BURIAL SERVICE.—ADDRESS MOVED. (Hansard, 11 July 1864)

§ LORD EBURY
rose to move an Address for the appointment of a Commission to consider what steps should be taken to obviate the evils complained of as arising from the present compulsory and indiscriminate use of the Burial Service of the Church of England. The noble Lord said, that before proceeding to submit the Motion, he desired to call their Lordships' notice to the position in which this question now presented itself. Last year, somewhat earlier in the Session, he proposed a similar Motion. On that occasion he could have very easily proved the extent to which those evils were felt from various sources; and he had preferred at once to point their Lordships' attention to a remarkable document which placed the question beyond all doubt, and he should do no more than refer to it now. It was a petition addressed to the right rev. Prelates by 4000 of the clergy of the Church of England (some of whom were now on the Bench, and others holding very distinguished offices in the Church), in which they used these terms— We beg to express our conviction that the almost indiscriminate use of the Order for the Burial of the Dead as practically enforced by the existing state of the law imposes a heavy burden upon the consciences of clergymen, and is the occasion of a grievous scandal to many Christian people. We therefore most humbly pray that your Lordships will be pleased to give the subject now brought under your consideration such attention as the magnitude of these evils appears to require, with a view to the devising some effectual remedy, That petition, which was not addressed to Parliament but to the right rev. Prelates, was presented thirteen years ago, and up to this time nothing has been done to relieve those parties from the grievance and scandal of which they complained. It was signed by those who felt the grievance and witnessed the scandal, and yet nothing had been done in the direction of the prayer. In the debate which arose when he made his Motion last year, very strong opinions were expressed by almost every noble Lord who took part in the discussion, that this state of things should not be allowed to continue; and the Primate of All England on that occasion undertook to see what he could do in order to produce some kind of legislation which might mitigate the evils complained of. The most rev. Prelate did not absolutely pro- 1307 mise to provide a remedy, but he stated that he would consult his right rev. Brethren and the clergy, with a view of ascertaining whether some satisfactory arrangement might not be arrived at. A year had passed away, and about a fortnight ago he took the liberty of asking his most rev. Friend, whether in the interval that had elapsed he had been able to do anything, and whether he was able to say if any legislation was likely to take place upon the subject during the present Session. The most rev. Prelate in answer said that he had discussed the matter with his right rev. Brethren, and had endeavoured to obtain the opinions of the clergy, and the result was his belief that the great majority were averse to any change, and, under these circumstances, he was not prepared to make any proposal. Upon that occasion he (Lord Ebury) deprecated any further discussion upon the subject, as it was his intention to bring it in a more formal manner before their Lordships; but he inferred, as he thought their Lordships must have inferred, that the most rev. Prelate was not at all satisfied with the position in which the question stood. He was glad to find from what had since taken place, that he was not mistaken, and that it would not be necessary for him to urge any further arguments in support of his Motion, because the most rev. Prelate had given him to understand that though he did not take the same view as he (Lord Ebury) did, respecting the means of providing a remedy, he was not unwilling to assent to the Motion with some restrictions. His earnest desire had always been, in the conduct of this question, that the remedy should come, not from himself, but from the reverend bench; and as they were willing to take up this question, it only remained for him to make the Motion of which he had given notice.

THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY,
said, the noble Lord who had moved the Address had rightly interpreted his view with regard to the grievance which still existed in reference to the Burial Service. At the same time he had given the noble Lord to understand that he could not con- 1308 sent to any Royal Commission which should have in view that mode of remedying the grievance which contemplated an alteration of the service. Short of that, he was willing that a Royal Commission should be issued, and he would go further and say that he was ready to agree that the Royal Commission should take into consideration the question of the re-arrangement of the Table of Lessons. The noble Lord (Viscount Gage) on the opposite side of the House proposed a very small measure which he (the Archbishop of Canterbury) felt disinclined to assent to. He had no objection to the rearrangement of the Table of Lessons, and with regard to these two points he was ready to assent to a motion for a Commission. He was not averse to change, provided it could be shown that it was reasonable, and one that could be effected without injury to the doctrines and practices of the Church.

THE BISHOP OF LONDON
said, he desired to call the attention of the noble Lord to the form of the Motion. It was to move an humble Address to Her Majesty praying for the appointment of a Commission. Now, especially after what had been said by the Primate of All England, it might fairly be doubted whether it was desirable there should be an Address to Her Majesty asking for a Royal Commission, or whether it would not be better to leave it in the hands of Her Majesty's responsible advisers, as had been the case during the past year with regard to the important question of Clerical Subscription, to take such steps as they thought right in reference to this important matter. He agreed most fully with the most rev. Prelate that the time had come when some change in this matter was required. The very discussion which took place last year, leaving the question somewhat in an unsatisfactory state, showed that the matter required to be dealt with. The very fact of the uncertainty of the law, under which there was a doubt whether the Bishop was or was not compellable to proceed against any clergyman who refused to read the Burial Service under the painful circumstances to which allusion had been made, showed that something must be done to set the matter at rest. There remained also the further question, whether or not the mode of dealing with the difficulty as was suggested by his right rev. Brother the Bishop of Exeter was the right one. The legal questions involved were in fact 1309 extremely complicated. The 68th Canon would certainly require revision, and it could not be altered with propriety without an appeal to the Houses of Convocation as well as the decision of the Legislature and the Sovereign. Then, again, the Rubric preceding the Burial Service was, of course, embodied in an Act of Parliament—the Act of Uniformity—and therefore its alteration would require, according to constitutional usage, the consent both of Parliament and Convocation. The questions presented to them were therefore complicated, and he did not know whether the consideration which had been given to the subject during the past year had at all cleared the way of difficulties. For his own part he was impressed with the conviction, that the time was come when something ought to be done by authority in the matter. No doubt if things were left as they were, difficulties would continue to present themselves even in a more aggravated form. There was the difficulty that in one diocese the clergyman was subjected to one rule and in another to another; and there was, he understood, even a different rule in the two provinces. Now, that was obviously a state of things which ought not to be allowed to continue; and, judging by the mode in which the other intricate question of Subscription by the Clergy had been dealt with, and the way in which, when a Commission was actually appointed, one difficulty after another had in that case disappeared, there was good reason to hope that if this question was dealt with in a similar mode, the difficulties which now be set it would disappear likewise. With regard to an alteration in the service, there was, no doubt, a strong opinion among a large proportion of the clergy adverse to it. And there remained the possibility of dealing with the law which prescribed its use. In France these difficulties had been removed, not by an interference with religious services, but by the provisions of the law according to which the clergy were bound to use those services. By the French law there were certain reasons which justified the priest in refusing to perform religious services at the burial. The French law adopted three reasons specified in our Rubric and the 68th Canon, but also added to these open and notorious profanity on the part of the deceased. To settle how a similar course was to be followed in England might be difficult, 1310 but this arrangement was successful in France where the State was entitled to see that no injustice was done by the clergy, and the discretion was left in the hands of the Bishop. If such difficulties could be got over in France, he did not see why they should not be also got over in this country. There remained the consideration that, as far as they could judge, the feeling of the clergy in this country was in favour not only of not altering the service, but of leaving matters alone. Of the 4,000 who had signed the memorial alluded to by the noble Lord, some had, if he had not been misinformed, since changed their minds; some of them were now in that House; but whether the Memorialists adhered to their opinions or not, there was a large body of the clergy who were strongly of opinion that things should remain as they were. It was important that they should not disregard the feeling of the clergy, but at the same time they should not attach to their opinions too much importance. The clergy, necessarily from their profession, were—and he was very thankful for it—averse to change, and those changes that were good might not receive from them that amount of favour at the time of their first proposal, which, after the alterations had been made by their superiors, they were willing to accord to them. It was doubtful whether, with regard to the abolition of non-residence and other very salutary reforms which had taken place in the Church, if the decision had rested with the whole body of the clergy, that properly Conservative spirit which animated them would not have led them to say that the safer course was to leave things as they were. He thought it would be wise on the part of the Government to take the question into their own hands, giving due weight, and not too much weight, to the opinions of the clergy.

§ EARL GRANVILLE
said, he was not prepared to pledge the Government to the course suggested, but he assured their Lordships that it should have the immediate attention of the Government. He would put himself into communication with the noble Lord who introduced the Motion and the most rev. Prelate, with a view of adopting a course satisfactory to all parties.

§ LORD REDESDALE
asked whether the most rev. Prelate had consulted all his right rev. Brethren on the subject of a change in the Table of Lessons?

THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY
said, he had not brought the question before the whole body of Bishops, but he had consulted several of them individually; and from what took place at the meeting in February he certainly gathered that a Commission such as he had described would be acceptable to the clergy generally.

§ LORD EBURY
was quite willing to withdraw the Motion, and leave it in the hands of the most rev. Prelate and of the Government, but he had understood their Lordships on a previous occasion to be of opinion that the question ought not to be left to the clergy to decide, whether they would or would not agree to a change.

THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATH
desired to call attention to the division of the services of the Liturgy at the chapels royal, and inquired of the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of London) whether he did not think it would be better that the practice should be general, so that persons in different degrees of health might attend in different parts of the day without injury to their constitutions. When he had asked a clergyman to set the example of changing the service, the reply was that he did not think himself of sufficient weight to take so important a step, but he would gladly follow it if any one else would do so. The fact was, that the clergy were always afraid of raising a No Popery cry by changing the services 61 shortening them. He was as much averse to Popery as any one, but he still though! a short manual of service of the Church might be adopted with advantage, and that if it were begun in London it would soon be followed throughout the whole of the country. The question he had to put to the right rev. Prelate was, Whether he would take into consideration the expediency of putting a reasonable degree of pressure on the ministers in the different parishes in London, in, order that they might put the rule in practice for the benefit of a congregation who might wish to provide for the legislation that would necessarily follow?

THE BISHOP OF LONDON
thought that distinct notice ought to have been given of such a question. He believed, as; matter of fact, that the clergy were a liberty to change the service; but it would be very unwise to act upon it without was in accordance with the expressed wish of the congregation, and still more unwise for him to attempt to put any 1312 pressure on the clergy in reference to such a subject.

§ EARL STANHOPE
said, he considered it highly inexpedient to put questions on an important subject like this without notice.