No. XXVI.] APPENDIX. 333 



water at eight feet. My relative was buried in sand, with water at five 

 feet. Another mystification of identity. This conflict of evidence makes 

 us wonder whether Dr. Dalgairns has not mistaken the place licensed. 

 But why waste our time over words ? Let the plan and licence be 

 published and gazetted, when it will be open to all the world, and no 

 longer remain secret. Dr. Dalgairns can cause the secrecy to cease when 

 he desires ; at present the burial-ground is still secret. 



Dr. Dalgairns confirms my statement that the burial-ground has no 

 boundary walls and no public access ; that it is impossible to go thither 

 without permission to cross the private grounds of the Oratorians. Is it 

 right to expose the relations of those buried there to the influence of the 

 priests, when we see that Wells, my relative, and Dr. Faber left all their 

 possessions to another of their body ? I ask public access and boundary 

 walls, and surely, sooner or later, my request will be granted. 



Now something more serious has to be answered. Dr. Dalgairns says, 

 " It is untrue that we keep no register of burials." Show the register, 

 Dr. Dalgairns, and prove when the register was written. I am in a position 

 to substantiate upon oath that every inquiry by letter or personally has 

 been rejected. Personal application has been answered by "I do not 

 know." Letters have not been answered at all. This is a matter deserving 

 of the fullest parliamentary inquiry. A register and cannot be seen ; a 

 register and Dr. Dalgairns to judge who is to see it. 



Surely this is the grossest violation of the spirit of the burial laws 

 which has ever come before the public. 



Dr. Dalgairns may endeavour to keep the register secret, but surely 

 the Legislature will compel him to make it public. 



Dr. Dalgairns seeks to explain the change of names on tombstones. 

 He states that my family knew my relative by the name of William. This 

 is true. William was his name, and we all addressed him by the name of 

 William till the day of his death. 



He described himself by the name of William in his will, and is 

 known to the outer world by the name of William. 



The Oratorians, however, knew him only by the name of Anthony, and 

 on his tombstone he is called William Anthony, so that positively we have 

 one person going by three different names. What can be more damnatory 

 to secret burial-grounds and secret registers ? How is the money to be 

 traced in Chancery, and by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he looks 

 after the succession duty, which will be pretty large by-and-by ? The 

 great lawyers in the House of Commons may solve this question; for 

 what is affirmed of William will be denied by those who only know 

 Anthony ; and what is affirmed of William Anthony, will be denied of 

 William, and also of Anthony. 



William was my brother-in-law, Anthony was the Oratorian, and 

 William Anthony was buried at Sydenham. There will be no possible 

 method of describing my brother-in-law hereafter but by calling him 

 William, sometimes called Anthony, sometimes called William Anthony. 



Who could possibly imagine that Frederick Fortescue, the Oratorian, 

 was the same person as Albanus, the gentleman buried ? 



Where property exists, names should be distinct. 



Dr. Dalgairns says that the wishes of the dead should be respected. 

 Does Dr. Dalgairns not know that my relative had no wish, had no will of 



