HC Deb 28 June 1871 vol 207 cc717-23

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 2 (Burial to take place in accordance with notice).

MR. HEYGATE

, in rising to move that the Chairman do leave the Chair, said, it was impossible that the author of this Bill could entertain any hope of passing his Bill that Session. The public mind had recently been awakened to the importance of this subject. An article in the leading journal the other day had called attention to it, and suggested the proper solution of the question—namely, that the burial service of the Church of England alone should be allowed within the churchyard, and that any service desired by the relatives of Nonconformists should be held either at the chapel or the private house of the deceased. That was the principle of the Bill brought forward in "another place," and he hoped it would be accepted as a settlement of the question.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr Heygate.)

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN

said, he thought he had some reason to complain of the course taken by the opponents of that Bill. After a very long discussion the second reading was carried by a large majority. About three weeks ago, the Amendment to postpone the Committee on the Bill, after a discussion which lasted three hours, was defeated by a majority of 71. Then, upon the consideration of the 1st clause, which contained the whole machinery of the Bill, there were made 44 speeches; and there took place four divisions. If there had not been discussion enough on the Bill, he was at a loss to know how much more was necessary.

MR. MOWBRAY

said, the arguments used by the hon. and learned Member for Denbigh (Mr. Osborne Morgan) against the Motion of the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Heygate) were in reality arguments in favour of it. Surely the prolonged opposition which was offered to the Bill proved that there was a very strong feeling against it. He would also remind the hon. and learned Member that the last Amendment moved against the 1st clause by the hon. Member for West Kent (Mr. J. G. Talbot) was only defeated by a majority of 2. The Bill consisted of 14 clauses and 2 schedules. If one clause; occupied 44 speeches and four divisions, he would ask what time was it likely to take in order to get through 13 clauses and 2 schedules. He believed that the feeling of the country was now very much changed in respect to this Bill.

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

said, he would press upon the hon. and learned Gentleman who had charge of the Bill the propriety of acceding to the Motion of the hon. Member for South Leicestershire, with the view to the ultimate pacific settlement of this question.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 131; Noes 157: Majority 26.

MR. G. B. GREGORY moved an Amendment in page 1, line 26, after "notice," to insert— Shall be delivered to or left at the usual place of abode of such rector, vicar, or other incumbent or officiating minister, or such other person to be appointed as aforesaid, two clear days at least before such burial shall take place.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. SALT moved an. Amendment, in line 26, to provide that the "address and occupation" as well as the name of the person to officiate should be stated. His object was to secure that the service should be performed by a respectable person who was in some degree known, and such a person could have no difficulty in stating what his occupation was.

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN

said, he did not think that any security would be gained by inserting the word "occupation," as that might be in many instances open to vague description.

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

submitted that a man who could not state definitely what his occupation was ought not to be permitted to officiate in a churchyard; such a man could surely say whether he was an itinerant lecturer or a phrenologist. The possibility that persons pretending to be ministers, whose education was so deficient that they could not say what they were, might perform service in churchyards, was sufficient to justify clergymen in resisting this Bill. Their only safeguard was in a definite statement of occupation, and the Amendment ought to be cheerfully conceded.

MR. COLLINS

said, that if the Amendment were accepted, there would have to be a clause imposing a penalty on a person who made a false statement of his occupation, and the Amendment would be better out of the Bill than in it.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, he was surprised to hear the suggestion that a person who was to perform a funeral service in a churchyard might make a false statement of his occupation. There was nothing in requiring such a statement, for there was not a Member of the House who had not to make it on signing a legal document.

MR. CANDLISH

said, he could see no objection to the Amendment if it would secure any good result; but it would not, because there was no power to reject the person named if his occupation were objectionable.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

pointed out that the discussion would be rendered useless if the Committee accepted a subsequent Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Last Sussex (Mr. G. B. Gregory), to leave out the words "or other person or persons."

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN

said, in what they were discussing, they were merely fighting about a shadow.

SIR JOHN TRELAWNY

said, he was of opinion that the clergy of the Church of England should be considered as much as possible in those matters which had reference to the churchyards.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. G. B. GREGORY

then moved the omission of the words "or other person or persons," which, he said, were infinitely too wide. It was intended by the Bill that the service should be a religious one, and, if so, it ought to be performed by a minister of religion only.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 26, to leave out the words "or other person or persons."—(Mr. George Gregory.)

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, that provision ought to be made for occasions on which, perhaps, more than one minister would officiate, and for that reason the Amendment proposed would hardly go far enough.

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN

said, that he thought there was a good deal of force in the suggestion, and he intended to comply with it by inserting in the 4th clause words limiting the right of performing the service to ministers or recognized preachers.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

said, that if a "recognized preacher" was a minister, he would come under that designation; but the words "recognized preacher" opened a very wide door which would admit all who had ever been allowed to preach.

MR. BRUCE

said, he thought the object of the promoters of the Bill and of the majority of the House might be met by having a clause to define the meaning of the word minister. In Wales there were many sects, some congregations of which had no ordained ministers, but accepted the occasional ministrations of members, who were generally and deservedly respected, and whom it would be a hardship to prevent performing a service over one of their number. It might shorten discussion to relegate the difficulty to a clause defining those who were to perform the service in the absence of an ordained minister.

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN

said, he would accept the Amendment, and endeavour to bring up a clause containing suitable definitions.

MR. COLLINS

said, there was no such thing known to the law as a "recognized minister," and, therefore, there would be difficulty in adopting the words proposed.

MR. PELL

said, a definite clause would involve lengthened and acrimonious discussion, for there would be great difficulty in defining what constituted a "recognized minister."

MR. SALT

said, he would suggest that the Home Secretary should attempt to define, not only "minister," but the form of service to be used, for uncertainty as to what would be said and done in the services constituted the great grievance of clergymen, whose objections would be removed if the service were prescribed.

MR. CANDLISH

said, that Churchmen should allow to others the freedom they claimed for themselves.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, that what that amounted to was the disestablishment of the Church of England.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

suggested the postponement of the clause.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, that the clause had been amended, and it could not, therefore, he postponed.

LORD HENRY SCOTT

, to show the difficulty of defining a minister, cited from a Return on the Irish Census the names of a few sects, including Brethren, Brethren in Christ, Derbyites, Freethinkers, Socialists, New Life, Old Life, Seceders, Sinners Saved by Grace, Walkerites, and he added that he did not see how the difficulty could be met without having a registry of ministers.

MR. BRUCE

said, the noble Lord the Member for South Hampshire had shown that the subject was surrounded with difficulty, but the reference he had made to Ireland was the most decisive he could have made against his own view of the case, for in Ireland, where there existed the sects that had been named, the law that the priest or minister of any sect could officiate at the grave of the deceased had been in force a number of years, and no one had been able to show that the slightest scandal had arisen in consequence. The fact was that hon. Members on his side of the House were extremely anxious to meet anything like solid objection to this Bill, and, believing it would be a concession valued by the other side if the services were performed by some person who was a "recognized minister," they had suggested an Amendment in that sense.

MR. MOWBRAY

said, he should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would favour the Committee with some account of the practical working of the law in Ireland. Perhaps he would also state how he proposed to define the word "minister."

MR. BRUCE

said, that if hon. Gentlemen were dissatisfied with the interpretation clause when it was introduced, it would then be the time for them to urge objections to it.

SIR GEORGE GREY

also hoped hon. Members would confine their remarks to the subject immediately under consideration. He thought the Amendment would greatly improve the Bill.

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

pointed out that any person who thought he was a minister, and was so regarded by his congregation, but who was not one under this clause, would be placed in an invidious and inferior position, and would have a right to remonstrate. Dissenters would have a right to consider the proposed definition as an interference with their religious liberty.

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN

reminded the Committee that Dissenting ministers were mentioned in the Jury Acts, and exempted from serving on juries.

MR. COLLINS

said, some Quakers and Wesleyans might prefer to have the service said over their graves by a member of the family who was not a recognized preacher. It would be a hardship on the laity of the Church of England and other communions if they had not the same rights as were conferred on persons called "recognized ministers." He was, therefore, wholly opposed to the Amendment.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 141; Noes 137: Majority 4.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON moved to report Progress, as a misunderstanding had arisen on the last division. Although the hon. and learned Member for Denbighshire had accepted the Amendment, he had voted against it, and the Committee had not been fairly dealt with.

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN

explained that he had only agreed to the Amendment on the understanding that he should be allowed to bring up an interpretation clause, his object being to include in the term "minister" a recognized local preacher. As, however, hon. Gentlemen opposite objected to the interpretation clause, he felt bound to vote against the Amendment.

MR. COLLINS

said, that if anyone besides clergymen of the Church of England were to come into the churchyards, he would not consent to any distinction being drawn between a Dissenting minister and a Dissenting preacher.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

remarked that, although hon. Gentlemen on that side might have objected to the interpretation clause, that was not the act of the House. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Osborne Morgan) had undoubtedly accepted in the fullest manner the Amendment proposed by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Sussex (Mr. G. B. Gregory). It was, in his opinion, high time to report Progress, as the Home Secretary had also voted against the Amendment.

MR. BRUCE

I beg to say I did not vote.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, that if the right hon. Gentleman did not vote against the Amendment, he did not vote at all. That certainly was not the way in which the House of Commons ought to be led.

MR. G. B. GREGORY

said, he had not opposed the hon. and learned Gentleman's suggestion about bringing up an interpretation clause.

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

said, that his criticisms did not afford a sufficient ground for the hon. and learned Gentleman breaking the engagement he had entered into.

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN

said, he had only consented to the Amendment on the understanding that a clause was to be introduced for the purpose of including recognized local preachers.

It being now a quarter to Six of the clock.

House resumed.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.