§ Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
§ Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee on the said Bill."—(The Lord President.)
§ THE EARL OF REDESDALEsaid, that as he would not be able to address their Lordships on the Bill when the House was in Committee (being Chairman of the Committee), and as he had not spoken on the second reading, perhaps their Lordships would permit him to say a few words on the Motion now before the House. In the first place, he wanted to point out that no one had an absolute and unconditional right of burial in the parish churchyard—the right each parishioner had was a right subject to certain conditions; and the object of this Bill was to deal with the conditions under which the right was now possessed. The parish churchyard was not the property of the parish, but the property of the Church—in the same way that the building in which Divine service was performed and the rectory or parsonage was the property, not of the parish, but of the Church. The question, then, for their Lordships to consider was—were the conditions annexed to right of burial in the churchyard reasonable or unreasonable conditions? The churchyard was consecrated to God for the burial of those who belonged to the Church, and the solo existing condition was that the funeral service should be performed by the clergyman of the church to which the burial place belonged. That was a very important point to consider in coming to a conclusion on this subject. It was unreasonable to demand an unconditional right of burial, and many persons thought that if it were conceded it would only be the prelude to further claims. The demand now made on behalf of the Dissenters involved within itself the right of Dissenters to perform the burial service, the service of matrimony, the service of baptism, and the ordinary services of Dissenters in the parish church. He said, therefore, that the demand was a monstrous one. To show that he took no extravagant view as to the demands of the Dissenters, he begged to call 1041 their Lordships' attention to this passage, from a speech reported to have been made on the 18th of April last by Mr. R. W. Dale, one of the accredited Liberationist leaders, at a meeting held in Birmingham. It was in these terms—
Nonconformists had not concealed what their real intentions were. What they were going in for was complete religious equality in life as well as in death; and as they asserted that the graveyards belonged to the parish, so they asserted that the Church belonged to the parish. They did not intend to disguise how far their principles carried them.It was clear to him that this movement concerning the churchyards was a purely political movement—it had been got up to promote political excitement. He did not believe there was a bit of conscience about it—it was got up for political excitement, and for nothing else. The noble Earl (Earl Granville), on the occasion of the second reading, alluded to a pamphlet written 40 years ago, in which the Dissenters urged their grievances. That was at a time when they were agitating for the abolition of Church rates, in respect to which he ventured to think they regarded their pockets more than their consciences. The only objection over raised to the Burial Service of the Church of England was that it was too charitable. The present movement had been got up to keep a political fiction in existence, and that fiction was called "the Great Liberal Party." It was a fiction for this reason:—What was a Party? An association of men who maintained the same principles. There might be shades of differences in their opinions, but they all maintained the same principles. Did "the Great Liberal Party" maintain the same principles? A large number of the members of that Party—all their Lordships, he believed—even those who sat on the other side of the House were Monarchical, and bore true allegiance to the Queen; but many of the members were Republicans—but both belonged to "the Great Liberal Party." Not a few of that Party supported the Church Establishment; large numbers of them were bitterly opposed to it, and would uproot it altogether; but both sections were still members of "the Great Liberal Party." The fact really was, that it was not a great political Party, but a great political humbug. It was kept up only by a succession of cries, such as that of throwing open the church- 1042 yards to Dissenters and their services. Under the appellation of Liberal principles, measures were adopted at one time which were repudiated at another, as the only means of keeping "the Great Liberal Party" together. At one time the demand of the Dissenters for opening the churchyards was viewed with horror by a leading exponent of the opinions of "the Great Liberal Party." Here was what was stated by The Edinburgh Review in 1834, when the Reform Government was still in existence; when Earl Grey was Prime Minister; when Lord Brougham was Lord Chancellor; Lord Lansdowne, President of the Council; and Lord Althorp, Leader of the House of Commons—We must, however, in passing, remark that nothing can exceed the want of fairness and of common reason shown by some among the sectaries in discussing these questions. Thus they claim the right of burial in the very churchyards which they refuse the means of supporting. 'Let there be no rates,' say they; 'let Churchmen keep up the churchyard; but let us who pay nothing towards it have the privilege of burying our dead in it.' Except among Irish landowners and the accomplices or dupes of Irish agitators, was ever so glaring a want of fairness as in this pretension I We trust it is confined to a small body of the English sectaries.What was the course now taken by the representatives of the statesmen he had just mentioned? What their Predecessors condemned they found themselves forced to support for the sake of "the Great Liberal Party," and were led on from bad to worse. Let them take timely warning.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYMy Lords, I find myself in considerable difficulty in reference to this matter, and unless I took this opportunity of explaining the position in which I stand, I should not be doing justice to myself and those whom I represent. On two or three occasions I felt it my duty to speak against Resolutions proposed by the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville), and on every one of those occasions I took the opportunity of saying that I thought it was a mistake in the noble Earl to proceed by way of Resolution instead of by endeavouring to introduce in the Bill when it got into Committee such Amendments as would make the measure satisfactory to all parties. It is not desirable, my Lords, nor would it be respectful to your Lordships any more than to the Clergy and others interested 1043 in this question, that the words which I utter on this matter should have any uncertain sound, and that being so, I am desirous of explaining before the House goes into Committee, the views generally which I entertain on the Amendments before your Lordships. My Lords, my opinion is that the time has undoubtedly come when this matter, for the sake and in the interest of the Church of England, should be settled. I was in hopes when this measure was laid before your Lordships that there was every prospect of the question being settled. The 74th clause, which in its present shape is objected to by many persons, seemed to me, if not in itself entirely satisfactory, to afford the means by which a satisfactory settlement might be obtained. I am, therefore, placed in a position of some difficulty when I find that the 74th clause, if it has not actually disappeared, is very likely to disappear from the Bill. The cause of my difficulty I shall state very briefly. Nobody who listened to the debate and who has considered the division on the second reading of the Bill could, I think, have failed to come to the conclusion expressed by my most rev. Brother (the Archbishop of York) in speaking against the noble Earl's Resolution—namely, that the time when this question must be settled is near at hand; and that, at the same time, no one could doubt that no settlement was possible except in the direction of some greater concession to the Dissenters than that embodied in the 74th clause. Looking to the discussion on the second reading, and to the reasons given in that discussion by those of your Lordships who spoke in support of the Bill, I think that what occurred on the occasion to which I am referring pointed to the expediency of maintaining the 74th clause and amending it, and therefore, my Lords, I cannot but think it a mistake to withdraw that clause altogether, because, defective as that clause was, it promised to give us some sort of solution of the difficulty; and its withdrawal leaves the Bill one dealing only with matters of sanitary reform, which have very little to do with the question which is exciting so much interest at the present moment. I have always spoken with a certain amount of hesitation on this subject, because I felt myself opposed to the feeling of a large body of the Clergy; but, on the other hand, I 1044 must say that it is not an easy matter to ascertain the opinion of the whole Clergy on such a question. Though, if the Clergy were polled on the subject, I believe the opinion of a large majority would be found opposed to any compromise on this question; yet I venture also to say that there is a large and influential minority of them who are of opinion that it would be a dangerous matter to delay the settlement of this question. As strong evidence of this I may mention that two newspapers which are known as Clerical or Church papers, and which respectively represent very different sections of opinion in the Church of England have both within the last two or three weeks expressed very decided views in favour of settling this question. I was in hopes that a new class of Resolutions which have been before your Lordships for some days would afford a satisfactory solution of the question; but, at the same time, I felt that as soon as we began to grapple with the work of settlement, and came to the point of making concessions to the Dissenters, then, on the other side, concessions must be made to the Clergy of the Church of England, who have a considerable and practical grievance in connection with the Burial Laws, which would not have been removed by the Resolutions on the Paper. Your Lordships will remember that as far back as the year 1863 there was a long and important discussion in this House as to the relief which should be given to the Clergy in respect of the compulsory duty of reading the whole Church Service over persons at whose funeral there was a religious service in the churchyard; but who were not in communion with the Church. It was to meet such difficulties that my most rev. Brother and myself gave Notice of Amendments, with the view of bringing about what I think every one would agree to be only a fair concession to the Clergy. Passing from that, let me say a word on the proposal of the noble Earl near me (the Earl of Harrowby). The noble Earl has given Notice of an Amendment which I had hoped would have proved a solution of the question, but which has not, it appears, received from Her Majesty's Government that amount of support which he had hoped for—they thought that it did not contain sufficient safeguards; but the noble Earl has expressed his wil- 1045 lingness to provide addititional safeguards, and therefore it is within the bounds of possibility that the Government may not oppose the proposal of the noble Earl. If we discuss this point now I think we shall be better able to understand the relations in which these clauses stand to each other. I repeat, my Lords, that it is not desirable the Bill should go forward as a simple matter of sanitary reform. It might, perhaps, be carried in this House in such a form even by a considerable majority; but I should be much surprised should we hear any more of it after that triumphal progress. I have expressed my desire to have this matter settled—my reason is my belief that it will be dangerous to the Church of England to leave the matter open any longer. I do not say it is desirable in the abstract to make the concession; but I do say that it is inevitable. Every Speaker who addressed your Lordships on the second reading—even those who were in favour of the Bill—said that this concession must sooner or later be made. If, then, it must be made, surely it would be better to make it with a good grace. Corresponding concessions might now be obtained for our own Clergy which it may be impossible to obtain hereafter. I, for one, should regret if we went to a General Election with this question open before the country. It is not desirable that the whole country should be divided upon a question which ought not to enter into a political contest at all. Great injury, I cannot help thinking, will be done if the impression should get abroad in the country that the Church of England is unable to accept in a generous spirit any proposal for the settlement of a question like that now before your Lordships.
THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGHMy Lords, I ask your Lordships' indulgence before the House goes into Committee on this Bill. As I differ from the most rev. Primate I am anxious to express my views to your Lordships. I deeply lament that I am obliged to differ from his Grace, but I am sure that no one will more heartily pardon me for that difference than the most rev. Primate himself. I feel most thankful to him for having afforded us an opportunity of putting before your Lordships the real situation in which we are placed before we are called upon to go into 1046 Committee on this Bill. My Lords, I hope you will pardon me for a few moments—especially as I had not an opportunity of addressing the House on the second reading—if I endeavour to state my views in reference to the Bill and to the Amendments now on the Paper—for no definite conclusion can be arrived at before it is clearly settled what relation there is between the Bill and the Amendments. I think I cannot better describe the position in which the House is placed than this — We are called upon to vote for the second reading of a perfectly new Burials Bill. The Amendment of the most rev. Primate, if Clause 74 is struck out, will make an entirely new Bill, which will not have any necessary connection with that presented by the Government. I hope that if I point out the difference which exists between my views and those of the most rev. Primate I shall not be understood as underrating the importance of what he has said in the observations which he has just addressed to your Lordships. Now, will not this be practically a new Bill? In the object sought to be effected I entirely sympathize with every word which has fallen from the most rev. Primate. I feel it is important for the Church of England—and I will say for the Christianity of this country—that as soon as possible we should close this miserable controversy which is now being carried on over the open graves of this country. I am also happy to agree with the most rev. Primate that if ever this controversy is settled it must be by a compromise. But when the most rev. Primate sketches the compromise, there I must part with him. In his sketch the most rev. Primate says that the measure of concession consists of two parts—first a great concession is made to the Dissenters, and then a great concession is made to the Clergy; and he calculates that those concessions so balance one another, that the Clergy may be induced to agree to the concession made to the Dissenters in return for the concession of them. Now, my Lords, I am entirely in favour of a compromise. But a compromise should have two elements. It should be a satisfactory compromise, and it should be a lasting one. A compromise that will not last beyond the hour in which it is made, and that is not based on a satisfactory principle, is not one which ought to be adopted. In my 1047 opinion the compromise of the most rev. Primate is of that class. It has not the element of being satisfactory, and I am convinced it has not that of being lasting. But allow me to state to your Lordships why I think that. The most rev. Primate's settlement or compromise may be considered in respect of the manner it affects Churchmen, and it may be considered in respect of the manner it affects the Dissenters. I propose to examine it in both respects. The most rev. Primate proposes that the Clergy and Laity of the Church — for this is not solely a Clerical question; the Laity feel as strongly in the matter as the Clergy—should receive a certain concession, and that there should be a concession to the Dissenters. Now what is the concession to the Dissenters? It is absolutely everything against which the Clergy have been contending. Whether rightly or wrongly it concedes this is a question which for the moment I do not argue; but I do say that with the Amendments of which we have heard, this Bill will be what is known as Mr. Osborne Morgan's Bill. Well, that is what it is proposed the Clergy should accept. Obviously this is extremely distasteful to many of the Clergy and Laity of the Church, and for this reason — They believe that a plain principle in involved in this question. The Clergy have been subjected to cruel injustice in connection with this question—they have been accused of a "bigoted sacerdotalism" and "clerical tyranny;" but it should be borne in mind that their feelings are deeply interested. The Clergy are a much more liberal body than they are represented to be, and in this case they act on what they conceive to be a plain principle. They assert that churchyards belong to the Church; and there never has been a serious attempt to disprove that. I know it is flaunted daily in our faces that the churchyard belongs to the parish; but I repeat that there has been no attempt to prove this. Then, I say that the proposal now made in respect of the churchyards will deeply distress many of the Clergy; and what is offered them by way of compromise to induce them to accept it? What gilding is there round this bitter pill which they are called upon to swallow? I take first the two Amendments of the most rev. Prelates, which profess to be large concessions to the Clergy. The Clergy first asked for 1048 the relief which those concessions are meant to afford them. Long ago and repeatedly the Clergy asked it; but again and again most rev. and right rev. Prelates delayed to give it to them; but now the most rev. Prelates come forward and say—"You shall have what is just and right and expedient, but you shall not have it unless with it you concede what is unjust, unrighteous, and inexpedient." I do not think that is a very conciliatory policy towards the Clergy. I do not think it will tend to the peace of the Church that the most rev. Bench should come forward with a vast, enormous, perilous, and dangerous concession. The relief proposed by the most rev. Primate of whom I have the honour to be a suffragan (the Archbishop of Canterbury) is that the clergyman who holds that the performance of the services of the Church of England would under the particular circumstances of the case be scandalous and offensive, may omit to perform it; but he may not refuse unless he transmits a statement of the grounds of his refusal to the Bishop of the Diocese; who is to declare, in writing, whether it has been shown to his satisfaction that there were reasonable grounds for such refusal. Why, my Lords, this is to give the Clergy post-mortem excommunication, and the right to pronounce posthumous libels on the parishioners. This would be simply to transfer from the necks of the Dissenters a yoke which they deem intolerable to the necks of the Churchmen. The present scandals would, in fact, be succeeded by other infinitely greater. The burial scandals between Dissenters and the Church of England are to be done away with, and burial scandals between the clergy and parishioners substituted in their stead. I very much doubt whether the Clergy will accept this concession, and I doubt whether the Laity in your Lordships' House and the other House of Parliament will accept it. The most rev. Prelate reminds me that this is an enlargement of a plan which I myself prepared. I am obliged to his Grace, for that forms the basis of my argument. What I proposed was a concession to the Dissenters, and not what this is—a concession to the Clergy. My proposal was intended to meet the case of those Christians who defer baptism till after the age of infancy. In order to meet 1049 their case, and therefore as a concession to them, I made the proposal which would have enabled the Clergy to read a different service over the children of those persons when such children died without baptism. That was a concession to the Baptist communion, and I regret that the Lower House of Convocation rejected it. This concession to the Clergy, coming from the most rev. Prelate is quite a different thing, and the moment the House adopts the noble Earl's Amendment it becomes perfectly needless. Then, putting together the concessions of the most rev. Prelates and the Amendments of the noble Earls, you have, on the one hand, an exasperating and humiliating concession to the Clergy, and, on the other hand, a concession alarming to the feelings of the Laity and repugnant to the feelings of the Clergy. I have the greatest respect for anything coming from the most rev. Prelates, but the proposal which has their approval on this occasion appears to me to be a sort of tripartite partition, very like the tripartite operation of opening an oyester. In this case it appears to me that while the oyster itself is handed to the Dissenters, the most rev. Prelates, with fatherly kindness and episcopal gravity, hand the clergy and Laity of the Church the two empty shells. But will the Dissenters accept what is offered? I hope they will not—if they are true to their religious and political honesty they cannot. What has been their demand? Religious equality. Again and again have they told us that their demand is religious equality for all Her Majesty's subjects. I ask, will the Resolution which the noble Earl (Earl Granville) proposes give that equality? It will do nothing of the kind. This proposal for equal rights stops short at "Christian." Unfortunately, my Lords, there are many subjects of Her Majesty who are not Christians. Will the Dissenters who support this compromise deprive Her Majesty's subjects who are not Christians of privileges which are to be conferred on orthodox Nonconformists? I should be sorry to believe of them that all their religious equality is to be confined to religious Nonconformists; that when they level down, they level no lower than themselves; and that when they demand equal rights of burial for all Her Majesty's subjects they have no in- 1050 tention of giving those rights to the unorthodox. I cannot believe that this measure will be satisfactory to them, unless you wipe the word "Christian" out altogether. No—I believe that in this proposal the Nonconformists are perfectly sincere, and when I read between the lines I think I can see very clearly what they mean. It is said that in the Amendment of the noble Earl there is the safeguard of a "Christian" service. That word affords no safeguard. The proposal for full equality in the matter of burial is carried between the lines to the heart's content of those who are agitating for the change in the present law. But the noble Earl proposes that the service must be a "Christian" one, under, if I mistake not, the penalty of misdemeanour. But who is to define what a "Christian Service" is? Is it within the capacity of Parliament, with all its combined wisdom, to define what is a Christian service? Can you define Christianity by Act of Parliament? How are you to secure that the services shall be Christian? The noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Selborne) said that might be safely left to the tribunals of the country. Certainly, it might be, if the noble and learned Lord were to be the Judge in all cases—there is enough of law and enough of Christianity in the mind of the noble and learned Lord to secure a right decision on the point; but how will it be when you throw down the question to be decided by the ordinary tribunals throughout the country—before unlearned magistrates or before a jury, the foreman of which would perhaps tell you that he "does'nt believe in nothing." To have the definition of Christianity defined by such tribunals is a proposal that I cannot sufficiently characterize. Of the gentlemen of the long robe I wish to speak with the greatest respect; but it is not too much to say that they are not always typical saints, and if you have them discussing in Court what Christianity really is, you will have two burial scandals instead of one. The first burial scandal will be the service at an infidel funeral, and the second an unhappy wrangle in the Law Courts as to the meaning of Christianity. But we have often heard it said that in this matter of propriety of conduct in the churchyards we may trust to the good 1051 feeling and upright minds and orderly dispositions of Englishmen generally. Well, if that is so, why provide this misdemeanour penalty? Why do you apply this legislative chloroform to induce quiet in the churchyards, if you do not fear that there may be an abuse of the liberty given by this Bill? Scandals have occurred, and, unhappily, will occur again. If I am challenged for an instance of disorderly conduct, I will give you an instance of it in a burial-place. I am a living witness in the matter—the thing has occurred within my own experience. Three years ago it was my good fortune or my ill fortune to be called on to consecrate a portion of a cemetery near a large town in my diocese. I found myself in the presence of a large mob of some 2,000 persons, drawn together by handbills which had been circulated during the previous week, in which the ceremony of consecration was described as "miserable howling" and "blasphemous mockery." Sentiments of this kind formed a running commentary in the service as it proceeded, interspersed with hooting and jeers and blasphemous jokes. I cannot say that personally I felt much resentment then, nor do I now. I contented myself with inflicting on them the painful humiliation of an Episcopal blessing and dismissed them from my mind. What was the result? The Burial Board, at whose request I had come, was invited to vindicate the law and prosecute those who had acted in the manner I have described; but it declined to do so; and there was some pleasantry about planting the freshly consecrated ground with potatoes, one gentleman expressing an opinion that consecrated potatoes would bring a very high price. These are the quiet, self-contained, well-conducted Englishmen on whose good feeling the noble Earl depends. It may be said that such scenes are rare. That may be true; but with quite as much truth it may be said that the instances of clerical bigotry are also rare. Again, it must be borne in mind that the most provocative man in the world will scarcely say an offensive thing when Nobody is present. An infidel service in the corner of a large cemetery would have no zest; but an infidel service under the cave of the church and beneath the windows of the clergyman's house would have a relish. 1052 As your Lordships keep yourselves informed in modern literature you will remember the scene in one of Dickens' works where a schoolmaster whacks a boy in a hackney coach. The reason he gives for it is the novelty of the thing. He said it had a relish. I want to know what will be the feelings of a Christian mourner who, on visiting a churchyard and standing by a tomb on which is engraved an expression of his hopes in the Redeemer who has risen, hears an infidet lecturer delivering a blasphemous lecture, and declaring that there is no resurrection? One word more. I will ask the noble Earl this question—Does he regard these safeguards as efficient or not? If they were efficient, they would sow the graveyards of the country with an abundant crop of law suits. If not, what would become of the Christianity which he seeks to preserve? Who is to prosecute? Is it not a mockery to tell a poor clergyman that by the expenditure of a few hundred pounds he may get redress for the insults offered to him? Is that to be the protection which we wish to secure for Christianity? I say that there is no sufficient protection on the principle of religious equality which is supplied by the settlement of the most rev. Prelates or of the noble Earls opposite. I believe that the result would be that it would unsettle everything and settle nothing. It would replace burial scandals of one kind with worse burial scandals of another kind. It would fill our burial yards with scenes disgraceful to our common Christianity. And sore as is the shame and vexation of the present system, I believe that the vexations, the dangers, the scandal, the anger, and humiliation of the system which would take its place would be infinitely greater. The noble Earls have a right to say, If you reject this proposed compromise, have you nothing better to offer in its place? My Lords, I do not wish to leave things as they are. I do feel from my heart an intense desire for a speedy, peaceful, and righteous settlement of this great question. ["Oh!"] I do not know whether noble Lords opposite mean to deny my sincerity, but I assure them that I am as anxious for it as noble Lords opposite can themselves be—I am sincerely and honestly desirous that a controversy, which I have described as a miserable one, 1053 should be closed, and speedily closed. I have no sympathy with any jealousy or dislike of the Nonconformists. I would gladly welcome the prayer of any good man at the grave of the departed in any churchyard of which I might be incumbent, and far from thinking the churchyard desecrated by it I should hold that the graveyard had thereby received a fresh consecration. And if a Dissenting minister said to me—"My Christian brother, will you allow me to bold a burial service over one of my people who has never frequented the services of the Church," I should say—"Yes, most heartily and readily." Nay, more, I would listen to his service and say, "Amen," with bared head and reverent heart to the prayer of hope that rises from any Christian man over any Christian departed from this life. I would add that I am ready to clasp your hand across the grave, and to thank God that there is one place where the jealousy and strife of opposing creeds may be forgotten. But if the Christian Dissenter says—"I will not take your concession to the feelings of the mourners—I insist on beating down with an Act of Parliament the entire defences of your churchyard, and insist on marching in with the infidel and the blasphemer," then I reply—"I cannot consent, because you ask me to surrender rights which are not mine to give away." I would, however, most thankfully accept any service which had previously obtained the permission and licence of the incumbent. This is the only way in which you can secure a Christian service; because the safeguards held out to us in these Amendments are a mere paper fence of no greater value than the paper on which the Bill itself is printed. We hear of a prepared service, but we cannot have a better than that in the Prayer Book. The national Clergy are the natural custodians of the national graveyards, and I would allow the Dissenters to use any service of which they approved—with an appeal to the Bishop if you please. This would be a real concession. It is one that has worked well for 40 years in Ireland—a country in which, as your Lordships are aware, political and religious strife has never run quite so high as it does just now in England. But Lord Plunket's Burial Act has shown that it is quite possible to surmount the difficulty without strife 1054 and without scandal. There is no law now in England to prevent any Dissenting minister or layman from holding such a service in the parish churchyard with the consent of the incumbent. There may be an ecclesiastical law against it; but I have told the Clergy of my diocese that there is no danger of being prosecuted, and that no clergyman in my diocese shall ever be prosecuted with my consent for such a concession. This, I think, will show noble Lords opposite that I am in earnest in my desire to settle this question in a reasonable way. If, however, it comes to this that the two parties can conic to no agreement—if the Churchman will not give you religious equality, and the Dissenter says—"I will take nothing short of it," then the best remedy is that which is found in the Bill, which says if you cannot agree about the churchyard, we will find you a place where, without scandal, you may agree.
§ EARL GRANVILLEIn what clause?
THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGHThe Bill without the 74th clause. It then becomes a sanitary Bill pure and simple. It says to the disputants, if you cannot agree here—and this is an unseemly place for strife—we will find you some place where you can agree. We will ask the Churchmen to give up the chnrchyards, and we will find new burial-places in which we may together lay our dead in peace, and whereby we may find a quiet and really peaceful and lasting settlement of the question. My nostrum may be as wrong as those of others, but I felt bound to submit it to your Lordships. But I feel that either this plan of mine, or the plan of the Government would be infinitely preferable to either that of the most rev. Prelates or that of the noble Earls, which would settle nothing and unsettle everything.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKMy Lords, after the eloquent speech of the right rev. Prelate, I feel it only right to say that we go before the country ready to avow that a large and important concession is about to be made by the Clergy and Laity of the Church of England—not from any sense or feeling of apprehension, but from motives of a more creditable description. My clause does not allow a clergyman to pronounce "a postmortem excommunication." He is not to state whether he thinks that a person 1055 brought to be buried has when living led a scandalous or offensive life—that is not the meaning of the Amendment—but he is to consider conscientiously whether a scandal and offence would arise in the minds of his parishioners from his using the Burial Service. The right rev. Prelate, as I understand, does not deny that it would be useful to have an alternative Burial Service; but I regretted to hear it mentioned as an objection to a concession that it was not a concession to the Clergy, but only to the Laity.
THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGHI said it could hardly be called a concession to the Clergy, but that it was almost entirely a concession to the Dissenters.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKI should wish to say a few words on the position which I unwillingly occupy in this matter. We give credit to the Government for having intended to settle this great question; the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) gave something like a pledge last year which he has now come forward to fulfil; and I quite understand the position of the Government now. They say—"We offer you this concession; you do not seem ready to accept it; therefore we must withdraw it and give up the matter altogether." The Bill has suddenly become a Bill of one subject instead of two. But those who say the Government have placed the matter on a new basis cannot allow the Bill to go quietly through as a mere Bill for providing burial grounds; they say the question no longer stands in the position in which it stood before, as the Government have made a concession; they have said that the law of the Church shall no longer prevail, and that, except as to three classes of persons, burials need not take place according to the present law with the service of the Church of England. Who shall say the question does not stand in a new position? It is not on political grounds we come here. No doubt, as suggested, Dissenters would like to take possession of our churches, and we shall do our best to prevent them; but we have a right to choose our own battle-ground, 1056 and there fight the battle in the most advantageous way. It is the easiest thing in the world to get up feeling about anybody's funeral; but it would be different if Dissenters set up a claim to preach in the church. What have we been witnessing for a long time past? A committee of the Wesleyan Body has been corresponding with me about an epitaph on a tombstone, and it turned out to be a question not of dogma, but of doggrel—of the fitness of the words of a hymn to be used in the inscription. A question arose in another case about the grave of a man who was a distinguished cricketer; and, though I am not aware that in the manly game of cricket there is anything of political or dogmatic significance, the reporters came, notebook in hand, well knowing that nothing took so much with the public as a burial scandal or a scene at somebody's interment. All this shows a state of unwholesome and irritated feeling which we ought, if we possibly can, by legitimate means, to put an end to. It seems to me that in taking its stand here the Church is fighting a losing battle. The Dissenters in attacking burials appeal to sympathies and feelings different from those that are aroused on any other subject; and so long as you dispute the question by the side of the grave, so long will the odds be against you, and infallibly turn the battle against you in the popular mind. I was unable to reconcile two portions of the speech of the right rev. Prelate. He pictured the results of passing this measure, and anticipated the use of offensive language under the windows of the parsonage. If the people of England are so ill-disposed, I do not understand why they do not do these things now after the funeral, and when the clergyman has turned his back.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKThere must be a great difference between the dispositions of the people in different parts of England. The right rev. Prelate was a little at fault in his instance. He gave an example of such conduct by stating what had occurred at the consecration of a churchyard; but the consecration of a churchyard is a totally different thing from a funeral. A great many idle people come together to witness a consecration by a famous Prelate, 1057 one of the first of orators of the day, and, not being so much impressed by the solemnity of the service as they expected to be, they who came out of mere curiosity remained to laugh and jeer. I am very sorry for it, but I never saw the like, and, except in this case, I never heard of it; but it furnishes no proof whatever how the sorrowing relatives — be they Wesleyans, Independents, or Baptists—will conduct themselves when they come to bury their dead in the churchyard, and perform the last sad offices to the departed. The right rev. Prelate's picture was a very brilliant description—potatoes and all; but it has nothing whatever to do with the case before us. But the right rev. Prelate shadowed forth his plan. Like the rest of us he sees something must be done; he, too, would admit the Dissenter, and be there with him; the Dissenter must come with his licence, and he must authorize the service.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKI object to authorizing either the man, or the service. I know what the Burial Service is to which I subscribed, and I hold to the Church Service for Churchmen. The Dissenter when he comes to the churchyard may wish to use a service which seems to him as good; but all I should know about the matter was that it was not my service, and should leave the Dissenter to his discretion. I am not going to undertake to revise the service of the Dissenter; and the only sound basis on which to settle the question is to give a discretion, and to leave the persons concerned to exercise it. The effect of the course taken by the Government will be to place the Episcopal Benches in a somewhat invidious position—we are, in fact, left to originate a part of this Bill. We have no desire to act in any hostile spirit—we are ready to share with the Government the responsibility of settling the question, and we do not desire to act in a spirit hostile to them. The Amendments proposed would leave the Bill still incomplete, as it would be unwise and unjust to the ratepayers to apply its provisions in places where no grievance exists. Where burial grounds have been provided for Nonconformists as well as for Churchmen the Bill should not apply. I do venture to hope that the Government 1058 will not lose sight of this question. This is a very important issue we have before us. An appeal is made to the Clergy to extend to others the same toleration they would wish to have accorded to them in a foreign country. The appeal was not made too soon or out of time, for there can be no doubt that the public opinion of this country is ripening fast, and in two or three years the question is sure to be settled in one form or another. Is there any harm in our endeavouring to settle it now, while there would be some grace in concession. The two chief organizations—one representing the Low Church, and the other the moderate High Church party—and a great number of the Clergy belonging to each have pronounced in favour of a settlement—a course which they would not have adopted, if they had not fully understood the signs of the times. It is not a political question; but by resisting a settlement, we shall consolidate the ranks of those who are opposed to the Church, and we shall deprive them of a cry by agreeing to a settlement. I therefore implore Her Majesty's Government not to neglect the signs of the times. It will be impossible to pass anything tonight in the face of the resistance of the Government; but I feel sure that the same things are working in their minds that are in the minds of those who feel deeply for the welfare of the Church. I therefore call the upon the Government to take the subject earnestly in hand, and the Bench of Bishops will be willing to take their share of responsibility in arriving at a true settlement of the question if possible.
EARL NELSONdesired to explain that he had brought forward his Amendment entirely on his own responsibility, and without consulting any one. The object of his Amendment was to secure that some proper service should be performed, and the only way in which it appeared to him that could be secured was to have some person who should be responsible—and that was the incumbent. He altogether repudiated the idea of having acted in any representative capacity, either as regarded the Clergy or Laity of the Church.
§ EARL GRANVILLEMy Lords, I am perfectly aware that this is not the most convenient moment for entering into the abstract merits of this Bill and the Amendments which have been proposed 1059 to it. But in a discussion of so much importance to the Church of England and the other Denominations, I must say I am more desirous of adopting the tone and temper of the two most rev. Prelates, than that of the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Peterborough) who has just addressed you. It appeared to me that the two most rev. Prelates were most anxious to see the Clergy of this country acting on the large and great principles of charity, toleration, and political wisdom; while the right rev. Prelate rather seemed to wish that they should drive the hardest bargain they could with the Dissenters. I admit the right rev. Prelate is a very able antagonist—but I deny this is a question of Party; what we have to consider is the result which would be most consonant with the interests of all. I was very much struck with what the right rev. Prelate said at the beginning of his speech. He stated in the strongest manner that it was desirable that "this miserable controversy" should be settled by a compromise, and not only settled, but immediately settled. I listened to his whole speech with the view of discovering what the compromise was which he suggested, and what was it? The only compromise he suggested was, that it should be a permissive measure; he said this, however, on his own authority alone, and without concert with any party whatever. I very much doubt whether he would find 40 Peers who agree with him on that point. But almost in the same breath he said that the compromise existed at present, for there was nothing now to prevent an incumbent allowing any service he approved in the churchyard. I can only say, although the right rev. Prelate may be most sincerely desirous that his compromise should succeed, I certainly do think it not well calculated to effect the object he so sincerely desires. He found great fault with my safeguards—to which I do not attach so much importance as some others have done; but, acting on excellent advice, I placed clauses before your Lordships which met with very general concurrence. The only objection of the right rev. Prelate to those safeguards was this—either they are efficient, or they are inefficient. If you make them efficient—and I believe them to be efficient—instead of settling the question, they will produce a crop of law suits. Now, 1060 that is an objection which is applicable to every preventive law. I do not mean to go farther into the general argument; but I think it may be convenient to your Lordships to know the course likely to be taken by the Government in the Committee. The right rev. Prelate said the effect of the withdrawal of the Amendment by the Government and other Amendments would give a different character to the Bill. I should therefore like to know, whether the Government merely propose to omit their own Amendment, or to alter others on the Paper. With regard to my own Amendment, I mean to abandon it, and I will explain my reasons for doing so. Your Lordships will remember what occurred. Acting on excellent advice, I gave Notice of a clause before the second reading which, I believe, very accurately sets forth the object I had in view. The same evening my noble Friend (the Earl of Shaftesbury), in the most conciliatory spirit, gave Notice of an Amendment, by way of compromise, which he thought would probably be accepted. Some seven or eight days after that, my noble Friend sitting near the Table (the Earl of Harrowby) gave Notice of another Amendment, very much carrying out the substance of what I desired, but containg some provisions which I greatly regret would have obliged me to vote against it. The noble Duke the President of the Council at a very late period gave Notice that he would move to omit the 74th clause. It was then necessary for me to consider my position. My noble Friend (the Earl of Harrowby) gave an amended form to his Amendment, adopting my safeguard to which the right rev. Prelate objected so strongly. At the same time, my noble Friend (the Earl of Shaftesbury) stated his intention to abandon his Amendment. In determining to abandon my Amendment, I wish to make it perfectly clear why I did. so. Can noble Lords opposite, looking at this question as statesmen, as sincere Churchmen, as Members of the Conservative Party, and with a view to the well-understood interests of the Church, refuse to admit that this question should be soon and immediately settled? I do not blame noble Lords opposite in the slightest degree if they should be reluctant to vote for an Amendment moved by one who is opposed to the present policy of Her Majesty's Government; 1061 but I cannot help thinking that when a Conservative Peer, one of the strongest supporters of Her Majesty's Government, and one whose attachment to the Church of England is undoubted, does propose an Amendment of substantially the same character, I do not say all, but some of those Peers may think that by voting with him they are giving expression to their own conscientious convictions, and also possibly that they may be assisting the Government in coming to a more speedy conclusion on the subject than I could myself have brought about. I may be wrong in thinking there is a chance of the settlement I have at heart; but, at all events, I desire to try, and therefore I have abandoned my own Amendment, and will give my hearty support—and I believe I may speak for noble Lords near me—to the Amendment of the noble Earl at the Table.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONBefore answering the Question of the noble Earl who has just spoken, I would ask whether he would be kind enough to express the views of his own side of the House only. The noble Earl has not only given the opinions of noble Lords who sit behind him, but has travelled out of that region in order to state the opinions of those who sit on this side. On a recent occasion it was stated in "another place" that one of the few and scanty privileges of the Opposition was that of managing its own affairs. If that can be laid down as the doctrine for the management of the Opposition in "another place," I think I can claim for Her Majesty's Government that they have an equal right to manage their own affairs. Therefore, I will state without further preface that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to offer a decided opposition to the clauses to be proposed by the most rev. Prelates, and also to the clause of the noble Earl (the Earl of Harrowby).
LORD TEYNHAMclaimed for the Nonconformists equal rights for the burial of their dead in the graveyard of the parish without let or hindrance.
§ Motion agreed to; House in Committee accordingly.