§ Mr. Harveybrought up the 923 Report on the West London Cemetery Bill.
§ Mr. Gally Knightfelt extreme objections to this measure on account of the inadequacy of the compensation proposed to be given to such of the clergy as would be affected by the Bill. He was quite sure that the House would not allow the clergy to be deprived of so considerable a portion of their income as was derived from mortuary fees. Under the circumstances of the case it was his intention to press for the re-commitment of the Report, with a view to obtain some more fair compensation for the clergy.
§ Mr. Wakleysaid, it was monstrous that after this Bill had gone leisurely through all its stages, the parties to it should now be put to the expense of going back again before the Committee. The fees in the Bill were in exact accordance with those introduced into two other similar Bills which had passed that House, and received the sanction of the right rev. Prelates in the other House.
§ Mr. A. Trevorwas opposed to the Bill as it stood at present because he wished to see the interests of the clergy respected.
§ Mr. Harveysupported the Bill, and said that the question was, whether the clergymen at the west end of the town were entitled to a higher rate of fees than those at the other parts of the town? There were already three Cemetery Bills in connexion with the metropolis, that had passed into law, namely—the Northern Cemetery, the Southern Cemetery, and the Eastern Cemetery: under all these Acts the fees paid to the clergyman were 20s. and 5s. Now was it because this Bill would apply to the west end of London that the clergyman should have a fashionable fee? If so let it be put on its right footing. He had no objection to a graduated scale by which the wealthy man should pay more for his resting place than the poor, but as he did not apprehend this was contemplated by hon. Members, he saw no reason why the clergyman under this Bill was to be placed in a better position than the clergyman under the Bills to which he had already referred. The clergy had placed themselves in opposition to the erection of Cemeteries unless certain terms were complied with, and knowing that they could have the aid of the bench of bishops in the other House, the parties interested in the Bills were obliged to comply with them; but a mani- 924 fest injustice was done to the public from the terms thus imposed, and the injustice was this. If any person was interred in these Cemeteries from another parish, there must be paid to the clergyman of the parish out of which the body came, for interment in a vault, 20s., and if in a grave, 5s. So that if a body came from Edinburgh or Bath there must be an account current opened at the Cemetery with the clergymen of these places, and indeed with every parish in the country, in respect to the fees due to the clergymen connected with these parishes, on account of the persons interred in these Cemeteries. In fact the parsons were setting up a sort of vested right in the dead. Strange that men so opposed to reform should be such strong advocates of innovation. By this sort of clerical contrivance, they had obtained a fee to which they were not entitled—a fee which should be called the bishops' bounty fee, as it was obtained by their power and influence. But he trusted the House would discountenance any further encroachment, and allow the Bill to proceed.
§ Sir R. Inglisobserved that the question was, not what had been allowed in other cases, but what had been the average charges in the parishes about to be affected.
§ Mr. G. Knightsaid he would not press his amendment.
§ Report agreed to.