COMMITTEE. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]

HC Deb 28 August 1880 vol 256 cc472-596

Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [27th August],"That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

And which Amendment was, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the rights of the Church of England are unnecessarily infringed by the Bill and that no Bill for amending the Law of Burials will he satisfactory which fails to provide greater facilities for the provision of burial grounds, by free gift or otherwise, in which burials with services other than those of the Church of England may take place, and does not allow for this purpose sufficient time, before the Act comes into operation, within which cemeteries may he provided,"—(Mr. Wilbraham Egerton,) —instead thereof.

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

Debate resumed.

MR. JESSE CODLINGS

, who had an Amendment on the Paper to the effect— That, in the opinion of this House, no Burials Bill can be satisfactory which deprives any section of the community of their civil rights on account of their religious opinions, was proceeding to make some observations upon his Amendment, though it could not be put from the Chair, when—

MR. MORGAN LLOYD

rose to Order, and asked what Motion was really before the House?

MR. SPEAKER

The Question is that I do leave the Chair, so that the House should go into Committee, and that is met by an Amendment of the hon. Member for Mid Cheshire. The hon. Member for Ipswich is not out of Order.

MR. JESSE CODLINGS

said, the Bill, as it stood, gave nothing to them as citizens, but as Nonconformists; and it was, therefore, of the worst character, as it would set one part of the community against another. They were told that this was a sentimental grievance; but that was what was said of all grievances. It did not matter to them whether men wanted to exercise their rights or not when they were conferring those rights; but they ought to be allowed to do so. Though a small minority only might be affected by this clause, he hoped that for the credit of the Liberal Party that argument would not be used by them, as it meant that a small body of persons, friendless and poor, might be oppressed. It was said that this Bill was a compromise; but he denied that it was so. It would give everything to the Nonconformists which they wished for; but it would deny those rights to others—it would impose upon them the evils which the Nonconformists were escaping from. The words "Christian and orderly religious service at the grave" would necessitate silent burial in the case of Jews, Deists, Positivists, Secularists, and others, who could not— or would not—call themselves Christians. It seemed to him that if this clause was forced upon the Secularists it would cause the re-opening of the question, and lead to still greater difficulties; for in the Sessions of this Parliament to come they were expecting measures which would deal with privilege, with monopolies, with the Church, and the land, and if this was the spirit in which these measures were to be dealt with there was great cause for alarm. He had been told it was necessary that they should vote for this measure, because they should be loyal to the Government. But loyalty had conditions attached to it. It was the duty of the Government to be loyal to those first principles of Liberalism on the faith of which they asked for loyalty to them. It was said that it was necessary to maintain the 6th clause, in order that the Bill might pass in "another place." Well, if the House of Commons was to be simply an Assembly for registering decrees of another Assembly, the sooner they knew that the better, and it would spare their discussion to a great extent. But he thought it was better for them to make the Bill what it ought to be—to make it a just and honest measure, to make it what everyone on the Ministerial Bench thought it ought to be— and when it was made so, if the other House chose to emasculate it or to throw it out, on them would rest the responsibility, and not on the House of Commons as now. If they made this a good Bill, and sent it up to the other House, he thought that more moderate counsels might prevail there. It might be thought the other House had thrown out measures enough for one Session in the present temper of the nation. Suppose the Bill to be thrown out. In a few months they would be there again, and then this measure could he brought before the House. But if it passed now, the occupation of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Osborne Morgan) would be gone. By waiting a few months more they might obtain the introduction of a measure which would give a right to Nonconformists to perform their Burial Service inside the church on wet days, and on fine days, and on every day. At any rate, it was better to wait than do what he called a wrong thing. He asked his Nonconformist Friends whether, while escaping from persecution and disability themselves, they would fasten bitter things upon others, and accept a Bill at the expense of their fellow-men? He hoped the Government would re-consider their position in the matter. He knew that they might be able to defeat some of their most staunch followers; but it would be a victory which would bring them neither credit nor strength.

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN

said, that he had to apologize for not following his hon. Friend over the somewhat wide ground through which he had travelled; but if something were due to individual Members of the House, something was also due to the House itself. They were now within three days of the 1st of September, and surely it was time that they should get to Business. These Motions, and the speeches by which they were supported, were not Business. When the 6th clause was reached, it would be his duty, as far as he could, and as well as he could, to endeavour to answer the speech of his hon. Friend; and, under these circumstances, he entreated the House to allow the Speaker to leave the Chair and let them get into Committee. Every minute which was occupied in discussions like the present was so much time taken from the consideration of the measure in Committee.

EARL PERCY

agreed with the right hon. and learned Gentleman as to their being allowed to get into Committee; but he could not accept what he had said, that, being late in the Session, it was not expedient to raise these points. But what he wished to do was to call the attention of the House to the conduct of Her Majesty's Government and the course they pursued yesterday. It had been clearly understood, from what had been said by Members of the Administration themselves, that this Bill would not be taken until Saturday; but he had heard, with considerable surprise, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman who was in charge of it endeavoured to get the Speaker out of the Chair towards the close of the Morning Sitting on Friday. Statements that a Bill would not be taken until a certain day ought to be regarded in the nature of honourable understandings; and it was no justification for their abandonment to say that those hon. Members on both sides who might chance to be present at the time agreed in departing from them. The present Government had shown a very bad example in so departing from understandings of this kind.

MR. J. G. HUBBARD

said, the rights of the clergy had not been sufficiently regarded in this matter, and he quoted the following passages in a letter from a clergyman on the subject:— Every clergyman, when he is ordained priest—in other words, at the most solemn moment of his life—places himself before God 'always so to minister the doctrine and sacraments and the discipline of Christ … as this Church and realm hath received the same' Were he to hesitate about giving this pledge, ex ammo and unreservedly, no faithful Bishop would ordain him. The Government Burials Bill has been introduced into, and is being passed through, the Legislature without the concurrence of the Church in her two Convocations, through which alone her voice can he heard. It is a Bill which touches the 'discipline of Christ' most intimately; and yet the parochial clergy will he expected to accept its provisions, though they have no sanction whatever from' this Church,' Is this constitutional —i.e., on the assumption that the present union of Church and State is something real? It is freely admitted that the State has the power to pass such Acts; it has also the power to visit disobedience to them with pains and penalties; hut it is absolutely without the power to release the consciences of the clergy from the obligation which is laid upon them by their ordination vows—in such a case the State is helpless. The vows of God are upon us, and to God, not to the State, we must answer for our fulfilment or neglect of them. Are these vows and are our consciences to go for nothing in the discussion of this question?

MR. BRADLAUGH

said, the right hon. Gentleman having read a letter from a clergyman in the Church of England, he should like to read one which he had received from a clergyman, also of the Church of England. It was from the Rev. William Johnson, rector of Llaniestyn, Pwllheli, North Wales, and was as follows:— The Lord Chancellor's Burial Bill is doubtless, though for a different reason, as unsatisfactory to you and those who think with you as it is to the generality of the clergy. He claims by his Bill the civil right of burial in all churchyards for all parishioners; hut whilst offering this boon with one hand, he takes it away with the other from all who will not submit to a Christian Service, giving as he does to all Christian denominations, and to them alone, a community with Churchmen in solemnizing rites of burial. All non-Christians are thus as much excluded from these privileges as they ever were, and this doubtless will be felt by many to be a hardship. Why, therefore, not at once make the Bill final and thoroughly comprehensive? Churchyards have long been a ground of dispute between Churchmen and non-Churchmen. The Lord Chancellor proposes to settle the matter by granting a partial, and only a partial, joint occupation of the disputed territory. Why should it not instead be considered neutral, and vacated by all parties—Churchmen as well as non-Churchmen—as far as all Services are concerned? Why not give to every parishioner an equal right of burial in the churchyard? Why not let each denomination or non-denomination hold a Burial Service or not, as may please them, in their places of Assembly, if any, and then convey the body in silence to the grave? This change would satisfy Churchmen as well as the one proposed, and would finally settle the difficulty. He (Mr. Bradlaugh) had not risen to make any observations in regard to the Bill, but only to read the letter in accordance with the desire of the writer.

MR. STORER

said, the letter read by the hon. Member for Northampton must show the un-Christian and irreligious character of the whole movement. It was clear that there were those who wished to introduce into the churchyards Services which were not Christian, and which might not be orderly. It was on these grounds that he thought the people of England should be made to see the true character of this measure, and that, in his opinion, those who objected to it would be justified in resisting the Bill to the uttermost.

Question put.

The House divided: —Ayes 120; Noes 32: Majority 88. — (Div. List, No. 148.)

MR. NEWDEGATE

I can assure the House that I have no intention of delaying the Bill by any lengthened observations; but I think it right to say that, in my opinion, the House is proceeding on a course of which it has not fully weighed the consequences. The House, misled by a high authority, has now, by a large majority, decided to ignore the character of the Church of England in essentials. I ventured, on a former occasion, to express the objections of the laity, as a denomination, to this Bill; and, with the permission of the House, before I proceed further, I wish to read the 19th Article of the Church of England. It is— The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men in the which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments he duly administered according to Christ's ordinance. In all these things that of necessity are requisite to the same. As the Churches of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred, so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of ceremonies, but also in matters of faith. This proves that the Church is a denomination. As a layman of the Church of England, I would observe that this House, jealous of its own authority, is constantly dispensing with its own religious character; and this, while it is assuming additional powers to deal with the property of the great denomination, founded on the basis of this 19th Article, I would warn the House that it is entering, I believe unconsciously, on a revolution. That word has often been idly used; but the tendency of this change to the confiscation, or rather diversion, of property held for religious purposes by the denomination to which I belong, and the application of that property to other uses than those for which it was intended by the donors, is a step in direct contravention of the Reformation. For it must be remembered that the Reformation was a reverting, on the part of the nation, to the doctrine and practice of pristine Christianity. The tendency of this Bill is in a distinctly opposite direction; it tends toward Secularism, towards indifference in religious matters, which is only the primary form of unbelief; and I would warn the House that of late years the denomination to which I belong have undergone much obloquy—we have been called bigots, because we adhere to the principles and doctrines of the Reformation. I would warn the House that it is striking a blow at the connection between the Church, which is based on the Reformation, and the State. This Bill, if passed, will tend to alienate the laity of the Church of England from the Parliament of this country. We shall no longer be able to regard with confidence the action of Parliament, when we find that it has determined to invade our denominational rights and property. I believe that I only do my duty in calling the attention of the House to the prospect of a want of that cordial co-operation, which has hitherto existed between the laity of the Church of England and this House, since I clearly foresee such must be the result of this measure, if it should pass into law.

Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 1 (After passing of Act, notice may be given that burial will take place in churchyard or graveyard without the rites of the Church of England).

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN

said, he had an Amendment to move which, to his mind, was the most important in the Bill, because it raised a question which was more fully raised by Clause 7, as to whether the Act should apply to parishes where there was already a cemetery which contained, or which might hereafter contain, unconsecrated ground. An Amendment to that effect was introduced in the House of Lords and carried by a very small majority. Now, that Amendment he had before referred to, and he still maintained the opinion that it would be far better to give up the Bill altogether than pass it with that Amendment. He thought, however, that the Amendment of which he had given Notice would meet the case. He, therefore, proposed in page 1, line 13, to leave out the words "where there is no unconsecrated ground." The words were, no doubt, put into the Amendment by accident. The question, as he had said, was one of great importance. He might say that, as a general rule, he objected to any Bill that left open a door by which it was in the power of those who objected to the Bill to defeat its provisions altogether, and that was exactly what the Bill in its then condition would do, and it mattered very little whether that door was two yards or 20 yards in width. They all remembered the case of the Agricultural Holdings Act, which had been constantly defeated since its passing by persons who objected to it. Now, that clause put into the hands of the clergymen a weapon by which he could entirely defeat the object of the Bill, and he ventured to think that if the measure passed in its present form it would cause a social war in every parish in Wales. Instead of being a Bill of peace it would be a Bill of warfare. That clause—he meant the 7th clause—was essentially a fighting clause; and upon that ground he wished the Committee to support him in getting it struck out of the Bill. Now, the effect that it would have—he might say, indeed, that it had already had—was this. A person living in Wales, where people assumed that the Bill would pass in its present shape as it had come down from the Lords, had told him that in Wales they were already proposing in places where the Churchmen were in a majority to buy cemeteries at the expense of the ratepayers, and, in that way, to buy the Nonconformists out of their rights in the churchyard. In other cases they were going to one of the landowners in the district and asking him to make a gift of a piece of land for the purpose of a cemetery. Well, that was an exceedingly cheap method of getting a cemetery. There was hardly an acre of land where a man could not find either some muddy swamp, or, it might be, a sheep walk on the top of a mountain, not worth a single farthing, which he might present to the parish. Well, it followed that if he did so the Bill would be altogether excluded. That had already been done. In such a case the land might be a free gift; but he pointed out that it would need funds for the purpose of preparing it and maintaining it in order. Then, again, who was to be the judge of the fitness of the cemetery? Supposing a piece of ground was to be presented to the parish, who was to be the judge of whether it was suitable for a cemetery or not? The Bill introduced by his Friend Mr. Marten had given the fullest permission to persons to give sites for cemeteries. He himself had passed the Sites Act, which gave even fuller facilities to landowners to grant ground for cemeteries. How many persons had given land for the purpose of cemeteries under that Act? He would tell them— not one single one. The clause was simply for the purpose of preventing the operation of the Bill. That, he believed, was the view and purpose with which it had been put into the Bill. He would not say more at that moment than to add that, if the Bill passed as it stood, then the last state of the Burials Question would be worse than the first.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 13, to leave out from the word "where," to the word "cemetery," in line 14, both inclusive.—[Mr. Osborne Morgan.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. J. G. HUBBARD

said, that they had been told that unless the Amendment were accepted, the operation of the object of the Bill would be defeated. He wanted to know what the object of the Bill really was? Was it to remedy what was considered a Nonconformist grievance, or was it to inflict a grievance upon members of the Church of England? If all that was intended was the removal of a grievance, then he thought the clause to which his right hon. and learned Friend objected was perfectly in its place. Those who alleged a grievance represented themselves as exposed to a double difficulty. In some cases they were obliged to submit to the Service of the Church of England, in others they were deprived of any Service at all. Now with regard to the first of these complaints, an offer to remove the difficulty had been over and over again made by Churchmen, when they pro- posed that the acceptance of the Church Service should be optional. They had said there should be nothing like the infliction of a Service on unwilling ears. There remained but one difficulty—the absence of burying - places in which Nonconformists could always obtain ministrations at the interment of the dead in accordance with their own views. No one denied the reality of this difficulty. It was often sincerely felt, and Churchmen generally were most anxious that it should be removed. They had repeatedly offered facilities to those who, having chosen to withdraw from the communion of the Church, and to provide their own chapels, to provide also their own burial-grounds in which to inter their own dead with their own rites. If Nonconformists possessed such places, surely their difficulties would be removed; but his right hon. Friend was not satisfied with this, and wanted to give a remedy by an aggression upon the churchyards of the Church of England. This, he contended, had not been the purpose of the Bill, which had been intended to remove grievances, not to make them. He, therefore, maintained that his right hon. Friend's objection to the clauses dealing with this point were untenable, and he should support the words inserted by the Lords.

MR. MORGAN LLOYD

asserted that every parishioner had a right to be buried in the churchyard, not simply because he had a right to be buried somewhere or other, and in the churchyard if there were no other place for him, but because the fact of his being a parishioner gave him the right of a grave there. This Amendment would deprive a man of that right, under certain circumstances, and for this reason he should oppose it, inasmuch as it went against the principle of the Bill.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, that the principle of the Bill, as he understood it, was that there were a fit number of Christian Dissenters who thought they ought to have a right of burial in the churchyards of the parish. The question had always hitherto been urged upon the ground of the grievance which Dissenting persons put forward; but this measure went far beyond what was necessary to practically remove the grievance. The Amendment now before them had been made in the House of Lords, he believed with the object of allaying the grievance, and in his own opinion it would allay that grievance. Where other burial-grounds existed there should be no attempt to inflict upon persons Services which they conscientiously objected to, and he would insist that in this matter the consciences of the clergy of the Church of England were just as much to be considered as the consciences of Dissenters. It always seemed to him that this point was forgotten in discussions on the subject. Hon. Gentlemen opposite talked a good deal of sentiment about the grievances which existed on their side of the matter, and that such and such a wrong ought to be removed; but he claimed for the members of the Church of England that their conscientious scruples should be just as much considered. It would appear, according to his right hon. Friend's contention, as if he thought that either members of the Church of England had no conscientious scruples at all, or that, if they had, they were not worth entertaining. The right hon. Gentleman, and the hon. Member who had just sat down, would not dare to carry out the principle of the Amendment, because they knew public opinion would be against them. ["Oh, oh !"] They knew they dare not. They knew public opinion would not allow Infidels, Jews, and heretics of all kinds to have their Services in the churchyard.

MR. GEORGE RUSSELL

said, he would not follow the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, into the thorny paths upon which he had entered. When the clause was reached which raised the principle to which he had just referred, that would be the time at which to discuss the matter. He would, however, add his own voice to those of hon. Members who thought with him in beseeching the Government to set their faces, as a flint, against the emasculating Amendments which had been introduced into the measure. In urging this course upon the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of the measure, he might say that he was not one of those who loved to bandy questions of Theology and Constitutional Law with Archbishops and Lord Chancellors. Therefore, he would willingly accept the doctrine laid down in another House of Parliament, that national churchyards were national property, and that all citizens had a civil right of interment there. This view of the situation certainly commended itself to some of them; but, even putting themselves for a moment, for argument's sake, into the position of hon. Members opposite who, looking upon the churchyards as the property of the Church, yet felt themselves constrained under existing circumstances to make allowances and gifts to Nonconformists—well, then, he would urge hon. Gentlemen not to spoil the effect of their gifts by Amendments and restrictions, every one of which betrayed a watchful jealousy of Nonconformists, and which in their spirit, even more than in their actual enactments, must be extremely offensive to Nonconformists of all denominations. If they had to make a gift, he hoped it would be done with an open heart and a liberal hand. The boon ought not to be impaired in the giving. To look, however, upon the transaction in the light of a boon, was not the view which recommended itself to some of them; and, speaking more from the Nonconformist point of view, he wished to say that he would resent, on the part of his own constituents and of their fellow-religionists, the idea that in this claim of right they were actuated by any impulses of unfriendliness towards the Church. He would rather believe that the desire to bury in the national churchyard arose from a spirit of increasing love and confidence towards that Church from which, in a very dark and evil day of ecclesiastical history, they had found themselves constrained to separate. But the advocates of those mutilating Amendments said that where there were unconsecrated burial-grounds these grievances ceased to exist. He was not an advocate, however, of having one's grievances settled by other people. A man was a very bad judge of his neighbour's grievance. Of course, all was friendly on the surface of the Amendment which had been introduced in the House of Lords. But they knew, for one thing, that ecclesiastical societies had put out, what might be called "whips" in all directions, the draft of which was that the only useful work left to be done on the Bill was by supporting the Amendment adopted in the other House; in other words people were told that the ground which had been lost by the passage of the Bill could almost be regained by the passage of these Amendments. This was one reason why hon. Members on the Ministerial side of the House should regard the Amendments with the utmost distrust, and should vote against them to the last. As a Churchman, he was unwilling that the advocacy of this measure in its entirety should be left either to the enemies of the Church, or to those who were indifferent to her, or even to those who, like the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary, prided themselves upon the purity of their Erastianism. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope), in addressing his constituents, had announced himself as prepared to defend the Church of England, both as an Estate of the Realm and as a Divine Institution. That was a very nice, and, he believed, a very real distinction, and he would venture to remind the Committee that there were some hon. Gentlemen on his own side of the House who, however much they might respect the Church of England as an Estate of the Realm, respected and revered her much more as a Divine Institution. Was it to be said that a Divine Institution would suffer any detriment for making a concession in a graceful or a liberal spirit? Therefore, speaking not only on behalf of the Nonconformists whom he represented, but in some measure of the Liberals amongst whom he sat, he would beseech the Government to resist all these fatal Amendments, and secure them an unmutilated measure; feeling confident that the Church to which so many of them belonged, to which some of them were passionately attached, and which, he supposed, all of them more or less revered, could never receive either detriment or dishonour because, by this act of theirs, they had made it possible that those whom in life she would have welcomed to her worship, nay, even to her altars, should rest in death beneath her shadow.

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

said, that his right hon. Friend in charge of the Bill based his objection to the Amendment mainly on practical grounds. He had truly pointed out that though a man might give a piece of ground, that piece of ground could not keep itself in repair and order. A wall would be required for enclosing it, the gates perhaps required to be locked, and so forth. Well, he would accept the right hon. Gentleman's view of the matter, that this Amendment was not workable, not acceptable in its present shape. The House was on a peaceful errand that day. They were there to settle a great controversy. He would, therefore, make the right hon. Gentleman an offer which he could not reasonably refuse. Let them sit down together to amend these Amendments. They could cut out graveyards to be provided for out of rates, and they could add that no graveyard should be recognized as working out the purpose of this Amendment where the donor had not, by way of endowment, or of rent charge, set aside a sum adjudged at the arbitrament of the Home Secretary, the President of the Local Government Board, the County Court Judge, or any other great and competent authority, sufficient for keeping up the graveyard. ["Oh, oh !"] This was a very fair offer, and completely met his right hon. Friend's objections. If this were declined, he should be unwillingly compelled to suppose that there was something more behind the objection, that the plea of merely practical and material considerations, which were sensible so far as they applied, were but the masks of something not avowed. He should call on his right hon. Friend to say "Yes" or "No" to this proposition before it was put to the Vote; and so far as he might say "Yes" or "No," so far would they be able to judge of the animus of those who opposed the Amendments. He had listened with interest to the spirited speech of the hon. and learned Member who had spoken last. One of his arguments had puzzled him—he was not going into the"Danaos et dona ferentes." These poor fellows, the Danai, were worked almost as hard as the Irish Party. The hon. and learned Member had objected to the Amendments, and called them fatal Amendments. Why? Because those who urged the Amendments were in earnest, aye, very much in earnest, and because they cared very much for their Amendments. It was certainly the first time in the House of Commons that he had heard an Amendment objected to because it showed on the face of it that it was not a mere pretence, not an obstructive Amendment, not a mere contrivance with which to delude Parliament, and because it was the earnest conviction of men who had worked hard, and believed that their conviction was the right one. Yet, this was what the objection of the hon. and learned Member came to. ["No, no!"] The hon. and learned Member's speech would have been more forcible if he could have re-arranged its basis, and decided himself which line of argument he thought the tenable one. From first to last, he had urged that the matter was either a graceful boon to the Nonconformists or a restitution which Parliament was bound to concede. Coming back to his right hon. Friend (Mr. Osborne Morgan), he would ask him what objection he had to allow an exemption in the case of burial where a ground should be given by a private hand, with an endowment for keeping it up; and, going farther than that, he would say within a certain limited distance of the parish church, and accessible—more convenient, perhaps, for the purposes of interment than the parish church—and, lastly, offered within some short defined time? Would he admit the Amendment so framed, or would he not?

MR. PUGH

thought the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken misconceived the Amendment. The very eloquent speech delivered by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) the other day had put forward, in just terms, the grievance felt by Nonconformists in this matter; and he himself knew very well what their views were. In Wales there had been a very large experience of the grievance. They wished to bury their dead in the churchyard where their relatives had been buried, and it was a most usual thing to find the poorest people travelling for miles and miles without a hearse or conveyance of any kind in order to bury a corpse where the parents, perhaps, or children, or other relatives had been buried before. A case had come under his knowledge a short time ago. A man who was earning 16s. a-week, sent his wife to one of the hospitals in London; she died, and that man took the corpse down to Wales by rail. It was then conveyed first about four miles from the railway station, and on another day about eight miles further. These people were Nonconformists, but their desire was that the woman should be buried in the churchyard with her relations, and he believed he might confidently say that it had by no means entered into the man's consideration whether another place, for which he need pay nothing, could not be had. He was truly surprised that the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and those whose views he represented, should regard this simply as a question of "What's to pay?" and apparently consider that if there was nothing to pay Nonconformists would be satisfied.

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

said, he had not referred in his remarks to any payments at the funeral. He had been speaking of gifts of ground, connected with which there should be endowments in order to keep up the institution.

MR. PUGH

quite understood this, but the point did not affect the grievance which such persons would suffer under. It was in no sense a money question. He was exceedingly anxious to see the Bill pass now, for he felt the force of what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Denbighshire (Mr. Osborne Morgan) had said, and hardly a week passed without his hearing of the closing of some country churchyard which there was no occasion to close, or else of an attempt to do so. Someone would be got to give a miserable piece of land somewhere, in order that it might be said, "Why, here is an unconsecrated piece of ground." He could not conceive how members of the Church of England could wish to see these words in the Bill, and he hoped that hon. Members on the other side of the House would not continue to oppose the right hon. Gentleman's Motion. For the peace of the parish, or, indeed, of the country, it was the very worst thing they could do. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Denbighshire had put it, if this Amendment were to stand, there would be war in almost every parish, and certainly in every parish he (Mr. Pugh) knew of in Wales.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, the Committee had to thank the hon. Member who had just sat down, for doing what no other hon. Gentleman had yet done on the same side of the House, namely, for bringing forward a real argument against the Bill as it now stood. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. George Russell) actually seemed to object to hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House, because they had put themselves into an argumentative position. Their chief duty in debate was surely to argue; and though the hon. and learned Gentleman himself had not used very much argument, he must have patience with hon. Members opposite if they did try to bring forward some argument in support of the views they held. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, said that the grievance the clause would inflict, in its present shape, was that, in certain cases, a Nonconformist would not be able to be buried in, or close to, the same grave as his near relations. But it must be recollected that no one pretended that the grievance the Bill was intended to remedy was the grievance a man would feel that he was not going to be buried in the same graveyard as his other relations. How great was this grievance? He did not mean in the least to imply that it was no grievance at all, or that it was sentimental, and, therefore, did not deserve the attention of the Committee; but he did mean to say that it was not a grievance of such magnitude as to justify them in interfering with Church property. He supposed that the artizans of our great towns might be accepted as a very good test. How many of these demanded to be buried with their near relations? The point was not, legitimately, an argument against this clause; but, even if it had been, it could be easily refuted by facts. By their whole legislation this Session, the Government had shown a disposition, not merely to remedy the grievances with which they proposed to deal, but to go beyond the grievances complained of, and to deal with the matter, as they were in the habit of putting it, in a generous spirit. What they meant by dealing with it in generous spirit was, that they were prepared to be generous towards one class of the community at the expense of the rights and property of some other class. It would be out of Order if he were to allude to any other Bill before the House. He would, therefore, illustrate this assertion by a reference to the measure they were now considering, The grievance which the Government came forward and professed to remedy was, though an exaggerated, still a real one. But in the manner in which the Government proposed to remedy that grievance, they not only remedied it, but actually inflicted a grievance upon Church- men. The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jessie Collings), who commenced the debate that morning, alluded in the most open and naive manner to the hopes which the Nonconformists entertained in regard to the Bill. He plainly gave the House to understand that this Bill was only to be the prelude to another Bill for handing the churches over, more or less, to the Nonconformists for purposes of burial. It had always been urged by his right hon. Friend the Judge Advocate General (Mr. Osborne Morgan) that that was not his motive. The right hon. Gentleman told them, over and over again, that he was not a Nonconformist, and that he had no ulterior political object in view, but that his sole intention in dealing with the matter was to remove the grievances of his Nonconformist brethren. If that was the object of his right hon. Friend, let him pursue that object alone, and not lay himself open to the suspicion that he was making use of the sentiment which those grievances excited in the public mind as a lever for upsetting the Church Establishment. His right hon. Friend must know perfectly well, that, if he insisted on cutting out the Lords' Amendments, he would afford the strongest ground for the belief that the suspicion which Churchmen had always entertained with regard to the Bill was a well-founded suspicion. He hoped that the Committee would not consent to strike out the Lords' Amendments.

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

wished to meet the argument which had been raised by the right hon. Gentleman the late Home Secretary (Sir E. Assheton Cross) from the opposite Benches in regard to the rejection of this clause and the opinions and feelings of members of the Church of England. He was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman had left his seat, because he wished to remind him of one or two Acts of Parliament, in several of which the right hon. Gentleman was himself concerned, which made provision that the churchyards should be enjoyed by all classes of Her Majesty's subjects. In one of these Acts, after reciting the easement of burial, which was the right of all classes, the Act went on to say— To the end that all classes of Her Majesty's subjects may be permitted to have the said easement of burial according to the rights claimed by them. It then went on to enact that the minister of the church should give permission when asked by the Dissenting minister. That remained the law, he believed, until the year 1867, when a minister of the Church in Ireland refused to grant permission to a Dissenting minister somewhere near Dublin. The Government in 1868 made further provision for the Dissenters, and passed an Act to put an end to this state of things. A clause of the Act then passed completely met the present state of the case. It provided that whenever after the passing of the Act any person at the time of his or her death should not have been a member of, or in communion with, the United Church of England and Ireland, should be buried as of right in any churchyard or graveyard vested in any Vicar or Incumbent, and that it should lawful for the priest or minister of the religious denomination to which he or she belonged at the time of death, and he was permitted and empowered to perform the Burial Service and read such prayers as were usual and customary at the burial of persons belonging to such persuasion. That clause was passed by Mr. Disraeli and the Government of 1868, and it had put an end to all contentions in Ireland on the subject ever since. They never heard now of any contention either in Ireland or Scotland in consequence of the liberal arrangement that was made by the Tory Party in 1868. He was, therefore, surprised that any opposition to the present measure should be raised on the opposite side of the House, and especially by the right hon. Gentleman the late Home Secretary, who was a party to the passing of the Act of 1868. The arguments used by the right hon. Gentleman entirely fell to the ground, because they were completely met and answered by previous legislation and by the Bill now before the Committee. In the Irish Public Health Act of 1878, also passed by the late Government, the Burial Act of 1857 was re-enacted, and completely carried out these principles. Therefore, on two separate occasions, in 1868 and 1878, the late Government had carried out the principle of perfect equality in, regard to burial by all persons in the parish churchyard. He was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman was not in his place, and he thought he must have overlooked these facts.

MR. EDWARD CLARKE

thought it was only courteous and reasonable that they should have some sort of argument in support of the Amendment from the other side of the House. He quite understood the position in which the Committee were placed; but it would be hardly denied that those who were in earnest upon the question had been placed at a disadvantage by the tactics pursued by Her Majesty's Government. Two months ago this Bill was ready to be introduced into the House of Commons. Those two months had been allowed to pass by, and the opportunity was taken to produce an impression that the Bill was not to be proceeded with. Then the House was told that an attempt would be made to carry the second reading of the Bill, but that with regard to the clauses they would would be postponed until a later date; and it was really indicated and understood that the second reading was to be taken as an assertion of principle, and that then the Bill would be allowed to drop. But now, after the Bill had been in the hands of Her Majesty's Government for two months ready to be brought under discussion at any moment, the Government came down, and in a Saturday afternoon Sitting, treated the House to the speech which had been just made by his right hon. Friend who was in charge of the Bill. He listened attentively to that speech, and to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Aylesbury (Mr. George Russell), and all he could gather from them was that the Lords' Amendments did not enhance the value of the measure. That was not an observation that was calculated to produce much effect upon the minds of hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House. He had not voted against the second reading of the Bill, because the House had then to deal with the measure as sent down by the House of Lords, and he was prepared to accept the amended Bill as a settlement of the controversy. But the supporters of the Bill now declared that the clause before the Committee would make the Bill worthless, and that it simply provided a means of evading the effect of the Bill. This clearly showed that the real object of the Bill was something entirely different from that which had been represented by the Treasury Bench. The Government had not bought in a logical Bill. A Nonconformist died, and his friends wanted to follow his body to its final resting-place. They found that it was necessary to bury him in the churchyard with rites, and with a solemnity, against the beauty of which they did not quarrel, but which they regarded as superstitious, and which they considered it was wrong to impose upon them. That was the argument, and there had never been a valid argument used in support of the Burials Bill, except the one that the Nonconformists were now obliged to submit to the rites of a Church of which they were not members. It was said—"Let them have that privilege; let them take the body to its last resting-place, and do not compel them to hear a Service they dislike, or the addresses of a clergyman who looks on them as schismatics." That was the grievance it was intended to remedy, and he quite agreed that whenever the only burial-place was the parish churchyard, there was a real grievance, which it was right they should deal with; but if they had a place in which funerals could be celebrated with any rites the mourners desired, it was monstrous to enact that they should have the right of interment in the parish churchyard with Services other then those of the Church. It was quite evident that the animus of the Amendment was now betrayed, and that the object of the chief supporters of the Bill was not to remedy a grievance, but a studied endeavour to insult the Church of England. If their desire was only to insure justice, it should be done, and they should relieve Nonconformists from the obligation which was now placed on them, and which they felt to be an unpleasant and hard obligation. He contended that the Bill, as it stood, fully met all the requirements of justice. It was urged that, in any case, Noncomformists should be allowed to be buried with those who had shared with them the dearest companionship of life. This ought to be done by all means; but the insertion of half-a-dozen words in the Bill would fully meet that case. He believed that was a provision which would be most willingly agreed to on that side of the House. The hon. and learned Member for Aylesbury (Mr. George Russell) said, that with this clause the Bill would not satisfy the most zealous supporters of it. The hon. and learned Member was quite right. Those who were making and fostering this agita- tion did not really want to take the churchyards, but the churches themselves. So far as he (Mr. Edward Clarke) was concerned, he should be most happy to hear the matter discussed quietly, deliberately, and fairly, in the House of Commons; but it must be discussed. They were not to be told that because it was the month of August all opposition to every public measure must cease, and that they were to let slip through in a single Sitting on Saturday afternoon, almost without debate, a Bill in regard to which they entertained most conscientious objections. He protested against the acceptance of the Amendment, unless they could hear something in the way of argument in support of it.

MR. JOHN BRIGHT

said, the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. Edward Clarke) stated that he had heard it was not the intention of the Government to proceed with this Bill. Now, he could assure the hon. and learned Member that idea had never for one moment been entertained by them; and if, therefore, the hon. and learned Member had believed such a rumour, he had not been very wise, because it must have arisen on his own side of the House. The hon. and learned Gentleman complained that the time had been somewhat long between the second reading of the Bill and going into Committee. The House, however, and the hon. and learned Gentleman himself would admit that they had been occupied with other Business of considerable importance. Besides, it was not likely that they would treat a Bill which had come down from the House of Lords with that disrespect which they would have shown to it if they had simply shelved it, and not proceeded with it. That would have been treating the Bill with contempt; and he need scarcely say Her Majesty's Government never entertained such an idea. He certainly did not exactly understand the position of the hon. and learned Gentleman. The hon. and learned Member said, if he understood him rightly, that he did not vote against the second reading of the Bill, because he believed it was a Bill satisfactory on the whole as regarded its principle, and probably in most of its details; but he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman voted in the Division that afternoon—he was not quite sure, but he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman had done so. [Mr. EDWARD CLARKE: Yes.] Then, in fact, the hon. and learned Gentleman had voted in favour of an Amendment which declared that the rights of the Church of England were infringed by the Bill, and that no Bill would be satisfactory which failed to provide greater facilities for the provision of burial grounds in which burials with other services than those of the Church of England might take place, and did not give a sufficient time for the provision of cemeteries. Therefore, although the hon. and learned Gentlemen did not vote against the second reading of the Bill because he approved its Preamble, he had now voted in favour of an Amendment which condemned the Bill from one end to the other. He thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman was not a very wise counseller even for his own side of the House. Some speakers on that side of the House said that the Liberal Party were an aggressive Party, and that the Bill was an aggression on the interests and rights of the Church of England; but, in fact, what they were doing was to ask the Committee to remove a grievance by establishing a right. The grievance they all admitted; the right they had admitted in Ireland by their own legislation—and, surely, if it were proper in Ireland to establish that right, it could not be wrong to establish it in England—but the right might have been in abeyance. The argument of the hon. Member for Cardiganshire (Mr. Pugh) was one that no one could answer. The arguments of his right hon. Friend the Judge Advocate General (Mr. Osborne Morgan), when he first proposed to leave out certain words, were so remarkably clear that they did not require a long speech to enable them to enter even into the minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite. The argument, also, of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon) was one which showed that they had already done in the case of both of the sister Kingdoms what they were now asking to do in the case of England. The hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of the Bill as an insult to the Church of England. Now, he (Mr. John Bright), thought the time would come when the speeches made on the other side against a Bill of this character would be looked upon as speeches that were really far more insulting to that Church, and that they who were now asking the Committee to do not only a generous but a just act, would prove to be the best friends of the Church of England. Everything that they had done hitherto had been an indication that they were in favour of the Church of England, and not against it. He attempted, on the second reading, to argue that if they would pass this Bill in its fulness and completeness, whatever effect it might have on Nonconformists, it would also have a good and wholesome effect on the Established Church. He trusted that the Committee would not allow Amendments to pass that were meant to cripple, and injure, and weaken, the effect of the Bill; but that they would make it as wholesome and complete a measure as the Government intended it should be when they introduced it in the House of Lords.

MR. WILBRAHAM EGERTON

denied that there was any desire on that side of the House to shelve the Bill for the Session; but they did object to the way in which it was proposed to deal with the Amendment introduced into the measure by the House of Lords. He thought the least the Committee could do was to consider carefully the Amendments which had been placed before them by the House of Lords, whose deliberations on the Bill had at least the advantage of the opinions of the right rev. Prelates and Bishops who represented the Church of England in that Assembly, and the House of Commons was bound to treat with some respect the Amendments proposed in "another place," which were supposed to represent the opinion of the majority of that House. He defied hon. Members to deny that a grievance would not be inflicted on the Church of England by the Bill; and the least the House could do in passing it, which, by their numerical strength the Government was able to do, was to see that it was passed in a fair shape. Their great effort should be directed towards minimizing the grievance which the Bill would create. He believed that the Amendment now before the Committee would minimize the grievance, and, therefore, he supported it. Last Session he had endeavoured to bring in a Bill to increase the facilities of burial in country districts; but, unfortunately, he was unable to pass it. There was no grievance to Nonconformists except in country districts. It was very true that in the towns and in churchyards that had been closed, those who were now buried could not always be laid by the side of their forefathers; but that was not felt to be a grievance, and it was not proposed even by the present Bill to interfere with the existing state of matters in towns. But how did the present Amendment propose to deal with the matter? Simply by providing that wherever there was an un-consecrated ground in a rural district the Bill should not come into operation. Personally, he was of opinion that that was a fair way of dealing with the grievance of the Nonconformists. The Bill did not give religious equality between Nonconformists or Churchmen or those who were of no religion at all; and it appeared that the reason why the Bill was now pressed forward was, not to remedy a legitimate grievance, but, in many cases, to establish the superiority of the Nonconformists ministers over the clergymen of the Church of England. That might not be intended, but it was the inevitable consequence. If he might illustrate his position, he would relate a conversation between a clergyman of the Church of England and a Nonconformist minister. The clergyman of the Church of England being anxious in every way to conciliate the Nonconformist minister, said—"Dear sir, is there anything I can do to remedy the grievance you complain of?" "No, sir," was the answer; "your very existence is a grievance to me." This was the grievance; and the real object of the Bill was to remedy that grievance, and to assert the supremacy of the Nonconformist minister, under certain circumstances, over the clergyman of the Church of England. The effect of the clause would be that, in any country district, Nonconformists might sell their own burial-grounds, as they frequently had done, either for the purpose of erecting buildings or turning them into gardens. They might then go to the churchyard and claim to be buried there; whereas, in all those cases where there was unconsecrated ground, they had the privilege of being buried therewith their own Services. More than that, the next act of injustice the Churchman had to submit to was that the clergyman would be confined to a particular Service, or, at the most, to two or three— an option which it would be very in- vidious to exercise—while, on the other hand, anyone else might come to his churchyard and celebrate any Service he chose, provided it was what was called of a Christian and orderly character. The Bill was not a settlement of the question, because they were told by hon. Members opposite that they objected to the word "Christian" at all. Therefore, he went back to what he at first endeavoured to prove—namely, that the Bill did not create religious equality; but it was an injury done both to the Churchman and the Infidel. The only sound ground upon which the question could be dealt with in the future would be by the erection of cemeteries. When the country churchyards were closed, as they must be in the course of time, what provision was there for the erection of cemeteries or for the exercise of the civil rights of burial in that Bill? The Church of England had hitherto provided for the burial of all persons of whatever faith. There were now different faiths, and there should be no obligation on the Church of England to bury those persons with services other than those of the Church. The only remedy was that there should be cemeteries where there was consecrated ground for the Churchmen, and unconsecrated ground where not only Dissenters but Secularists, Infidels, and Positivists might be buried. That was a clear line of demarcation, and upon that line he supported the Amendment of the House of Lords.

MR. A. M'ARTHUR

said, the Bill had been so very widely discussed, he did not believe that anyone could have much that was new to say upon the subject. But, with respect to the Amendment before them, he would repeat that one fact was worth a thousand arguments, and that fact had been mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon) and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright), who had referred to the working of the system in Scotland. He also wished to add that the system had worked admirably, and with the very best effect, in Ireland. He himself had attended funerals under the very shadow of the Cathedral where there was the greatest decorum displayed. He could not see why the consciences of gentlemen in England should be so much more tender than the consciences of gentlemen in Ireland; and in Ireland there was not the slightest objection to have funerals conducted, as it was proposed they should be conducted, in England. A friend of his who lived in one of the large towns of Ireland, informed him that a respectable Nonconformist died there not long ago, and in accordance with the only formality that was required, notice had to be given to the clergyman that a Burial Service was to be held in the churchyard. The time fixed happened to be the same time at which a Service was to be held in the church. The clergyman, instead of objecting to the funeral taking place, wrote a very kind note to the Nonconformist minister in which, after regretting the event, he said that he did not think the funeral would at all interfere with the Service in the Church, and, therefore, begged that it might proceed. Now, if they had a little more of that kindly spirit in England, and a little more of that disposition to meet each other in a friendly way, he thought a great many of the fears that had been expressed would be found to be groundless. So far from the Bill being a step in the direction of Disestablishment, he thought such conduct would prevent feelings of animosity and lessen, rather than increase, the desire that was felt by so many persons for Disestablishment. He was quite satisfied that, if that Bill passed, in a very little while there would be a much more friendly feeling between Churchmen and Nonconformists.

EARL PERCY

said, that of all the funny sights it had ever been his lot to look upon in that House—and he had seen a good many—it was to see the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright) figuring, at what he might call the twelfth hour of the day, as the Friend of the House of Lords and the Church of England. He did not know whether hon. Members on the other side of the House formed their estimate of the intellects of Gentlemen on that side of the House by their own; but if they did, they must certainly have a very small and modest opinion of their own talents if they imagined that hon. Members on his (Earl Percy's) side of the House were likely to be taken in by the right hon. Gentleman, who now appeared and assured them that his wish, in supporting the Bill, was to support and be a friend to the House of Lords, and also to the Church. Now he thought it would be more honest, and more fair to the country and to that House, if the right hon. Gentleman had the manliness to come forward and say that he was not a friend to the Establishment—as they knew he was not—and that he was not a friend to the House of Lords. But as they knew these things well, he did not think it was worth while wasting the time of the House in dissipating the thin veil which the right hon. Gentleman had assumed as a disguise. But he rose for the purpose of noting one remark of the right hon. Gentleman which was worthy of note. The right hon. Gentleman said that the object of the Bill was to establish a right. He spoke of a right that was in abeyance. Now that was a great admission on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. The right which had been conceded on all sides—conceded by the right hon. Gentleman the Judge Advocate General who brought in the Bill, was the right of every parishioner to be buried in his parish churchyard. But the right which was in abeyance, was according to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the right to have whatever service he pleased read over his grave; and when they tried to exclude from the operation of the Bill those churchyards which had an unconsecrated portion attached to them, and when they also tried to except churchyards in parishes where there was an unconsecrated burial ground in the same parish, they were met by the remark that it was a most monstrous thing to do. Now it appeared to him that the whole subject lay in a nut-shell. It was really what hon. Members opposite thought was a sentimental grievance. They had heard a great deal of grievances which he would not stigmatize as sentimental, but would leave it to hon. Gentlemen to think what they pleased. They had heard it alleged as a grievance that a man could not be buried with his relatives, or else that he must be buried with a service of which he disapproved. There was another grievance, which he would not characterize, but which hon. Members seemed to think was a more sentimental grievance than the other, and it was this—that those who believed in consecration, and in the sacredness of the churchyard, those who were true to the faith which they and their ancestors had professed for hundreds of years, were no longer to have one single spot, unless they provided themselves with churchyards, in which they might be exempted from hearing services read over the graves of their friends and relations of which they conscientiously disapproved. They would be deprived of the privilege which they had hitherto enjoyed. Would the Committee allow him for one moment to point out what that grievance really was? Hon. Members thought it was a great grievance not to be allowed to have the service of their own sect read over their own grave. He hardly knew how to put the case, because he did not want to put cases as if they were such that he himself would feel an objection to. It was perfectly well known, surely hon. Members must know, that there was plenty of these conscientious persons in that country—Nonconformists—who would feel it a great discredit to have a Roman Catholic Service celebrated in the churchyard close to where the relatives were lying. Then, as to the argument that it was the state of the law in Scotland, he must point out that in Scotland the graveyards were not connected with the churchyards. In Ireland, again, there the feeling had certainly not sprung up. But it existed in England, and he did think hon. Members could deny that. He wanted to point out that the question was, supposing a grievance to exist, whose was the greatest grievance? Were the conscientious feelings of a large portion of the population not to be respected, and were they not to be allowed to lie by the side of their friends and relatives? He considered that those who opposed the Bill had a very great grievance, and he, for one, should support the Amendment.

MR. JAMES HOWARD

said, he would not detain the Committee two minutes; but the noble Lord who had just spoken had displayed an ignorance of the subject under discussion which was rarely seen in that House. He appeared to know little or nothing of the Nonconformist feeling and views. His allusion to the Roman Catholics had reminded him (Mr. J. Howard) of a circumstance he would relate. During a sojourn he made in Paris some two years ago, a friend of his, who had resided many years in France, had the misfortune to lose his wife. He desired to bury the body of his wife in a village churchyard in a different part of France, and where some other members of his family had been buried many years before. The funeral party went up from Paris to this village churchyard, accompanied by a Protestant clergyman, who conducted the Service. They were met at the gates by the Roman Catholic priest, who appeared most cordial throughout. It occurred to his mind, upon the occasion, why should not the English Church on this Burial Question be as tolerant as the intolerant Roman Catholic Church? COLONEL MAKINS said, that the hon. Member had accused the noble Lord of ignorance; but he had himself shown great want of knowledge of the subject.

Question put.

The Committee divided: — Ayes 72; Noes 157: Majority 85. — (Div. List. No. 149.)

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN

, in moving, in page 1, line 27, to leave out from "such power" to "provided," in page 2, line 2, both inclusive, said, there was another Amendment carried in the House of Lords also by a very small majority. The effect of the clause which he proposed to amend was to exclude what were called statutory cemeteries from the operation of the Act. Now, the Committee would remember that statutory cemeteries were divided into consecrated and unconsecrated grounds. It seemed to him that the proper thing to do would be to do away with the distinction, and to let the clergy officiate in the unconsecrated portion of the cemeteries, and to give the Nonconformist ministers the right to officiate in the consecrated portion. Well, the House of Lords had assented to that part of the clause, the effect of which was to give the clergy the power to officiate in the unconsecrated part of a cemetery; but they had struck out that which gave a similar privilege to the Nonconformist, and he should move to re-insert that provision.

MR. J. G. TALBOT

said, notwithstanding what the Chancellor for the Duchy of Lancaster had said as to their respect for the House of Lords, the Government were not, as a matter of fact, showing any great respect for that House in regard to the Bill then under discussion, most of their Amendments —in fact, he might almost say the whole of their Amendments—were to be struck out. The House of Lords had passed the Bill as presented to them by the Government, and they had added certain Amendments with which the Bill had been returned. No one, he thought, would be inclined to dispute that this was a correct statement of fact. With regard to the Amendment they were at that moment discussing, he did not mean to say that it was one to which, personally, he attached much value, because he was one of those who thought that the whole system connected with our cemeteries was a very distressing one; and, like his right hon. Friend the Member for South Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross), he hated the double chapel. But he must remind the Committee that it was not the members of the English Church who had divided the cemeteries; on the contrary, it was the Dissenters who had made the division. It was not the Churchmen who had asked for unconsecrated ground, but the Nonconformists; and he thought it was a little too late in the day for the members of the Nonconformist Bodies to come forward and taunt them with their religious intolerance, because it was the Nonconformists who had insisted on the division of the cemeteries. They ought to have it made perfectly clear that the ground on which this Bill had been brought forward, was not the same as that on which the right hon. Gentleman the Judge Advocate General had been wont to bring it forward when he was a private Member of the House, and when he was always listened to, as now, with the greatest respect. Then, the question was in the main that the Dissenters were placed in a difficulty in regard to the burial of their dead, because, in some cases, there was no burial-place within reach, except the churchyard. That, no doubt, was an argument the force of which the Committee could appreciate; but the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had rather strangely imputed to the opponents of the Bill that they could not understand the argument, overlooking the fact that there were sometimes two sides to an argument, and that they thought there was a very strong argument on their side. But now, the right hon. Gentleman who had introduced the Bill had altogether changed his tone, and it was no longer the distance argument, but the equality argument, that he advanced. The right hon. Gentleman wanted everybody to be equal in regard to these burial-grounds —not equal, let it be noted, as Churchmen would be content to be, with a portion of the ground set apart for the use of their solemn forms and ceremonial free to all who chose to conform to them, while those who did not so conform might have their own forms complied with; but, although under the Cemeteries Act an arrangement had been made by which the burial-grounds were divided into two portions, the Dissenters now wanted to force their way into the consecrated parts of the ground, and there to perform the rites which at present only accompanied the Services in unconsecrated ground. That was quite a new departure. It certainly was not what was demanded in the old Burials Bill. The grievance of the Dissenters formerly was that they could not find a place for the burial of their dead; and now, by the gratuitous act of the right hon. Gentleman the Judge Advocate General and his Friends, they came for-ward and said, "We shall have equality." That, in other words, meant that they wanted Disestablishment; because there could not be religious equality while the Established Church continued to exist. Therefore, religious equality really meant Disestablishment, let them veil it under civil phrases as they would. Consequently, when the right hon. Gentleman came forward to challenge the division of the House of Lords on this Amendment, he, for one, must emphatically say "No!"

MR. S. LEIGHTON

said, he had noticed the argument of reciprocity in graveyards, and he concurred in it, and he had also noticed the other argument brought forward—namely, that where there was a family tomb or vault belonging to Dissenters in the consecrated port of a burial-ground, it was hard that the Nonconformists could not bury their dead there with the rites to which they were accustomed. Therefore he, for one, should support the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. WOODALL

moved, in page 2, line 4, after "cemetery," to insert "and the chapels thereon." He hoped the Committee would think the Amendment so obvious that it would be unnecessary for him to occupy time in vindicating that.

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN

said, he did not think the Amendment at all necessary, but he had no objection to offer to it. A piece of ground carried with it the house that was built upon it, and, on the same principle, the cemetery would carry the chapel. Still, he was quite willing to admit the Amendment.

MR. J. G. TALBOT

said, the right hon. Gentleman could hardly have apprehended the full scope of the Amendment he was so ready to admit. It was, in reality, a proposal under which the Dissenters would at once step from the churchyard into the church itself. There were chapels in all cemeteries set apart and consecrated for the form of worship and ceremonial of the Church of England; and into these it was proposed, by the Amendment before the Committee, to allow the Dissenting Minister, with his peculiar rites, to enter. This was, indeed, Disestablishment with a vengeance; and he must express his surprise that the right hon. Gentleman the Judge Advocate General should so innocently have fallen into the trap by accepting, in so off-hand a manner, such a proposition.

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN

said, the cemeteries and the chapels upon them were one, if he was right in his view of the law; but there was an essential difference between a church and a churchyard.

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

hoped the Committee would allow him to put the matter, in what he regarded as a practical way, before the Judge Advocate General. He believed, speaking roughly, that cemeteries which had chapels were of two classes. There were some having chapels common to all burial rites, and others which had two or three chapels— a Church of England chapel, a chapel for the Nonconformists, and sometimes a Roman Catholic chapel. In the first case, cadit quœstio, the chapel was already common to every form of Burial Service, and the Bill before the Committee could not render it more so; but when they came to the second case, it seemed to him that the Amendment proposed a very gratuitous disturbance of an arrangement which surely carried out as completely as anything could the prin- ciple of religious equality. There was, so to speak, a building of two chambers, one of which was always available for Nonconformists' services; while the other chamber was always available for Church of England services. The Burial Services might, and he believed did, run together within these chambers, in point of time, say, at 12, or 1, or 4 o'clock, or at any hour they pleased, each building being at such times available for its own distinct and well-understood purpose, and not available for any other purpose. Now, to declare that a Nonconformist cemetery chapel could be invaded by the clergy of the Church of England, and that a Church of England chapel could be invaded in like manner by Nonconformist ministers, seemed to him to be a purposeless disturbance of a very convenient arrangement. There was no principle at all behind such a proposal; for, surely, the principle of two distinct chapels forbade the idea contained in this Amendment. Anyone who had travelled out of London by railway must be familiar with the type of buildings in the suburban cemeteries—two paralel-l0grams, with a belfry and an arch between the two. This was the form which these coupled chapels in the modern burial-ground took. Then, with a view to the passing of this Bill, he would ask his right hon. Friend not to overweight the measure with so frivolous an invasion of the existing arrangement, when all that he really cared for had already been conceded. But he would refer to another point, which was one on which he had not enough information to speak, except with a good deal of doubt and hesitation. He referred to the third chapel for the Roman Catholics. He believed he was right in saying that there were cemeteries in which there were distinct Roman Catholic chapels— if not, his argument would, of course, fail. Knowing how strong the Roman Catholic Church was on questions of heresy, schism, and ritual, that train of thought being the raison d'étre of its existence, he pressed upon the Judge Advocate General that he would be letting in a great deal of trouble, confusion, and heartburning if he admitted an Amendment under which the Roman Catholics would find that by a sort of side-wind, or accident, the parsons of the Church of England and the Nonconformist ministers could enter the chapels. He hoped the Amendment would not be adopted. In the case where there was a common chapel, it was unnecessary— the thing was done already; and in the case of a double chapel it was also done, only in a grander and more complete manner.

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

hoped the Amendment would not be adopted. He did not think the subject was thoroughly understood by the Committee. Under the Act of Parliament, which regulated the provisions applicable to parochial cemeteries, and which was the standing law of the country, it was incumbent on the parish to provide two chapels—one in ground consecrated by the Bishop and kept for the services of the members of the Church of England, and the other in unconsecrated ground for the use of Nonconformists; but if this Amendment were carried, it would give Nonconformists the use, not only of their own chapels, but also of those chapels especially consecrated to the use of the Church of England, thus bringing the Nonconformists into the Church of England—a thing which had never previously been contemplated, and against which he set his face, because he did not see that there was any necessity for it. He did not think the hon. Member who had proposed the Amendment quite understood the question, and he hoped the Committee would not assent to the proposal.

MR. WARTON

thought the Amendment a curious one, because under the 1st section of the Bill it would be seen that certain persons had a right to bury in the graveyards, and it would be somewhat strange in the next section, which defined graveyards as meaning not only cemeteries, the definition should include the chapels, so that burials might take place in the chapels.

MR. WOODALL

thought it would be a great convenience if, under certain circumstances, clergymen of the Established Church were permitted to officiate in unconsecrated chapels, and the alternative right were given to Nonconformists; but he did not wish to press the Amendment, although he should think the Bill very incomplete if it were passed without it. He would, therefore, with the consent of the Committee withdraw the Amendment on the understanding that an Amendment would be introduced on Report that would clearly meet the particular case to which he had referred.

MR. EDWARD CLARKE

hoped before this was done they would quite understand what the Treasury Bench proposed to do. It was with great inconvenience that many hon. Members were present, and what was taking place showed the danger of hurrying a Bill through, and of the right hon. Gentleman accepting an Amendment of which he did not see the importance. It would have been a wanton insult to the Church of England to have introduced the Amendment. Where they had two chapels side by side, one consecrated and the other unconsecrated, the minister who used the unconsecrated might, of his own choice, have gone into the consecrated chapel and held his services. He would like to know from the right hon. Gentleman that there was no understanding to introduce the Amendment on Report. He did not think hon. Members on that side of the House would be grateful to the very distinguished Member of the Liberation Society for the leave he proposed to give to the clergy of the Established Church to conduct their services in the unconsecrated buildings. Whether rightly or wrongly, they attached importance to consecration, and they did not wish any such liberty given to them.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH

thought the hon. Member behind him was right in saying that his Amendment would allow the consecrated chapels, as well as the unconsecrated, to be used by the Dissenter.

MR. WARTON

considered that was the logical construction of the words; the proposition was intolerable.

MR. J. G. HUBBAERD

would be satisfied if nothing was done on Report.

MR. J. G. TALBOT

wished it to be clear that he was no party to any understanding that the Amendment was to be brought up on Report.

COLONEL MAKINS

said, the hon. Member's argument was the reciprocity one. Now, they did not seek any reciprocity.

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN

hoped the hon. Member would be allowed to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

proposed to insert, in page 2, line 12, after "Burial Board, "the words" or Secretary of the Company. "The Bill, he said, dealt with two classes of graveyards, and it appeared to him, it should also deal with cemeteries vested in incorporated companies.

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN

said, he could not accept the Amendment; but he had another Amendment at the end of the clause which would serve the same purpose. It would not be proper to force incorporated companies to bring their cemeteries under the Act.

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

thought that explanation was satisfactory.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN

moved, in page 2, lines 6 and 7, to leave out "and of which no part is left unconsecrated." He said this followed, as a matter of course, on the acceptance of his previous Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN

moved, in page 2, line 9, to leave out from "such chaplain," to "given to," in line 12, both inclusive, and insert— Notice under this Act shall be addressed to such chaplain, but the same shall he given to or left at the office of.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN

moved in page 2, line 13, at the end of Clause, to add— Provided also that it shall he lawful for the proprietors or directors of any proprietary, cemetery, or burial ground, to make such bylaws or regulations as may be necessary for enabling any burial to take place therein in accordance with the provisions of this Act, any enactment to the contrary notwithstanding.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. WILBRAHAM EGERTON

moved in page 2, line 13, at end to add— Provided always, That this Act shall not affect any consecrated burial ground given as a free gift, during the lifetime of the donor, if the said donor shall have dissented from the application of this Act within six months after the passing of the Act. And this Clause of the Act shall commence and come into operation on the thirty-first day of August, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-one. He said he accepted the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour) and he would allow him to put his Amendment before the Committee first.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

thought the course taken by his hon. Friend was very convenient because there would be no cross discussion between the principle raised in each Amendment, although the one he proposed had the same intention as that of his hon. Friend it was in some respect different. He proposed to leave out the words after the word "given" and add these words, "within the last fifty years unless with the assent of the donor." The Amendment would then read— Provided always that this Act shall not affect any consecrated burial ground given as a free gift within the last fifty years unless with the assent of the donor. That was not a new proposal. It was one he had introduced in a Bill which had been discussed in this House, and it had been introduced not only in "another place," but in various Bills brought before this House. While, however, the object was one which commended itself to many, it was, he must admit, received with some objection by Members on both sides of the House. Some hon. Friends on his own side felt if they made an exception in favour of gifts to the Church made within the last 50 years, they weakened the case which existed for the Church retaining property given to her anterior to that date. He could not see the force of that argument. All of them, on whatever side of the House they sat, admitted there was a prima facie case for leaving the property in the possession of the Church under her control. The most ardent member of the Liberation Society would admit that the Church should not be deprived of any property she now possessed without grave consideration and strong grounds of expediency. Now, whatever were the reasons for leaving Church property undisturbed—whether weak as hon. Members opposite thought, or strong as he himself thought—all that he by his Amendment contended for was, that there were additional reasons for leaving the property given within the last 50 years. There were arguments which applied to all charitable gifts and these applied equally to the charitable gifts made to the Church. So much for the argument that the Churchman regarded as of some weight. Now, he would ask hon. Gentlemen opposite what was their objection to the Amendment which he proposed? The only objection he had been able to see formulated was this. They said when a man had given a piece of ground to the Church for certain purposes, he must be considered to have given it out and out and to have no right to interfere in any proposed change. ["Hear, hear!"] This, he gathered from the cheers of hon. Gentlemen, was the argument on which they would be disposed to rely. But that argument was equally applicable to every species of charitable gift. Every charitable gift was given by the donor out and out, and it was the care of the State to see that it was put to the uses for which he intended it. It had always been held by the House that the Legislature should deal most tenderly with any charitable bequests, because, though the people who gave them had no abstract right to control them afterwards, yet, if they made it the practice of the Legislature to interfere with such gifts, they would do something towards drying up the sources of charity. People would be far less disposed to give if the objects they had in view were not carried out. He did not think anybody would doubt, when donors had given land for the purpose of burial voluntarily, they had given it subject, in their own mind, to the condition that the Services to be performed in time coming should be the Services performed when they gave their land. He would not say that was a condition legally imposed, but it was the condition present in their minds when they made the gift. If the right hon. Gentleman the Judge Advocate General doubted that, did he not suppose that in the future, when members of the Church of England made charitable gifts of burial-grounds, they would so tie up those gifts that the Legislature should have no more power to control the uses to which they were put than it had to control the use of the Quakers' burial-ground, or the ground of any other Nonconformist Body. The right hon. Gentleman the Judge Advocate General would admit, whatever his opinions were on the general question of church property, on the broad question of how the Legislature was to deal with charitable gifts, this Amendment carried out the principle the Legislature had always regarded as one of great weight and which, he trusted, nothing would be done to weaken.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 13, at end of the Clause, to add the words "Provided always, That this Act shall not affect any consecrated burial ground given as a free gift, during the lifetime of the donor, if the said donor shall have dissented from the application of this Act within six months after the passing of the Act. And this Clause of the Act shall commence and come into operation on the thirty-first day of August one thousand eight hundred and eighty one."—(Mr. Wilbraham Egerton.)

Amendment proposed to proposed Amendment, To leave out from the word "gift," in line 2, to the word "Act," in line 4, and insert the words "within the last fifty years, unless with the assent of the donor."—(Mr Alfred Balfour.) —instead thereof.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

hoped the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, and who was jealous of the House of Lords, would not forget that that House declined to accept this Amendment. He had to point out the fallacy which underlay his argument and many of the arguments used on this question—namely, that the parochial burial-ground, from whatever source derived, was the property of the Church. According to the law of this country, as laid down by the Lord Chancellor, the parochial burial-ground did not belong to the Church of England but to the parishioners of the parish. It was not a charitable gift in the sense of a gift to the Church of England. It might be a very handsome gift to the parish, given for public purposes, but it was for the benefit of the parish. The argument would have carried force if the first premiss were admitted that a man giving land for creating a parochial burial-ground gave it to the Church of England; but he wished the hon. Member and others who had dealt with them rather harshly, to remember that they were dealing with a civil right to which they considered they were by the law of the land entitled.

SIR E. ASSHETON CROSS

said, the hon. Member might be right as to the land being given for public purposes; but it was on the faith that; in these lands so given the Church of England Service would be performed. That was the state of the law under which the land was given, and it was in the faith and belief that the law in this respect would not be altered, that it was given.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)

could not agree with the right hon. Gentleman in what he had just stated. He disputed altogether that they could look behind the gift to discover the intention of the donor. They had no authority for saying that he would not have made it if he had known that the law was to be changed; it was impossible to deal with the matter in that way. He took it that anyone who gave land or property for a public purpose such as this, did so with the knowledge that the law might be altered, and that it would be subject to the laws and regulations which from time to time might be enacted. It could not be taken that anyone gave land on the supposition that the law would never be altered.

SIR JOHN MOWBRAY

agreed that the donor had made a free gift with the idea that it might be applied as the law might hereafter direct. But there was always this condition—that alterations of the law should be made in accordance with the principles of past legislation. Where did they get these principles? The present Prime Minister, when he introduced the first Bill dealing with the endowments of the University of Oxford, respected the endowments given within 50 years. That was in 1854, and in 1869 or 1870, when the Endowed Schools Bill passed, the present Prime Minister carried the same principle out. In the last Parliament a Bill was passed applicable to the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge; and, again, gifts made within 50 years were respected in accordance with the wishes of the donors. Thus, this principle had been laid down on three occasions within the last quarter of a century. Fifty years was arrived at by putting together a generation of 30 years and 21 years afterwards, which was considered a reasonable period for which a man might tie up his gifts. It was on this principle that the Amendment rested, a principle recognized three times over in modern legislation by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government. He preferred the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour) to that of the hon. Member for Mid Cheshire (Mr. Wilbraham Egerton) and would give it his support.

MR. OSBORNB MORGAN

said, it was perfectly impossible to accept this Amendment. It had been pointed out by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) that it was proposed in the House of Lords, and defeated by an overwhelming majority. The hon. Member for Hertford spoke as if the land was a gift to the Church of England; but the land was given for a parochial purpose, and, according to the Common Law of England, every parishioner dying in the parish had the same right, whatever his religious persuasion, to be buried in the parish churchyard. A Jew, a Turk, or an Infidel, had exactly the same rights as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope). It was given, therefore, for a public purpose to the public. If a man had once dedicated his land to the public for a public purpose—and a parochial purpose meant a public purpose—he had given it for any purpose that the law afterwards applied it. The case of the Endowed Schools Act was not the least in point. There the Legislature went out of its way to save certain rights, because a property given for one purpose was diverted to another. But what was the diversion here? There was no diversion from the purpose for which the land was given, for the Bill expressly provided that none of the Services that the Church people enjoyed before the passing of the Bill should be interfered with. This he thought an answer to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir John Mowbray). If the principle contended for had been observed, the Irish Church Act would never have been passed. It had been said that donors of land in future would tie it up and make it exclusively the property of the Church of England, the same as Nonconformist burying - grounds were private property. Speaking as a Churchman, he hoped they would do nothing of the kind. It would do far more injury to the Church of England. It would be a step to denationalize the Church of England; and if they wanted to disestablish the Church of England the first step was to denationalize it.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

said, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) was to be congratulated on the readiness with which he accepted the decision of the House of Lords. To his mind, it was not a conclusive argument to say that the House of Lords had rejected any Amendment. He would discuss the proposal from a point of view from which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Judge Advocate General had not regarded it. That right hon. and learned Gentleman had made a great point of the fact that these gifts had been given for parochial purposes. But he would put a case to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Supposing land had been given, not as an addition to the parish churchyard, but as a new burial-ground, very probably with a recital in the deed of consecration that it was for use as burial-ground according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England. A particular case of this kind had come under his notice in his own county, where the provisions of this Bill, if not modified in the way proposed, would inflict the greatest possible hardship and injustice for no reason whatever. He alluded to this as a sample of a great many similar cases. The parish of Bisley, in the county of Gloucester, was very large, and contained a mixed population of Churchmen and Dissenters. A good many years ago, but within the 50 years' limit, the churchyard accommodation was found to be entirely inadequate. How was that want remedied? Not by an addition to the old churchyard which had been absolutely closed for all burials except in cases of relationship, but by providing both for Churchmen and Dissenters separate places of burial. There were, he believed, as many as five churchyards newly consecrated within the parish to which he referred which had been given by the private benefactions of Churchmen, and which had been consecrated with the use of the words—"For the interments of the bodies of parishioners according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England for ever." The Dissenters had in the parish six burial-places which were attached to as many chapels, and had thus ample burial accommodation. And how, he would ask, had they obtained most of that accommodation? They had obtained it, some years ago, owing to the inclosure of waste lands in the parish under the provisions of the Inclosure Acts, while the members of the Established Church had acquired their burial-grounds at their own expense. The result, it appeared to him, would be that unless the Committee agreed to except burial-grounds given within the last 50 years from the operation of the Bill, private property given by private benefactors for a particular purpose would, in this parish, be diverted to public uses, while land formerly common would remain as private burial-grounds. For his own part, he could not see how a greater injustice could be inflicted, or a more unnecessary wrong done, for the privileges claimed could only be asked for with the object of annoying the members of the Church of England. Indeed, it was only fair to say that the Dissenters of the parish themselves did not appear to want that which the Bill proposed to give them, for many of them had signed a Petition, which 400 householders in the district had forwarded to Parliament, praying that they might be exempted from the provisions of the Bill. That was, of course, a proposal to which Parliament would not listen; but he had thought it right to mention the case as an instance of the hardships which would arise under the operation of the Bill if the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour) were not accepted. The Bill appeared to have been framed with the object that all denominations should use a common burial-ground, a solution of the question which might meet the wishes of those who approached the subject from a political point of view; but there was, he believed, a strong feeling pervading the minds, not only of Churchmen but of Dissenters, that they would like to bury their people each in their own graveyard under the shadow of the church or chapel in which they had worshipped during their lives. He was, therefore, of opinion that the question would have been better dealt with and in a manner more in accordance with the religious and sentimental feelings of the community at large, if the members of various persuasions throughout the country who owned chapels had been enabled by enactments of any stringency that might be necessary to acquire land close to them for the purposes of a cemetery. He begged to thank the Committee for the patience with which they had listened to him, and to express a hope that his hon. Friend the Member for Hertford would bring his Amendment to the test of a division.

MR. JOHN BRIGHT

said, he did not quite understand what the grievance was of which the right hon. Baronet (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) complained; but, so far as he could gather, the case which, had been submitted by the right hon. Gentleman was this—that in some particular parish in Gloucestershire there were several churches and church graveyards, and several chapels and chapel graveyards; and that he was very much afraid that, if the present Bill became law, people who worshipped in the chapels would insist on burying their dead, not in the chapel graveyards, but in the graveyards belonging to the Church. Now, he did not think the right hon. Gentleman could have any authority for a statement of that kind. The probability was that the persons who had subscribed for burial-grounds adjoining their places of worship would desire to bury their dead there, and every concession would only tend to make them continue the practice.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

They did not subscribe in the case which I mentioned. They obtained the ground under the Inclosure Act.

MR. JOHN BRIGHT

Very likely; but those burial-grounds belonged to the chapels, and it would be the feeling of every Englishman having a burial-ground attached to his place of worship to bury his dead in that spot. It was entirely a misconception of the objects, and wishes, and feelings of the Nonconformists, to suppose that they would obtrude themselves, or make themselves offensive to Churchmen, in the working of the Act. They were quite as sensitive, as delicate, and as just, in those matters as Churchmen were; and it was doing them a great injustice to imagine that any of the fearful things which had been alluded to would happen. It was something to be able to point out that in the House of Lords, where there were so many Bishops who attended to the interests of the Church—["No, no !"]—hon. Members opposite said "No, no!" but he should not himself have dared to say anything so offensive as that. He was about to add, when he was interrupted, that the Bishops in the House of Lords would have taken care to guard against interference with the wishes of donors. He observed, however, that hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House always got extremely angry with the Bishops when they did anything that was rational. He recollected a Bishop having made a speech in the House of Lords, in 1846, in favour of a repeal of the Corn Laws, and that a Member of the Conservative Party who happened to be standing at the Bar of that House near him (Mr. John Bright) could not help expressing the disgust and anger which he felt at hearing that speech. He said to that hon. Member—"Sir John, I understood you were always a great friend of the Bishops." "Not a bit of it," was the reply; and the hon. Member was so angry that he would, he believed, have rejected the Episcopal Order altogether on account of the speech of an individual Bishop. He had, he thought, a right to say that, if the House of Lords, with the large number of its Members who had seats on the Episcopal Bench, had not deemed it necessary to introduce into the Bill any Amendment of the kind now proposed, it was not likely that hon. Members sitting on the Liberal side of the House of Commons would assent to the adoption of such an Amendment. There was only one other observation which he desired to make. It appeared to him that the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour), and others, must entertain a very poor opinion generally of the benevolence and kindliness of persons connected with their Church who gave away anything in the shape of land for public objects. He doubted whether they could find any man who had 40 or 50 years ago made a benefaction of the kind in question who would be restrained from doing so on the ground that some few years after the law might be altered, not so as to give the right of burial to those who had not it before, but so as to enable an existing right to be exercised without the necessity of having the Burial Service read by a clergyman of the Established Church. The Government could not consent to the Amendment; and he, for one, did not think so ill, either of the forefathers, or of the posterity of hon. Gentlemen opposite, as to suppose that in past times, or in the future, they could be restricted in their generosity by such miserable motives as those upon which the proposition before the Committee was based.

SIR HENRY PEEK

said, he intended to support the Amendment, as the clause, as it stood, would, in his opinion, be unjust. He had himself, within 10 years, given an entire new churchyard, and made a considerable addition to another; and should certainly not, on either occasion, have done so unconditionally, had he thought the clause protecting recent donations and inserted in previous Bills would have been completely ignored now. One hon. Member from Wales had told him that he was owner in fee simple of two graveyards. What would this Bill enable him to do? To pass on the funerals of parishioners to churchyards which had cost them nothing; while he retained the power to sell as freehold, or convert into ground rents, the yards where relatives were interred, and around which so many hallowed associations—so it was asserted— clung. That that result was likely enough let Bunhill Fields bear witness; also Tottenham Court Road Chapel ground, which, as a perfect scandal, was now actually before the Courts, and the sale of earth heavily charged with human remains, for the time at least, stopped. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright) had told them affecting suppositious tales about widows and other bereaved relatives. If he (Sir Henry Peek) had equal powers of anecdote, he would be able to cap fiction by fact, and tell the House of Dr. Ogle's kitchen-garden at Oxford, which, having fully served the purposes of a Quaker's burial-ground, now produced not only a good rent, which was regularly looked up, but, on the authority of a friend who had many times partaken of them, the best cabbages in the whole county.

MR. BRAND

, as a Representative of the borough in which the parish to which the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had referred was situated, wished to say that he had received no communication from the Nonconformists of that parish stating that they objected to the provisions of the Bill on the ground which he had mentioned.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

said, he could not answer for the feelings of the Nonconformists in that particular parish; but many of them had signed a Petition requesting that, under the peculiar circumstances, their parish should he exempted from the operation of the Bill.

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

thought the Committee owed a debt of gratitude to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for enlivening the tedium of their proceedings by a capital story, capitally told. The right hon. Gentleman professed to be unable to understand the grievance which it was sought by the Amendment to remove; but the grievance was one which, in his (Mr. Beresford Hope's) opinion, admitted of being easily understood. In the case referred to by his right hon. Friend next him (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), the Dissenters had come without paying anything, under the Inclosure Acts, into the possession of several plots of land which they did quite right to convert into burial-grounds if they pleased; while the members of the Established Church, not under the operation of the Inclosure Acts, but by private subscription —in a word, by putting their hands in their own pockets—were constrained to create a number of graveyards in connection with the Church. Now, under the Bill, if it should become law, the Dissenters would be entitled to bury their dead in their own burial-grounds, and to shut out the clergyman of the Church of England, should he knock at the door of those exclusive possessions; while they would also have the opportunity afforded them of burying their dead ad libitum in the very churchyards which Churchmen had bought out of their own pockets. Such a proposal furnished another illustration of the very good old adage, "Sum mum jus summa injuria." He happened to have in his possession an interesting and curious book containing the canons and rubrics of the Society of Friends; and he found it contained a provision to the effect that, though the Society would not prevent a person who did not belong to their Society from being buried in their graveyards, such burials could be allowed only on the condition that the ritual observed at them was that of the Society of Friends. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General had asked where was the grievance which would be inflicted under the operation, and had pointed out that when gifts of land for the purpose of graveyards were made, they were made with the object of providing burial-places for members of the community as citizens. He, how- ever, must traverse that assertion, for he believed that the idea in the minds of all benefactors, at all events until within the last two or three years when they made such gifts, was that the churchyards should be places of interment in which the Services of the Church of England might be celebrated. Churchmen, he might add, could have done what had been done by the Dissenters, and could have given land for the purpose of graveyards, not as in a legal sense churchyards, but as private interments grounds with trustees. The multiplication of such private burials would, he believed, be the effect of the Amendment if carried. His right hon. and learned Friend the Judge Advocate General, speaking with perfect sincerity, asked the Committee not to take a step which, in his opinion, would tend, to a great extent, to denationalize the Church; but he would tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that no proceeding on their part would be likely to go so far in the way of denationalizing the Church as any proposal which would have the effect of creating an uneasy feeling in the minds of Churchmen and driving them to make their gifts of land for the purpose of establishing graveyards to trustees in order that they might be sure that their wishes would be carried out. The result, therefore, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman had prophesied would, in all probability, be much more readily brought about by the action of the Government than that of those hon. Members by whom the Amendment was supported. The proposal of the Government had a very ugly resemblance to one giving a right to a man to enter upon his neighbour's property while he locked up his own.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

said, he was in favour of the Bill and desired that it should be passed into law; but he was also in favour of the Amendment, without which he thought the Bill would be incomplete, and would work unjustly. His right hon. and learned Friend who had charge of the Bill was, he might add, in his opinion, somewhat unfortunate in his allusion to the Irish Church Acts, for in the Bill, as it left the House of Commons, it was provided that all Amendments made by private persons after a certain date were not to be interfered with, and it was only in the House of Lords, when the details of the measure were being discussed, that that provision dis- appeared. He might also point out that when the Oxford and Cambridge Bill was before the House of Commons, he himself had prepared and submitted to the House a proposal based on the same principle as that to which he had referred in the Irish Church Bill, with the object of securing that any property which might have been given for the benefit of the Church of England in the Universities should still be preserved to the Church. In the view which he took upon that point, he was happy to say he had had the advantage of being supported by the present Lord Chancellor.

MR. FINIGAN

expressed his regret that any hon. Member on the Liberal side of the House should have given credit to "another place" for having exhibited anything like wisdom in reference to the Bill under discussion. "Another place" ought, he thought, never to have been taken into account in any matter in which the interests of the public at large were concerned. As to the Amendment, he looked upon it as one which no true Liberal could accept. He should be sorry to see those of the people of England who did not, either in spirit or body, in any degree belong to the Church of England, rendered answerable to the operation of a proposal of the kind in a measure which, in his opinion, was not, as it stood, sufficiently Radical in its provisions. He hoped, therefore, that hon. Members opposite would go into the Division Lobby against the Amendment; and as he had always been a supporter of the Bill he should be happy to go with them into the same Lobby. It was argued by those who were in favour of the Amendment that the Bill, in its present shape, interfered with private rights. The justice of that argument he denied; but, in any case, private rights ought not to be allowed to interfere with public policy, and it was, he maintained, in accordance with public policy that the graveyards of the country should be thrown open to all persons to whatever class or denomination they might belong. He had heard the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge quote the old adage"Summum jus summa injuria," in which he concurred, and he trusted hon. Members would consider the principles with which they had now to deal in that sense. He should be very sorry that any Amendment which had been made in the Bill by "another place" should receive the sanction of the Committee without being duly weighed, The Amendments of "another place" were usually tainted with the principle which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had so well illustrated in the pithy story which he had just told as to that "Sir John," whose other name he did not mention, and who was accustomed, it appeared, to associate all his principles with his private interests. He had, he must say, always found that Amendments and propositions coming from "another place" were based upon private interest and private policy. [Mr. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: Divide, divide!] If he was not mistaken, he had heard the ex-Judge Advocate General calling upon him to divide; and he might, perhaps, inform him that he intended to divide, if necessary, the whole of the evening—although he should be sorry to find himself in the same Lobby with the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who, acting on what he must characterize as a want of principle, threw over principle in the interests of mere Party, and because of a thorough absence of any feeling of interest in the English people whom he so much professed to love, but in hostility to whom he always took care to act.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

said, he should not have thought of asking the hon. Member to divide, because then there would be two of him.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment," put, and negatived.

Question put, "That the words 'within the last fifty years, unless with the assent of the donor,' be there inserted."

The Committee divided: — Ayes 67; Noes 156: Majority 89.—(Div. List, No. 150.)

MR. WILBRAHAM EGERTON

said, that the Committee in remedying one grievance ought to take care that it did not create a great many others. A very strong feeling prevailed among many donors of churchyards in recent times, which had been vested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in the belief that they had been given for ecclesiastical purposes for ever, that they would not have given them had they not felt satisfied that they would not have been diverted to other than Church purposes. A very hard case had been brought under his notice which he bad been requested to lay before the House. The case was that of a clergyman who had been obliged to provide a burial-ground in his parish out of funds raised by himself. The only way in which he could raise the necessary money was by insuring his life for something like £1,000, and he was now paying a premium of about £100 a-year on the amount insured. Now, it was very hard, he (Mr. Wilbraham Egerton) thought, that a man so situated should not be able to prevent the Act being put in operation in his case; and, entertaining that opinion, he begged to move the insertion in the clause of the words "during the last 30 years," so as to provide against its application to burial-grounds given within that period of time.

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN

said, he could not accept the Amendment, and pointed out that all the arguments and objections which applied to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour), which had just been rejected by the Committee, applied to the Amendment now before it.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

hoped his hon. Friend (Mr. Wilbraham Egerton) would not think it necessary to go to a division on his Amendment.

MR. WILBRAHAM EGERTON

said, he thought it his duty to bring the case which he had mentioned under the notice of the Committee; but, having done so, he would not press his Amendment.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, that if churchyards which were given on the faith of Parliament, which had hitherto respected the gifts of donors—

SIR CHARLES REED

asked what the Question was before the Committee?

THE CHAIRMAN

The Question is, "Is it your pleasure that this Amendment be withdrawn."

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, he did not quite understand why the hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Charles Reed) should have thought fit to interrupt him. He was about to state to the Committee, having been the donor of two churchyards, and additions to ancient churchyards, and having contemplated making a third gift of the same kind, that Par- liament was, in his opinion, departing from all precedent in not allowing such gifts to be respected and permitted to take effect, at all events, during the lifetime of the donors. Parliament had provided against any change in the appropriation of gifts for Church purposes within 50 years when it appointed the Church Commissioners, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and the Endowed School Commissions. In the Act, too, for the abolition of the Established Church of Ireland, the rule was laid down that for a period of 50 years no change should be made in the appropriation of gifts for Church purposes. In short, there was no precedent for the course which was now proposed by the Government, until the present Bill had been sent down to that House from the House of Lords. The matter was rather a grave one, for bow could the laity of the Church of England, he would ask, be expected to contribute, as they had hitherto done, properly for purposes of that character, if Parliament established the Rule that their gifts were not to be respected? But there were Acts providing that the gifts made by Dissenters should be respected. Under the operation of the Act of 1844, all Roman Catholic property was respected—even when the gift was illegal—without any limit of time being fixed after the expiration of which it should not be held sacred from interference. The principle was now sought to be established for the first time of appropriating gifts made by the living to purposes other than those for which they were made. Hitherto the Church of England had not been considered as being merely a public Establishment, and the property of the Church had been respected by Parliament as the property of the nation. The principle which had hitherto prevailed was now about to be departed from in the case of living men. He might as well, therefore, have sold the pieces of land to which he had referred, and paid the proceeds of the sale into the Treasury, for the Bill, in its present form, would convert those gifts to purposes other than those for which they were given. He would remind the Committee of the extreme hardship which would be thus inflicted on members of the Church of England as members of a religious denomination, and of the dangerous nature of the precedent which they were asked to create. Hon. Members opposite might depend upon it that the new principle would not stop with the present Bill. The step about to be taken was one in the direction of the invasion of all property. It appeared to him that the Representatives of other denominations seemed to think it a very good joke to rob the Church, and their conduct in that respect would be a lesson to him not to be so scrupulous as he otherwise might be when the opportunity offered for returning the compliment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. S. LEIGHTON

then moved to add to the end of the clause the following words:— The minister or person or persons in charge of any Nonconformist burial ground, which is exempt from contribution to the rates, shall permit the performance, according to the wish of the persons responsible for the burial, of any funeral services in the burial ground under his or their charge, subject to similar conditions as are required in respect to churchyards. The principle of the Amendment was, he said, to a certain extent acknowledged and adopted in the Bill itself, inasmuch as the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Judge Advocate General had proposed and carried an Amendment providing that the same rules should govern consecrated and unconsecrated grounds in cemeteries with regard to the performance of the rites of burial. He (Mr. S. Leighton) wished to proceed one step further, and to make it compulsory on a Nonconformist minister, in the case of such burial-grounds as those to which his Amendment related, to permit the performance, under the same conditions as were required in the case of churchyards, of Funeral Services in accordance with the wishes of the persons responsible for the burial. Many Nonconformist burial-grounds were, he might point out to the Committee, not altogether private property, but quasi-public property, and they were, on that ground, exempted from the payment of rates. A dead body, as every hon. Member was aware, belonged to nobody; and it was, therefore, under the protection of the public. When it was put in the ground, that ground was taken from common use, and came under the control, if consecrated, of the Bishop, and if not, of the Secretary of State for the Home Department; but the ground could not be built upon, or the bodies interred there interfered with, without the order and licence of the Home Secretary. He might give another instance to show that those burial-grounds were quasi- public property. They came within the control of the Charity Commissioners; a great many of them were vested in the Secretary to the Charity Commissioners, a public officer endowed with a right of perpetual possession, and thus they paid no succession duty. The argument that those burial-grounds were purely private property, therefore, he contended, fell to the ground; and Government ought, he thought, to deal with the matter with the utmost impartiality, and ought to bring their minds to the consideration of it, not as Churchmen or Nonconformists, but as men of business dealing with property, and ought to refrain from making an attack on one class of property which they did not make upon another class similarly situated. There were circumstances in which members of the Established Church were necessarily buried in Nonconformist burial grounds; and without such a clause as that which he proposed the very grievance might be inflicted which the Bill was intended to remedy. The state of things which had induced him to bring forward the clause existed to a much larger extent than his right hon. and learned Friend who had charge of the Bill might suppose; and he hoped he would accept a proposal which would remove all difficulty and inconvenience in the matter. It was said it was a step towards the Disestablishment of the Church; but it was purely a matter of justice, and it would affect unfairly neither Churchmen nor Nonconformists; while a great number of Nonconformists were, he believed, perfectly willing to agree to the proposal.

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN

said, he could not possibly accept the Amendment of his hon. Friend, which was one which entirely ignored the difference which existed between private and public property, or what his hon. Friend called quasi-public property—the meaning of which term, as used in the present instance, he confessed he was at a loss to understand. As regarded the cemeteries and churchyards, with which the Bill dealt, they were places in which, as a matter of right, every person filling a certain status had a right to be buried; but in the other grounds referred to the right did not depend upon such status. They were vested in trustees as private persons, for the purpose of allowing certain persons to be interred therein; they were, generally speaking, exceedingly small, and if the inhabitants of the entire parish were entitled to claim to be buried in one of them it would, he believed, be filled up in two or three weeks. Occasionally, in fitting circumstances, they were allowed to be used by Churchmen with their own Service; and he knew, from his own experience, that there was not the slightest difficulty made in those cases as to the use of that Service.

MR. J. G. HUBBARD

said, that churchyards had been spoken of as Church property, in contradistinction to national property, but he made no such distinction. Church property was national property; but for religious purposes. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman had very truly said, 40 years ago nobody would have thought of raising the question as to the subsequent appropriation by legislation of any gifts then made for Church purposes; yet, unfortunately, the question had arisen. The argument had been treated by the highest legal authority in "another place," who said that if the donors of Church lands had intended that this property should not be subject to the disposition of Parliament, they would have put the property into the hands of trustees. Surely this was an ungenerous taunt. Church benefactors had been confiding their benefactions to private trustees, because they confided in public justice. He, for one, would have nothing to do with trustees; he had still faith in the Church of England; he trusted it would remain part of the Constitution of the Realm; and he had faith in the ultimate justice and wisdom of Parliament, although in this measure he did not think that much consideration had been shown to the clergy and laity of the Church of England. He must decline, however, to give his support to the Amendment. Churchmen might be pained by strange ceremonials in their own churchyards; but they had no pretence for intruding into the burying-grounds of Nonconformists. It was perfectly notorious that Nonconformists had frequently preferred burial in consecrated churchyards rather than in private and unconsecrated burying-grounds, because churchyards were secured against disturbance. This very spring two remarkable statements appeared in the same paper. An application was made to the Chancellor of the Diocese of London for an order to remove the graves in part of a churchyard required for some essential public improvement. The faculty was granted, together with a stipulation that any human remains disturbed in the alteration should be carefully and reverently replaced in a part of the same churchyard. On the same day, one Nathan Jacobson was charged and convicted before the magistrate at Marlborough Street with the offence of having indecently removed human remains from the burial - ground of Whitfield's Tabernacle, Tottenham Court Road. It was proved in evidence that a florist named Underwood had purchased several loads of the mould for potting plants, and when he came to use it found that it contained various human bones. The inspector of nuisances deposed to having seen carts filled with this mould, and 18 or 20 skulls dug up from a depth of 8 feet. No part of the ground was free from human remains, 19,758 bodies having been buried in it between 1756 and 1823. By all who entertained reverence for the dead some advantage must be allowed to the custom of consecrating churchyards, and to the security which the law had consequently assigned to them.

Amendment negatived.

On Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill?"

MR. WARTON

suggested that the wording of the clause was of a somewhat cumbersome character, and seemed to be the work of the same draftsman who framed the Employers' Liability Bill. In reading the clause it was a strain upon the mind to get at the right idea.

Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

Clause 2 (Paupers).

MR. WARTON

said, under this clause it was provided that notices should be given in the case of paupers to the rector, the master of the workhouse, or the Guardians. The first part was in accordance with Clause 1, and to this there was a Schedule giving the form of notice; but this did not contain the form of notice to the master of the workhouse or the Guardians.

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

thought it would be desirable to do away with the double notice. A notice to the master of the workhouse would be more useful and more direct.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3 (Time of burial to be stated, subject to variation).

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN

moved, in page 2, line 34, to leave out "receiving," and insert "giving or leaving."

Amendment agreed to.

MR. BRADLAUGH

, on behalf of the hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Caine), moved an Amendment, in page 2, line 37, to leave out "or" to "following," in line 39. The object of this Amendment was to remedy a real grievance which would be created if the Bill passed with the clause in its present form. He would feel it his duty, unless the Government thought right to accept it, to take the sense of the Committee upon the Amendment. The effect would be to allow poor people to be buried on Sunday, which, if the clause were allowed to stand as it was, could not be done except by consent of the rector, vicar, or incumbent. To attend a funeral on a week-day meant the loss of a day's wages to all wage-earners attending the funerals of poor people as mourners; and so the Bill would give the clergyman, supposing he should happen to have reason for so dealing with Nonconformists, the power of putting a pecuniary penalty on that class from which Churchmen would be exempt. It was no new principle for very many funerals to take place in parish churchyards now upon the Sunday. The large mass of the working classes were compelled to select Sunday by the necessities of their existence. On their behalf he made this appeal. If there was any impropriety in Sunday funerals, then they should be prohibited altogether on that day. But there was no question of any sort of affront to the feelings of religious people, because a large number of persons were now buried on Sundays, and the funeral was treated as a religious service. There could be no objection on the ground of interference with Divine Service, because the words of the Bill provided that the day and hour of the burial should be fixed by arrangement between the clergyman and the person in control of the funeral. If the clause remained as it now stood, it would raise an extremely irritating grievance. He hoped the Government would accept the Amendment, and if they would not, he would leave it to the generous instincts of the Liberal Party; and he hoped the Amendment had not suffered by being moved by himself.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 37, to leave out from the word "or" to the word "following," in line 39,both inclusive.—(Mr. Bradlaugh.)

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN

was sorry he could not accept the Amendment; but he had no reason to complain of the manner in which it had been brought forward. It seemed to misapprehend the general scope of the Bill. It was applicable to parish churchyards, and it was to relieve Dissenters who lived in rural districts, and allow them to be buried in the parish churchyards if they wished. But he would like to know how many Dissenters were buried, or were likely to be buried, in parish churchyards on Sunday? He lived in a county where, probably, there were more Dissenters than in any other county in England and Wales; and he could say that, from his earliest childhood, he never saw any such funerals. He had received remonstrances from Nonconformists, and not from clergymen alone, against this Amendment; and he did not feel it his duty to accept it.

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

was sorry the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not accept the Amendment. He had given no reason for declining it beyond stating his opinion that it would not be very acceptable in Wales. But it should be remembered this legislation was for the whole of England, and not for Wales, or the rural districts alone. It was quite true that the Bill incidentally alluded to populous towns; but it did affect those towns, and he could tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman of places where there were as many as 60 funerals on a Sunday in towns. He must decline to accept the proposition that the Bill was intended for Wales or for the rural districts. The clause would create a great grievance in populous towns, such as London, Manchester, and Birmingham, where they got through interments by reading the Service over some 20 at a time. It would be a great hardship to take away from Dissenters the privilege of Sunday burial, while it was allowed to all Churchmen; withholding from 8,000,000 Dissenters that which 17,000,000 Churchmen possessed. It would not be an Act giving to all parishioners the same right of interment while this clause stood thus. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Brinton) had an Amendment on the Paper to the same effect as the one before the Committee. He was unable to attend and had asked him to move it in his absence, and this he would have done had not the hon. Member proposed his. The Act which the late Government passed for Ireland provided that the only exception to burials was that they should not take place during the time of Divine Service in the Church. That was now the law for Ireland, and hon. Members could see how satisfactorily it worked in what was the Established Church. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Kidderminster was substantially in the same direction. He would introduce at the end of the clause, after the words "Christmas Day," the words "except during the hours of Divine Service," instead of the words in the Bill, "except by the consent of the person receiving such notice." If this Amendment were accepted, the future law of England would be the same as for Ireland, justice would be done to the Nonconformists, and no harm to the Church.

THE CHAIRMAN

I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman desires to refer to the Amendment only to say it is the same in principle as the one before the Committee.

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

said, he was discussing the Amendment which had been moved, and only alluded to that of the hon. Member for Kidderminster as substantially the same. He believed it was said that clergymen objected to the burial of Nonconformists on Sundays. But he could not understand why that should be so. It was essentially a religious Service, a Service of prayer and praise to the Divine Being; and why clergymen should object to a Service on Sunday which they themselves conducted on Sunday he was at a loss to understand. He hoped the Committee would accept the Amendment.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

said, he was glad the Government were going to resist the Amendment, and he hoped they would adhere to that determination. The hon. Member who introduced this Amendment treated it as a matter of convenience for populous places. But the Bill was not intended for such places, but for rural districts, because towns had their burying-grounds and cemeteries for Dissenters; and, except for the rural parishes, he doubted if the Bill would have been introduced at all. So far as he had experience of the rural districts, he would venture to say that, as a matter of convenience, it would not only be well not to adopt the Amendment, but it would be well that no one whatever should have the right of burial on Sundays. He had constantly heard clergymen complain of the addition to their Sunday work by the desire among some of their parishioners to have funerals conducted on that day. The point would not be met by the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon), that the words "during the hours of Divine Service" be inserted. Services were held on frequent occasions, and it was manifestly undesirable to have a clergyman entering or leaving his church with his congregation when the minister of another denomination was entering the churchyard for another purpose and Service. Such chances of collision should be avoided.

MR. W. DAVIES

said, ho represented a county where funerals, to a large extent, were conducted on Sundays, and it never had been found that there was any interference with the Services held in the church. If the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon) then were adopted, and it was only provided that funerals should not take place during the hours of Divine Service, it would be consonant with the wishes of South Wales generally. The right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Osborne Morgan) spoke only of South Wales; but, certainly, in Pembroke a large number of funerals did take place on Sundays.

MR. WOODALL

thought the proposal a just one, and could not agree in the fairness of making the concession in favour of the Established Church, and withholding it from members of the Nonconformist Bodies.

MR. DICK-PEDDIE

said, he thought this question had been considered too much by hon. Members opposite as it affected the convenience and interests of the clergy. That, he thought, was not the way in which to look at it. The people were not made for the clergymen, but the clergymen for the people, and the convenience of clergymen should be a wholly subordinate consideration to what was for the convenience of the public at large. There could be no doubt that in a large part of the country the practice of burial on Sunday was common, and any prohibition of it would be felt as a great grievance. He could not agree with the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. Woodall) that the objection to the prevention of funerals on Sunday would be done away with, if it were made applicable to Churchmen as well as Dissenters. Both by Churchmen and Dissenters it would be felt as a great hardship. Scotland was not so far removed from England as that the habits and feelings of the people should be very different; and he could state that in Scotland Sunday burials were common not only in large towns but in rural districts; and he might mention that when, in the City of Edinburgh, some 30 years ago, it was resolved to close the churchyards on Sundays, so greatly was that measure felt to be a hardship to the working classes, that Companies were actually formed to provide cemeteries in which Sunday burials might take place. He hoped that if Her Majesty's Government would not agree to accept this Amendment that the hon. Member who had moved it would take the sense of the Committee upon it.

MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD

said, it would be felt as an intolerable grievance that burials would not be allowed on Sundays. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) said he was acquainted with country parishes —well, so was he. Services, it was said, were increasing on Sundays. So they were on week days. If the only reason for preserving the words of the Bill was that Services were conducted in the church on Sundays, the same reason would also apply, in a great many instances, to week days. He would be sorry if the Amendment were not adopted.

MR. MORGAN LLOYD

agreed with the intention of the Government not to accept the Amendment. He concurred with much that had been said by the hon. Member for Pembrokeshire (Mr. W. Davies), and was quite ready to admit that there were exceptions to the general rule in that county. But, speaking generally, his experience was that Sunday burials were almost unknown in Wales. He thought the Committee were hardly aware of what was proposed to be done by the Bill as it stood. There was no prohibition against Sunday burial. All that was done was to give the clergyman a veto upon any proposed burial on Sunday, Christmas Day, or Good Friday, if he thought fit to do so. There would be no distinction between Churchmen and Nonconformists. In parishes where it had been the practice to bury on Sunday before the Act, the incumbent would probably give his consent; but he might, with reason, refuse his consent to the introduction of the practice where it did not exist before.

MR. ILLINGWORTH

assured the right hon. and learned Gentleman who had charge of the Bill that if he did not accept the Amendment the measure would be much less acceptable to the people than he wished it to be. Instead of going upon the ground of equal right of burial, the Bill seemed to be based on that of a favour extended to Dissenters. He declined, in the discussion of a Bill of this character, which was applicable to England and Wales, to limit his view of the case to the experience of the right hon. and learned Gentleman in the district with which he happened to be acquainted. But, even if it was the case that nobody desired to have interments on Sunday, then there would be no difficulty, because the question would not arise; whilst, on the other hand, if it was what the people wanted, if Sunday was the most convenient day, then he would ask what answer would it be to those people to say that it was urged in the House by the right hon. and learned Gentleman that in another part of Wales another custom prevailed? But the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down said the Committee had failed to see the proposal of the Bill. He said there was no actual prohibition against Sunday burials, but all that was required was the consent of the clergyman. To this Dissenters had to say that they did not want their rights to be doled out to them at the will of any clergyman. It might be that the clergyman had himself officiated at the funeral of a Churchman on Sunday, while, on the same day, he had refused the same privilege to a Dissenter. He would emphasize the great practical importance of the proposal of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh). Funerals, as they took place in this country amongst the working classes, were, unfortunately, a great source of expense. He had known poor families burdened with debt for years in order that they might carry out a funeral in a decent and orderly manner, and get those Services performed which they considered necessary. Why should a funeral be more of a burden than necessary? There was no Service so solemn in its character as that over the dead, and no ceremony was more appropriate than that attending a funeral. So far from anyone setting up a Pharisaical opinion in the House, they ought to press upon the Government the desirability of increasing, rather than diminishing, the privileges of the poor on this important matter.

MR. JOHN BRIGHT

I am sorry the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Hling-worth) has felt it necessary to speak with such warmth on this question, as though it were intended to be, in any degree, a mode of expressing the inferiority of Nonconformists in respect to the question of burials. I think there is the greatest possible difference of opinion in the House with regard to the propriety—at least, I do not say the propriety, but the convenience—of burials on Sundays. An hon. Member told me the other day that in the large town he represents there had been meetings and conferences of the clergy and the Nonconformist ministers, with the view of discouraging the frequency of funerals on Sundays, partly on the ground that amongst the clergy and ministers they find—as I think anybody who attends the Established Church or Nonconformist chapels will find — that the work of the clergy and ministers on those days is quite sufficient, and that the burden of having to perform the Funeral Service besides is sometimes excessive and hardly tolerable. Well, another reason given was this—that when a body of mourners spend the whole day at a funeral—when they neither go to their work, or go home—sometimes they ob- serve the habit of partaking of what is called "some refreshment," after the funeral on the Sunday, when they have so much leisure time; and this has led men into temptation, when they have taken more than is good for them. Well, there is another question which appears to me as important on this matter, and this, I believe, is the real foundation of the clause we are discussing. The hon. Member for Bradford views this matter differently from myself. I know this Bill is offensive to a very large number of the clergy of the Established Church. A great many of them think that this new system is one which they not only never had hoped for, but one which, when it had been proposed, they always dreaded. When the Nonconformist minister, and bodies of mourners, come to the Established Church on Sundays, and, of course, when the congregations of the Established Church are themselves there—I do not say at the same time, but it is the day on which they are there for two or three periods of time—it seems to me they would be more likely to feel more acutely the intrusion forced upon them than they would if funerals took place on other days in the week. I admit the arguments in favour of the clause; but it is not equal. It gives an advantage to those who now bury with the Church Service in the Church graveyards of three days in the year over those who bury with Nonconformist ceremonies. [An hon. MEMBER: Four days.] The Sun-day, Good Friday, and Christmas Day. On these days the Nonconformist cannot bury in the churchyards with Nonconformist ceremonies, except by the consent of the clergy. That is a concession which the Committee may make, and which the Nonconformists may consent to if they like. For my own share, I have no objection to see the Committee decide either one way or the other. The thing is a matter of conciliation; and in a Bill of this kind, which meets with— necessarily and inevitably—so much opposition throughout the country on the part of the clergy and their surroundings, I think the Committee would act wisely in taking a course of conciliation, and not rejecting this clause. I thought it right to make this statement, because I have reason to believe that this is the feeling which has prompted the insertion of these words, and I leave it to the Committee to decide whether they are willing, in a matter of this nature, to agree to that which, I think, will, in some degree, soften the blow which the clergy of the Church of England feel, or believe, this Bill will inflict upon them. Therefore, I think the Nonconformists must, in accordance with the sympathy they have, I hope, not only for their own people and their own ministers, but also for the clergy of the Church of England in many circumstances—I think they might, without doing themselves any harm, consent to it. I hope the Committee will observe that I am not making an argument in its favour because it is strictly equal, or strictly just, or that the Nonconformists may not demand something different; but, as far as I am concerned, I am anxious that the Bill should pass, and anxious that it should be received with as much good feeling as possible throughout the country. I have no objection to give my vote in favour of the words.

MR. FINIGAN

said, he had seldom listened to more able special pleading than had now fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. He was rather afraid that this conscientiousness sprang from Office rather than from the heart. ["Oh, oh!"] He should be sorry to make use of any rash statement with reference to the right hon. Gentleman; but he was afraid he had not studied this Amendment as it deserved to be studied. Supposing that these words were left in, one effect might follow; but he wished to point out to the Committee, if a Nonconformist wished to have a burial on a Sunday, or a Good Friday, or Christmas Day, and if he agreed to have the Church Service read over him, or rather over the person whom he wished to bury, he would find that the clergyman would not object to make a sacrifice of time in order to gain what he might consider a moral advantage. ["No, no!"] It was all very well to say "No, no!" but he was merely putting it as a possible circumstance. He felt quite sure that those Nonconformists and others who were really studying the interests of such a large section of the country would do wrong if they did not support the proposal the hon. Member for Northampton had made. Now, Sunday was a day which might, after all, be preserved holy, as much by working as by praying, because it had been laid down by a very great Divine that to do one's duty, or to work with a good intention, was as good as what was termed "praying." Working men were already heavily taked, and they should not have imposed on them another in addition to the one they already suffered under. Sunday was the only day the working man had when he could give his time, either to this religious Service, or to any other Service, without being put to great expense. 'He considered that when they looked at the cost of funerals throughout the country, through a very wrong principle being prevalent, they really ought to support the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Northampton, because it was based on the economy which it should be the first principle of a Liberal Government to support. He would also point out to them that they were breaking down a very old Christian custom. Sunday was not only a holiday, but it was a Christian holiday; and if funerals were permitted on that day, they would observe some of the sanctity, some of the sacredness of character, which should surround every action of a man's life, and which also should be associated with his departure from this life, whether he were Christian or otherwise. He therefore hoped, on these grounds, that the Amendment would be agreed to. He would say, further, that in Ireland, in all village districts, and in all small towns, that Sunday was a day devoted to all funerals, and both Roman Catholics members of the Episcopal Church and Nonconformists all agreed to have the different Services performed on that day without one or other taking offence at it. If the people belonging to the Established Church were so thin-skinned that they could not see a Burial Service performed over the body of a fellow-Christian on Sunday without considering themselves aggrieved,he thought their Christianity was not of a very deep or high character. He should be compelled, from a conscientious ground, to support the proposal of the hon. Member for Northampton; and he regretted very much to see a Liberal Government, and he regretted very much more to see the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, departing, as he thought, from a broad Radical principle.

SIR EARDLEY WILMOT

said, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth) had appealed to that—the Conservative—side of the House to make some observations with regard to the proposal before the Committee. His right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—if he would allow him to call him his Friend —had referred in his speech to the clergy of the Church of England. For three months he (Sir Eardley Wilmot) had been in constant communication with these clergymen, not only in his own county, but in all parts of the country. Only a day or two ago he had presented a Petition from a large number of clergymen in Warwickshire against this Bill. He had himself no sympathy at all with the measure, and had voted against it; but, on the present occasion, he certainly considered it was his duty to vote in favour of the Amendment proposed. He did not think it at all advisable that an invidious and objectionable distinction should be made between the privilege given to members of the Church of England—of which he had always been a staunch member—and gentlemen of the Nonconformist persuasion who sought the same privilege. In the early part of his life he had lived in a large rural parish, in which, on many occasions, it was the custom of the inhabitants to have their funerals on a Sunday. During the whole of that period he had never heard any objection whatever on the ground of increased labour thrown on the clergy of the parish; and, so far from interfering with the solemnity of the day, he had always thought that funerals on the Sunday added to it. The character of the ceremony itself was thereby rendered more sacred and impressive. For those reasons he should support the Amendment.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, he did not think the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster would regret very much if he found himself in the minority, because it seemed to him that the position of the right hon. Gentleman was contrary to his well-known principle—the acceptance of an arrangement whereby a restriction was placed on the Members of one religious community in order that the tastes of another religious community should be consulted. For his own part, so far as he could gather from Members sitting on that side of the House, the Dissenters considered this to be a humiliation. They did deserve to have the right of burying on Sundays; but, for his own part, whether they desired it or not, so long as there was one single Dissenter who was in favour of it, and so long as the Members of the Church of England were allowed to be buried on the Sunday, he would vote in favour of the proposal before the Committee, because he was in favour of religious equality, not only above, but below the sod.

MR. BRIGGS

said, he did not wish to stand between the Committee and a division for a moment. He only desired to point out that in the Burials Bill introduced by the late Government in the House of Lords there was no restriction such as this contained in the present measure. Dissenters might have been buried under that Bill on any day in the week they desired.

MR. RODWELL

said, that, though the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster did not pronounce any very strong opinion on the merits of this Amendment, there were some words that fell from him, and some reasons given, that were well worthy of the consideration of the Committee. He (Mr. Rodwell) looked at the matter very much from the same point of view as the right hon. Gentleman, as a compromise. Unlike the hon. Member for South Warwickshire (Sir Eardley Wilmot), he had not voted against the Bill, because he wished to see the matter settled. He did not think it would be enforcing on the clergy of the Church of England anything to which they should object, although many smarted under it, looking upon the measure as an infringement of their rights and privileges. He was sorry there should be such a feeling; but there was no use of disguising it. He trusted, however, when the Bill passed that the clergy would not show hostility. The best and wisest course the Legislature could adopt would be to give as little opportunity as they could for the continuance of ill-feeling or irritation on either side. Nothing could be more calculated to provoke such feelings than a possible collision. He did not mean conflict, but the mere meeting of these two Bodies, the members of the Church of England and the Nonconformists on the Sunday in the churchyard, at all events for the present. He, therefore, asked the Committee to consider the advice of the right hon. Gen- tleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who, for the sake of peace and order, had given the best reason that could be offered why the clause should remain as it stood. He did not conscientiously believe that when this measure was passed many clergymen, if any, would be found who, under reasonable circumstances, would withhold their con-sent for Dissenters' funerals to take place on the Sunday. He, like the hon. Member for South Warwickshire, had been in correspondence with many clergymen on the subject of this Bill, not merely with regard to the point under discussion, but as to the principle of the Bill; and he should vote for the clause as it stood, for reasons which had been given, far better than he could give them, by the right hon. Gentleman opposite.

MR. WIGGIN

, as a member of the Church of England, could not think so badly of his fellow Churchmen as to believe they would be so uncharitable as to desire to place the Nonconformists in a worse position on this matter than they were in themselves. If the funerals were fixed so that they would not occur during the time the members of the Established Church were attending their own services, in 99 cases out of 100 there would be no objection to Nonconformists burying on Sundays.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: —Ayes 103, Noes 100: Majority 3. — (Div. List, No. 151.)

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4 (Burial to take place accordingly) agreed to.

Clause 5 (Regulations and fees).

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

said, he had an Amendment on the Paper to omit part of the clause. The object of his Amendment was to obviate the additional expense that persons burying their friends in the graveyards would be put to if the clause were passed as it stood. It was known to many hon. Members that the clergy of the parish churches in some parts of the country exacted very high fees for the interment of their parishioners, and the same thing would occur in the parish cemeteries which had been bought by the rate- payers. Those cemeteries were paid for by Nonconformists as well as Churchmen; and he was sure that if they had to pay the high fees which were imposed by the clergymen of the Church of England they would be very much dissatisfied. Taking the parish of Hackney as an example, where for a first-class double grave £16 was paid at present, £27 would have to be paid in future. For a single grave £12 was now paid; but it would in future cost £18. If, in addition to the grave, the relatives or friends wished for a monument, whereas they now paid £7 to the Burial Board, in future they would have to pay £7 15s. In regard to the burial of children, they now had to pay 7s.; but in future they would have to pay 15s. He, therefore, begged to move, in page 3, line 16, to leave out from "and" inclusive, to the end of the clause.

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN

said, he hoped his hon. and gallant Friend would not press his Amendment, which went entirely beyond the whole scope of the Bill. His hon. and gallant Friend would persist in looking at the Bill as if it was a Bill dealing with the whole question of cemetery law. There was a great difference between the church itself and the churchyards. The churchyard was vested in the clergymen, and they did not interfere, or propose to interfere, with the law which made the churchyard the freehold of the clergyman; and, as a matter of course, they did not propose to interfere in the question of fees. The fees, however, were very small. He believed they averaged from 6s. to 7s. 6d.; and, in most cases, he understood that the clergyman did not pocket the fees at all, but handed them over to the sexton. By that Bill they did not give the clergyman one single farthing for keeping up the churchyards; but, under the circumstances, it was only fair to allow him to take the fees.

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

said, he wished to state what was the case in his own parish. The parish burial-ground consisted of 10 acres, of which the clergy had consecrated nine and a-quarter acres, leaving three quarters of an acre to the Nonconformists. That small portion was now nearly filled up, and would only last for about two months longer. If the Bill passed, the unconsecrated portion might last for 20 years; but Nonconformists would be obliged to be buried in the consecrated part, because the Burial Boards would not give them any other land. It was true that there was a large tract of land available for Nonconformists under that Bill; but it would only be available supposing they paid those high fees. Having entered his protest against the system, he would withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 6 (Burial may be with or without religious service).

MR. ILLINGWORTH

moved, in page 3, line 25, to leave out the word "and" and insert the words "or other." He said, that if he might venture to speak for the moment on behalf of the great body of the Nonconformists of the country, he would say that, in the main, they were grateful for the measure brought in by the Government; at least, for the Bill as it was introduced into the House of Lords. And, further, he might say that the feeling amongst Nonconformists in the country was that of gratitude and admiration for the right hon. and learned Gentleman who had charge of the Bill, for his devotion and his constancy in conducting it to its present stage. He thought, however, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had learned a good deal as the controversy had progressed. At one time it used to be treated in a very modest manner as purely a Dissenting grievance. When it was presented Session after Session in that form, it was always referred to as being either sentimental, or as having no existence at all. It was met by arguments as to sanitary considerations both in that House and in other places. Progress had since been made, and the Dissenters' grievances had been discussed whenever their claim to equal rights with their fellow-countrymen in the churchyards of the country was brought forward. Now, he was bound to say that there was one blot in the Bill, and it was to be found in Clause 6. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright), in some observations he made at an earlier stage of the measure, said that the object of the measure was to remove Dissenting grievances, and establish the equal rights of certain classes in the churchyards of the country. Now, what he (Mr. Illing-worth) wished to do was to make the Bill consistent with that avowal. What he contended was, that the Common Law of the country gave to all classes of Her Majesty's subjects equal rights in the churchyard, or, in other words, that no citizen should have his civil rights curtailed on account of his religious opinions; and, in order that that might be maintained, it was necessary that the alteration he suggested should be made in the clause. He believed he was not wrong in saying that if a canvass were made of the private opinion of every hon. Member sitting on his side of the House, almost all of them would be found agreeable to that change, and he would not venture to exclude even the Members of the Treasury Bench. If it were altogether within the hands of the Members of the Treasury Bench whether the Bill should finally pass in its present shape, or whether the Amendment he proposed should be introduced, he believed they would enthusiastically adopt the change. He had already said that for a removal of Dissenting grievances that Bill was very satisfactory; but, speaking again on behalf of the great body of the Nonconformists in the country, he was bound to add that they would regard the measure, with that qualification, as falling far short of the recognition of the principles for which they had always contended. They would, to quote an old illustration, be sorry to find themselves saved from shipwreck, if, at the same time, they were not able to save others who ran considerable risk of drowning. Now, he would go one step further, and say that the Nonconformists, to be consistent with themselves, must really support the Amendment. They denied anybody's right to go into the question of their religious opinions when they were asking for and asserting their civil rights in that country; and, if that were the case, that Bill must be modified so that no opinions or professions of any of Her Majesty's subjects should be inquired into when they were seeking to exercise a civil right which was so readily granted to the Nonconformists of the country. Now, the question had been asked, were there few or many who would be affected by the Amendment? In reply to that inquiry, he said he did not care to know whether there were few or many. In his own opinion, he would fain have it that there were none who required the modification of the Bill that he proposed. He would go further than that, however, and say that if his Amendment were carried it would not make the number larger, but smaller. At all events, there would not be that assertion of their rights on the part of those who had no religious belief if those rights were conceded by a majority of that House who mainly held religious opinions. He might say that what they would that others should do unto them they were called upon, even in legislating as Christians, to do to those who were their fellow-citizens. Now, let him ask who were opposing that Bill as it was now presented to Parliament? When he first had a seat in that House from 1869 to 1873, there was a strong opposition on the part of the laity of the Church of England to the carrying of a much more moderate measure than that. Now, they were glad to think that opposition was gradually dying down, and that it had not left the country clergy mainly to continue the opposition to that measure of justice. Those clergymen were represented in that House by four hon. and right hon. Gentlemen, who were headed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope). Now, he wanted to ask what was the ground of the opposition to that measure generally? He believed it was not to the introduction of those who, unfortunately, did not make any religious profession. It had been stated, in a very candid way, by the junior Member for Cambridge (Mr. Brand) to be the aversion of the clergy to the introduction of unauthorized persons to conduct these religious Services in the churchyards; and he believed, if they could get at the real sentiments of the clergy upon the matter, it would be found that the objection was not to his Amendment, but to the fact that the measure conferred upon every secular person equal right with the established clergyman to conduct his own Services. Now, on the previous occasion, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge had characterized his opposition by considerable levity of manner, and had drawn a fanciful picture as to the probable conduct of Dissenting ministers in the churchyards. It was, however, impossible that the right hon. Gentleman could have seriously attempted to pourtray the conduct of Dissenting ministers under such circumstances. But he only wished that when the right hon. Gentleman did import levity into the discussion of the subject he would confine his levity to his own section of the subject. Now, with regard to the objection of the clergy to have persons belonging to no Christian profession buried in their churchyards, he wished to say that they would be placed by Parliament in a false position, and it was not entirely their fault. They had been intrusted with what was called their freehold. They would have to be disabused of what they considered to be their rights in that respect. All classes of Her Majesty's subjects had a Common Law right in the churchyards; and what they were seeking to do was to alter Acts of Parliament and to make the Statute Law of the country just as broad as the Common Law right, so that there should be no question of whether Her Majesty's subjects had not only the right of burial, but also to the use of any Services which they might think fit. Now, let him, just for one moment, point out the position in which the clergy would be placed. That Bill left them absolutely unfettered freedom in the use of any Service they might please; and all that they were asked to do was to affirm that good taste and Christian feeling demanded that the same liberty should be extended to all classes of Her Majesty's subjects. The law would be strong enough to protect them, in as complete immunity in the conduct of their Services, as it had been in the past; but they must no longer believe that they had some vested rights in the churchyards of the country. Now, he had received a communication to which he would venture for one moment to refer. It had been sent to him by a stranger, and contained a form for a secular Service. He had read the Service all through, and he was bound to say that there was nothing in it at which he thought any Christian could reasonably take offence. Any Christian would say that it was only deficient in what ought to be deemed spiritual consolation; but, in other respects, there was nothing of a character to which any Christian man could take exception were any Service of the kind to be really Carried through. They might lament that there were men in that country who refused to have read over the remains of their friends the various Burial Services of the different denominations; but, at the same time, he asserted that there was no proof that had ever been afforded to the House whether at the funeral of what was called a Secularist anything had taken place by which the public of the country had felt itself aggrieved in any way; and he believed there was no danger whatever if the modification proposed were adopted that there would be any offence given or any occurrence to which the Christian denominations of the country could take any exception whatever. He would not venture to trespass longer on the attention of the Committee, except to appeal to them not for one moment to allow the belief that that alteration would not be altogether acceptable in "another place," to deter them from the assertion of a sound principle of legislation for which they were responsible in that House. It must not be forgotten that they, on that side of the House, claimed to be the Representatives of the people on that question. At any rate, they represented most of their countrymen. ["Oh, oh!"] He had observed that hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side were not in a position to speak for the masses of the people, as they were mostly the Representatives of the counties. He believed that an overwhelming majority of the people would be in favour of the Amendment he had proposed, because they had no narrow prejudices on that question; and, looking to the future when that measure should be carried and be in operation, he was satisfied that every Member of that House would feel great gratification that he had had the moral courage to support the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 25, to leave out the word "and," in order to insert the words "or other."— (Mr. Illingworth.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'and' stand part of the Clause."

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN

said, he would endeavour to avoid, if possible, the controversial questions raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth), the discussion of which would not much assist them. He was quite willing to admit the logical force of a good deal of what had been said by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Collings); but they must look at this matter as reasonable and practical men. He would ask, first of all, what was the number of men who would be excluded from the Bill as it now stood? Let them take the Jews. He spoke of them with very great respect; but he was sure nothing would induce his Jewish Friends to bury their dead in Christian burial-grounds. Every Jew at death was carried to the nearest Jewish cemetery. They might be put out of the reckoning. Then the Mahometan or Buddhist population of the rural parishes of England was surely not very numerous. There remained the Secularists, who were chiefly baptized persons; for men were not, as a rule, born Freethinkers. As the law stood at present, they were required to be buried with the Church Service; but, under this Act, they could be buried without any Service at all. And he believed that in 99 cases out of 100 they would prefer that mode of interment. The hon. Member for Bradford had said that the smallness of the number did not matter; he must have everything or nothing. That was not a very statesmanlike way of looking at a question. The settlement of a question did not consist in having one's own way. He had to tell the Committee plainly, if this Amendment was carried the Bill was gone, so that whoever voted for the Amendment voted against the Bill. The hon. Member had said that a number of clergymen were in favour of this clause. Of course, the staunchest opponents of the Bill had suddenly become converted to his Amendment. And why? Because they knew, if the Amendment was carried, the Bill was gone, and what they wanted was to throw out the Bill. Several letters from clergymen had been read. He, too, had received letters which showed how astonishingly those clergy who had opposed this Bill had become enamoured of the Secularists. A country clergyman had told him that the only honest man in the House was the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh); and the rest of them, Tories and Liberals alike, were nothing but a pack of humbugs. The hon. Member had said he did not care for the Bill as it stood; let them throw it out, and have a better Bill next year. ["Hear, hear !"] But did hon. Members who said "Hear, hear!" really mean what they said? Would they take upon themselves the responsibility of keeping open this unhappy question. If they were willing to take that responsibility, he certainly was not willing; and he had to ask the Committee, although he admitted the logical force of a good deal of what was said, to oppose the Amendment.

MR. H. RICHARD

I have purposely abstained from taking part in these discussions, because I am anxious the Bill should pass through Committee to-day; and I have often observed that nothing tends so much to retard the progress of such a measure as the undue loquacity of its own friends. I have, indeed, been sorely tempted more than once to get up while witnessing the curious incapacity of hon. Gentlemen opposite to understand the views of Nonconformists on this question. In spite of the explanations given for the last 10 years, there were to-day, as there has been on all former occasions, flagrant though, no doubt, quite unintentional, misrepresentations of what the real grievance is of which we complain. I shall not attempt to set hon. Gentlemen right again, for if I did they would, I am quite sure, repeat the same thing to-morrow morning. Besides which, I have been very well content to leave in the hands of Liberal Members of the Church of England, on the present occasion, the advocacy of the rights of Dissenters, which they have done with an ability and a generosity which call for our sincere thanks. But this particular Amendment is not so acceptable to the House as some others, and I am willing to bear my part in any obloquy or odium that may attach to its support. I support this Amendment because, in the first place, it is in entire harmony with the fundamental principle of the Bill. That principle, as explained by the Lord Chancellor himself, in the singularly able and lucid speech with which he introduced the Bill in "another place," was this—that all British subjects had a right of interment in the parish churchyards, and that such interment should not be hampered by ecclesiastical restrictions. But the clause which the Amendment is designed to remedy did fetter the right by a distinct ecclesiastical restriction. I support this Amendment, further, because it is in strict accord with the principle which, as Nonconformists, we have always avowed, that no man's religious or irreligious views ought to be taken into account in matters of civil right. And I do not wish to be exposed to the reproach of being content, after having acquired what we wanted ourselves, to leave others out in the cold. I should like for myself that all funerals should be Christian, as I should like that all men should be Christian; but we all know, and it is vain to disguise it, that there are a large number of persons in this country who are not Christians in fact nor in profession. These people die, and they must be buried; and in many parts of the country there is no place in which they can be buried except the parish churchyards. Then, how are they to be buried? At the present time a person who has been through life a notorious, avowed, and open unbeliever, who may have spent his life in reviling or villifying the Christian religion, when he comes to be buried, has read over him the beautiful Service of the Church of England, every line of which is pervaded by the fulness of Christian faith and hope. Around the grave there may be gathered the friends and followers of this unbeliever, listening with suppressed scorn, and, perhaps, open sneers to the Service that they are compelled thus to hear. Talk of profanity and desecration! To my feeling such a spectacle as that, such a ghastly mockery of religious Service, has in it more of profanity than the wildest utterances of unbelief. But I may be told that these people have the choice of silent burial. I do not understand how any Nonconformist could tolerate that argument for a moment. That is the thing that was offered to us in the Bill introduced by the late Government, and we rejected it with indignation as an insult. Were we sincere on that occasion? If so, how can we offer to other men that which we ourselves repelled as an insult? Then it is said that to admit into the churchyard persons of no belief would produce scenes of scandal and offence; but there is a provision in the Bill against any wanton outrage being inflicted by anything being said against the Christian religion, or the religious faith of any body of persons. But what proof have we that there would be any of those scandals? I cannot answer this objection better than in the words of a distinguished Prelate of the Church of England, the present Bishop of Oxford. He may have intended his remarks to apply to the different Bodies of Dissenters; but they are equally applicable in a wider sense. He says— But we are restrained in the matter of burial by fear of the irreverence and scandal which would occur. Such fears there are, no doubt; but against them is to be set the experience of the majority of Christian countries, whose cemeteries are, and long have been, open to interments at which the mourners have the comfort of using their own burial rite. Why should it be thought that we Englishmen arc less reverent, or more factious, than men of other countries, when we stand by an open grave? But we are told that to admit persons of this kind would hurt the feelings of the clergy and of many good people. I am as anxious as any man can be to avoid doing anything to hurt the feelings of the clergy or of good Churchmen; but good people cannot have everything in the way they wish. We cannot allow the feelings of good people to stand in the way of justice. If that were a valid argument, all progress and reform would have been long ago arrested in this country; for against every step taken in advance there were the feelings of the good people who objected. When the Dissenters were claiming to be admitted to Office, there was a large body of excellent people who declared that their feelings would be hurt; and when the Roman Catholics were admitted, there were millions of good Protestants whose feelings were hurt on that occasion; and so with the admission of the Jews. It is not because I am a Christian that I am entitled to set up my feelings as a bar to the enjoyment of civil rights by any class of my countrymen. I wish hon. Gentle-men opposite had more faith in the vitality of their own religion. It is not by the use of repressive laws that we can secure the triumph of Christianity, but by the employment of means more in harmony with its own character. It is by the use of persuasion and by convincing men of their error, if they are in error; and, so far as we are a Christian Legislature, the best way in which we can elevate the character and extend the influence of Christianity is to give more heed to the principles of that religion in our legislation and policy.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT

had not, on this Bill, said a single word. He had felt very strongly with respect to it, and had opposed similar measures up to this time in every way that he was able; but the times had altered, and they had found, contrary to what was said by the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Illing-worth), that the House of Lords had set them an example two years ago with regard to this measure, an example they were obliged to take into very grave consideration. He thought the Judge Advocate General could not for one moment say that any factious opposition had been given to this Bill from that side of the House. What they were anxious to do was, having got to this pass, that this Bill should become the law of the land. They thought that things had gone far enough, and he was absolutely surprised at the intolerance displayed by hon. Gentlemen sitting below the Gangway on the other side of the House. Those Gentlemen were not willing to consider the feelings of those who were making, and were prepared to make, very great concessions, so that this most important question might be settled. He would venture to point out to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Merthyr (Mr. Richard), who had talked so much about Christian charity, that in this world they must give and take a little, and that they could not get everything they wished. He emphatically denied one statement made by the hon. Member for Bradford, who said that county Members got up and made statements with regard to this Bill, not knowing the feelings of the great mass of the people of the country. He would venture to say, with regard to this particular point, if his constituents were polled to a man, they would all be in favour of some Christian ceremony in the churchyards. There would not be found one in a thousand who wished for anything but Christian Services. To say now, when they were anxious to settle this question, when they were prepared to admit Dissenters absolutely, and with equal rights, to the churchyards, that any kind of Service was to be permitted, was to say what was not in accordance with the views and wishes of the larger portion of the people of this country. His object was to have this question settled; and a grave and great responsibility would rest upon those Gentlemen who, because they wanted to get something not contained in the Bill, would oppose and throw it out, and very likely prevent a settlement of this question for many years to come. They had had enough of discussion on this question. If, in after time, a great grievance could be shown to exist, Parliament would be wise enough to remedy it; but, until that was shown, let them go upon the information they had. Let them pass this Bill with a Christian and orderly Service, and in doing so they would remove the doubts many had expressed as to the working of the Act. It was not their wish to do anything contrary to the views of the Nonconformists; but he was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Merthyr stand up for Services which were contrary to the faith they believed. Considering the Bill, as it stood, afforded the best settlement of the question, he would support the Government.

MR. SHIELD

said, he quite agreed with the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. H. Richard) that the Amendment was in harmony with the principle of the Bill. He agreed that the Amendment would make the Bill a more logical expression of the principle of the Bill. The Bill dealt with a civil right. It was required because the civil right was fettered by an ecclesiastical condition. The logical remedy, no doubt, was to free the right from any condition whatever. And if it were a political duty in dealing with a principle which you considered sound, invariably, and at all costs, to push that principle to its extreme limits, and insist on its application wherever it could be applied, he would be bound to follow his hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr into the Lobby. But he was going into the Lobby against him, though with great regret at their separation. His chief reason was that he desired that the Bill should become law. The Amendment would wreck the Bill in "another place." As the Bill stood, it was an adequate settlement of a bitter controversy. He believed that it would remove every grievance that was really felt. He knew that the best of them were only indifferent judges of other people's grievances. He greatly regretted that even the Freethinkers should be subjected to a grievance. But there was, at least, this difference between the existing Noncon- formist grievance and the contingent grievance, which the Bill would create for Freethinkers—that the Nonconformists had shown unmistakably that they bitterly felt the one, whereas the Freethinkers had given no such proof with regard to the other. The attitude of Free thought towards Christianity was not an attitude of hatred, or scorn, or even active distaste—it was an attitude of indifference, and not mocking or contemptuous indifference, but calm and philosophical indifference. He honestly believed that such privation of right as was involved in the words "Christian and orderly" would not cause one momentary pang or one transient feeling of bitterness in any human breast. For these reasons, he was not prepared to take the responsibility of imperilling the passing of the Bill, and he would vote with the Government against the Amendment.

MR. ASHTON DILKE

had no wish, at that period of the Session or evening, to detain the Committee very long; but this was such a very serious question that he did not think it would be fair or decent to pass it over at the speed with which questions were passed over at times. Of course, it was easy enough for the Government, at a time when they differed with the great bulk of their followers, with the contingent they received from the other side, to swamp the expression of opinion of those followers; but he had noticed the absolute unanimity of the Liberal Press throughout the Kingdom against them on the question of this Amendment, and even a certain number of Conservative papers —the fairer or more generous Conservative papers—had said, if this Bill was passed as it was then, it would be absolutely no settlement of the question whatever. They were told that this was a question of compromise, that they must compromise in order to pass the Bill. He was the last man to say that compromise was not a useful and necessary thing; but this compromise was a very strange one. It was not the compromise of the Freethinker and Nonconformist meeting together and saying they would take rather less than they imagined to be their right for a settlement of this kind. It was a compromise of Churchman and Nonconformist, the latter saying to the Churchman—"You give us everything we want, and we will help you to shut the gate in the face of the Freethinker." There was a great difference between that compromise and those carried out in a fair and honourable way. This was a question for the Nonconformists themselves, but not in the way they imagined. This was a question more subtle than that of civil and religious liberty which they had upheld. If the Bill passed in its present shape it would maintain a social stigma on certain people and certain classes, because of their religious belief. They would have a civil disability; they would have a Test Act. It was more than that. There wore many absolute laws which existed; but which, under our present system, were left aside as a dead letter, lie-enactments of the law, however, was a very different thing, and if they re-enacted this they placed a very large class of the community at a considerable disadvantage as compared with Nonconformists and Churchmen. They were told that there might be silent burial. That sounded, perhaps, very fair; but they remembered what was said by the Nonconformists when they were offered silent burial. It might be a question of sentiment, but Freethinkers had sentiment and feeling as well as other people; and on a question of this sort these sentiments were the most serious questions they had to consider. It had been said that it was to an infinitesimal number of people that this grievance would apply. He did not wish to argue from the one for the many, nor did he want to be egotistical; but this point came strongly home to himself. The Bill, as it stood, would prevent his being laid by the side of his father and his mother, and those whom he loved and respected in this life. This came home to him so strongly that he asked himself—How could he vote for the third reading of this Bill? Suppose the Free-thinking Party was a strong Party, and Nonconformists a feeble Party, what a grievance would it be to refuse these burial rites to the Nonconformists? It was with deep and grave reluctance he offered these words; but on a question of this kind it was extremely difficult to arrive at a settlement without giving examples to show that this, which was called a sentimental grievance, became a practical grievance and came home to many persons. For these reasons he gave example of how the Bill would work. There were hundreds of men in the Kingdom, whose names it was not necessary to mention, but men from whom England benefited most, names that would live and go down to posterity, great names in Science, which he would venture to say would be remembered with honour when the name of every man in that House was forgotten. To reach a higher, better standard of morality was the aim of these great men; and it would be a strong indictment to bring against the present by those of a century hence, that the England of the 19th century did not give to her great men that homage and reverence that showed they believed in them. So strong was the force of prejudice in favour of what was considered the proper and correct feeling of the day that these men, unless they could conceal those opinions, which from their books it was known they must hold, and which they themselves, therefore, were not ashamed of — unless they concealed their opinions they must go down to the grave under a sham, with a Service read over them as a mockery, or else without a word to commemorate them, with nothing but the inscription of the tombstone to say they had lived and done so much for their country in their lives.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, there had been no logical answer to the contention of the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth). If you lay down the abstract proposition that every man has a civil right to be buried in his parish churchyard, and that the exercise of that civil right should not be fettered by any religious restrictions, you could logically defend a condition which, after all, involved a religious restriction, no matter how small might be the number of people it would affect. But it seemed to him that logical legistion was essentially French, while compromise legislation was essentially English. If you could deal with men and their sentiments, and their prejudices as pure mathematical symbols, then you ought to legislate logically. But he thought that in all cases legislation must take account of the circumstances under which that legislation took place, and adapt itself to the actual and existing facts of the case. It was on this principle, and yielding to no one in attachment to civil and religious liberty, agreeing with what the hon. Member for Bradford had said, and sympathizing with the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. A. Dilke) in his touching speech, that he had to ask himself whether the Government had not dealt wisely in treating this question in a spirit of compromise, and whether he would be right in rejecting a measure avowedly based on that principle. The main facts of the case for the Committee to consider were these. They were not creating, under the authority of Parliament, new burial-grounds, all the conditions of which would be within the control of Parliament; but they were, on grounds of public policy, making a great change, a great innovation in the undisturbed usage of centuries, and infringing, according to the judgment of a large section of the community, erroneously as he thought, what they regarded as their absolute rights. He repudiated a good deal that had been said about the Nonconformists. They had, he thought, been harshly treated. It had been assumed that they were unable to' recognize the sentimental grievance of the clergy and laity of the Church of England as a body. But they were bound to endeavour to put themselves in the position of those who differed from them, and to look at their grievances in a fair, considerate, point of view. He very much regretted the tone which a large number of the clergy had taken on the question; and he very much deplored the intolerant nonsense which some of them—he believed a small majority— had uttered in regard to what some dignitary had called this accursed Bill. This had been intensified by the howlings of the extreme Church papers. But, granting all that, he could not shut his eyes to the fact that the clergy of the Church of England, who were entitled to the respect of the whole community for their character, their lives, and their work, as a body felt very strongly on this question. He did not deny that the Government, by sweeping legislation and supported by a strong majority, could ruthlessly conquer that feeling; but the question with him was whether the Government were not acting wisely in endeavouring to conciliate some of those feelings and approaching the question, not so much in a spirit of conquest as a spirit of compromise, and thus endeavouring to settle a difficult question which would be more than diffi- cult if all the clergy and laity of the Church of England presented a unanimous and united resistance. With a Parliament, one House of which consisted almost exclusively of members of the Church of England, and the other House of which contained a large majority of members of that Church, you could not deal with the points of difference between the Church of England and the Nonconformists from a purely Nonconformist point of view. Any legislation, to be effective, must be framed in that spirit of compromise which would insure that concurrence of a majority of Churchmen, without which all legislation would be impossible. The Government were justified in dealing with this measure in a spirit of compromise. Whatever his friends might say hitherto, at all events up to the present Session the history of this question had been a religious grievance, and this was the grievance which Parliament had been asked to redress. The grievance was two-fold. First, the grievance of a large section who desired to use the office of the burial of the dead, but who were outside the limits within which that office could be legally used; and, secondly, that of another class, who, on the solemn occasion of the interment of their dead, wished to associate it with solemn religious Services, and that those Services should be such as the deceased sympathized with, and should be conducted by the minister by whom he had been taught, and to whom the survivors looked for consolation. Now, as a, matter of fact, this was the grievance presented to Parliament, and which the right hon. and learned Gentleman had attempted to redress. The principle of this clause, to which objection was now taken, had been embodied in Bill after Bill by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. It was recognized in Lord Granville's Resolution of 1876, and the Resolution of Lord Harrowby had the same principle. In common with other hon. Members, some few months ago, he had addressed his constituents on a variety of subjects, and, amongst others, this Burial Question was not forgotten; and he then said that he should base his support of this measure expressly on the lines of Lord Harrowby's Amendment, which had been accepted and approved by the leading Prelates of the Church of England. Would it be fair or just for him. now to turn round and say—"I meant something more than that. I will carry the principle for which I was contending a little further, and to a point which was no submitted to them." There was another fact with which the Government had to deal, that was "another place." However some hon. Members might pooh pooh that "other place," it had great power, and would have for many years to come. The Government could not forget the facts by which they were surrounded, the position of the clergy, and what had been the history of the question. That brought him to his third point—namely, that the Committee must cither accept this compromise or reject the measure. He was not prepared to say to the great mass of Nonconformists, who had fought the battle, who were suffering the grievance, that they should be deprived of the relief for which they had asked, simply because this Bill did not finally dispose of every case that might arise. He thought the Committee would do wisely to take the measure, as they had it from the Government, as a settlement and a redress which had been asked for all these years, and which practically not only granted redress, but admitted the principle that, if there were other grievances fairly and distinctly proved, Parliament would be committed to deal with them at the proper time and circumstances. As a practical man, he would not accept the responsibility of imperilling this long-needed and long-desired legislation. He could not help referring to the speech of the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Collings), who had spoken so severely of the conduct of the Government in relation to this measure; and he must say the hon. Member made a very large draft upon his credulity when he asked him to believe that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was "forging a new instrument of intolerance and bigotry." Not even the sternest opponent of that right hon. Gentleman, during his long and illustrious career, but would admit that he had never swerved one hair's breadth in his chivalrous loyalty to the great principles of civil and religious liberty. The Nonconformists owed something to the Government for their conduct in respect to this measure. It had not been brought in by the Government in a grudging spirit, and with an attempt to minimize the things that were asked for, and it had been carried through the other House as no similar measure had been carried before. He was not prepared, because his views were not met on all points, to distrust the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Prime Minister, who had shown no pattering with the principles of civil and religious liberty this Session, and charge thorn with the "worst Conservatism." He took the opportunity, as a Liberal and Nonconformist, of expressing his implicit confidence in the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India, who had led the Party with a tact, a judgment, a prudence, and a dignity which had commanded the admiration of the House and the country. He was satisfied with his Leaders, and prepared to follow them; and even if this was a Bill with which he could not agree in all details, he would accept it as the measure which they deemed the best practical solution for the question under existing difficulties.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

said, he had listened to the speech which had just been made, and if it had been a speech made from the Opposition Benches he could have admired it to the utmost extent, because he could find no difference in principle between it and those speeches made by hon. Gentlemen on the other side. Precisely as Churchmen had treated Nonconformists, so would the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) treat those who were neither Nonconformists nor Churchmen. He had listened to the eloquent words with which he concluded his speech with a reference to his (Mr. Collings) remarks on the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and they would have been very appropriate if he had used—which he had not—the words attributed to him. He did not yield to the hon. Gentleman in admiration for the right hon. Gentleman alluded to. What he had said was that the Government, in this 6th clause, had forged a new weapon of bigotry and intolerance. They had, in fact, created a new Test Act in 1880, which had the spirit, though not the range, of the Act abolished in 1828. With regard to what the hon. Member said about his constituents, he hoped he would repeat his speech to his friends at Wolverhampton, and he would see with what concurrence they would receive it. The hon. Gentleman stated that he was attached to religious equality; but, if they might judge from his speech, he was attached to religious equality only to a certain extent, to the extent that provided for his own welfare and privileges, but not to the extent in which it did the same for his fellow-men. He said they must look at the circumstances of the case. Well, what were they? Was this clause the real honest outcome of the opinion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman on the Treasury Bench? They knew it was not. The circumstances of the case were these. The right hon. and learned Gentleman who conducted the Bill had received orders from "another place." These were the circumstances to which the Committee were bound to submit. The hon. Member called it a compromise; but it was not a compromise. It was an arrangement by which those who were Nonconformists got everything they asked for on condition that they denied everything to others. The hon. Gentleman said the question could not be touched from a Nonconformist point of view; but, in fact, they were not touching it at all except from that view. What did the Lord Chancellor say when he introduced the Bill in "another place," and what did the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of it in the House say in his speech? That they were dealing with it as a question of civil right, and on no other grounds. But, if this 6th clause stood, it would be Nonconformists together with Churchmen appropriating to themselves civil rights, and jointly preventing others from enjoying them. He did not think hon. Members opposite, and some too on that side, should be impatient because the clause did not affect them. But it would affect others for whom he had a right to speak, and for whom he would venture to speak, and, if possible, would prevent the clause passing. He did not scruple to say that right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench, if they were to be judged by their antecedents, were turning their backs upon themselves, and he could draw that conclusion more safely from the fact that no answer had been made to the objections to this clause, and no reasons had been given for its retention. There was only the threat that if the clause was rejected the "Bill was gone." Did the right hon. and learned Gentleman mean to say that ho would withdraw the Bill, or did he advert to "another place." If so, then do not let the Committee be made catspaws, but let them do that which they ought to do, reject the clause and throw the responsibility of rejecting the Bill upon those in "another place." He thought that when the right hon. Gentlemen who had charge of the Bill listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Ashton Dilke) they must feel not at ease with themselves. They must feel that what they were doing they would afterwards be ashamed of in passing a Bill which would have the effect the hon. Member so eloquently described. He would like the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Judge Advocate General to say what answer they were to give to those of their constituents who would continue to suffer grievances under this clause. He was not saying one word that was not prompted by necessity, and by the sense of the shabby un-Christian way in which this question was being treated by those who came into power on the full tide of Liberal opinions.

MR. WILLIS

said, he was a member of a religious denomination more affected by the present Burial Laws than any other represented in the House; and although the Bill, without the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bradford, would give that denomination complete relief, he would not accept that relief on the terms proposed by the Government. The persons who desired this change in the Burial Laws had not asked for it as Christians; and if the Free Churches of this country were to wait for some concession until members of the Established Church, represented by the Bishops and Clergy, recognized the members of such Churches as Christians, they would have to wait a long time before they got that concession. It was because he knew that modifications of this clause, as proposed, would not render this Bill, in the least degree, more acceptable to the clergy of the Established Church, that he was prepared to wreck the Bill rather than allow it to stand as it was. Let it not be forgotten that the right of burial was not demanded as Christians. They claimed the right exempt from all restrictions but those which decency die- tated. Standing in "another place," he heard it stated in a speech that 16,000 of the clergy of the Church of England had protested against the Bill even as the Government proposed it, because they believed that the services performed would be blasphemous and sacrilegious. In "another place" he had heard an eminent person say—

EARL PERCY

I rise to Order.

MR. WILLIS

said, ho was speaking what he knew to be to the point. In "another place" he had heard a person, not merely clothed with lawn, but a man who had been appointed to guide and control the destinies of the country, say that if he had known that a Christian minister belonging to one of the denominations commonly called "Dissenters" would be allowed to come on to land which he had dedicated for Christian burial, for the purpose of offering prayer and praise whilst burying one of his own persuasion in it, he would never have dedicated that land. Was not such a statement enough to hurt the feelings of non-Churchmen, whether they were those of his hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle, who, from this day, for the manly avowal of his views, he should esteem more highly than he had ever done before, or of any Dissenter? How could it be more offensive to the clergy of the Establishment for the hon. Member for Newcastle to bury someone ho dearly loved with no words of Christian hope at all at the grave side, than for a burial to be conducted by a Baptist or Independent Minister, whose preaching and praying were said to be profane, a sacrilege, and an insult to the Almighty? It was a great mistake for the Government to go against their followers in this matter. He hoped the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) would pardon him; but there was no occasion for Members on that side of the House to offer any praises of the present Administration, or to say one word about having confidence in their Leaders. Of course, they had confidence in their Leaders; but, at the present moment, he would rather wreck the Bill which the Ministry now proposed to pass than take it on grounds on which they had never asked for it, and which would never render it more acceptable, looking at the fixed and unalterable antipathy by which Dissent was regarded by well nigh every minis- ter of the Established Church. It was said that the alteration he wished to see made would render the measure distasteful to the clergy of the Church of England. He know better; it would not do anything of the kind. Nothing could make a Bill more distasteful to the clergy which admitted a Dissenting minister to exercise his religious office within the churchyard. The attempt to conciliate was futile. But if this Amendment was not conceded it would be a departure from the principle on which they—the Dissenters—had urged the measure — namely, that the parishioners had a right to burial in the parish churchyard, not because they were Christians, but because they were men, and ought to have the privilege of burying with such rites and in such manner as they thought fit, so long as they conformed to what was decent. On these grounds, he should support the words which proposed to give this freedom.

MR. THOROLD BOGERS

said, he would not detain the Committee more than two or three minutes whilst he pointed out why it was absolutely necessary for him to vote with the Mover of this Amendment. He found that the words of the clause wore not exhaustive. Now, it was clear that alternatives should be exhaustive, should cover every case which could be put. Such, however, was not the case with the language used in this clause. It was possible, under this clause, to have a burial without a religious Service. That, he presumed, would cover secular rites at which secular orations might be delivered, or expressions which implied such negations as wore involved in secular opinions might be made use of over a grave. The clause also provided for cases where there would be Christian Services over a grave; but it did not provide for what was between the two—a belief which was not Christian, but which, at the same time, was not merely negative—the faith, he meant, of a mere Theist. Unless some words were introduced by the Government to cover the third ease, it was impossible for him to do other than vote for the proposal.

Question put.

The Committee divided: —Ayes 125; Noes 57: Majority 68. — (Div. List, No. 152.)

MR. WOODALL

said, he had an Amendment by which the Service under this clause need not necessarily be said at the grave. He would ask leave to defer its consideration, however, until the Report, when he should be very glad indeed to find, owing to what might be done later on, that it would be unnecessary to disturb the words of the clause. They had evidently arrived at a period of conciliation and compromise; and though the clause would permit Nonconformist Services in cemeteries, graveyards, and parish churchyards, he was bound to say that he could wish to see a provision which would enable a Nonconformist minister, at any rate, with the consent of the clergyman, to perform a Burial Service in the parish church. He knew cases in his own district where the Church of England clergymen had been good enough to invite the Dissenting ministers to read the lessons in their churches. He would not ask the Government, however, to go beyond the understanding on which this Bill was based.

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

moved, in page 3, line 27, after the word "any," to insert the word "male," his object being to provide that the services should not be read by females. He said the clause was one which he based on the word just used by the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Woodall)—namely,"conciliation."He would appeal to the right hon. and learned Gentleman who had brought in the Bill and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on the point; and they, he was sure, would do him the justice to say that they had always found him a straightforward adversary, who had given and taken a great many hard blows. He was quite sincere in acknowledging the friendly and conciliatory spirit that they had shown in some of the long discussions on the Bill, and that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) had displayed in his very masterly speech. He could assure the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that, following the lines he had laid down for his own guidance during these discussions, the Amendment he now brought forward was the offering of his own deep conviction, based on considerations of decency, and not upon any pretensions of sacerdotalism; and the right hon. Gentleman would understand him when he said that the Amendment was to exclude the ministrations of women in churchyards. ["Oh, oh!" and Laughter.'] He heard sounds —he could not say of human articulation —but rolling sounds, which he hardly thought contributed to the decent and proper conduct of the Business of the Committee. The question was not one which they could put off with a laugh or a sneer. There were different opinions in the world about the question; but he must point out that the Church he belonged to, and many other denominations, did believe that there was real and decided Scriptural authority against women acting as ministers. He never willingly quoted Scripture in that House, and he would not do so on this occasion. He would merely point to the fact that St. Paul—with whom the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary had shown himself to be so familiar, and to whom he was so polite yesterday— was, in their opinion, the authority for the position they took up. Passing from that, he would say that, if they did not wish to hurt and annoy the clergy—if they wished to harrow up their feelings —feelings which might be superstitious and prejudiced, but which were very sincere and deep—they would not allow the fair portion of humanity to assume the position of ministers in their churchyards. He did not mean that they should not be allowed to assume the positions of ministering angels in the sick chamber, where their presence and their ministrations were a comfort and a solace; but the sort of ministration involved in the idea of conducting a Service was what he deprecated. He knew he had been taken to task on the second reading for drawing, as he did, without meaning any disrespect, what appeared to him to be a correct picture of the use that might be made of the privilege contained in the Bill in this respect. What he had said was perfectly defensible, but they were not on that point now; and, as it would only raise a long issue, he would not go into it. He would point out, however, that there were Bodies called "The Salvation Army," prominent among whose officers were "Hallelujah Lasses," and "The New Forest Shakers"—the latter of which was under the leadership of a very able and masterful woman. These people came under the definition Chris- tian, and the Courts might sustain their claim to be "orderly." So he contended that, if they did not put in some limitation of the kind ho proposed, they might have leaders belonging to those Bodies—whose zeal in some cases he ventured to say had outrun their discretion—performing Services in the churchyards. He should be much surprised if the Committee decided it to be desirable to allow such a thing to take place. In proportion as a person lacked discretion, so would he or she be likely to thrust himself or herself forward, and take up a position which wiser women would have avoided. Ninety-nine out of every hundred Christian men and ministers would, he was sure, observe all the courtesies of gentlemen; but one —the hundredth—might be an ignorant fanatic. There was a chance of one in a hundred—they must all admit one hot - headed fanatic they could find, oven amongst the Nonconformists now and then. On these grounds, without going further, he would really appeal to the right hon. and learned Gentleman when he had held out so many Olive branches, to hold out one more, and do that which would tend, in a great degree, to smooth down and calm the feelings of those on whose behalf he was speaking, whilst its refusal would create widespread distress and alarm.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, that for some years past ho had been in the habit of following his right hon. Friend (Mr. Beresford Hope) on the subject of woman's rights. He would follow him on the present occasion if he could; but he found it impossible to identify himself with the position the right hon. Gentleman took up. If the right hon. Gentleman's view were right, and the word "male" were inserted, they would prevent women taking part in any religious act at the grave side. It would prevent the widow joining in the prayers at the side of the grave of the husband she had followed to his last resting place. He could not believe that the right hon. Gentleman could wish to prevent every woman from taking part in any religious act at the side of the grave. Why did he object to the words of the clause as they stood? He first said that women connected with the Shakers and the Salvation Army might say Services over the dead. Well, it was possible that the case might be met by the word "orderly" in the clause, and that the evils apprehended might be prevented by the fear that such Service would not come within the category of "such Christian and orderly religious service." But the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that the clause, as it stood, would offend the prejudices of the clergy. In this he thought the right hon. Gentleman was mistaken, and did not properly appreciate the views of those for whom he spoke. As these Services would, in all probability, be conducted under the care and under the discretion of Nonconformist ministers, they could rely upon them, he thought, to prevent women from taking an active part in them.

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

wished to say a word in explanation. He had no objection to a woman taking her part in the funeral ceremonies at the grave side. He should not be so illogical and hard of feeling as to wish to prevent a woman from attending the funeral of those she had loved and lost; but the word he wished to insert was one which he intended to have a technical meaning. If the word was unnecessary, it certainly seemed to him that the Bill was vaguely and ambiguously worded.

MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD

congratulated the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Berosford Hope) on the consistency of his religious intolerance. He was now exhibiting an intolerance even with regard to sex. He (Mr. Arthur Arnold), for his own part, really hoped to see women conducting Services in churchyards, if they were disposed to do so in a proper and orderly manner. He need not say, therefore, with what intense anxiety he trusted the Committee would reject the Amendment.

SIR HENRY TYLER

suggested as a compromise that the word "male" should be inserted, and that words should be adopted to enable "any other person" to be present at the service.

Amendment negatived.

MR. WARTON

said, he proposed a verbal Amendment on line 30, which he thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman who had charge of the Bill would accept. He did not see how the word "Christian," which was an adjective, could embrace "religious service," which was a substantive. If they said "the words Christian and religious service in this section shall include," the difficulty would be got over.

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN

said, the Bill had been most carefully gone over, word for word, by one of the most eminent lawyers of the day. He could not accept the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 7 (Act to apply only to parish, &c, where no unconsecrated burial ground for parishioners).

MR. GRANTHAM

said, he had an Amendment on the Paper to the effect that the Act should apply only to those places where, either at the passing of the Act, or within 12 months of its passing, there were no unconsecrated burial ground; but as the subject of the Amendment had been already discussed he would not press it.

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN

moved to omit the clause.

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

said, the right hon. Gentleman knew how much value that (the Conservative) side of the House attached to the clause; but they quite felt that its subject-matter had been thrashed out; therefore, he would not discuss it now.

MR. J. G. HUBBARD

said, it was quite true the clause had been discussed.

Clause struck out.

Clause 8 (Burials to be conducted in a decent and orderly manner and without obstruction) agreed to.

Clause 9 (Powers for prevention of disorder) agreed to.

Clause 10 (Act not to give of burial where no former right existed).

On the Motion of Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN, Amendment made, in page 4, line 23, after "trust deed," by inserting— (Not being the churchyard or graveyard, or part of the churchyard or graveyard, of the parish or ecclesiastical district in which the same is situate.")

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 11 (Burials under Act to be registered).

SIR JOHN R. MOWBRAY

, in moving, in page 4, line 39, to leave out from "and any rector," to "as aforesaid," in line 42, both inclusive, said, he would be as brief in his remarks as possible, and would not forget the hour of the day nor the day of the month. That part of the clause made it a misdemeanour for any clergyman to refuse or neglect to enter a burial in the church register. He did not object to a provision in the case of a person who wilfully made a false statement or omitted an entry; but he thought it was rather a harsh provision to make a clergyman liable where he merely neglected to make the entry. He could assure his right hon. Friend that he had no desire to strike out anything that was necessary. It appeared to him that as they now had a civil registry it was not necessary to keep up those Church registers. He hoped the Committee would be able to see their way to accept the Amendment.

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN

said, he hardly thought that his right hon. Friend could seriously mean to press his Amendment. His right hon. Friend was a lawyer, and knew the immense importance of such matters. An omission to register might affect property or legitimacy, or the honour of families. If they took a case, supposing a clergyman refused to enter a burial under that Act, there was no evidence of death, that might seriously affect the position of the children. He need not tell his right hon. Friend that every breach of law was necessarily a misdemeanour. Surely they could not put a more important duty on a clergyman than that of registering the burials which took place. He was at a loss to see how it was possible that his right hon. Friend -could desire that that portion of the clause should be struck out.

MR. RODWELL

wished to ask one question. Why was it necessary to have any special legislation under that Bill? Why were not Nonconformists to be put on the same footing as the members of the Established Church? It was quite as important in the one case as in the other that evidence should be given.

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN

said, he should have thought that hardly required an answer. A clergyman was the depositary of the register; he kept the register, and got a fee for making out the certificate. In consequence of that, he was responsible for the maintenance of that register.

MR. RODWELL

said, he believed the right hon. and learned Gentleman had hardly understood his point. Was there a penalty, then, for clergymen neglecting or refusing to make such an entry? [Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN: Yes.] Then why were not Nonconformists put on the same footing? That was all he wished to say.

SIR JOHN E. MOWBRAY

said, he had no wish to prolong the discussion.

SIR EARDLEY WILMOT

said, that, of course, a clergyman should be liable for wilful refusal to make the entry; but was it reasonable to make him guilty of a misdemeanour for mere inadvertence?

SIR THOMAS CHAMBERS

said, that it was necessary that there should be wilful neglect. Unless that were so, the clergyman would not be guilty of a misdemeanour. Mere inadvertence was not sufficient; but it was criminal negligence that made a misdemeanour.

SIR JOHN E. MOWBRAY

said, that after what had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone (Sir Thomas Chambers) he was in hopes that he would record his vote in favour of the Amendment.

SIR HENRY TYLER

said, it might happen that the family were not inclined to give notice to the clergyman of the fact.

MR. J. G. HUBBARD

asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman to explain whether the Bill proposed more than was required by the present law. As the law stood, surely clergymen were now required to keep a register of the burial of all persons; there was no distinction between Nonconformists and Churchmen. He should like to know if there was anything new under the Bill?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, that under that section a special certificate had to be entered, the person who performed the ceremony had to send a certificate of the fact of the burial having been performed to the minister of the parish. The minister did not enter the fact, but received a certificate from someone else; and, therefore, it would not come under the existing law, and it was necessary to mention it specially there. When it was said to be a misdemeanour, of course it must be understood that every breach of the law was a misdemeanour; but only the mildest punishment would be inflicted, perhaps a find of Is., unless there was intentional neglect.

SIR HENRY TYLER

asked why they did not also compel the person who conducted the ceremony to send a notice?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, that the friends of the person buried would, no doubt, be careful to look after their own interests.

MR. WARTON

said, there should be a much greater fine in the case of a person who wilfully made a false statement. Such a person should be held guilty of a felony.

Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to.

Clause 12 (Order of coroner or certificate of registrar to be delivered to relative, &c, instead of to person who buries).

EARL PERCY

begged to move in page 5, line 7, to leave out "funeral or." The words of the clause implied too much, he believed. A Service might be a funeral one, but not a religious one.

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN

said, they had in that clause followed the words of the Act of 1874. He might, however, before Report, consider whether those words might not be left out.

EARL PERCY

said, that on that understanding he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 13 (Liberty to use burial service of Church of England in unconsecrated ground) agreed to.

Clause 14 (Relief of clergy of Church of England from penalties in certain cases).

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he wished to move the Amendment which stood in his name. The Committee would see that he proposed to leave out all the clause from the word "penalty," and insert other words. He should propose to leave out the words that had reference to Convocation. He candidly admitted that the clergy had grounds to ask for relief in regard to the Service for the burial of the dead. Those grievances which had been felt for a long time past were drawn up in the form of resolutions of Convocation, and brought before Parliament, and Parliament had been asked to deal with them. The grievances were twofold; first, they were precluded from reading any Service in the case of burial of unbaptized children. That was a grievance which had been felt in many parishes, and by the parents of the children especially. Secondly, they were compelled to read the Service in its entirety, whether it was desired or not. By his Amendment he desired to strike out the reference to Convocation. That reference appeared to involve a political principle as well as a Constitutional one of some importance. The whole clause, the Committee would see if they read it, was an extraordinary one. Some hon. Member—he believed it was the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton)— had been rather severe upon the draftsman of that Bill; but he thought that this clause deserved severer censure than the hon. and learned Member already had passed upon the draftsman. It recited that the Convocation of Canterbury had passed those Resolutions, and that four of them had been agreed to by the Convocation of York; but had those resolutions any real Constitutional effect without the assent of the Crown and both Houses of Parliament? A Rubric could not be enacted in that way. It must be done by Parliament; but, by the way in which it was now proposed to be done, Parliament was deprived of the power of modifying or objecting to it. It was true that Convocation had made certain recommendations; but the power of enacting Rubrics did not lie with them. Before Rubrics could be altered, it required the serious consideration and consent of both Houses of Parliament. He would not trouble the Committee with the whole question, but refer them to three Acts of Parliament. They were the original Act of Uniformity, the Short Service Act, and the Lectionary Act. By the Act of Uniformity, resolutions were submitted by Convocation and approved by the Crown, and then sent to Parliament on the recommendation of the Crown. The Lectionary Act of 1871 was a simple enactment which disposed of certain parts of the Rubrics with which the Services were surrounded. The other Act was a sort of compromise by which the Service was shortened. The references to Convocation in Clause 14 were both unconstitutional and unprecedented; and he, therefore, proposed to strike them out. If that were done he would then move the insertion of the words which appeared on the Notice Paper, in lieu thereof.

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

said, that the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. H. H. Fowler) could not be supposed to be one who attached great value to the ancient Constitutional government of the Church of England, so his conciliatory language was all the more grateful, while his arguments might be open to question. He disagreed with the premisses of the hon. Gentleman, while ready to accept his conclusions, and to drop the name of Convocation out of respect, and not out of contempt. But it was rather late on this (Saturday) night to deal with premisses, and so he would pass on to conclusions. He felt that if the clause was passed as it stood with that Schedule, which was rightly or wrongly presented to them, and must be taken or left as a whole, the result would be that Convocation would be dragged into the debate in a way that he did not desire, any more than did the hon. Member for Wolverhampton. The question was really a much deeper and wider one than was contained in that Burials Bill, and, no doubt, could not be properly argued on such an occasion, when there were not ten men, possibly, of sufficient erudition in the House to discuss it satisfactorily. He was grateful to the Government for the recognition of the Church's ancient Constitutional legislation; but he thought that recognition might best be made by not introducing that matter into the Act.

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN

thought they were all agreed to accept the Amendment. From the debate that took place on the second reading, he concluded that there were not half-a-dozen hon. Gentlemen who approved of that clause as it stood. There was all but universal agreement on two points, he believed, in that House—the one that the clergy had a grievance in this respect, and the other that the method of relief proposed by the Bill was not the best way of meeting that grievance. He had begun to deal with the matter; but the moment he saw the Amendment of his hon. Friend he was sure that that was the way to deal with it. To a certain extent, it coincided with a clause he had drafted; but it was so much better than his own that he had put his own in the fire. He had received letters from all parts of the country asking him to accede to it, and the Archbishop of Canterbury was himself in favour of it. The Government had thought it best to accept the Amendment.

SIR JOHN E. MOWBRAY

said, he quite concurred in the observations which had just fallen from his right hon. and learned Friend. He fully recognized the intentions of the Government in putting in the 14th clause of the Schedule; but he did not congratulate them upon the mode in which the work was performed. He thought it a most remarkable thing that those recommendations should have been put in, the effect of which would be that a clergyman who chose to disobey could excuse himself behind the recommendations of Convocation for any breach of the law. He congratulated the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), who had showed so much ability during the discussion of that Bill. He hoped a solution would be found to the question, and he was glad that the Government seemed willing to accept the alteration.

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

heartily approved of the Amendment then before them; but the time had not arrived for discussing it. When that time did arrive he should have something to say to it.

COLONEL MAKINS

felt grateful to the Government for that clause; but, at the same time, he could not help thinking that it contained a left-handed sort of recommendation, and so he should not be sorry to see it disappear from the Bill. He had expressed his views privately upon the point to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Judge Advocate General. He believed that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton was satisfactory and clear, and he thought it would have the effect of removing some of the cumbrous machinery which was contained in the Schedule.

MR. COURTNEY

wished to call attention to part of the statement of the Judge Advocate General, which he did not fully understand. He had said that ho agreed to cutting out the reference to Convocation, and also to the proposal of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, as it appeared on the Paper. He went on to say that he had received a communication from the most rev. Prelate the Archbishop of Canterbury, and that he was disposed to accept the suggestion of the most rev. Prelate. What was the character of that suggestion? ["Order!"] He believed the Amendment was before the Committee. ["No, no !"] Then he would reserve his observations.

MR. J. G. HUBBARD

said, that was an exceedingly important clause. He had listened attentively to the speeches of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, and he must say he heard with much pleasure the warm earnestness and charity expressed by him in matters touching the feelings of Members of the Church of England. It was absolutely impossible but that the Church of England should require, from time to time, to adjust matters of Ritual practice; and this could be constitutionally effected only through Convocation. He thought, however, that the House would be perfectly justified in striking out the reference in this clause to Convocation, inasmuch as the Bill represented the Convocation of York and the Convocation of Canterbury, as speaking in different senses. And while Churchmen might fairly expect due consideration being given by Parliament to the Constitutional representation of the Church, it was essential that in their utterance the two Convocations should be agreed, and that their voice expressed the desire of the Church at large.

MR. THOROLD ROGERS

said, that it had been stated that when the Act of Uniformity was passed the Prayer Book was drawn up by Convocation. The fact was that when the Parliament met in 1662 they accepted it, but asserted unanimously their right to revise or alter the Prayer Book in any way they liked.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

begged to move in page 6, line 9, to leave out from "in," to "therewith," in line 12, both inclusive, and insert— Authorised to perform the burial service, in any case where the office for the burial of the dead according to the rites of the Church of England may not be used, and in any other case at the request of the relative, friend, or legal representative having the charge of or being responsible for the burial of the deceased to use such service at the burial as may be prescribed or approved of by the ordinary.

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN

said, he should like to amend the Amendment by inserting in the fourth line after "request," the words "or with the consent."

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

wished that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton had moved to omit the whole clause instead of a portion. He believed that that clause might be modified in any way they pleased; but he particularly objected to the Amendment which the right hon. and learned Gentleman had just announced. The result would be that every minister might initiate an objection to the burial of any person whose religious opinions happened to be different from his own, or who did not appear to have been so attentive to his religious duties as the minister thought proper. The words "or with the consent of," evidently gave to the minister of the parish the right to interfere, and when persons, such as the widow or orphans, were in trouble and sorrow at the death of a relative, the minister could say—"Oh, the man lived such a wicked life that I cannot consent to read the Service over his body."

THE CHAIRMAN

I think the best way will be to get rid of the words to be omitted first. The Question is "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN

said, with regard to what had fallen from the hon. and gallant Member for East Aberdeenshire, he would say that he had not, perhaps, fully considered the Amendment. It appeared to be the wish of a number of persons that the words he had proposed should be inserted.

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

said, he was interrupted in the middle of his previous remarks. [Cries of u Agreed!"] He protested against that important measure being decided hastily. He had himself given up going away to Scotland for the sake of that Bill, and he would not consent to interference with the important interests of Nonconformists. He objected to the Amendment, excellent as it was in some respects, of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, because ho proposed that they should alter an Act of Parliament, and leave it optional to every Bishop of every diocese to allow only what he considered proper words in the Services, because the Amendment said—"May be prescribed or approved of by the ordinary." Every Bishop might vary the Service and impose such conditions as he pleased. They proposed to hand over to him the alteration of the Act of Uniformity to which hon. Members attached so much importance. Let him ask the Committee what was the object of that relief which was sought by the clergy? It was relief from using the words "sure and certain hope of the resurrection to eternal life." If the clergy wished to be relieved from that, the simple way was to omit the words from the Service in the Prayer Book, instead of giving to the Bishops an uncontrolled power. He should like to mention to the Committee that that question with regard to the clergy was not a new one. He could tell hon. Members that if they looked back to the time when the Prayer Book was compiled—the time of Edward VI.—they would find that the Burial Service was different from what it was at present. The body was taken direct from the church gate to the grave, and was never brought into the church. The mourners went to the grave and put the body in, and afterwards, if they thought proper, went into the church and had a special Service for their own benefit. In those days they never thought of saying prayers for the dead body. ["Divide!"] He intended to say what he had to say with the permission of the Chairman, and he should not give way to cries of "Divide!" If hon. Gentlemen were in a hurry they had better allow him to finish. Then, after the Restoration, in 1661, the clergy altered that system, and threw the two Services into one. To meet the difficulty, a conference was held at the Savoy, and ministers stated that the words they objected to were—"In the sure and certain hope of the resurrection of eternal life." Their object was this. Those words could not be said in truth of persons living and dying in open and notorious sin. Well, the conference took place, and the Bishops of that day gave an answer to the complaint of the ministers. It was not long, and, with the permission of the Committee, he would read it. That Article of the Bishops of those days was a most liberal and satisfactory one— We see not why these words may not he said of any person who we dare not say is damned. That were a breach of charity even if that repentance we do not see. It is possible that a man may repent even in the last act, and who knows that God will not even then pardon them for such repentance—who dare say. It is better to be charitable and hope for the best than rashly to condemn. He thought that was charitable advice, and if the Bishops of the present day could see their way to act in the same manner, those objections to the words "sure and certain hope" would not arise. The words objected to were "hope of the resurrection;" but a compromise was effected by inserting "in faith of the resurrection and in the hope," &c. If there were any difficulty as regarded the words, he would remind the Committee that the Church of England had already modified them in the case of burials at sea. The words there were— We therefore commit his body to the deep to be turned into corruption, looking for the resurrection of the body when the sea shall give up her dead," &c. If the Church of England clergy wished for relief from those words, let them adopt their own Service for the burial of the dead at sea. The words "looking for the resurrection of the last day" was the expression used by Americans in their Service. They had adhered to the Church of England Service ever since they left our country. Their Services were almost identical with those of the Church of England; but they had altered that Service to the words "looking for the resurrection at the last day." Therefore, he maintained, there was no necessity to give the Bishops that undefined power. If the clergy wanted relief, let them adopt those words or use those of the Service of the Burial of the Dead at Sea. ["Agreed!"] He was sorry to say that he was afraid they were not agreed; he wished that they were so. The words objected to were "sure and certain hope." He had always thought that one great principle of our religion was to hope to the last. Why the chaplain told criminals to hope to the last moment, for they might be saved. Therefore, he did think there was no necessity for making the pro- posed change. He would have much preferred that the hon. Member should have extended his Amendment, and moved to omit the clause entirely.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, he hoped the hon. and gallant Member intended to follow up his speech by moving that the clause be left out. He believed he would be in Order in doing so there.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. and gallant Member will be in Order in so doing, when I propose "That this Clause stand part of the Bill."

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he was afraid that the acceptance of the Amendment would be attended with a good deal of difficulty, as it would allow a Service in any form to be performed that might be prescribed by the ordinary. It was one of the principles upon which the Church of England was established that no clergyman or ordinary should be allowed to prescribe or employ words in the Services except they had been authorized by Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. J. G. Hubbard) had spoken about the reference to Convocation. For his part, he was extremely glad that it had been struck out of that clause, because that Act of Parliament which he had then before him, by which the Prayer Book was established for the Church of England, in the reign of Elizabeth, recorded upon the face of it that the Lords Spiritual did not agree. It was the only Act upon the Statute Book, he believed, which had been passed "by the assent of the Lords and Commons," omitting the words, "Lords Spiritual and Temporal;" and it was a fact that the Prayer Book was established by Parliament against the unanimous vote both of the members of Convocation and of the Lords Spiritual. Therefore, the charter and foundation of the Church of England was against the will of Convocation. He had before him also the Act of Uniformity of the reign of Elizabeth; it declared that the Lords Spiritual did not agree. If that were so, what security had they that in the Services of the Church of England no words would be employed not authorized by Parliament? What was to prevent the ordinary authorizing prayers for the dead under the authority of that sub-section? There seemed to him immense danger in leav- ing the Services in that way, considering that hitherto they had always received the dissent of Parliament. They were going to give a large power by cheque, as it were, to the ordinary. That seemed to him to be altogether inconsistent with the principles upon which the Established Church rested. If they wanted to have that Church disestablished he could understand it. Then, again, what the Minister did must not be what they liked, or even what was approved by the ordinary; but they must be under the control of the Legislature, as regarded the Services they employed. The proposal, it appeared to him, was an unconstitutional one, and utterly inconsistent with the principles of the Church of England.

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

said, that he was always inclined to bow to his right hon. and learned Friend; but he must remind him, after what had fallen from him with regard to prayers for the dead, of the judgment of Sir Herbert Jenner, Bart., when, as Dean of Arches, he decided, in Woolfoy v. Breeks, that prayers for the dead were lawful in the Church of England. This judgment was not appealed from to the Judicial Committee; and it had, therefore, now stood for about 40 years, in spite of the dictum of the Home Secretary, by the highest authority on ecclesiastical suits known in England, that prayers for the dead were lawful in the Church of England. But that was not the immediate point. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had plunged into what was a calm and smooth sea, and produced a confusion that neither he who made it, nor the Committee which suffered from it could see the way out of. That Bill had been brought into the House of Lords by the Lord Chancellor, as a solution of a matter in which the clergy claimed relief from what pressed hardly on their consciences. A reference to Convocation was made in that clause, which no one had shown to be unconstitutional; and, although the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) had proposed as a substitute—namely, to strike out those particular words and insert others which would effect the same object, though in language more elastic than the original clause. A pretty general agreement had been reached that that was the best solution that could be attained in the perplexed state in which they were; and they were, therefore, willing to be "to its faults a little blind, and to its merits very kind," and accept the Amendment. Everyone believed that the whole thing would have been arranged and disposed of in a minute or two, when up rose his right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, with all the dignity of his Office, and all the might of his long experience, turned round upon the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, and overwhelmed the Committee with his old references to what had occurred in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, which had already done their work six years before in propping up the Public Worship Act. He (Mr. Beresford Hope) did not believe that what had been done in the Reign of Elizabeth was very palatable, or likely to be followed in the present one. Besides, he forgot that they had now to do with the Act of Uniformity of 1662, not with that of 1559. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had troubled and confused them all. He had turned round upon the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, he had brushed aside the Judge Advocate General, and had turned his back upon the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and the result was that they did not know where they were. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton had proposed a solution, which the Judge Advocate General had, presumably in the name of the Government, whose mouthpiece he was conducting this Bill readily accepted, and then came the Home Secretary declaring himself to be utterly opposed to the whole arrangement. If that was an harmonious Cabinet, the nature of such a Cabinet was one of the deep mysteries which he had yet to learn. He would advise his right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to take "sweet counsel" with his Colleagues, so that, at the same time that the clergy were relieved, the Majesty of Parliament might be asserted, and that nothing might be done contrary to those laws of precedent which he so deeply venerated. He therefore, in order to give the Government an opportunity of ascertaining its own mind, would move to report Progress. ["Oh!"] He was very sorry indeed to have to do so; but he had been there all day with his Friends on that side, not opposing the Bill more than they could avoid, but, in reality, helping to let it go through. But after the extraordinary behaviour of the Home Secretary breaking in and confounding all, they were, which his Colleagues had done, justified in not proceeding further.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Beres-ford Hope.)

SIR JOHN R. MOWBRAY

said, he rose to support the Motion of his right hon. Friend. The Committee had witnessed, during the last half-hour, the most extraordinary state of things that he, in his long experience, had ever witnessed in that House. They had been told by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Judge Advocate General that he was prepared to abandon the clause, which the united Cabinet had introduced, and which the House of Lords after discussing had agreed to accept, and to accept that Amendment of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton. He and his Colleagues on that side had concurred, and felt that what the Judge Advocate General had proposed was feasible enough. Then came his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and overthrew all that the right hon. and learned Gentleman in charge of the Bill had done. He wished to know whether the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India, and Leader of the House, who appeared then to be in conference with two other right hon. Gentlemen, could recommend what course they should take. He wished to ask whether he was on the side of the Judge Advocate General or the Home Secretary, who had referred to the Act of Uniformity of Queen Elizabeth which was repealed by that of Charles II. He was sorry to see that the right hon. and learned. Gentleman the Home Secretary was looking rather gloomy, and there could be no doubt that the united Cabinet were in a considerable fix on Saturday night the 28th of August. He hoped the noble Lord would give them his views on the matter.

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN

said, he really could not accept the Motion to report Progress. They had got nothing left in the Bill to do, and he must appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to press his Motion. He was bound to say that he was sorry that his right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary had not been able to read the Bill with the Amendment proposed. He had believed that his right hon. and learned Friend had assented to the Amendment being adopted. In case the Motion to report Progress were agreed to, he should be very much afraid that they would not be able to go on with the Bill that Session. If, however, they decided to take that course, he would suggest that that part of the clause should be agreed to, and the remainder left until Report. He appealed, however, most strongly to his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope) to withdraw his Motion.

MR. ROUNDELL

submitted to the Committee the alteration of a few words that seemed to him to meet the objection of hon. Members opposite. As altered, the words at the end of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton would run thus— To use such service at the burial as may he prescribed by the Bishops and Archbishops, with the consent of Parliament. That would meet the Constitutional difficulty raised, and would be acceptable to hon. Members opposite.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he seemed to have produced a good deal of confusion which he would like to remove if he could. Had he been aware that his right hon. and learned Friend the Judge Advocate General had accepted the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, he should not, for a moment, have interfered. Perhaps he ought to have known; but he did not, and he expressed his personal views on the matter as they arose. He hoped the Committee would now allow the Amendment to be accepted, and any further question could be raised on Report. He expressed his regret that confusion had arisen.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge would not withdraw his Motion without obtaining from the Government a distinct understanding as to the course they intended to take. It was idle to ask the Committee to go on with the Bill at this stage, when there was such a complete uncertainty of opinion and complete division of opinion on the Treasury Bench. The Judge Advocate General first proposed to add the Archbishop of Canterbury. Then he dropped it like a hot potato when it caused dissension below the Gangway. It was known for a long time that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was going to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton; but, because they had listened to an intolerably dull speech from the hon. and gallant Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon), the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary got up and threw over the Judge Advocate General and all the pledges entered into by the Government with the hon. Member for Wolverhampton and others, who had left town on the faith that the Amendment would be accepted. He hoped his right hon. Friend would not yield a jot as to reporting Progress until the Government said what course they intended to follow on Report.

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

accepted the personal acknowledgment of the Home Secretary that he had dropped in promiscuously and promiscuously given them an opinion. That they were always delighted to have from him. It was, in short, one of the accidents that would happen in the best regulated families; but those who were in the cold shade of Opposition, and were not behind the scenes, and did not know the secret machinery of the Government, were a little confused by what had occurred. First, the Judge Advocate General who, for the purposes of this Bill, represented the Government, accepted the Amendment, not casually, but after taking time to consider. It was a deliberate arrangement. When on the point of putting it to the Committee the Home Secretary came down and denounced it with all the power of his vehement eloquence. This was quite enough to throw them back, and make them ask where they were. What was this Bill? Who were the Government? What was being advocated? What were pledges? What were arrangements? What confidence could there be in anything? The Home Secretary had explained that it was not the Home Secretary who had spoken, only, he supposed, the Member for Derby. They accepted that; but perhaps the right hon. Member for Sheffield, or the Secretary to the Local Government Board, or even the noble Lord who was Leader of the House, might have a sudden fancy, might indulge the Committee in private opinions, and, by the time they got to the end of the Bill, no one could know what it was. He was justified in calling upon the Government to say what they would now do. When would they take Report? In what shape did they intend to present the Bill on Report? and would they stick to it when presented? If these questions were answered satisfactorily he would withdraw his Motion, as he had no wish to impede the progress of the Bill. He wished to see it through tonight; but after such a strange incident, such an accident, in so well-regulated a family, as everyone knew their present Government to be, he could not, in justice to the opinions he held, and to that side of the House, have acted otherwise than he did when moving to report Progress, and he must now have some stable guarantees before he could withdraw his Motion.

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON

said, his right hon. and learned Friend had very frankly explained that in the observations he made just now he expressed merely his own strong personal opinions and not the opinions of the Government. He (the Marquess of Hartington) had taken no part in the discussion on this Bill, and he frankly admitted he had not had time to give it full consideration; but he had every reason to believe this Amendment of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton had been accepted by those Members of the Government responsible for the Bill, and what had fallen from the Judge Advocate General expressed the intention of the Government.

MR. MONK

said, he had a suggestion to make to the Committee. He was surprised that the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge should be so enamoured, of this Amendment. He would ask his attention to this matter. It could hardly be the wish of the Committee that different Services, not even prescribed or taken from the Prayer Book, should be used at the Burial Services by clergymen of the Church of England. According to the Amendment, the Services would be prescribed or approved of by the ordinary. Now, very different Services might be prescribed by one Bishop as compared with another. He would mention no names; but it must be notorious that different Services would be prescribed by the Ordinary in different dioceses. He had this suggestion to make to the Committee and the Judge Advocate General, that the word "Ordinary" should be omitted, and the words inserted, "the Archbishops of Canterbury and York;" that would be better than leaving the Services to be prescribed by the particular ordinary of each diocese. They ought to have uniformity in the Services, and he begged to propose as an Amendment—

THE CHAIRMAN

called the hon. Member's attention to the fact that the Motion before the Committee was in regard to reporting Progress.

MR. MONK

said, as soon as the Motion to report Progress was withdrawn, he would move to leave out the word "ordinary," and insert "Archbishops of Canterbury and York."

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

said, before he could withdraw his Motion, he must have an assurance from the Judge Advocate General that he would not accept the proposal of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk). It would not do for the House to set up a Pope even at Lambeth or Bishopsthorpe. It was the elasticity in each diocese of the ordinary judging the local circumstances and temper of the people that gave value to this Amendment. If the right hon. Gentleman himself would not accept that Amendment he would withdraw his Motion to report Progress.

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN

said, he would not accept it.

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

thought that, seeing the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge had spoken half-a-dozen times, other Members should now have a chance. He had often listened to the speeches of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill): but he never had the rudeness to say whether they were intolerable or not. Any person who was acquainted with the mode of conducting Business in the House knew that there was no chance of any alteration of any Amendment being made on Report. Now was the time to settle this question. Many of them had remained in town to settle this question.

THE CHAIRMAN

reminded the hon. and gallant Member that they could not discuss the details of the Amendment till the Motion for Progress was withdrawn.

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

hoped the Committee would not consent to report Progress. They were there for Business, and they should finish it.

SIR JOHN R. MOWBRAY

said, as the Member who seconded the proposal of the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge, he had no wish to prevent progress, if they could clearly understand from Ministers what they proposed to do. There was an Amendment on the Paper, and the Judge Advocate General, who had charge of the Bill and who had conducted it with great ability, had accepted the Amendment with verbal alterations. He thought they were bound to know distinctly, and not after further discussion, which might affect the less stable mind of the Home Secretary, what the Government committed themselves to.

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN

had great pleasure in answering the appeal. Having accepted the Amendment he proposed to stand by it, and he believed he was supported by high dignitaries outside, both of Church and State; but there was one suggestion which had been made to him.

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

rose to Order, and asked if the right hon. and learned Gentleman was speaking to the Motion to report Progress.

THE CHAIRMAN

called upon the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

MR. ILLING WORTH

thought some inconvenience would arise if the right hon. and learned Gentleman proposed to discuss the point which the Chairman had ruled was out of Order. He ventured to say the Government might possibly be listening to the extreme demands of hon. Gentlemen opposite.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

was sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman opposite; but he was speaking on the general question.

THE CHAIRMAN

understood that the Judge Advocate General had been asked by several hon. Members to state what was the intention of the Government before the Motion to report Progress was withdrawn. If the right hon. Gentleman did not discuss the Amendment, but simply stated what was the intention of the Government, he was in Order.

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN

having again risen—

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

rose to Order.

THE CHAIRMAN

ruled that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Judge Advocate General was in possession of the Chair.

MR. COURTNEY

rose to Order. He understood the hon. and gallant Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon) rose to Order, and he held that the hon. Member was in Order.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, he had asked the hon. and gallant Member for East Aberdeenshire, when he first rose, whether he rose to Order, and he had said "No." When the hon. and gallant Member rose the second time the Judge Advocate General was in possession of the Chair.

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN

gave the assurance that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) would be accepted; but thought that the words might be introduced—"Consisting of Prayers taken from the Book of Common Prayer, and portions of Holy Scripture."

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, that would remove the objections he had taken to the Amendment.

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

asked leave to withdraw his Motion to report Progress.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN

proposed, as an Amendment on the proposed Amendment, after the words "such services at the burial," to insert— Consisting of prayers taken from the Book of Common Prayer, and portions of the Holy Scripture.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT

thought it must be apparent to the Committee the great inconvenience that had been caused by the proceedings. They could not but remember that this 14th clause was a most important clause. It was one that required more consideration than any other clause in the Bill; and he believed the Home Secretary spoke exactly what he thought was right, and ought to be done, when he made the statement which he had just heard. But that was not the opinion of the Government; and after what had occurred, he did not know whether the Government were going to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton. He thought the Amendment would make the clause much better than it was originally drawn. But the whole clause wanted much more careful consideration than it had received. He did not rise to oppose proceeding with the clause; but he wished to put on record that of all clauses this was one that ought to be more carefully considered than it had been. It would be found that it did not fulfil all the purposes intended. They had no guarantee that Services would not be used of various kinds in different parts of the country. It was because he thought the clause would not carry out their intentions that he asked that more consideration should be given to it.

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

reminded the Committee that the Home Secretary was at the head of the Department which was responsible for carrying out the details of this Bill. He would ask, What would be the use of this Amendment they were discussing? He could not conceive any occasion when a relative, friend, or legal representative would ask for such a service. They were enacting by Act of Parliament what was an absurdity. He thought the time had come to move for the omission of the whole clause.

MR. ILLING WORTH

said, the clause in the Bill as laid on the Table they understood. They understood also from the right hon. and learned Gentleman who had charge of the Bill that he was prepared to consent to striking out the reference to Convocation. But they were not aware, and had no notice, that it was the intention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton. It might have been an understanding between the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the hon. Member for Wolverhampton; but it was the most important question in the Bill, exceeding in far-reaching results anything else that was to be found in the Bill. They were actually initiating a revolutionary change in the government of the Church of England by a private arrangement carried out by the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the hon. Member for Wolverhampton. It was said that the Church of England governing body would change from time to time; but that was a thing which Parliament would not consent to. Parliament would assert its supremacy, and that which was feared—namely, that the Bishop would now and then change the whole of the Burial Services—would not be allowed to take place. Let him point out what would happen if the proposal before the Committee were accepted. There were more than 40 Bishops and Archbishops; and, that being so, they might have more than 40 Burial Services introduced, each Bishop adopting that which best suited his individual taste. The hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) suggested that the difficulty might be overcome by leaving the matter in the hands of the Archbishops of York and Canterbury. Well, the hon. Member might have confidence in those right rev. or most rev. Prelates—whatever they were called— but did he suppose that they would live for ever? Might there not be different views held by succeeding holders of those offices? There might be the widest difference in the views of each Prelate, and the greatest possible distinction and contradiction in the character of the Services held under each. To his mind, the wisest thing to do for the time being would be to agree to the omission of the clause. If a change of this important character was to be introduced, let them have proper notice of it, and let it be made on the united authority of all Members of the Government. He was satisfied that, notwithstanding the apparent difficulty that prevailed on the Treasury Bench, the most Constitutional view was that expressed by the Home Secretary; and he was sure that the more that view was considered by the Committee and the country, the more it would be seen to be the soundest safeguard.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

hoped hon. Members would not insist upon going on with the clause. If they allowed the Bishops to select passages from the Liturgy that had been sanctioned, the whole difficulty would be met. The only difficulty was that the Bishops might select something that had not been sanctioned by Parliament; but if Parliament omitted the Burial Service from the Liturgy, there would be no Constitutional objection and no difficulty. Every objection he had was met by the Amendment; therefore, he hoped it would be accepted.

SIR HENRY TYLER

What are the words?

THE CHAIRMAN

Perhaps I had better read the whole as it would stand, although, technically, there are only two words before the Committee— Authorised to perform the burial service, in any case where the office for the burial of the dead according to the rites of the Church of England may not be used, and in any other case at the request of the relative, friend, or legal representative having the charge of ox-being responsible for the burial of the deceased to use such service at the burial consisting of prayers taken from the Book of Common Prayer, and portions of the Holy Scriptures as may be prescribed or approved of by the ordinary.

MR. PUGH

said, he could not follow the views of the Home Secretary, because the objection arose as to the ordinary having a discretion with regard to the Service that should be used at funerals. Now that the Home Secretary drew the line in this way, it would be wrong to allow the ordinary to appoint a Service of his own composing, but right to allow him to appoint a Service out of the Prayer Book and the Scriptures at his discretion. He ventured to think that this would not be satisfactory to hon. Friends behind him; nor did he think it would be acceptable to hon. Members opposite. What he would suggest, if he could have the ear of the Judge Advocate General for a moment, would be, that in this Amendment of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton they should leave out all the words after the word "such," and appoint as the alternative Service the portions of the Burial Service specified in Schedule "C," Part 5.

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

said, he should like to submit a proposal to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Would it not be better, he would ask, to restrict the Prayers to the Prayers in the Liturgy? Why should they refer to the ordinary? Why not let the parish minister himself settle what the Prayers should be? As the thing was proposed for every burial, they would have to make application to the Bishop. Surely, the clergy were as capable of fixing the prayers as the Bishop. He would move, instead of the words "as may be prescribed or approved by the ordinary," the words "as he may think proper."

THE CHAIRMAN

That would come later on.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, the more this discussion continued the more extraordinary were the arguments that were used. They were told in the early part of the evening that logic had nothing to do with the Bill; and they soon perceived that religious equality had very little to do with it. Hon. Gentlemen opposite had told them about Elizabeth and Charles II. ["No, no !"] Well, on the other side they had told them about Elizabeth, and on this side they had told them about Charles II. If there was anything wanting to the opinions of Elizabeth and Charles II., it was the opinions of "another place." he was sorry to see that House becoming converted into an ante-chamber to "another place." He was there for the sole purpose of finding favour for the opinions of those who sent him, and not for the opinions of those in "another place." He objected entirely both to the clause and the Amendment; but if they must have the clause it would be better with the Amendment. Let them accept the Amendment. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, he believed, were prepared to accept it; and, having accepted it, they need not wait for Report, which would really mean nothing. They could not carry a proposal against the Government. They could not agree, so let them count heads at once. Let them have a division. He appealed to hon. Gentlemen behind him whether this was not the way to settle the matter.

MR. COURTNEY

agreed with the practical wisdom of his hon. Friend; but he would ask what was meant by "Holy Scripture." He did not know whether this did or did not include the books of the Apocrypha. It appeared to him that selections might be made such as would enable persons to use, not what had been described as a "degrading" service, but what would be regarded as a privileged service.' It would be easy to select passages from the Apocrypha books which would be looked on by a certain school in the Church as inculcating such views as prayer for the dead, and the recognition of an intermediate state — passages relied upon by the Church of Rome. Could any legal authority tell him what was meant by the "Holy Scripture?"

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN

said, it had a legal definition. "Holy Scripture" meant the authorized version of the Scriptures. It did not include the Apocrypha.

MR. THOROLD ROGERS

said, that "Holy Scripture" was defined by the Articles of the Church of England.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he had been taken to task by one hon. Member for endeavouring to uphold the power of Parliament in the matter of the formularies of the Church of England; and the Home Secretary took him to task for infringing a principle which he had held all through—namely, that Parliament was supreme and final. His motive in moving the Amendment was the objection he had to the Convocation clause which was put in in "another place." He was satisfied that a grievance existed which should be recognized. The suggestion made by the Judge Advocate General would be a great improvement.

MR. FINIGAN

wished to know whether, in addition to that mentioned in the Amendment, the Douay Bible was to be taken as Scriptural? That, in his belief, was an authorized version, and he wished to know whether it was to be legally accepted as such? Supposing, in some village or other where there was no Catholic burial-ground, the Catholics wished to bury in the churchyard, would they be allowed to use the Douay Bible?

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN

said, the clause only had reference to ministers of the Church of England.

MR. ROUNDELL

said, that for the words "may not be used" in the Amendment he would like to substitute "shall not be used."

MR. COURTNEY

pointed out that it was impossible to constrain approbation. They could not compel a man to approve.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

MR. LABOUCHERE

I move to leave out Clause 14.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member has only to say "No" when the Question is put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Question put,

The Committee divided: —Ayes 78; Noes 34: Majority 44.—(Div. List. No. 153.)

Clause 15 (Saving as to ministers of Church of England) agreed to.

Clause 16 (Application of Act). ME. OSBORNE MORGAN moved in page 6, lines 24 and 25, to omit the Words "and the Isle of Man." If the Isle of Man had a desire to adopt the measure they could do it themselves.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 17 (Short title of Act) agreed to.

MR. LABOUCHERE

moved the insertion of the following new Clause: —

(Uniform scale of fees.)

"There shall be an invariable scale of charges, calculated according to the space occupied, for graves, and for the erection of gravestones and monumental structures, in each churchyard."

It would be well, perhaps, instead of saying "there shall be an," to say, "this shall be the," and add the scale. There had been a slight discussion on the matter, and the Judge Advocate General said that the original proposal was a little too large, the Bill only applying to churchyards, and the proposal having reference to both churchyards and cemeteries. At the same time, the Judge Advocate General said the scale was 7s. 6d.; but the Committee would know that, as things stood at present, the clergyman could charge what he liked. He could make one scale of charges for Churchmen and another for Dissenters, if he were so disposed. No doubt, hon. Gentlemen opposite would indignantly deny that the clergymen were likely to do any such thing. Well, if they would not do it there could be no harm in accepting the clause. He did not wish to say a word against the clergy or the Church of England; but amongst them, as amongst any other Body, individuals would be found occasionally who would be ready to take advantage of little slips of this sort — fanatical persons who would seek to exclude Dissenters from the churchyards by the unfair mode of charging them heavy fees. ["No, no !"] It was all very well for some hon. Members to say that this would not be done; but, at any rate, there could be no harm in passing a clause to render it impossible. No one could do it if his proposal were accepted. He himself had to pay something on account of a gravestone, the other day, or a monumental structure, and the sum struck him as being pretty considerable. He, therefore, proposed that the clause be added to the Bill, and he trusted the Judge Advocate General would not oppose it.

New Clause brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN

said, that he could not assent to the proposal of the hon. Member for Northampton, because it was entirely outside the scope of the Bill.

MR. WARTON

said, he did not see any reason why the hon. Member for Northampton should bring a grave charge against the clergymen.

Question put.

The Committee divided: —Ayes 34; Noes 71: Majority 37.—(Div. List, No. 154.)

Schedules A and B agreed to.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

moved the omission of Schedule C.

Motion agreed to.

Preamble agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered upon Tuesday next, and to he printed. [Bill 321.]