brimmer, Herman.
15 Clark, Calvin W.
32 Crafts, p't.
4 Cotton.
18 Child, Elizabeth.
2 Church, Benjamin, p't.
13 Colman, p't.
13 Cutler, Pliny, p't.
28 Church, First.
18 Coolidge, Joseph.
9 Clements, Thomas, p't.
5 Dennie, Thomas.
8 Davenport, James, p't.
14 Dunn, James C., p't.
9 Duncan, Samuel, p't.
14 Dawes, William, p't.
17 Danforth, Elizabeth S., p't.
24 Durant, Edward.
5 Davis, William and Edward.
8 Driscoll, p't.
18 Dawes, Thomas.
19 Dawes, William.
11 Deblois, Lewis.
12 Doane, Isaiah, p't.
3 Erving, William.
13 Flechers, Thomas, p't.
19 Fitch, Colonel, p't.
23 Foreland, John.
23 Fairfield, William.
14 Francis, John, p't.
24 Forbes, p't.
12 Ferriter, James, p't.
9 Gedney, Bartholomew, p't.
4 Gale, Elizabeth and Lydia, p't.
20 Gridley, p't.
1 Gray, Francis, p't.
8 Greenlief.
3 Gardiner, Sylvester, p't.
5 Gould, John, p't.
3
NO. OF TOMB. OWNERS.
8 Gordon, James.
9 Howe, Thomas, p't.
12 Homer, Benjamin P.
16 Hallowell, Robert, p't.
16 Hinkley, J., p't.
20 Hunnewell, Richard and Jonathan, p't.
9 Hollaway, Samuel, p't.
14 Hammond, Samuel, p't.
1 Howard, Jonathan.
26 Hopkins, Mrs. Margaret.
14 Hoskins, B., p't. Infants' tomb.
10 Ivers, James, p't.
10 Johonnot, Zachariah, p't.
29 Jenkins, p't.
16 Jones, John C.
2 Jackson, Joseph, p't.
16 Kneeland, p't.
10 Kilham and Mears.
31 Knapp, Josiah, p't.
14 Lanman, James, } p't.
16 Lane, Wells, p't.
6 Lloyd, James.
23 Moon, Edward, p't.
17 Murphy, James, p't.
6 Melville, Allen and Thomas.
6 McNeal, John and William, p't.
5 Minot, William, p't.
9 Minns, Thomas, p't.
13 Newman, Henry, p't.
1 Nichols, Perkins, p't.
6 Noble, Arthur.
26 Newcomb, Mrs.
13 Oliver, Ebenezer.
3 Pratt, Elias, p't.
13 Paine's, Judge, heirs, p't.
14 Phillips, Mrs. Thomas W., p't.
17 Pond, Thomas, p't.
19 Pitman, p't.
7 Pitts, William.
9 Putnam, Jesse, p't.
19 Pierce, Joseph, p't.
2 Phillips, Turner, p't.
3 Phillips, William, p't.
23 Parkman, Samuel.
9 Paxton, Charles, p't.
4
NO. OF TOMB. OWNERS.
9 Read, Mary, p't.
3 Rogers, Daniel D.
24 Robbins, E. H., p't.
4 Snelling, Jonathan, p't.
6 Stiel, Captain, p't.
8 Stevens, Atherton H.
21 Smith, Franklin.
5 Storer, Ebenezer.
10 Seaver, heirs of.
11 Smith, Franklin, }.
15 Snow, Gideon.
17 Sherburn, Joseph, p't.
20 Seteon, Samuel, p't.
4 Sheafe, Jacob, p't.
8 Smith, Franklin, }.
21 Smith, Franklin, ¿.
30 Smith, Franklin, ¿.
12 Salsbury, Samuel.
23 Sewall, Joseph.
24 Smith, James, p't.
25 Stodder, Jonathan, p't.
27 Savage, Thomas, p't.
3 Tyler, William and Thomas, p't.
4 Traill, p't.
6 Tyler, John S., p't.
10 Tilden, Joseph.
15 Tyley, Samuel, p't.
12 Townsend, Isaac, p't.
12 Thurston, William, p't.
13 Tudor, John and Frederick.
16 Taylor, William.
4 Thacher, Peter O., p't.
7 Trott, George, p't.
11 Townsend, Blair, p't.
13 Thing, S. C., p't.
4 Vassell, William.
19 Vincent, Benjamin.
21 Vault (Strangers) .
36 Vernon, p't.
41 Valentine, p't.
52 Varney, Benjamin.
1 Wendell, Oliver.
1 Wendell, Jacob.
7 Wheelwright, John, p't.
7 Wheelwright, John and Samuel, p't.
8 Wheelock, Paul, p't.
5
NO. OF TOMB. OWNERS.
18 Welsh, John.
19 Wild, p't.
1 Whitney, Levi.
9 Welsh, Thomas
9 Winthrop, R. C. and John.
15 Winthrop, Adam, p't.
27 Winslow, Isaac, p't.
31 Wharton, p't.
20
Williams, Charles.
21 Waldo, General Samuel.
22 Welles, Arnold.
17 Winslow, John.
CITY OF BOSTON.
April 12, 1879.
Agreeably to the provisions of Chapter 182 of the Acts of 1877, notice is hereby given to the owners of the tombs described in the foregoing report of the Board of Health, to appear before the special committee of the City Council appointed for that purpose on TUESDAY, the twenty-second day of July next, at 3 o'clock, P.M., at the City Hall, Boston, and show cause, if any they have, why each and all of said tombs in the King's Chapel Burial-Ground, should not be closed against any future interment therein.
S. F. McCLEARY, City Clerk.
1
6
6
[DOCUMENT 96 -1879.]
CITY OF
BOSTON.
BOSTONIA. CONDITA A.D.
1630.
MINE
REPORT
OF THE
JOINT SPECIAL COMMITTEE
INTRAMURAL INTERMENTS.
IN COMMON COUNCIL, September 25, 1879.
The Joint Special Committee to whom was referred the communications from the Board of Health, recommending that further interments in the tombs in King's Chapel and Granary Burying-grounds be prohibited, beg leave to submit the following report : -
Agreeably to the provisions of Chapter 182 of the Acts of 1877,1 notice was given to the owners of tombs in the above burying-grounds to appear before the committee at a time specified, and show cause why each and all of said tombs should not be closed.
The hearing relating to the Granary Burying-ground was given on the 15th of July last, and, at the request of the proprietors of tombs, a second hearing was given on the 31st of July.
The hearing concerning the King's Chapel Burying-ground was given on the 22d of July, and was adjourned to the 4th of September.
An abstract of the evidence and arguments presented at these hearings will be found in the Appendix.
The question of prohibiting interments within the limits
1 See page 61.
2
CITY DOCUMENT NO. 96.
of the city has been considered by previous City Councils, and the agitation of the subject, as well as a growing sense of the impolicy of permitting such a flagrant violation of sanitary laws, materially aided the establishment of the rural cemeteries which now ornament our suburbs.
The subject has received considerable attention in other cities of this and of foreign countries, and has resulted in a large amount of legislation.
Believing that a summary of what has been done in past years may be of interest at this time, the committee present a brief sketch of the history of intramural interments, com- piled from such sources of information as are available.
The titles of authors quoted are given as far as known, and, for the convenience of those who may desire to consult the originals, the shelf and number of the book in the Bos- ton Public Library are added.
The principal methods of disposing of the dead from time immemorial have been : -
1. Interment, or the burial of the body in earth or stone.
2. Incineration, or the burning of the body and subse- quent entombment of the ashes.
3. Mummification, or the embalming of the body.
The origin of each method is enveloped in the mists of antiquity.
If we accept the theory of the pre-historic origin of man and his gradual development, we may suppose that in his orginal savage state he had little concern in the disposition of the remains of his kindred. They may have been left where they died, without attention, or they may have been devoured by the survivors, in which latter case, as Dr. Adams wittily remarks in his article on cremation and burial,1 alluding to our pre-Adamite progenitors, " the pros- pect of funeral baked meats must have filled their minds with unhallowed joy." It is probable, however, that when
man became sufficiently developed to be sensible of any feel- ing of respect or veneration for the remains of his kindred, inhumation was adopted, and became the general, although not the universal, custom of disposing of the dead. It is certainly the oldest method of which we have any record.
The Babylonians, Assyrians, Carthaginians, and other great nations of antiquity, buried their dead, and it is believed they did so in consequence of a tradition common among them that the first man was buried .? The Hebrews
1 Cremation and Burial, by J. F. Adams, M.D. Sixth Annual Report State Board of Health, 1875.
2 Religious Ceremonies and Customs, by Wm. Burder, B.A. London, 1851. Boston Public Lib., 3532.7.
3
INTRAMURAL INTERMENTS.
practised interment ; they had publie burying-grounds, and their first care upon arriving in a new country was to set aside a plot of ground for a burial-place.
The Chinese, from the earliest times, buried their dead, and used coffins long before the Christian era. Their attachment to burial in the earth arises from a belief that the body must rest comfortably in the grave, or misfortune will follow the family.1
The early Christians buried their dead in accordance with the Hebrew custom. They objected to cremation on the ground that it involved in it the idea of inhumanity to the body.2 With the believing Romans inhumation was simply a return to an ancient practice which had never be- come entirely obsolete. As Christianity spread, the nations which were brought under its influence and who had pre- viously disposed of their dead in another manner, adopted this custom as a part of their religion.
The origin of the practice of incineration is lost in obscurity. It seems to have been most practised in early times, by the most warlike tribes ; hence the belief that it was adopted as a means of protecting the dead from desecration by the enemy. Pliny ascribes the first institution of burning among the Romans to the impossibility of interring human remains left exposed during the wars of the republic, and to their having discovered that the bodies of those who fell in distant wars were dug up and treated with indignity by the northern barbarians. In some places it was undoubtedly resorted to from sanitary motives, and in others it was prac- tised as a religious rite, from a belief in the purifying influ- ence of fire. In Asia it was extensively practised, and the Egyptians adopted it after they abandoned mummification, about the sixth century. It was extensively practised by the Greeks and Romans in historical times; but in both countries it was preceded by inhumation, and at no time did it entirely supersede the latter method.
It is not positively known when the Greeks adopted the custom ; they are supposed to have learned it from the Thra- cians, who inherited it from their progenitors, the Scythians. The institutes of Lycurgus (B.C. 900) specify the manner in which burial was to be performed. In the fifth century B.C. It would seem that cremation and burial were both practised, for Plato makes Socrates say that he did not care whether he was burned or buried.
The Romans adopted the custom of burning from the
1 Dr. Eatwell.
2 Dr. John Jamieson, On the Origin of Cremation. Trans. Royal Society of Edin- burgh. Vol. viii, 1817. Boston Pub. Lib., E. 163.1, vol. viii.
4
CITY DOCUMENT NO. 96.
Greeks. At first it seems to have been reserved for persons of distinction and wealth; but after the cremation of Cor- nelius Sylla (B.C.676) the practice became more general. It reached its height in the latter days of the republic, and became obsolete in the fourth century, after Christianity be- came fully established.1 Children who had not cut their teeth, and persons killed by lightning, were not burned, but buried.2 Cremation is still extensively practised in Hindos- tan and other Eastern countries, as well as by a number of uncivilized tribes in different parts of the world.
During the present century, attempts have been made in Europe and America to revive the custom, but as yet withont much success.3
Mummification was practised, to some extent, by several ancient nations, especially by the Egyptians, who embalmed all their dead. It is estimated that 400,000,000 human mummies were made in Egypt, from the beginning of the art of embalming until its discontinuance in the seventh century.4
The ancient Peruvians dried their dead in the sun, and interred them in a sitting posture, bound in cloth, the quan- tity of saltpetre in the ground completing the desiccation, - a system analogous to embalmment.3
From the teachings of history and tradition, we may con- clude that the custom of burying the dead has come down to us from the remotest ages, and though at different peri- ods other methods have prevailed, interment has been the final lot of a vast majority of the human race.
To the three methods of disposing of the dead which have been recited was due the establishment of the burying- ground and cemetery.
At first the dead were probably buried in natural caverns, or, perhaps, in a rude grave, marked by a simple mound or a rough stone. In proportion as man became more enlight- ened his respect and veneration for the dead increased, and sought expression in the memorials which marked their last resting-places. The mound and stone increased in size until they grew into the vast tumuli and huge monoliths, which stand to-day as the only evidences of a pre-historic race. The development of art was stimulated by this desire to honor the dead, and mural decoration furnished an early op- portunity for employment to the pencil and chisel. In por-
1 Adams.
3 Burder.
3 For a bibliography and historical sketch of Cremation, see Cremation of the Dead, its history and bearings upon Public Health. William Eassie, C. E., London, 1875. Boston Pub. Lib., 3975.55.
4 Appleton's Enc.
5
INTRAMURAL INTERMENTS.
traying the history of the dead, the artist unconsciously wrote, for future generations, the story of the living.
When men began to live in settled communities the dis- position of the remains of the dead became a matter of prime importance. The Romans originally used their dwell- ings as tombs for their deceased relatives. The same prac- tice prevailed among the early Greeks.
The Thebans had a law that no one should build a house without providing a repository for the dead.1 Among the Egyptians the body, having been embalmed, was returned to the relatives, who enclosed it in a wooden case, made to re- semble a human figure, and placed it in the repository of their dead.2 Experience, however, in course of time, dem- onstrated the danger of these customs, and led to the enact- ment of laws, by which intramural interments were gener- ally prohibited. The privilege was only accorded to holy men, or those who were regarded as public benefactors, or had rendered eminent services to the community.
The Romans permitted vestal virgins, and some illustrious men, to be buried within the city. The right of making a sepulchre for himself within the Pomærium was decreed to Julius Cæsar, as a singular privilege.3
The Roman law of the twelve tables, enacted about the fourth century, expressly forbade the burial or burning of the dead within the city, and continued in force many years.
The Greeks had similar laws. The Lacedemonians were, however, an exception. Lycurgus taught them to bury with- in the limits of the city, both for the purpose of removing the prevalent belief that the touch of a dead body conveyed pollution ; and also to encourage the youths to deeds of valor, by familiarizing them with the spectacle of death.
Burying-grounds were established without the limits of the cities, usually near the highways, and the dead deposited either in the earth or in tombs, more or less magnificent, ac- cording to the rank and condition of the deceased.
When burning prevailed, the ashes were placed in cine- rary urns, and deposited in niches cut in the walls of the sepulchre, called columbaria.
In Egypt the accumulation of mummies within the cities caused a serious epidemic, and led to their being deposited in catacombs and pyramids outside the limits of habitation.
Severe penalties were enacted against the desecration of . burial-places. This, however, did not prevent the interven- tion of the authorities, when required by the public welfare.
1 Jamieson.
2 Intramural Interments in Populous Cities, and their influence upon health and epidemics, by John H. Rauch, M.D., Chicago, 1866. Boston Pub. Lib., 5796.43.
8 Burder.
6
CITY DOCUMENT NO. 96.
The vast number of interments in the burying-ground for the poor people of Rome having rendered the neighborhood unhealthy, Augustus, with the consent of the Senate and people, gave a part of it to his favorite Mæcenas, who built there a magnificent house, with extensive gardens, whence it became one of the most healthy situations in Rome.1
The growth of Christianity brought about radical changes in respect to the interment of the dead. At first the Chris- tians, a despised and persecuted sect, buried their dead in catacombs, excavated in the hills about the city of Rome. There were, in the third century, twenty-five or twenty-six of these, corresponding with the number of parishes within the city, and measuring, in the aggregate, about three hun- dred and fifty miles in length.2 As the sect grew in power, and churches became established, the Roman law against intramural interments was occasionally disregarded, in the case of persons eminent for piety, or services to the church, although the church herself authoritatively ever set her face against the innovation of burial within the churches, or even within the city. Constantine is said to be the first person in- terred within the church edifice, and even he was not deemed worthy to approach nearer than the outer court or porch. At first the privilege was only accorded to such as these ; but at length the desire to be buried within the sacred pre- cincts, and near the relics of the saints and martyrs, became so great that the power of wealth was freely exercised, and the privilege was purchased by splendid gifts to the church. The civil authorities were sensible of the danger of the prac- tice, and legislated against it several times. In 381 the Emperor Theodosius explicitly prohibited interments in cities, and ordered the removal of the remains. The pro- hibition was subsequently embodied in the Justinian Code, and it was not until 509 that formal permission was obtained to establish the first Christian cemetery in Rome.
Burials in churches became more frequent from this time forth, and the health of the worshippers became seriously endangered by the emanations from the decomposing re- mains. The bodies of prelatos and dignitaries of the church, and of eminent laymen, were buried inside the walls. Those less fortunate, or less powerful and wealthy, were laid in the enclosure around the church.
Thus originated the graveyard of the present day ; an evil gradual in its growth, but at last attaining such magnitude that its deleterious effect upon the public health again de- manded the intervention of the authorities.
1 Burder. 2 Adams.
7
INTRAMURAL INTERMENTS.
After the sixth century the custom of interring the dead in and around churches became almost universal in the West, notwithstanding frequent efforts were made to abolish it. In the East the ancient prohibition was more rigorously maintained, although exceptions were occasionally made in the case of important personages. Toward the close of the eighth century Charlemagne employed himself in restoring the ancient ecclesiastical discipline. Councils were fre- quently assembled, and from these emanated the capitularies or public statutes, established by the concurrence of civil and ecclesiastical authorities. These statutes forbade the interment within churches of all persons whatsoever.
It does not appear, however, that these edicts were suffi- cient to prevent the practice ; for we find that more than twenty synods and councils, convened at different periods from the ninth to the seventeenth century, protested against it ; but without avail.1
In the fifteenth century the magistracy of Nuremburg provided for the burial of the dead outside the city ; and at a later period, in 1541, they forbade interments within any church in the city. Interments in the city of Vienna were forbidden during the reign of Maria Theresa, about 1730. In Paris, in 1765, the nuisance became so intolerable that the Parliament of Paris decreed the closing of the church- yards for five years, and the opening of cemeteries out- side the city. This decree was occasioned by an almost universal complaint from the inhabitants of parishes of the noisome and sickly influence of churches and cemeteries.2 This was not sufficient, and, in 1774, the same authority was compelled to issue another decree against the opening of vaults for the admission of bodies.
Louis XV. concurred in the prohibition of graveyards in Paris, and granted to the parish of St. Louis, at Versailles, a piece of land in the forest of Sartoris to be used as a ceme- tery. Louis XVI., in 1776, prohibited graveyards in cities and towns ; but made an exception in favor of clergy, lords, and patrons of churches, who were allowed to be buried under vaults, the bodies to be placed six feet under the lower pavement.
In 1777 a general disinterment was commenced in Paris, beginning with the Cemetery of the Innocents, and the re- mains were removed to the catacombs under the city.
The National Assembly, in 1790, commanded towns and villages to discontinue the use of their old burial-places, and
1 London Quarterly Review, Vol. 73. Boston Pub. Lib., 3134.1.
2 An Exposition of the Dangers of Interments in Cities, by Felix Pascalis, M.D., New York, 1823. Boston Pub. Lib., Medical Pamphlets, 18.
8
CITY DOCUMENT NO. 96.
form others at a distance from their habitations. In 1804 four cemeteries were authorized in the vicinity of Paris, and in 1874 it was found necessary to establish a new one at Mery-sur-Oise, twelve miles from the city.
The example of France in interdicting intramural inter- ments was followed by other countries on the continent of Europe. The influence of physicians and a better knowledge of sanitary laws have resulted in the gradual closing of the old burial-places and the establishment of rural cemeteries.
In Great Britain the subject of intramural interments re- ceived but little attention until within the last thirty-seven years, although the evil effect upon the public health was noticed many years before. In 1721 an anonymous pam- phlet was published in London, entitled, " Seasonable Considerations on the Indecent and Dangerous Custom of Burying in Churches and Churchyards ;" but it does not seem to have led to any action on the part of the authorities. In 1740 a pestilential fever raged in Dublin, which was distinctly traced by the authorities to the exhalations from the graveyards, and they were ordered to be removed out of the city.
In 1839 Mr. George Alfred Walker, a London surgeon, published a work on the condition of the graveyards of Lon- don, which attracted much attention, and led to the appoint- ment by Parliament of a select committee of fifteen " to consider the expediency of framing some legislative enact- ments to remedy the evils arising from the interment of bodies within the precincts of large towns, or of places densely populated."
This committee reported on the 14th of June, 1842, ex- pressing the opinion that the practice of interment within the precincts of large towns is injurious to the health of the inhabitants thereof, and frequently offensive to public de- cency, and recommending that intramural interments, with some exceptions, be prohibited.1
A Supplementary Report on the Results of a Special In- quiry into the Practice of Interments in Towns, by Edwin Chadwick, was presented to the Home Department in 1843. From the evidence on the subject Mr. Chadwick arrives at the following conclusions : "That, inasmuch as there ap- pear to be no cases in which the emanations from human remains, in an advanced state of decomposition, are not of a deleterious nature, so there is no case in which the liability to danger should be incurred, either by interment or by entomb- ment in vaults, which is the most dangerous, amidst the
1 Boston Pub. Lib., 5760.50.
9
INTRAMURAL INTERMENTS.
dwellings of the living, -it being established, as a general conclusion, in respect to the physical circumstances of inter- ment, from which no adequate grounds of exception have been established, that all interments in towns, where bodies decompose, contribute to the mass of atmospheric impurity, which is injurious to the public health." ]
The National Society for the abolition of burial in towns was formed in 1845. The address of the society, which called for "a decided expression of public opinion," was distributed in circular form throughout the kingdom.
In 1849 the Asiatic cholera destroyed no less than 16,000 persons in London alone, and the General Board of Health, consisting of Carlisle, Ashley, Edwin Chadwick, and T. S. Smith, was directed to cause inquiry to be made into the state of burial-grounds, and frame, if necessary, a scheme to be submitted to Parliament for the improvement of inter- ment in towns. Their report, submitted in 1850, takes de- cided ground against the practice of intramural interments.2
In 1851 a report on a general scheme of extra-mural sepulture for country towns was made to Parliament by Carlisle, Ashley, Chadwick, and Smith. These reports had the effect of bringing about the required legislation.2
In 1806 the Board of Health of New York city appointed a committee, consisting of Dr. Edward Miller and Messrs. John Pintard and Winart Van Zant, to report on measures necessary to secure the health of the city. This committee recommended that interments in the city be prohibited, and suggested that " the present burial-grounds might serve ex- tremely well for plantations of grove and forest trees, and thereby, instead of remaining receptacles of putrefying mat- ter and hot-beds of miasmata, might be rendered useful and ornamental to the city."3 This report was instrumental in causing the passage of a law, which authorized the corpora- tion of New York to regulate, and, if necessary, to prevent the interment of the dead within the city. It does not ap- pear that this law was ever enforced. In 1822 the yellow fever prevailed in New York to an alarming extent, and the virulence of the disease in the vicinity of Trinity Church awakened fresh interest in the subject of intramural inter- ments. Dr. F. D. Allen published a pamphlet on the sub- ject,4 in which he cites numerous cases of disease attributable to the exhalations from graveyards. In 1823 Dr. Felix Pascalis published " An Exposition of the Dangers of Inter-
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.