The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1883-04-28 00:00:00

THE CEMETERIES BILL.

Mr. Richard moved the second reading of this Bill,
which he explained was Intended to reform two points
of obligation now resting upon burial boards that were
both unnecessary and unpleasant. Under the exist-
ing law burial boards had to divide all cemeteries into
consecrated and unconsecrated parts, and to erect
two chapels for the use of Dissenters and Noncon-
formists. Those distinctions were based upon feelings
of religious distinction, which was happily now gradually
disappearing. The Act of 1880 did much to break down
that distinction, and many of the Bishops of the Church
had expressed themselves as unfavourable to the continu-
ance of a partition wall between the Chureh ground and
the ground devoted to Dissenters, The Bill proposed to
relieve the burial authorities from maintaining this dis-
tinction. The other main point in the Bill was to put an
end to the existing management by which the clergy were
entitled to the same fees for burials for Nonconformists
in the consecrated ground as they were when they them-
selves conducted the services That was an arrangement
which had given rim to a great deal of diioontent, and the
Bill proposed that it should cease at the death or removal
of each incumbent. His strong conviction was that if the
Bill was carried into law it would do a great deal to promote
kindly feelings between Churchmen and Dissenteris, and
would serve the clergy by removing from them certain in-
vidious privileges.
Sir W. Harcourt said he should not take the course of
opposing the Bill, because, witheut pledging himself to the
details of the Bill, he thought his hon. friend had made out
a clear case. No one could know anything of the admini-
stration of the existing law without being aware of the diffi-
culties and objections which obtained in respect to it. Now
the duty devolved upon the Home Office of declaring when a
new cemetery was to be opened, how much ground should
b• consecrated, and how much should not be. It
must be remembered that the ground was provided
at the expense of the ratepayers generally, and
the Home Office was thus called upon to decide what
was the relative proportions of Church and State that
should govern the appropriation of the land. That
was a duty which he ventured to say should not
be thrown upon the Fxecutive Government. Then the
question arose, why should this be necessary, and what
was the object and advantage of this distinction?
There wax one proposition which he was glad to see the
hon. member admitted, and it was one which he
hoped would never be departed from, and that was that
persons who desired that the remains of their friends
should rest in consecrated ground, should have their desires
fulfilled. Any means which prevented that, would be a great
wrong and extremely illiberal. The Bill proposed that the
whole of the ground should be consecrated, so that those
who attached importance to the right of burial in conse-
crated ground should have the benefit of being so interred,
and those who did not attach importance to that, would net
derive any injury from being interred in consecrated ground.
That was a principle which appeared to him to be sound,
and which might well be adopted. As regarded the chapels,
he thought it was very great hardship that in parishes
where Dissenters predominated the burial board- should
be obliged to build two churches, so as to perpetuate
and emphasise the distinction between Church and Dissent;
and he did not understand the sentimentality of those who
objected to the same building being employed for the ser-
vice of persons whatever their religious creeds might be. '
With reference to the question of fees, he admitted that upon
the passing of the Act of 1880 this matter ought to have been
placed upon a different footing. He did not see why, in
the present state of the law, the fees of the clergy should be
levied upon Nonconformists when the clergy did not per-
form the service over the dead. That was a matter, however,
which, when the Bill went into Committee, would re-
quire further consideration, because it must be discussed
with justice to all parties. It therefore appeared to him
that there was nothing of which they could complain in
throwing the eßmetery open to everybody, which was what now
actually existed, and in obtaining a general consecration of
the ground, which, he believed, was consonant with the
opinions of the great majority of the bishops. For these
reasons he should support; the second reading of the Bill.
(Cheers.)
A lengthy discussion followed, in which various hon.
members took part, and Mr. Hubbard was speaking at a
quarter to six, when, by the Orders of the House, the debate
was suspended.
The other Orders were disposed of, and the House ad-
journed at fifty minutes past five.