SECOND READING. (Hansard, 20 June 1871)

§ EARL BEAUCHAMP
, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, he had introduced this Bill with the object of preventing those acerbities of feeling which too often arose between the Dissenters and the members of the Church of England at a moment when such feelings were peculiarly undesirable. On the one hand the Dissenters were apt to demand what they were not entitled to by law, and on the other the clergyman was too desirous of ignoring the rights to which his Dissenting brethren were undoubtedly entitled. It was the undoubted right of every parishioner to be buried in the parish churchyard. The Bill consisted of two provisions only. In the first place, it enacted that any parishioner not entitled to burial according to the rites of the Church of England may be interred in the churchyard of the parish without the Burial Service of the Church, provided notice shall have been given to the officiating minister of the parish. The other enactment was, that on the application of any three ratepayers within a Poor Law Union to the Secretary of State, the latter may require the Board of Guardians to provide one or more burial grounds for the burial of persons with rites and ceremonies other than those of the Church of England.

THE EARL OF MORLEY
said, he must oppose the Bill, which appeared to have been very hastily drawn. The first clause enacted that any person not entitled to burial according to the rites of the Church of England might be buried in the churchyard, provided notice were given to the clergyman; but as the clergyman was to have no power of refusal, no purpose would be served by the notice. The 2nd clause would enable any three discontented ratepayers to induce the Home Secretary to compel a Board of Guardians, without consulting the ratepayers, to provide a burial ground, in which persons might be buried with rites and ceremonies other than those of the Church of England. No provision was made that the ratepayers should be consulted, as was the case in every other parochial proceeding—in fact, so far as the Bill went, they were to have no voice in the matter. He thought he had said enough to satisfy their Lordships that the Bill ought not to be read a second time.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
regretted to hear the noble Earl dispose of the Bill in so exceedingly summary a manner. No doubt the question it dealt with was one of serious difficulty. On the one hand there was the profound objection of the clergy of the Church of England—and, indeed, of the laity also—to services other than that of the Church of England within the churchyard; while, on the other hand, Dissenters in some places suffered under a practical grievance in not being allowed to bury their dead in the churchyard with their own services, while they were not provided with any other place where they could do so. It was a matter, therefore, of some importance to find a middle term between these exigencies, and to remedy a real grievance while avowing the embarrassment of protracted controversy. Therefore, he approved of the Bill generally; but the clauses required the addition of some safeguards by the Committee. As to the 1st, he was sure it was never intended to permit processions and orations within the churchyard; and as to the 2nd, he thought it would be sufficient to give authority, at the expense of those who desired it, to purchase under the Lands Clauses Act land for burial grounds in parishes where burial grounds for Dissenters could not be found without such 293 power. In Committee the clauses might be altered so as to be acceptable to the Government; and, considering that they were not likely to settle the question themselves at present, it was scarcely right that they should so cavalierly refuse to entertain the Bill.

§ LORD PORTMAN
objected to any measure which would increase local taxation, and especially to the proposition that any three ratepayers of the Union should be enabled to move the Secretary of State to impose such an expenditure on the Union. A Select Committee on the question might be desirable, or their Lordships might wait for a Bill to come up from the other House, where the matter had been much discussed.

THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTER
agreed with the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) that this was a very grave question. It was much better that their Lordships should endeavour to adjust the question by independent action, meeting the reasonable object both of the Dissenters and of those who upheld the rights of the Church of England, than that they should wait for the Bill, which had been for a long time struggling to got through the other House, and which when it did come up might be found to contain provisions which could not be granted, but the rejection of which would be invidious. He agreed with the noble Marquess that some Bill should be introduced to meet the reasonable desires of Dissenters, and prevent that irritation which might be difficult to allay by legislation. It was a great hardship to those who dissented from the Church of England, and who objected to the services used by the Church over the dead, that they should be in any way compelled, as the condition of a parishioner's right to be buried in the churchyard, to have that service road at the burial. They ought to remove as much as possible everything which savoured of those unhappy divisions which at present existed. If he were a conscientious Dissenter, and disapproved of the Burial Service of the Church, of England, he should feel it a hard thing to be obliged, on bearing the body of his child to its last resting place, to have a service read of which he disapproved, and which was repugnant to his feelings. The Dissenters had a real grievance, which it was the duty of 294 Parliament to redress. On the other hand, to allow services to be read in the churchyard different to that of the Church of England would be an absolute violation of the principle of an Established Church, and would undoubtedly lead to the most painful opposition, hostility, and acerbity at the very moment when all parties should wish to exclude them. It would make the churchyard the arena of acrimonious contests, and would give persons who denied the existence of a future state the opportunity of declaring that the deceased had ceased to be, and that they did not indulge the vain dream of a resurrection. The noble Earl's Bill would not meet the difficulty, for Unions might extend over many miles, and Dissenters being frequently the poorest part of the population, it would not be right to tell them they could bury their dead in their own way at a place 12 miles off. Probably the best way of meeting the difficulty would be that the acquisition of separate grounds in parishes should be facilitated, and landowners whose estates were strictly entailed might be allowed on such and such terms to grant a small piece of ground for the use of Dissenting communities. This would be a great relief. He did not want to rigidly enforce the rules of the Church of England, but to make liberal allowance for those who did not wish for its service. He thought that when the deceased before death, or his friends after it, objected to the Church service, he should be entitled to honourable and reverential burial in the churchyard, with no service in the churchyard, after whatever service they pleased in their own place of worship before entering the churchyard. A Select Committee might devise a scheme which would prevent their Lordships being troubled another Session with a question likely to excite acrimonious feeling.

§ EARL BEAUCHAMP
said, all he sought was to remove an admitted evil in the speediest and most satisfactory way possible. He had no objection to the reference of the Bill to a Select Committee.

§ THE DUKE OF CLEVELAND
said, all their Lordships must desire that this question should be settled; but he doubted if the Bill would cure the evil it was intended to deal with. He thought the general feeling of their 295 Lordships was that this Bill could not be accepted; but he hoped the Government would assent to the course proposed, in order that a measure might be devised which would remedy the existing grievance without being open to the objections to which the Bill was at present open.

THE EARL OF MORLEY
said, he should be happy to assent to the proposal on the part of Her Majesty's Government, in the earnest hope that this question, which had given rise to such deep feeling, might be settled in some satisfactory manner.

§ LORD PORTMAN
objected to the Bill being referred to a Select Committee.

THE EARL OF MORLEY
explained that what he had meant to assent to was the reference of the subject, not of the Bill, to a Select Committee. The Government could not in any case be regarded as pledged to support the provisions of the Bill.

§ THE DUKE OF SOMERSET
said, he thought it would be better to go to a Select Committee on the recital, whether it was expedient to amend the law of burial in England and Wales, and not hamper themselves with the clauses by reading the Bill a second time, but leave it to the Select Committee to devise a plan that might be acceptable to both sides of the House.

§ THE DUKE OF RICHMOND
, for the reasons given by the noble Duke (the Duke of Cleveland), hoped their Lordships would give the measure a second reading. As the noble Duke had said, their Lordships objected to both the two operative clauses of the Bill, and therefore there was nothing left to be laid before the Select Committee but the Preamble of the Bill—namely, "whereas it is expedient to amend the law of burials in England and Wales." Now, it was because he thought it was expedient to amend the law of burials that he wanted their Lordships to assent to the second reading. Unless they were agreed as far as that went, there would be nothing at all to go before a Select Committee.

§ EARL GRANVILLE
believed there was a general agreement among their Lordships as to the object to be attained. It seemed to be thought that while that Bill was not one which the House should adopt, the question to which it related was one that it was desirable to 296 endeavour to settle. The case might, perhaps, be met by referring the Bill at once to a Select Committee.

§ LORD REDESDALE
said, the Bill could not be committed until it had been read the second time.

D. Somerset.	E. Morley.
D. Cleveland.	E. Beauchamp.
M. Salisbury.	V. Eversley.
M. Bristol.	L. Bp. Winchester.
E. Airlie.	L. Boyle.
E. Dartmouth.	L. Belper.
E. Carnarvon.	L, Lyveden.
E. Nelson.	L. Westbury.