§ Captain Alsagerbrought up the Report of the South Metropolitan Cemetery Bill, and moved that it be received.
§ Mr. Potterobjected to the Report being received. The Bill contained some most objectionable clauses, and was calculated to produce and continue differences that ought to be avoided between the Dissenters and the members of the Church of England. One of these clauses to which he adverted provided that there should be a portion of ground which was to be consecrated and set apart for the burial of members of the Church of England; whilst the other portion was to be for the burial of Dissenters. He considered these clauses objectionable from the marked distinction that they made between Dissenters and churchmen. He understood that in some places this distinction was carried to such an extent that a wall was raised between the places of burial of Dissenters and the members of the Church of England.
§ Dr. Bowringsaid, that throughout the whole Bill there was a marked distinction 162 made between Dissenters and the members of the Church of England. Nothing was more unwise than to make those distinctions. One of these clauses declared that the Dissenters were not to receive Christian burial; yet surely the Dissenters were as much entitled to Christian burial as the members of the Church of England. He hoped that the Bill would be recommitted, for the purpose of having these clauses reconsidered.
§ Captain Alsagerwished to know in what part of the Bill there was anything to be found to justify the imputation that the promoters of the Bill wished to exclude the Dissenters. No exclusion was intended. The Moravians and Quakers had their own places of burial, in which they were interred according to their own rites. This Bill merely provided that the members of the Church of England should be buried according to their own rites and forms, leaving to the Dissenters and others to adopt theirs.
§ Mr. Charles Lushingtonsaid, that on the second reading of this Bill he had expressed his satisfaction at the increase of suburban cemeteries. He considered their extension would be extremely beneficial to the inhabitants of towns and cities. He regretted, however, that any distinctions should be made tending to produce dissention and ill-will between any classes of Christians. When the General Cemetery Company was incorporated, in 1824, the Bishop of the diocese would not give his consent to the adoption of the Cemetery unless a wall of demarcation was raised up between the burial-ground of the Dissenters and that of the members of the Church of England. He considered the preservation of such distinctions most disgraceful to the intelligence and enlightenment of the nineteenth century. It was most discreditable, that Dissenters, should not be permitted to be buried in the same ground with members of the Church of England, but that a wall of intolerance should be erected between them. He wad a director of the General Cemetery Company, and when, in the exercise of be functions as such, he had occasionally been called upon to show that ground a strangers he had always felt humiliated when pointing out the burial-place of the members of the Church of England, to be obliged to say, that at the other side of to distinctive bounds lay interred the remain of their Dissenting brethren. He was a fully persuaded of the injurious conse- 163 quences of preserving such distinctions that, unless he saw some prospect of having the Bill amended, he should feel it his duty to move, that the report be received on that day six months.
§ Mr. Potterthought that these clauses were of so objectionable a nature that if the hon. Member did not, he should feel it his duty to move that the report be received on that day six months.
§ Dr. Bowringthought that this would be too harsh a proceeding towards the promoters of the Bill. He thought it would be better that the Bill should be recommitted, in order to give an opportunity of amending it, and rendering it conformable with the general opinion.
§ Viscount Sandonunderstood that the objection to these clauses was, that they declared burial in one part of the ground to be Christian burial, and in the other not. He certainly could not concur in anything that was calculated to offend the feelings of any class of Christians. However, he did not see that the Dissenters had any reason to be dissatisfied, and he was sure that there was no intention on the part of the promoters of the Bill to give them offence. The noble Lord was understood to say, in conclusion, that if there were any parts of this Bill considered so objectionable as to require amendment, he would concur in its recommittal.
§ Mr. Wakleysaid, that the institution of public cemeteries in the neighbourhood of such a great metropolis as this was, in a sanatory point of view, of the greatest importance. Nothing was more useful than the establishment of cemeteries in the neighbourhood of large cities. However, he considered the present Bill as nothing less than an insult to the House, and so derogatory to the character of the English people at this period of intelligence and toleration, that the House would best consult its own dignity by rejecting it altogether. He trusted that the House would reject the proposition with scorn. He was himself a member of the Church of England. He had been bred up in that Church, and respected it as much as any one; but he considered that the present measure was an insult to Dissenters, and as such he should vote against it.
§ Mr. Bainesconcurred in what had been said of the advantage of having establishments of this kind in the neighbourhood of large cities. He believed that they were highly conducive to the health of the pub- 164 lic, and a measure of this description ought not, on slight grounds, to be rejected. If there were any passages in the Bill which ought to be omitted, the best way would be to give an opportunity for amending the Bill. He hoped that the hon. Member for Wigan would so shape his amendment, that the Bill might be re-committed. He did not think that the Dissenters felt it a stigma not to be buried in consecrated ground; on the contrary, he considered it quite as good to be buried in ground that was not consecrated. He trusted, then, that the amendment would be so shaped as that the Bill would again come under consideration, as he was sure that there was a disposition on the part of the House to promote a measure that, if rendered unobjectionable, would be a great public benefit.
§ Captain Alsagerdefended the clauses. There could have been no intention on the part of the promoters of the Bill to offend the Dissenters by the introduction of the words "Christian burial." Surely, the Dissenters were Christians as well as the members of the Church of England. The members of the Church of England were buried in consecrated ground, according to the rites of their church; the other part was set apart for the Dissenters, because they did not choose to be buried in consecrated ground, or think it necessary. He was sorry that a Bill, which was intended to conciliate all parties, should be received as a bone of contention. As to any insult to any class, none was intended. The Bill was drawn up with the concurrence of the prelates of the Church, and in the true spirit of Christian charity.
§ Mr. Wilkswas anxious for the recommittal of the Bill, in order that an opportunity should be afforded for removing any phraseology that was objectionable. He contended that it was insulting to the Dissenters that, while it provided that the I members of the Church of England should be buried according to the rites of Christian burial, it provided that the Dissenters should be at liberty to use what forms they pleased, provided they were conducted in a decent and solemn manner. As Protestant Dissenters, it was offensive to them to have it declared; that legislative interference was necessary to procure the decent performance of their burial rites. The clauses in question went to perpetuate an odious distinction, which it was not good policy to keep up, and he therefore hoped the Bill would be recommitted.
§ Captain Alsagerhad no objection to the recommittal of the Bill, and he hoped hon. Members would favour him with their suggestions, so as to make it acceptable.
§ Bill to be recommitted.