Year: 1878

1t was a very sensible clergyman at
Pittsburg who recently read a paper
upon the expensiveness of funerals; and
they were very sensible colleagues who
adopted his views as their opinion.
Mere fashion is nowhere more hateful
than in the burying of the dead, and
none the less hateful because it imposes
enormous expenses upon those who
can not afford them. The savings of
year are often squandered in the idle
ostentation of a funeral. 1t is not un.
natural feeling among the poor that the
last service they can render to a beloved
friend shall not fail in any usual dis
tinction, and the result is that a living
family is oftened straitened that dead
member of it may lie in q mahogany
coffin and be followed by a long train
OF carriages to his grave. Reform must
come from those who "set the fashion,"
and modest simplicity in funerals can
be attained only by the example Of
those who can afford to be extravagant.


The worthy undertaken, who lives by
the death Of his fellow creatures, is
naturally desirous that grief shall be
lavishly manifested, and be, encourages
to the utmost the somber splendor. The
young American used to be shocked as
he read in English stories of mntes and
mourning carriages, of men hired to
wear the garb of sorrow, and of grief
measured by train of emptiness. Two
or three years ago the movement
against this extravaganza began in Eng
land, and it has the public sympathy
and support of very eminent persons.
1t has shown itself in this country by
the common request, with the an
nouncement of death, that no flowers
be sent. A simple and beautiful tribute
of affection has grown into an oppress-
i've fashion, and certain flowers have
become odious to many persons from
their constant association with funerals.
When such gifts are in truth the offer
Jugs of love and sympathy, no
symbols can be more touching, but the
moment they spring from the mere
force of fashionable custom, and are
sent to the house of mourning as gifts
are sent by formal acquaintances to a
bride, with no more feeling than in the
leaving of ceremonious visiting cards,
they are touching and significant no
longer. The change in the mere fashion
of flowers upon such occasions can be
carried by the same good sense into
every other funeral extravaganza, so
that the poor need no longer feel that
their dead are slighted if they are not
buried with ruiHous expense. 3e@


There was another suggestion made
at Pittsburg which is worthy of consid-
Grafton. 1t was proposed that funeral
sermons as matters of course should not
be preached; and to this suggestion
there will be probably very general
amen. They are of necessity eulogies,
for no good-hearted preacher would
choose such time to tell unpleasant
truths. Yet if a man has been selfish,
hard, grasping, self-indulgent, sordid
and there are such men-what is the
poor preacher to do? The we'll mean
ing reply that every person has some.
thing good in him, and the eulogist can
speak of that, is conclusive if the.
preacher is not to give his honest view
of the character of the dead. But to
say of a man notorious for meanness
that he went regularly to church, or of
q debauchee that he gave generously to
the poor, is not to tell the truth, but to
dodge it. A change in this habit, how
ever, must spring from the good sense
of the clergyman and the community in
which he lives, And the first step to-
ward the change is calling attention to
the subject as the clergymen of Pitts
burg have done.-Harper's Magaz inc
for July. F' IS f'''a '


!,