The Sun.
London, England, 1853-06-25 00:00:00

TO THE EDITOR OF THE NONCONFORMIST.

SlR,—Permit me, through your columns, to call pub-
lic attention to some of the provisions of Lord Shaftes-
bury's bill for empowering Local Boards of Health to
provide burial-grounds a measure which, having
quietly passed the House of Lords, now awaits a second
reading in the Commons.
Clause IV. enacts, that the Local Boards availing
themselves of the power given by the bill may make
hj-c-InTro for the mamtPnance of burial-grounds and the
conducting of funerals, for compensating ministers and
others whose rights may be affected by the closing of
existing grounds, and for fixing the fees. These bye-
laws are to be made as directed by the Board of Health
Act of 1848, to which this bill is, in fact, supple-
mentary, and under that act they must receive the
sanction of a Secretary of State (see CXV). But it is
also provided—
" That all provisions of such bye-laws concerninc, the
consecration of the burial-ground to be provided, and the
burial of members of the United Church of England and
Ireland, and the compensation to be provided for rights in
respect of burial, and other rights, of ministers of the said
United Church, which may be affected by the prohibition
of interment in any burial-ground under this act, shall
be approved by the Bishop of the Diocese."

So that the check exercised by a Home Secretary,
which is thought sufficient protection for other classes of
her Majesty's subjects, is considered inadequate for the
members of the Established Church, the rights and privi-
leges of which are to be placed under the guardianship of
its bishops. Now, as the consecration of some portion
of each burial-ground is rendered obligatory, no burial
being allowed in any part of it "until such due conse-
cration has taken place ;" and as the bishop cannot be
compelled to consecrate, the operation of the law will be
clearly this— that the bishops will have the power of
exacting such regulations, and such amount of compen-
sation, as their moderation or their voracity may suggest.
The Local Boards may haggle with their lordships to
secure as good terms for the public as possible, but, as
having power to withhold consecration, the bishops will
be " masters of the situation." And they, unlike the
Secretary of State, are not responsible to Parliament,
or indeed to anybody.
_ _ _ _ _

Now the Metropolitan Interment Act of 1850—hap-
pily found to be unworkable—gave us a notion of the
ideas entertained in episcopal quarters respecting the
compensation due to the clergy for the loss of burial fees
—the compensation being made perpetual, and any sur-
plus being made applicable to Church extension ! Yet
in that case the worst was known at the outset, Parlia-
ment fixing the amount, while here the bishops have a
carte blanche. _ _ _ _

Are the public prepared to invest them with such a
power ? Have the history of the Ecclesiastical Commis-
sion, the Septennial Returns, and the reports of Ecclesi-
astical Courts and Church-leases Committees, produced
so little impression that additional authority, certain to
be abused, is to be placed in their hands ? And is it to
be allowed that functionaries who impoverish the work-
ing clergy by themselves absorbing so large a portion of
the revenues of the Church, shall eke out clerical incomes
by levying a tax on the bodies of the dead ? I venture
to think otherwise, and believe that a considerable sec-
tion of the House of Commons will resist so insidious
and discreditable a proposal.
This bill further (Clause V.) incorporates with it seve-
ral sections of the Cemeteries Clauses Act of 1847,
which are more or less open to objection. Thus, the
consecrated part of a burial-ground is to be used only for
burials according to the rites of the Established Church,
though the public generally will have to pay for the
whole. The consecrated and unconsecrated portions are
to be " defined by suitable marks"—that the badge of
Dissent worn through life may be perpetuated in the
grave. It is compulsory to build chapels within the
consecrated ground, " according to a plan approved by
the bishop," while Dissenters are left to chance for their
chapel. No body buried in the consecrated ground can
be removed without "faculty" from an Ecclesiastical
Court. A chaplain must be appointed for the conse-
crated ground—the bishop, again, having a veto both on
the appointment and the salary, and a power of removal
—and no other clergyman can officiate without this
chaplain's consent ; or, in the absence of a chaplain,
that of the bishop !
I am aware that these provisions are intended to make
the modern cemetery system as much as possible con-
formable to the older system of sepulture in parochial
churchyards, that the Church Establishment may not
suffer by the changes which the advance of population
and the growth of great cities have induced. They are
to be condemned for that very reason. They are the
barbarisms of a former age made to dovetail with modern
creations ; and their existence, even on sufferance, is
proof that we are still a church and bishop-ridden people.
But instead of troubling your readers with the reflec-
tions which this bill suggests, I will content myself
with taking the more practical course of urging those
Dissenting bodies to whom such matters belong, as well
as Dissenting constituents of liberal members, imme-
diately to use their influence to obtain an amendment of
its provisions. ---Your obedient servant,
London, June 20th. J. CARVELL WILLIAMS.

HINTS TO CAB PROPRIETORS.—Having observed some
good suggestions in your paper about cabs, which seem
likely to be adopted by the new bill, I venture through
the same medium to offer a few hints to the proprietors
of those vehicles. The first is, that by having higher
wheels (like the Hansom's and American four-wheel car-
riages), they would considerably lessen the draught for
a horse ; secondly, by bringing the traces more in a
horizontal line, they would cause less drag from the
collar, which, by the way, should not be screwed aside
so unmercifully by the pole, as is now the case ; lastly,
it is a great question to me whether winkers might not
be dispensed with here, as in other countries, where an
animal not habituated to them never wants them ; and
certainly they gall the poor creatures' eyes most unmer-
cifully.—Correspondent of the Bulkier.