SECOND READING. (Hansard, 7 August 1857)

THE BISHOP OF LONDON

said, he wished to take that opportunity of entering into a brief explanation with reference to a discussion which had been raised on the introduction of that Bill. The right rev. 1210 Prelate, who was more immediately interested in the matter (the Bishop of St. David's) was not able to attend the House that evening as he had intended to have done. The matter had reference to the consecration of the cemetery at Swansea. It was supposed that that right rev. Prelate had, in some way, put himself in opposition to the clergy of his diocese; but the sole object of the opposition made by the right rev. Prelate to the consecration of Swansea cemetery had been, as he (the Bishop of London) understood, to protect the rights of the clergyman of Swansea. As he was informed the cemetery was so distant from the town that it was almost impossible for the clergyman of Swansea to perform the burial service there without great pecuniary loss. The Bishop, considering it to be his duty to do what he could for the benefit of a clergyman whose emoluments in all amounted, as the Clergy List states, to only £290 a year, and who, if he had been obliged to undertake the journey to the cemetery daily would have been subjected to serious pecuniary loss, thought it right to interpose in a manner in which he was fully persuaded that the law authorised him to interpose in order to prevent the loss with which the clergyman was threatened. It had been said publicly that the right rev. Prelate had violated the law; but the Bishop was of opinion—not without reason as it appeared to him (the Bishop of London)—that the very fact of its having been found necessary to introduce a new Bill to alter the law, so as to compel him to consecrate the ground, seemed to show that in the course he had before pursued he had acted in conformity with the law. If the right rev. Prelate had violated the law, it could not be supposed that in his position, or indeed in any position in this country, the law was not strong enough to vindicate itself. There was no individual in the land who was above the law; and he was quite sure that the right rev. Prelate had acted conscientiously in this matter according to his view of what the law was. As there was a common impression that all these difficulties with regard to the consecration of burial grounds originated with the Bishops, it was well that it should be known that in this diocese there was a great cemetery for the City of London, a cemetery for nearly 100 parishes, and that that cemetery had not yet been consecrated—not on account of any difficulty presented by the Bishop of the 1211 diocese, but simply because the Burial Board thought that, as intrusted with the public interests, they were entitled to oppose an obstacle in the way of the consecration of that cemetery. Still it would have been regarded as something unfair if he had risen in his place in February last and had stated that the Burial Board of the city of London were violating the law because they availed themselves of that which the law obviously allowed—namely, of their power to place an obstacle in the way of the consecration of that ground, until certain difficulties which they felt should be removed. If he might be permitted, he would say one word with respect to two clauses in the Bill, the 12th and 13th, which had no connection with Bishops or with consecration, but which he believed would have a most injurious effect on the operation of the measure. These clauses introduced the principle of competition between consecrated and unconsecrated grounds. It was of the utmost importance that no such competition should exist, but that the poor should have the opportunity of being buried as cheaply in the one as in the other. In one great parish of the metropolis persons might be buried more cheaply in unconsecrated than in consecrated ground; and in that parish the number buried in the consecrated ground, where the charges were higher, was equal to that buried in the unconsecrated ground. In Marylebone, however, where there were also two burial-grounds, one consecrated and the other unconsecrated, but where the charges were alike, nearly 5,000 had been buried in the consecrated ground to only 30 in the unconsecrated. The result of making burials cheaper in unconsecrated ground would be, as he was informed by a deputation which had waited upon him that day, that the undertakers, who generally contracted for the funerals of the poor, would induce them, sometimes perhaps, by deceit, sometimes by other means, to be buried in unconsecrated ground. He was told that the most revolting scenes had occurred in consequence of this. Only a few days ago a chaplain of one of these cemeteries assured him that it was no unfrequent circumstance for bodies to be exhumed after interment and removed to some consecrated place, when the relations of the poor discovered the fraud which had been practised upon them; or, if the word fraud was rather too strong a one to use, the manner in which they had been misled; and in other cases, where bodies were not removed, 1212 still a very strong feeling was displayed. The fact was that the poor wished to be buried with the rites of the Church of England, and it was of great importance that there should be nothing to detract from the solemnity and the proper performance of these rites. If, however, the principle of competition were introduced, a feeling of dissatisfaction would inevitably grow up on both sides; and, in place of adopting such a principle it would be far better to follow the example of Marylebone, making the fees the same for interments in consecrated and unconsecrated ground. This question had a bearing upon the pecuniary interest of the clergy, but it was not with reference to that interest that he was now speaking. He made these observations on account of the unfortunate scenes which, he was assured, occurred in burial-grounds owing to the introduction of the principle which appeared to be embodied in the 12th Clause. He also begged their Lordships to consider that it was the bounden duty of the Bishops of the Church to defend, if they possibly could, the interests of the parochial clergy of this country. Returns lately published would show that the metropolitan clergy had suffered the greatest pecuniary loss in consequence of measures lately adopted with reference to burial grounds. Many, with large families to support, who had devoted their lives to the service of their fellow men, had been reduced almost to destitution; yet they had offered no opposition to these measures, which were believed to be for the public good. He could not help thinking that had they been members of the legal profession, or persons who possessed any great election influence, their interests would have been better attended to, and they would probably have obtained compensation. It was, however, really heart-rending to know how many excellent men, with large families and small means, had been reduced almost to want in order to advance the public good by measures making better provision for the burial of the dead. The clergy had, in this instance, no desire to claim pecuniary compensation on this ground, but they did think that in passing such a measure as the present everything ought to be done which would conduce to the orderly and decorous burial of the dead. That these evils were not occasioned by the Bishops only he might be allowed once more to say. No man was ever less likely to give way to foolish or fanatical prejudices than the right 1213 rev. Prelate whom he succeeded in the see of London. Of that right rev. Prelate he ought not to speak to-day without declaring how affectionately and how faithfully he had for so many years discharged the great duties of his sphere. Their Lordships had, in common with all the inhabitants of this metropolis, heard with a feeling of deep regret that it had pleased God to remove Dr. Blomfield from this world, though they rejoiced that he was removed from a scene of suffering. If ever there was a man who with deep conscientiousness and with untiring energy performed his episcopal functions, sacrificing his time and his health to the public good, it was the late Prelate. He, if any man, was free from foolish prejudices, and was able clearly to see what concessions ought to be made to the rightful demands of his fellow-men, yet he bequeathed to his successor a difficult legacy arising out of the question respecting the consecration of the Ilford cemetery. No man could say that the late Bishop was to blame in the transaction; but the fact was that these were very difficult and complicated questions, requiring very calm and dispassionate examination. He did trust, therefore, that when this Bill was in Committee no accusations would be bandied about from one side to the other, as though right rev. Prelates acted regardless of the feelings of their fellow-men, but that full credit would be given to them for a desire to discharge conscientiously the duties of their great trust.