The Sun.
London, England, 1852-06-24 00:00:00

MTV iITEI 31t1t,

LONDON, THURSDAY, JUNE 24, 1852.

Yesterday the Metropolitan Burials Bill passed
brough Committee in the House of Commons, and
:o-day will come on for the third time. Although
he measure is by no means adequate for the removal
of the enormous evils resulting from intramural in-
terment, it appears to us so manifestly preferable to
its predecessor, that we have remarked, with no
trivial satisfaction, its progress through the Legisla-
ture. If satisfactory in nothing else, it cannot fail
to be so in reviving the knowledge of the necessity
for reform in this particular direction to the public
remembrance. It constitutes a wholesome reminder
of the difficulties requiring dissipation. It recalls,
moreover, to the consideration of the general com-
munity the little already accomplished in regard
to the closing of the City graveyards and the opening
of suburban cemeteries. As a testimony that the
Bill introduced by Lord JOHN MANNERS on the 20th
of May, 1852, has already acted thus beneficially in
arousing the desired enterprise of the population, a
prospectus can now be referred to with some plea-
sure, as having within the last few days been issued
by the Great Extramural Ce naetery Association. It
has reference to Harlesden-green, Middlesex, and
would thus, if carried into operation, become a for-
milable rival to the Surrey project, so frequently
mentioned in these columns under the authority
of a company entitled the London Necro-
polis and National Mausoleum. Although we still
conceive that the proposed site at Woking would be,
perhaps, of all the very best that could be selected,
we are still rejoiced to observe in the scheme relating
to Harlesden.green the promise of a very consider-
able, and we cannot but think also a very desirable,
competition. Opposed as we are by principle to
monopoly of all kinds, we are more particularly so
to anything like monopoly having reference to the
burial of our fellow-creatures. It is indeed, among
other things, with a view to break up the terrible
and disgusting system cherished by the present ghoul-
like grave monopolists of the metropolis, that we en-
deavour so very strenuously, upon every available
opportunity, to advocate the interference in this
matter of her MAJESTY'S Government. The sanitary
objections to intramural interment forms, of course,
the basis of our argument for extramural sepulture ;
added to this, there are in this matter considerations
affecting public morality, which we would fain see
recognised by the sagacity of the Imperial Legisla-
ture. But associated with these, there is a soli-
citude in our minds to see destroyed, at length,
those abominable regulations by which certain
parties within the boundaries of London and
Westminster retain a pecuniary interest in the
corpses of the inhabitants of the capital—flourishing
themselves in proportion to the amount of the an-
nual mortality. That mortality has been generally
estimated at some 60,000 in number, out of which
the cemeteries already in existence give room for a
little more than 12,000 annual interments. So tha

48,000 dead bodies are each year added to the mass

corruption already crowding the intra-
mural graveyards. Against the continuance of
these horrid abominations we would therefore
see every energetic effort made both within and with-
out the walls of Parliament. Within those walls
there has recently been carried through various stages
the Bill introduced by Lord JOHN -MANNERS. With-
out those walls there are, on the other hand, those
enterprises at Woking-common and at Harlesden-
green, the one in Surrey, the other in Middlesex,
which, if carried out with a spirit proportioned
to that manifested in their commencement,
Would afford the inhabitants of the Bri-
tish metropolis for the first time the requi-
site ground for their annual sepulture. Every-
adoiC should be done by the public at large to
ance the interests of companies like these, built up
011 iteeure foundations, and tending to the realization of
so nautili
c'ng-despaired-of advantages. At least the
benevnlene
e which both schemes have originated
should command
.for them the serious attention and
manifestation
of the community. Sup-
the careful 1:1
todniifestation of this timely enterprise,
inside the House of Commons, the
ably look forward
abpdoovtrbotceodautbetsysidtollefesanitary improvement may now reason-
of
the
beginning of a new epoch in
ctohneditilioi
tetvqoieitmultitude.
theßseosicdiaels
perceived that other ito Burials Bill, it will be
well-being of the measures affecting the physical
inhabitants of
the metropolis have
been submitted in the course
of
the present session to
the judgment of the Legislature. Insomuch that
there is at last some probability that increased drain-
age and a better supply of water may be
inscribed before long upon the list of realized
improvements. Forinasnauch as h, has 4 watched over
these changes in the existing system
with some
degree of Ministerial anxiety, the Chief Commis-
sioner of Woods and Forests has deserved
well of
his fellow-countrymen, and has in a great measure
justified the circumstance of his selection for the con-
duct of that responsible office by the Noble Earl at
the head of her MAJESTY'S Government.

There is a reasonable hope that early in the
next session of Parliament some one or more me,
sures of Church reform will be introduced, so far at
least as the administration and distribution of its re.
vellu6JB are concerned. Public attention bas been for

some time forcibly directed to the subject, and there
is a strong and almost universal feeling that speedy
legislation is required. The Secretary of State for
the Home Department, during the discussion on the
Episcopal and Capitular Revenues Bill, distinctly
and unequivocally stated " that the Government were
willing to undertake the consideration of the subject
with reference to capitular bodies-and cathedral insti-
tutions, so as to make them time extensive and more
practically useful than at present." The Marquis of
BLANDFORD withdrew the measure which he had in-
troduced on that understanding, and at the sugges-
tion of the Right Hon. Gentleman. There is, there-
fore, a positive pledge that the Government will
bring forward a Bill of some description, and every
member of the Church of England, and every per-
son friendly to the continuance of a national
establishment, ought to endeavour to point out
the most crying grievances, and the nature of the
remedies that should be adopted.
It is, we believe, generally admitted that the Church
property, if properly and judiciously managed, as
private persons of ordinary prudence are accustomed
to regulate their own estates, might be rendered far
more productive than at present. Ample funds then
might be obtained for Church purposes, without any
undue interference with existing interests, or re-
ducing the incomes enjoyed by parties now in
possession. There may, and we should hope will
be, a new distribution, so that as vacancies arise
large benefices may be divided, and sine-
cures abolished. There will, unquestionably,
be difficulties and impediments to be encountered.
Lay patrons will naturally object to a division of the
livings at their disposal. Whether the object be to
provide for a friend or relative, or to sell the next
presentation to the best bidder, one large, will be far
more valuable, in a pecuniary point of view, than two
or three comparatively smaller benefices. But the
reverse is the case so far as the public are concerned.
The good of the Church is diametrically opposed to
the pecuniary interests of the lay patrons. There is,
of course, a great objection to interfere in any way with
what maybe termed the rights of property. But in such
cases we should hope that a majority of those inte-
rested would not insist too stringently on their rights,
but would rather sacrifice a portion of their privileges
for the benefit of the Church, for which, after all,
they can only be regarded as trustees. But were it
even otherwise, and that a strong resistance were
offered by a large proportion of the number, the ad-
vantage of the community generally must be re-
garded as the predominating principle, the great ob-
ject to be attained, rather than that an advowson or
next presentation, matters which ought never to be
sold, should bring a few pounds more or less by
public auction. We deal with private property in
many instances for matters of public utility, and
where could there be a subject more fully justifying
legislative interference than that above referred to,
viz., the most prudent and judicious application of
Church property to Church purposes ?
There are, we are aware, many conscientious per-
sons who entertain the opinion that, what may, for the
purpose of an argument, be termed the surplus re-
venues of the Church, should be applied to the in-
crease of the episcopacy. We would, however,
strongly urge the claims of the hard-working
and inadequately remunerated clergy to these
funds. We believe that the general feeling
among the most zealous members of the
Established Church is, that there is no necessity for any
addition to the bench of bishops, and certainly recent
revelations as to the manner in which different pre-
lates had received, and appropriated to their own use,
sums far exceeding the incomes which Parliament
considered fitting remuneration for their services, has
not increased the desire for additional bishops. It
must also be borne in mind; that the services of
twenty working clergymen, at 2501. per annum each
—as little, in all conscience, as could possibly be given
to a man of education and refinement, expected to
maintain the position of gentlemen, and to contribute
to the local charities, and to relieve the wants of the
poorer members of their congregation—could be ob-
tained for the income assigned to a single prelate.
But even greatly es the addition of such men to the
working staff is to be desired, we think it even of
greater importance that the stipends of the badly-paid
incumbents should be raised to a degree suitable to
their stations, and the important functions they are
expected to discharge.
On this point we would earnestly invite attention
to a petition presented by Mr. HODGSON on the 9th
instant, previous to the discussion on the Marquis of
BLANDFORD'S Bill. This petition emanated from
two clergymen, the incumbents of the contiguous
parishes of Kirklinton and Stapleton, in the county of
Cumberland and the diocese of Carlisle, who detailed in
simple and forcible language their own cases,and there
is no doubt that many similar instances might be
adduced of gentlemen of high learning and unim-
peachable character, who, after having gone to all the
expenses of a collegiate education, have spent their
days on most inadequate incomes, although their
labours have been of the most onerous character, and
their entire time has been devoted to the duties of
their sacred calling. For instance the petitioners, in
speaking of their own benefices, say—
" That the two said parishes consist of an entirely
agricultural population, so very much scattered that
there is scarcely anything in the shape of a village in
either of them—s fact the more especially to be noticed,
since clerical labour and superintendence are hereby so
vastly increased a fact, too the more easily and
practically to be understood when it is considered that
the-parish of Kirklinton alone contains an area of at least
27 square miles, being 11 miles by 21, the church being
pretty nearly in the centre, longitudinally, whilst by
the roads it is more than 14 miles in a direct line, and
with a population of 1,869 persons; and the parish of
Stapleton contains an area of 17 square miles, being 41
miles by 4, with a population of 1,119 persona."
So much for the position of the parishes, which
will, we think, be considered as affording abundant
occupation for persons desirous of conscientiously and
efficiently discharging the functions of their office in
accordance with the solemn obligations taken at the
time of ordination. Now, as to the position and re-
muneration of the petitioners. They state that they,
" Both married men, with families, have now been
ministers of the Established Church—the one twenty-
five years, and the other thirty-one years—and thus
have spent the best of their days and their strength in
her service; and yet they have neither received at
any time from her ample funds as much as 1001. per
annum."

What, not 1001. a year for a person having to at-
tend to a parish containing 27 square miles-11 long
and 21 wide, with a population of 1,869 persons ?
How, without other resources, could he maintain a
wife and educate his children in credit and respecta-
bility ? How assist his humble parishioners in the

various exigencies iu which they are accustomed to

look for aid and comfort to their friend and pastor? It
is really too bad that in the face of such a state of affairs
there should be any discussion as to the appropria-
tion of the " surplus revenues of the Church."
The matter, however, is so clearly and forcibly,
although simply put, that we must again borrow
from the petition. They add, and we think the

lustice of their complaint will be universally acknow,
[edged—

" That your petitioners feel this a very hard case,
since the income for which they professionally
labour is not only insufficient for the bare
maintenance of a clergyman, but that it greatly im-
pedes their ministerial usefulness, and deprives
the poor of their parishes of much of that pe-
cuniary and needful assistance which they might
otherwise receive at their hands; that a feeling of de-
gra lation to the ministerial office is forced upon them
from the fact that they are unable to maintain that posi-
tion in society which their calling seems to lay claim to,
being positively worse remunerated for their services
than the ordinary agents employed in the other learned
professions, in trade, in commerce, or in manufacture;
and that it is an anomaly not allowed to exist amongst
them; whilst, on the other hand, our venerable and ex-
...

cellent establishment is supposed to bestow upon all her
spiritual labourers an earthly competence whereby they
may live in comfort, and serve her faithfully and without
secular distraction or pursuit, according to the divine
rule that the spiritual workman is worthy of his hire,'
and that 'they who preach the Gospel should live of the
Gospel.'"

Petitioners also bear their willing testimony to the
condition of many of their ill-paid brethren, showing
that their own cases are by no means exceptional
ones. They say—

" That your petitioners do not wish it to be thought
that they are the only persons thus painfully suffering
from inadequate incomes in this diocese, or in the Church
generally, for they are aware that there is a numerous,
a respectable, and a hard-working body of their clerical
brethren similarly and unfortunately circumstanced, to
whom, if an act of justice and benevolence similar to
that for which they themselves here humbly pray were
extended by your Honourable House, your petitioners
Would sincerely rejoice."

Raving given so much of the petition, we once spin