The Sun.
London, England, 1863-04-15 00:00:00

BURIALS BILL.

Sir S. M. PETO said, in moving the second reading of
this bill, that the passing of such an enactment would be
simply an act of justice to those who conscientiously dif-
fered from the Church of England. He denied that the
chief object of this bill was first of all to get possession of
the churchyards ; and, secondly, of the churches them-
selves. The bill would simply permit Dissenting ministers
to perform service in the churchyards in cases where the
officiating clergyman objected to do so from conscientious
motives. The bill had emanated from the committee of
the house compo.ed of members in whom that house had
reposed confidence, and he trusted, in justice to a large
class of conscientious and loyal citizens, quite as reputable
as members of the church, the bill would be read a second

Lord R. CECIL rose to move that the bill be read a
second time this day six months. The bill in its present
form was only assented to in the committee upstairs by a
majority of one. There were 400 cemeteries, all in the neigh-
bourhood of populous towns, which had unconsecrated
portions where Dissenters buried their dead, and where
every facility was afforded to the ministers of the dissenting
bodies to read whatever service they liked over their dead.
(Hear, hear.) It was only in rural districts where the bill
would become operative. The grievance was quite micros-
cqpic compared with the evils which the bill would work, for
its passing would cause an amount of antagonism ann ill-
feeling which it were better to ariid. During the last 30
years great additions had been made to the churchyards by
private benefactors, and this bill would have the effect of
actually spoliating Church property for the benefit of an
antagonistic sect; as much, in fact. as if the ground were
given up for a music or dancing room. He opposed the
bill because it would never work well ; it would be most
destructive to the peace and harmony of parishes.
There was a prevalent disposition to promote good
feeling and amity between different sects, and
this bill would disturb so good a design. In 9 cases
out of 10 clergymen would refuse to admit Dissenters to
their graveyards, and the result 'would be that an unseemly
fracas would take place over every Dissenter's body carried
into the churchyards for sepulture.
Lord HENLEY supported the bill on this ground,

that Dissenters were ca led upon to pay church
rates, and, therefore, were entitled to have
the burial ceremony over their bodies performed by
their pastors. This was all the Dissenters sought by this
bill. The bill would permit all reasonable objections on the
part of the clergy, such as a Roman Catholic p: ocession to
the churchyard, but in all other respects no fair objection
could be set up for the small boon sought by this bill—
namely, the admission of dissenting clergymen to church-
yards to perform their funeral service over their dead.
Mr. NEW DEGATE was most anxious to do everything

to promote a Catholic union between all Protestant Dissen-
ters. As a step in this direction he had sought to relieve
Dissenters from the payment of church rates. He oh.
jetted to the bill, because it would permit the use of
churchyards to other than church purposes and
make them common graveyards. The Church took
its stand upon its ritual. He objected to the power sought
to be vested in the rectors of parishes, because he would not
give any unsound clergyman an opportunity of playing any
tricks he might. feel ; it %tab novel. wal I to place in
private but responsible hands despot .c powers. The bill
would make the clergy sole arbitrators of whatever service
should be allowed in the, churchyards—a power with
which he objected to endow them, for he feared that
many of them would act unwisely and improperly.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
was a member of the select committee of last year, and
recapitulated the course of proceedings adopted both in the
house and in that committee The bill was open to several
objections; but he saw no reason why the house should
not assent to the second reading. For himself, he should
most probably, at a future stage, raise some objections to the
2d clause. It was inconsistent, and opposed to the practice
of civil and religious liberty, which had guided their Legis-
lature for many a year, to permit the Church to lay its
hand upon the body of a Dissenter and to refuse him se-
pulture, probably with the bones of his ancestors, unless
the service of that Church was read over his remains;
compelling him, in fact, when no more, to enter the pale
of that Chui ch. This he considered a grievanoe which the
Dissenters were quite justified is seeking to be relieved
from. (Hear, hear.)

Mr. HAR DING held that the graveyards were as much
the property of the Church as the Baptist or other Dissent-
ing chapels of their peirticular seds. (Hear, hear.) If a
clergyman admitted one extraneous service. those of every
denomination could not be refused—not excepting those of
Baptists and other dissenters, but sects whose tenets were
disproved by professing Christians, and whose mode of
worship was positively ridiculous, (Hear, hear.)
(LEFT SITTING.)

HOUSE OF LORDS- ...Last Evening,
The Lord Chancellor took his seat at the usual hour.
GREECE.

The Earl of MALMESBURY gave notice that on
of
LGorredecseTanAdNtEe dyispofosAitiLonDEof
Thureday next he would P ak a question regarding the Crown
atteEly presented petitionsonian Islands.
in favour of legalising marriage sith a deceased wife's
sister.

Earl DERBY presented a petition from Liverpool
against the sale of intoxicating liquor on Sundays. The
noble earl also presented a petition against any alteration
in the marriage laws.

THIRD READING.
The Londonderry Railway (Seanam to Sunderland) bill
was read a third time and passed.
MUTINY BILL.
This bill passed through committee.
POST CITIt_E SAVINGS BANKS BILL.

On the motion of Lord STANLEY Of ALDEELEY, this bi
was read a third time and passed.
MARINE MUTINY BILL.
This bill passed through committee.
AUGMENTATION OF BENEFICES BILL.

On the naming of the select committee to which this bill
is to be referred,

Lord ST. LEO NARDS called attention to several
clauses of the measure, and proceeded at some length to
show the manner in which the patronage of a num•
ber of livings had become vested in the Crown,
and said he was of opinion that it was
absolutely necessary that the assent of the Crown to the
proposed alteration should be made known before the bill
proceeaed further, because no right which was vested in
the Crown could be taken away without consent. He
thought it advisable that not only the small livings of the
Crown should be dealt with, but the.: all small livings in the
patronage of the biehops and all cther bodies should be
included in the scheme.
The Earl of DERBY doubted very much whether the
bill would operate as beneficially as was intended. He
had considerable objections to many parts of the bill, but
with respect to the principle of aigmenting the income
arising from small benefices by tie means proposed he
greatly approved of it. The measure proposed to obtain
aid in the augmentation of some liTings from the common
fund at the dispos4l of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.
At the present moment the commissioners were endeavour-
ing to raise the value of all livings the population of which
was equal to 10,000 to £3OO per anium. If, therefore, any
portion of the fu, ds at their disposal were withdrawn it
would be impossible for them tt carry out that object.
Upon looking into the schedule of the bill he found that
out of 320 livings proposed to be that with there were 314
which had only an average population of 376. Of the 314,
130 had only an average populationot 300, whilst in seven
cases the population was under 50. There was not, there-
fore, so much necessity for augmening these as the more
populous livings which the commissioners were dealing
greatervalue,
theadvantages
Lord
o rd
with. The whole project appeared t, him to be surrounded
with difficulty, and his owwnoepinoti.otniwe
as
least
would ensue if, instead of divesting himself of the patron-
age of the livings which were
Chancellor would bring into the nnrket the more valuable
portions of his patronage, and allay the produce to the
augmentation of small livings.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that his only object
was to secure a useful measure. Heagreed that there ought
to be no interference with the actioi of the Ecclesiastical
Comn issioners, but he only proposed to call in their aid in
cases which, even without the present bill, would naturally
attract their attention. With regal to the suggestion of
the noble earl, he would be glad toaccept it U it were pos-
sible, but it was not.