Copying Book: Secretary's Letters, 1860 (page 163)

163

pression you wished only one grave. --

My view of the matter is this. The legal title is in you,
and the legal right to say who shall ^^may be interred there --
but I think there was an equitable right to place
the child with the father -- especially if he requested it.
Mrs H. says that Mr Hallet told her that the lot was
taken in his wife's name, but that he actually
paid for it. I do not find that any right has been
taken from you, as the child was placed in the same grave
with the father. We should, however, have preferred to do
this on your order: and our agents at the Cemetery would
have so required, if they had promised the means of
knowing the lot to be yours. It still stood, with them, in Mr Hallet's
name, and this lady told them ^^that Mrs & Mr Hallet were both
dead, and she supposed she had the right to order the inter-
ment.

I have taken so much pains to give you the facts that you
may see that blame appears to attach to no one.

Mrs Hallet says she does not wish to wrong you or anyone
else in the matter. She loved dearly this little child of 20 months,
and would like the privilege of being laid beside it and her hus-
band: but if you do not feel perfectly free to accord that
to her, she should prefer to remove them both from the lot. --
She will stop the work on the marble tablet and pedestal until
she hears from you. If you have no particular use for
more than one grave, I should think it would be well to grant
her this privilege, if she dies the widow of Mr Hallet. Indeed, if he paid
for the lot, I think it would be her moral right. But, as you have
the legal right, it is for you to say. I advised her that it was