BURIALS BILL—CONSECRATION OF CEMETERIES. (Hansard, 20 July 1855)

§ THE EARL OF MALMESBURY
called attention to the inconvenience which was caused in some parishes by the Act providing that two chapels should be built in every cemetery. The noble Earl mentioned one very large and populous parish, where it was thought desirable to provide three cemeteries, but the parish could not possibly afford to erect six chapels. It was proposed that two chapels should be built in one of the cemeteries, and that the three grounds should be consecrated; but this the Bishop of the diocese, no doubt from conscientious motives, refused to do. There were some differences of opinion among the right rev. Prelates themselves upon this question, and he believed it would be an advantage to the Church to make it obligatory upon them to consecrate. He therefore proposed the insertion of a clause to provide that parishes should not be bound to erect any chapels in any cemetery, except the principal cemetery of the parish; and the absence of a chapel in such places, provided that a sufficient building stood there for the shelter of the clergyman, and the fune- 1201 ral, should not be a reason for the Bishop of the diocese refusing to consecrate the ground.

THE BISHOP OF LONDON
observed, this was the first time any attempt had been made by the Legislature to compel Bishops to consecrate either churches or burial grounds; and that was a matter which had always, more than any other, been left to the Bishops' discretion. He must protest against such an invasion of their rights as Prelates. No Bishop would refuse to consecrate a burial ground without good and substantial reasons, and he was sure his right rev. Brother of Winchester, whose refusal had been alluded to, would not do so. There was a part of the service which could only be read in a church; and although in some parishes it had been customary, in the case of the burial of poor persons, to read only the other part of the service, that was a very objectionable distinction between poor and rich, and was acutely felt by the poor, who were entitled to the full service of their Church. He hoped their Lordships would not sanction the clause proposed.

§ THE EARL OF HARDWICKE
supported the clause, which was only intended to meet extreme cases. No one denied the right of the poor to have the whole of the burial service; but for the want of such a provision as this clause provided, some of the burials in this metropolis were of a lamentable and disgraceful description.

§ EARL GRANVILLE
said, he thought there was some weight in the observations of the right rev. Prelate, as to the novelty of putting such an obligation on the Bishops; and as for the case mentioned, they had only heard one side, and the Bishop of Winchester was usually liberal in matters of this kind. He hoped the noble Earl (the Earl of Malmesbury) would not press the clause. He (Earl Granville) should propose as an Amendment, that where a representation was made by three-fourths of the ratepayers of a parish to the Secretary of State, he might dispense with the obligation of the law to build the second chapel in a cemetery.

THE BISHOP OF OXFORD
thought the Amendment of the noble Earl (Earl Granville) would remedy, to a considerable extent, the inconvenience which had been complained of, without causing the evils which might be expected from the clause proposed by the noble Earl (the Earl of Malmesbury). There was not such difference of opinion between the Bishops as 1202 had been stated to exist; but they acted according to the circumstances of each case; and only last week he himself consecrated a large cemetery without any chapel, having first ascertained that it was within an easy distance of the parish church, for the body to be removed.

§ LORD REDESDALE
hoped the noble Earl would not press the clause now. He had prepared a clause which he thought would meet the object in view, which he would move on the third reading.