The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1875-04-24 00:00:00

BURIALS BILL.

In the HOUSE or CONMoNS. April 21, Mr. 0. Morgan
moved the second reading of the Burials Bill, which he
stated had passed that stage more than once during the last
Parliament by decisive majorities, though he feared that it
was not likely to fare so well to-day. The Bill conferred
no new right of interment in the parish churchyard—that
was a civil right already, but simply enacted that per-
sons to be buried there could have what service
their friends pleased read over them. There were 531
parishes in England and Wales in which there were
cemeteries, and to these the Bill would not apply, but
there were between 12,000 and 13,000 parishes, containing
millions of inhabitants, in which the parish churchyard was
the only place of burial ; and for dissenters living in any of
these parishes, unless the denomination to which they
belonged possessed a private burial ground of their own,
there was no resource but to bury their dead with ceremonies
which, however beautiful they might be in the abstract,
were distasteful to the surviving relatives and friends,
assembled around the grave.
Mr. W. Martin seconded the motion for the second read-
ing of the Bill. He referred to the Cowley case as showing
the necessity for the measure, and urged that it was time
to remove the possibllty of such a scandal to the Church
occuring in future.
Colonel Egerton Leigh moved the rejection of the Bill, and
stated that he objected to it in the first place because there
was no real grievance in existence, no general grievance re-
quiring a remedy, and he thought they should as much as
possible avoid everything that would promote the odium
theologium. He urged that cemeteries must increase and
afford the needful accommodation, because they paid their
promoters well for their construction. No one could deny,
he urged, that this Bill encouraged feelings that they would
wish to see hushed It would deal with what was
really nothing but a sentimental grievance and had no gene-
ral support, but it simply acted as a sort of cheval-de-bataills
to the hon. gentleman who moved the second reading of the
Bill.

Mr. Gladstone said he should support the second reading
of the Bill, and thought he could not give an entirely silent
vote upon it. If his hon. friend who had introduced the Bill,
under circumstances perhaps less favourable than those of
former y ears had retained provisions within it such as had been
included in its scope when it was last under discussion, he (Mr.
Gladstone) should not have spoken, bat through the
omission of those provisions he felt it necessary to
say a few words. There was no doubt that it was a real
grievance that the clergy should be under an obligation
to perform the service of the Church of England in
cases where they and the parties concerned concurred in the
desire that it should not be read, but the Bill did not deal
with the question. Ms hon. and learned friend said it was
a grievance that those who did not belong to the Church of
England should be debarred from the power of having read
over their friends the rites distinguishing their own forms of
religion, and in this view he (Ur. Gladstone) concurred, but
if it were deemed expedient that this grievance should be
remedied, provision ought to be made by the Bill in case of
damage by reason of the damage which might be caused by
the attendance of large crowds of persons at the church-
yard to hear a service over the deceased or the ad-
dress of a popular preacher. The clergy were responsible
for keeping the churchyards in order, and it was a serious
question whether if a churchyard were to receive damage, as
to how the cost for repairing that damage should be met. It
would be necessary to provide for that case, should the Bill
pass second reading in committee, and reserving that point
he should cheerfully and heartily support the second reading
of the Bill.

Mr. Heygate opposed the Bill, and Mr. Shaw-Lefevre sup-
ported the Bill.

The Solicitor-General did not deny that if there was a
, grievance it ought to be remedied, provided it could be
remedied without creatiug a grievance of an equal or
greater magnitude. The reason that induced him to oppose
the Bill was not that there was no grievance made out,
but because if the measure were carried it would create, in
his opinion, a much larger grievance than it would remedy.
As the law now stood, every parishioner had a right to be
interred in the parish churchyard, but he had no right to
claim interment without observing the laws and regula-
tions of the Established Church of England. That was the
limit of his right as the law now stood, and the question
for the House to determine was whether that law
was imperfect. It was proposed by the Bill that a dissenter
should have the right of interment in the parish i churchyard,
and that any ceremony might be performed by any body.
This he argued would be objectionable to members of the
Church of England, whose property the churchyards really
were. Further he reminded them that in all large places in
the country there were large cemeteries established, so that
the grievance complained of, little as it was to begin with,
was rapidly diminishing.
- - • - -

After remarks from Mr. Roebuck, Mr. Forsyth, Mr.
Richard, Mr. Scourfield, Mr. D. Davies, Mr. Newdegate, and
Mr. Forster,
Mr. Cross said he was glad to hear it stated upon the other
side of the House that there was no intention in this Bill
to disturb the relations between Church and State, and
remarked that the more the country reflected upon that
question, the more it would come to the conclusion that
the State gained much more by its connection
with the Church than did the Church by its connec-
tion with the State. (Hear, hear.) He was glad that
during the debate on that portion of it which he
had heard reference had not been made to what clergy-
men had been doing in different parts of the country. The
grievance now brought before the House was very different
to that contained in the principle of Sir Morton Peto's
and it extended the common law rights of every parishioner,
and it gave a totally different right to those who differed
from the members of the Church of England than they now
possessed. Persons belonging to the Church of England
were seeking a right that even people belonging to the
Church of England did not possess, for Nonconformists
would be able to bury their dead with what ceremonies
they chose, while members of the Church of England were
bound by the ceremonies of their own church. If there were a
grievance, and he did not deny that some persons felt there
was a grievance, the remedy proposed by this Bill was to
meet a minimum amount of grievance with a maximum
amount of remedy. The amount of grievance that did exist
was lessening year by year. He found that the number of
churchyards still used for interments was diminishing, and
the number of cemeteries increasing, and there was a grow-
ing feeling that for sanitary reasons graveyards should not in
towns be close to the churches. Therefore he urged that
the remedy would be better found in the increase of the ,
number of cemeteries than in passing such a Bill as this.
Those who were supporting the Bill would hardly
like. the ceremonies. of the Church of Rome performed
in their burial grounds against their will, and he thought
they ought therefore tgLunderstand the feeling which the
members of the Established Church entertained on the ques-
tion. He did not believe there was a matter on which Church-
men felt more strongly than with regard to-the right of -ad-
ministering the services of the Church, and he expressed a
doubt whether, if an interment took place, on a very wet day,
under this Bill, the persons who took part in it would not
take refuge:within the ,precincts of the church itself and
complete the service there. This NYLi3 not a Bill simply for the
relief of the Dissenters, bat it was a Bill to disturb all the
ecclesiastioal arraiigemeuts with regard to burials, not only
in regard to Dissenteis, but of Churchmen themselves. By
the Bill he was afraid they wonld inflict the maximum ot
annoyance and irritation in order to remove the minimum
of grievance.. He was ready to meet the grievance, but hot
in the way proposed. if there was a grievance, let it be
remedied, Nit with some feeling for the conscientious'
scruplea and convictions of the members of the Church of
England. (Cheers.)
• Mr. Bright said it was admitted that every one had a right
to interment in the parish churchyard, and he contended
that as Dissenters contributed. largely towards the funds re-
quited for maintAining PIO CllllOl2 talariq v4.2,TRY41411At

they had consequently a pecuniary interest in the parochial
burial ground. in Scotland and Ireland the same exclusive-
ness did not exist as predominated in England, and he added
that in the first-mentioned country it was not uncommon
to see the Church of England service performed
in a Presbyterian churchyard. It had been admitted
that there was a real grievance, and this being so,
let the Home Secretary propose a remedy, and he would
receive the hearty concurrence of the hon. gentleman who
had introduced this measure, and would be willing at once
to drop his Bill in favour of the Government proposaL He
asked the House, in conclusion, whether it would not be
wiser and better to cultivate a wiser spirit of Christian
charity, and to bring about closer and more cordial relations
between Dissenters and Churchmen.
- -

_
The House then divided, when there appeared for the
second reading 234 ; against 218; Majority 14. The Bill
was therefore rejected. The result was received vfith loud
Opposition cheering.
The other business was disposed of, and the House ad-
journed shortly before six o'clock. .