HC Deb 10 June 1868 vol 192 cc1378-84

Order for Committee read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."— (Mr. Monsell.)

THE EARL OF MAYO

said, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, under existing circumstances, it was advantageous to proceed further with this Bill this Session? When it was under the consideration of the House laat year, he (the Earl of Mayo) stated that he was favorable to its principle. Since then a considerable and influential deputation from the North of Ireland had waited upon the Lord Lieutenant and himself, and expressed themselves strongly in support of this measure. He (the Earl of Mayo) informed them that though he had declared himself in favour of the general principle of the Bill, he nevertheless thought that many alterations ought to be made in it before it became law. The question had, however, now assumed a different form. It was most probable that in the next Session a discussion would arise involving the very existence of the Church in Ireland. Seeing, then that such a measure was likely to be so soon discussed, he submitted to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Monsell) that it would be more desirable to let the matter rest until the new Parliament had decided upon the great constitutional question, which would no doubt be shortly submitted to it. The grievance complained of in the present Bill was really, after all, not a very serious one. By the Act known as Lord Plunket's Act permission was given to persons of all creeds to bury, without asking leave of the incumbent, their dead in the burial-grounds to which the Bill related. Conditions were, however, imposed with regard to the burial service. In respect to the reading of any other burial service than that of the Established Church it was required that a formal application should be made to the minister of the parish for leave to read such service. But it was further provided that in case any incumbent should refuse to allow such interments, he should be obliged to state in writing to those who made application for permission his reasons for that refusal as well as to transmit a copy of those reasons to the Bishop of the diocese, so that the refusal could not be a matter of course, but must be based on sufficient grounds. Some hardships had, no doubt, arisen under the operation of the present law, and he by no means wished to defend the conduct of the incumbents in some of those cases; but, on the whole, the causes of complaint were very few, and under the circumstances to which he had referred he trusted his right hon. Friend would see the expediency of acceding to the appeal which he made to him for the postponement of the Bill.

MR. MONSELL

said, he had no wish to re-open the discussion on the principle of the Bill, which the House affirmed on the second reading; but if the noble Lord had been present on that occasion he would have been aware that great hardship had been inflicted by the existing law, especially on the Presbyterians. It would be a great disappointment to the people of Ireland if immediate steps were not taken to provide against the continuance of the grievance of which they complained. In whatever way the question of the Established Church should ultimately be settled, he saw no reason for not proceeding with the Bill on the present occasion.

MR. NEWDEGATE

denied that there was any case of hardship proved to justify the present Bill, except it was considered a hardship that the Roman Catholic priests — the arrogance of whose disposition was well-known— should be compelled to ask permission of the clergyman of the parish to read their burial service over their dead in the Protestant burial-ground, which was the property of the Church. He did not think that the project of the right hon. Gentleman opposite and his party for the disestablishment and disendowment of the Episcopal Church in Ireland would ever become law. But even supposing that it should become law, this property— like all the other property of the Church— would fall into the hands of the Executive, to be disposed of at the pleasure of Parliament. It appeared to him that the appeal of the noble Earl to the right hon. Gentleman opposite was reasonable. The right hon. Gentleman and his Friends either believed or did not believe that the property of the Irish Church would fall into the hands of the Executive, and if their anticipation was well-founded, Parliament would ultimately have the disposal of it in any way it deemed fitting. Then there was no reason for proceeding further with this measure. If they did not believe it their grievance amounted to this — that it was a degradation to the Roman Catholic priests to have to write a letter to the owner of a graveyard for leave to read the burial service over the remains buried in it. He looked upon this Bill as a part of the system of aggression to which the Church of England was now exposed. The people of this country were gradually conscious of the fact that, under the plea of grievance, aggression upon the rights and property of the Church was constantly perpetrated. MR. SYNAN said, that the instances of hardships drawn from the North of Ireland alone had induced the House, on the second reading, to affirm the principle of the Bill. It was not so much the Roman; Catholics as the Dissenters in Ireland who demanded this measure.

SIR GEORGE BOWYER

said, he could not see why the progress of the Bill should be at all affected by the question whether the Irish Church was or was not to be disestablished. In the former event the churches would, in accordance with the plan of the right hon. Member for South Lancashire, still remain in the hands of the Protestant clergy, and there would in that case be the same need for such legislation as his right hon. Friend the Member for Limerick proposed as now.

Motion, "That Mr. Speaker do now I leave the Chair," agreed to,

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 1 (Where Burials of Persons not belonging to United Church of England and Ireland take place in Burial Grounds of such Church, Priest, &c., of other denomination may perform Service)

MR. LEFROY

moved the following Amendment in line 22, after "chapel," to insert— Nor within one hour before the commencement or after the conclusion of such celebration, nor during the time at which the incumbent or minister of such church or chapel, or any other minister or other ecclesiastical person, shall be performing the burial service in such churchyard or graveyard; Provided also, That nothing herein contained shall be deemed to authorize the burial of any dead body within the walls of any church or chapel, or within twelve feet of the outside of wall thereof.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. MONSELL moved to insert, in line 23, after the word "chapel," the words— Nor during the performance of any other burial service in the said churchyard or graveyard.

LORD JOHN BROWNE moved to add at the end of the clause the words— Provided always, That nothing in this Act shall confer any right of burial where no such right already exists.

Amendments agreed to.

MR. VANCE moved an Amendment that a day's notice, in writing, of burial, should be given to the officiating minister of any such church or chapel.

Amendment proposed, at the end of the Clause, to add the words—

Provided always, That notice in writing of the day and hour at which such burial is intended to take place shall have been given by such priest or clergyman of such religious denomination one day at least before such burial to the officiating minister of such church or chapel, or shall have been left at his place of abode."—(Mr. Vance.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

MR. MONSELL

objected to the Amendment as unnecessary.

MR. HENLEY

said, that when the second reading of the Bill was under discussion he pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman the necessity there was for providing some means to preserve order and prevent collision between parties of different religious. He thought the most ordinary feelings of decency would recommend such a course. Whether the present provision was the best adapted for that purpose he did not know; but he thought some provision ought to be adopted.

MR. CANDLISH

was afraid that in certain circumstances the notice would be more likely to cause disorder than to prevent it, as in the case of the funeral being, however unavoidably, behind the time fixed.

MR. VANCE

said, he would alter the word "burial" in his Amendment to "religious service."

Question put, "That the words, as amended, be added to the Clause."

The Committee divided: — Ayes 91; Noes 122: Majority 31.

MR. ORMSBY GORE

said, it would certainly be necessary that some notice should be given, and he would propose the addition of the following words: — Provided always that notice in writing of the day and hour on which such burial is intended to; take place shall be given to the police by such priest or clergyman at least twelve hours before such burial.

MR. LAWSON

said, that the adoption of the Amendment would invite collision between contending parties.

MR. ORMSBY GORE

intimated that if; the right hon. Gentleman could effect the object he desired to accomplish in proposing the Amendment by the insertion of different words he would be perfectly satisfied.

SIR HENRY WINSTON - BARRON

asked what was to be done in the case of a parish where there was no Protestant; clergyman and no Protestant Church. That was the case of a parish in the county of Waterford.

MR. DARBY GRIFFITH

said, that the Bill was only intended to apply to Protestant churchyards, and not to the case to which the hon. Baronet referred. Matters of this sort should not be hurried on for an ulterior purpose.

MR. VANCE

said, it should be the object of all classes to prevent collision in the churchyards; and the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Monsell), as he had rejected the Amendment proposed, should bring up a clause of his own on the subject. A great deal of ill-feeling would be created, and a great deal of outrage would occur, should this Bill be passed in its present shape.

MR. MONSELL

said, that he had already brought up a clause founded upon a suggestion made on the second reading by the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) to prevent two funeral services going on at the same time. He felt the same interest as the hon. Gentleman in the preservation of law and order, and he thought that the means he had adopted for that purpose were sufficient. Was it to be supposed that any ministers of religion would take a course that would cause disturbance? There had not been any disturbance under the existing law, and he thought the danger of disturbance was not increased, but rather diminished, by this Bill.

MR. VANCE

remarked that contending parties might unwittingly and without knowledge meet in the churchyards, and under such circumstances a collision would be inevitable.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.

MR. LEFROY

proposed to insert the following clauses after Clause 1: — It shall not be lawful for any person to enter the churchyard or graveyard attached or belonging to any rectory, vicarage, church, or chapel of such church, for the purpose of opening or making any grave in such churchyard or graveyard, or to open or make any such grave, unless such person shall be the sexton of such church or chapel, or shall be duly authorized thereto by the incumbent or minister of such church or chapel. (Penalty for offences against this Act). Every person who shall offend against this Act shall be liable, upon a summary conviction for the same before any justice of the peace for the county, riding, division, liberty, city, borough, police district, or place where the offence shall be committed, to a penalty not exceeding ten pounds for every such offence.

Clause brought up and read the first time.

MR. MONSELL

opposed the clause.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."

The Committee divided: — Ayes 73; Noes 123: Majority 50.

MR. J. COLE

moved the insertion of the following clause: — Nothing herein contained shall authorize the burial of any person not belonging to the United Church of England and Ireland in any churchyard or graveyard where heretofore no such burial has ever taken place, and when there exists within the parish another churchyard, graveyard, or burial ground in which persons not belonging to the United Church of England and Ireland can be buried under the provisions of this Act.

MR. MONSELL

said, he had no objection to the clause.

Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.

SIR. HERVEY BRUCE moved the following clause: — (Form of burial service). That it shall not be lawful for any priest or minister authorized by this Act to perform the burial service, to use any ceremonies, or perform any acts other than read, or say the burial service which it would not be lawful for a minister of the Established Church to use or perform.

He should have no objection to the addition of the words after "service" of "appertaining to the Church to which he belonged;" but he was anxious that it should not be able to be said that Members of the Established Church would allow the ministers of any religion, Hindoo, Mahomedan, or any other, to go to any churchyard and perform their objectionable rites there without the permission of the parish minister.

MR. MONSELL

said, he concurred in the object the hon. Member had in view, but did not think the proposed clause would accomplish it. He hoped the clause would be withdrawn, and he would promise that a clause should be introduced to prevent the performance of anything beyond a regular burial service.

House resumed.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.