The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1875-08-26
The Title Of Reverend.

A DECISION AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF IN THE
KEET CASE-AN APPEAL TO THE PRlyY CoCE-
GIL.
The decision of Sir Robert Phillimore, the
Dean OF the Court of Arches, of England,
in the celebrated tombstone case has been
rendered, and is against the claims of Yves.
leyan ministers to the appropriation of the
title of " Reverend" The inscription on the
tombstone reads: "In memory of Annie
Augusta kett, the younger daughter of the
Rev. H. keet, Wesleyan Minister" &c. Sir
Robert beld that the words "WeSleyan
minister" were an exact description of Mr..
kte', and that be should have been contented
with these alone. He laid down the law as
to parish grave yards in these words:
"The church-yard is the freehold of the
Incumbent, subject to the. right OF the
parishioDer or the stranger happening to die
in the parish 10 simple interment, but to no
more. Indeed, the incumbent has the right
TO pasture animals which do not ipjure the
bodies inferred In the church-yard, and every
gravestope of course interteIes with that
pasturage. The incumbent for this, as for
other more important reasons, has prfana
ffdcie right to prohibit altogether The plicing
OF any grayestone, or to permit it on proper
conditions, such as those which relate to the
size and character Of the stone, the legality
and the proprlety Of the inscription upon it,,
or the payment Of proper fee.' Usage, in.
deed, has much favored the placing of such
stones, and, as general rule, the incumbent
permits them while the exercise OF his right
Of refusal has become, or perhaps always
was, subject to the control of the ordinary" :"
The placing Of a gravestone at all is there
fore q matter of permission on the part OF
the incumbent OF parish. On tie question
of orerruling the decision of the Bishop OF
Lincoln against Dir. keet, Sir Robert decided
that there was no reason for interference.
He describes the demand OF Mr. heet upon
the rector OF the parish as one "to confer by
permanent inscription in his own church
yard, upon another person, that peculiar
religious title by which he alone has been
hitherto designated and known to his own
parishoners and to his own church" 81
do pol," he adds, "thiuk that the court
has simply to decide whether the pre-
fixing the title Reverend to the descrip-
ton Wesleyan minister be so clearly
illegal that even if the clergyman consented
the court ought TO prohibit ii. l do not pro-
nounce an opinion to that effect, but it is the
duty Of the court to consider not only Whe-
ther it would be lawful in the abstract to al
low such an inscription as this, but also Wbe-
ther it be expedient and proper to do so.
This consideration sometimes must, and
often may, depend upon local circumstances,
of which the Bishop is, by reason, law, and
practice, the tttest Judge" He declines,
therefore, to override the Bishops decision.
The case will be appealed to the PriVy
Council. The Wesleyans express their in.
digration against the decision in strong Ian
guage. The NoncoyormiSt says: LAS far
as the lazy is concerned, and the rationale OF
it's scope, the primary consideration to be
studied in regard to church.yard manage.
ment is The number Of sbeepit will feed"
The English Independent is OF the opinion
that the decision "puts forth claims on be.
half of the clergy which the members OIL
their own church are almost as much con-
cerned in resisting as Nonconformists them.
selves" The Record Church OF England)
SAYS that the " original decision Of the Vicar
of Owston has widened the breach between
the Wesleyan body and the Church of Eng
lard." 1t calls the conduct of the vicar
churlish.