The Sun.
London, England, 1870-03-23 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—Tins DAY.
The Speaker took the chair at ten minutes to twelve.
THE EDUCATION BILL.

A number of petitions were presented against the
religious clauses of the Education Bill.
MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY BILL.

A great many petitions were also presented in favour of
the bill introduced by Mr. Russell Gurney, one of which
was by Mr. Baines, from Leeds, which was signed by
1.056 women.

SAVING'S BANKS (INVESTMENTS).
Mr. SALT moved for returns, shewing the amount of
interest received on account of the investments made for.
Savings' Bank ; and, of the amount of interest paid and
credited to the trustees of Savings' Banks during each
year from 1858 to 1869, both inclusive.

The return was ordered.
SCOTCH OFFICES COMMISSION.

Mr. CRAUFURD moved for copies of the report of the
commissioners appointed to inquire into the Scotch Offices,
together with the evidence taken by the commissioners ;
and, of the instructions given to the commissioners on
their appointment.

The return was ordered.
BURIALS BILL.

Mr. 0. MORGAN moved the second reading of this bill.
He said he regretted it had fallen to his duty to follow
the efforts of one who had so consistently and.zealously
advocated the justice of the bill (Mr. Hadfield), and who
had heretofore submitted the measure to the House;
but if it should on the present occasion become
law, it would be entirely owing to that hon. gentleman's
exertions. It was most peculiar that although the parish
churchyard belonged to the parishioners, and each one
had an indisputable right of interment there, yet
it was absolutely closed against any Nonconformist
and every person not in community with the
Established Church of England. The same law
which excluded every other person but a churchman
from the churchyard, compelled the incumbent to read
the same service over every baptised person, irrespective
of the tenour of his life, or the circumstances
of his death. He thought it most inconsistent
that an incumbent might be obliged to condemn
a person for holding heretical opinions, then to be called
upon to commit his body to the grave in the sure and
certain hope of the resurrection of the dead. He thought
it most inconsistent that an unconscious infant who died
before the rite of baptism should be treated worse than the '
libellor, the drunkard, or the robber. In other countries than
England such a law as that of which he complained did
not exist, and he thougl.t it most objectionable that a
country remarkable for its intelligence should be so fax
behind continental states. —The hon. gentleman then pro-
ceeded to state instances where the refusal of burial had
occurred under most painful circumstances, and the strong
point in favour of the bill was that last year a measure
precisely. similar to that under consideration was passed
for Ireland, and therefore he was only asking for an
assimilation of the law of the two countries. The pro
visions of the bill he had the honour to submit for the
approval of the house would throw open the churchyard
to other than those in communion with the Church of
England, it created no new rights ; it preserved those at
present belonging to rectors ; it required notices of inter
meat to be given to the incumbent, and it also provided
that all burials should be conducted in a quiet, orderly, and
decorous manner. He did not see that any great objection
could be taken to such liberal provisions, and in that hope
he confidently expected that the bill would receive the
sanction of the House to its becoming law. A proposi
tion had been made to refer the bill to a select committee,
but he could not assent to such a proposal, because on a
former occasion the bill had been so altered in select com•
mittee that its supporters hardly knew it when it came
back. They did not care about having it. Therefore, it
it was to be altered, he would much prefer its being done
in the light of day and in that House, rather than the bill
being slaughtered in committee upstairs.
Mr. CROSS moved that the bill be read a second time
that day six months. The real question was what
grievances had the parishioners. He thought they might
be divided into two. First, the Dissenter might object tc
have the service of the Church of England, beautiful as it
was, read over him when dead ; and the next related tc.
Baptists and Quakers. The second objection applied not
so much to towns as to outlying districts, and was practi•
tally limited, and positively where a clergyman insisted
upon his rights. The extent to which the bill went not only
allowed a man to be buried without any service at all,
but allowed him to be buried with any service his friends
chose to have—a funeral oration or lecture. He believed
that this would lead to disturbances in parishes, and to
breaches of the peace. In 1861 or 1862 the Marquis of
Salisbury moved for a return of the number of church
yards which had for the thirty years been given by pri
vate persons to churches belonging to the Church of
England. He apprehended that the donors of these
lands did not contemplate that they were giving the
ground for other purposes. He thought the Dissenters had
only a right to vote that a body should be buried in the
churchyard when it could be shewn that some service
had been performed before the body was brought
to the grave ; and not that they should be al-
lowed to perform their service in the churchyard.
He had no sympathy with a clergyman who refused to
bury a person baptised by a Dissenter. And as a matter
of law and historical fact, he though the was wrong, how-
ever good the motive for refusal might be. The Church
of England said that the formal admission into the Chris.
tian fold was by baptism, just as a person was admitted
to the franchise by being put on the register. (Great
(Laughter.)

Mr. MCARTHUR was at a loss to know why, if in con-
nection with the established church in Ireland, the
authorities had yielded the principle of giving to dis-
senters the right to bury their dead in 039 Aurchyards,
the Established Church in this country or its representa-
tives in the House should oppose the measures. The
entire body of the non-conformists were in favour of the
Bill.

Mr. TIPPING seconded the amendment. He believed it
was an attempt to sap and undermine the Church of Eng.
land. It was said that the service of the Established
Church was cold and unimpassioned, but it was essentially
Pauline.

Mr. CANDLISH remarked that the Baptists of this
country numbered no fewer than one million, and there-
fore they were not an insignificant portion of the
community, or, in point of fact, a quarter of
a million Baptists who represented from one to
two millions of the population. The bill dealt
with religious observances, and therefore harangues and
declamations against religion did not come within the
meaning of the fifth clause. He believed that the Dis-
senters were as likely to behave in a becoming spirit
as the members of the Church of England, and he had no
doubt that if any proved case of disturbance took place
the legislature would step in with a view to prevent a re-
petition. Seeing that every parishioner had a right to be
buried in the parish churchyard,he did not think they asked
much when they asked to have their own religious observ-
ances. They wanted the law of the country to be put in har-
mony with human instinct and human nature. The hon. mem-
ber quoted an instance in which a clergyman had refusedto
inter a parishioner because he had not been baptised, al-
though he was regarded as a Churchman. A Baptist
minister had to be called to officiate, who performed the
rites under the shadow of the Church. The hon. member
concluded by expressing his earnest hope that the House
would carry the second reading of the bill. He urged the
Government not to allow it to go to a select committee,
but hoped it would have their cordial assent.

Mr. BERESFORD-HOPE, whilst he admitted that there
was a great deal of standing upon dignity amongst the
clergymen of the Church of England, denied that it
could be proved that the ministers whom it was proposed
to let into the churchyards would be a striking con-
trast in moderating Christian feeling and love
of unity and zeal for the common gospel.
Ile also denied that the clergy plan alluded to by Mr.
Candlish was a representative of the general body of the
31ergy. According to the seventh clause they could not
3ommit a man for an oration which might, in fact, be a
3ontradiction of the service of the Church of England, or
Nhich should turn it into ridicule in the presence of a
caning horde of rustics.

Mr. BRUCE said he should give his vote in favour of the
second reading, as he believed a grievance had been niacle
out.

Mr. G. HARDY opposed tho bill. 110 did not see why
those who bad got out rom he Church. of England should