Lords Sitting of 13 March 1877

MINUTES.
— SELECT COMMITTTEE—Report—Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments and Office of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod. No. 25.))
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Treasury and Exchequer Bills; Burial Acts Consolidation (27).
Committee—Referred to Select Committee—Public Record Office (8).

THE EASTERN QUESTION—NEGOTIATIONS.—QUESTION.
EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, seeing the noble Earl the Secretary for Foreign Affairs in his place, I wish to ask him whether there is any information which he will feel at liberty to make known with respect to the negotiations understood to be proceeding on the subject of the Eastern Question?
THE EARL OF DERBY: Negotiations are going on with regard to the Eastern Question. I hope that before long I shall be able to make a statement on the subject to your Lordships; but, at present, matters are not in such a position as to enable me to do so.

PURLIC RECORD OFFICE BILL.
(Nos. 8–21.) (The Lord Chancellor.)
PURLIC RECORD OFFICE BILL.

  COMMITTEE (on Re-commitment.)
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee (on Re-commitment), read.
  After a short conversation, which was inaudible—
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, it was at the instance of noble Lords, Members of that House, who had filled the office of Lord Lieutenant and Custos Rotulorum of counties that he had introduced clauses to make the Bill apply to counties. He was prepared, in accordance with an intimation given by him on a former occasion, to refer the Bill to a Select Committee; but it was to be understood that it was the Bill, and not the whole subject, that was to be so referred.
  Order discharged; and Bill referred to a Select Committee.

BURIALS ACTS CONSOLIDATION BILL.
(No. 27.) (The Lord President.)
BURIALS ACTS CONSOLIDATION BILL.

  BILL PRESENTED. FIRST READING.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON: My Lords, I do not think that any apology is needed from me in bringing forward the important subject with which this Bill proposes to deal, and which I shall attempt to explain in a few words. The importance of the subject is so great—an importance which has been admitted for so many years, and which has given rise to so many discussions both in and out of Parliament—that this fact alone, I think, would warrant and justify the course which Her Majesty's Government propose to take on the present occasion. Indeed, so important has the question been considered by the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) that on the first night of the Session he commented on the absence of any allusion to it in the Speech delivered by command of Her Majesty from the Throne, and seemed to think that it ought to have been made the subject of one of the paragraphs of the Speech. The importance of the matter has been recognized now for a number of years; for I find that in the year 1840, on a Motion in the other House of Parliament, a Select Committee was appointed to inquire into the Health of Towns.
  1834
  Though this subject was in no way part of the subject referred to them, yet the importance of it became so manifest that the Committee was obliged to go into the question; and the result was that, from the evidence taken on that occasion, Mr. Mackinnon, either that year or shortly afterwards (1842), moved for a Select Committee of the other House to consider the expediency of legislation in respect of interments in densely populated towns or places. The Secretary of State for the Home Department at that time, Sir James Graham, sufficiently recognized the importance of dealing with this question from a sanitary point of view with regard to the health of the community, and he acknowledged that the Motion was a result of the Report of the Committee; and a Bill was introduced in that year or the year afterwards for the purpose of preventing interment in towns. Sir James Graham declined to sup - port the Bill, stating that the Government would consider the subject, and that a comprehensive Report upon the whole matter was then under consideration. That Report was afterwards presented; and any one who was acquainted with the gentleman who drew up the Report would be perfectly satisfied that it was a very exhaustive one—I mean Mr. Chadwick, who was eminently calculated to deal with matters of this kind, and whose report, therefore, was extremely valuable. Not long after the Government had taken it up Mr. Mackinnon called attention to the Report of the Committee, and also to the Report of Mr. Chadwick, and to the Report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who had pointed out that interments in towns were injurious to the public health. Then there was a Commission issued to inquire into the health of towns; and though no special attention was called to, or reference made to that Committee, to inquire into the subject of interments, the evidence as to the pollution of water, as to sewers, and the deterioration of the atmosphere in various parts of the country was so great that it still occupied the attention of the other House of Parliament. And though at that time Sir James Graham declined to legislate, on the ground of the difficulty of legislating on a subject of such delicacy and magnitude, in respect of which the feelings of the people might be aroused by an interference with interments in church-

  1835
  yards, yet he admitted that something was necessary to be done. A Resolution was carried against the Government of the day, that it was necessary to take up and deal with the subject. Then we have a Bill introduced by the late Lord Carlisle—then Lord Morpeth. We have also, in 1848, the Public Health Act, and Sir George Grey informed the House of Commons at the time that there was a Bill in preparation dealing with the question. This was followed by the Nuisances Removal Act. Lord Shaftesbury, Lord Carlisle, and Mr. Chadwick, all recognized strongly the injury to public health caused by interment in towns, and an Act was passed authorizing Her Majesty in Council to close burial grounds where it should be clearly shown they were injurious to public health. In 1852 again my noble Friend the Postmaster General (Lord John Manners) introduced a measure designed to affect the metropolis. In doing so, he explained that the previous legislation had not been successful, inasmuch as during two years of the operation of that legislation no burial grounds had been closed. But though at the outset it only applied to the metropolis, its principle was extended, and during the succeeding year another Bill was brought in, whose provisions, under certain conditions, affected the whole country. The effect was to put an end to all intramural interments within the metropolis as well as in most of the large towns throughout the country. The necessity of that measure had become apparent from the fact that during the six years before its introduction no burial ground had been closed by an Order in Council. It may be convenient that I should state what is the general law on the subject of burials. At Common Law every person has a right to be interred in the churchyard of the parish in which he dies; but at Common Law there is no indiscriminate power to close any burial place on the ground that it is injurious to public health. This can be done only under the Public Health Act, or the Nuisances Removal Act. Under the Ecclesiastical Law, when the parish churchyard is consecrated, the parson of the parish is bound to read the service of the Church of England over every person who is brought there for interment. Before 1852 there were threeclasses of burial grounds—namely,
  1836
  the churchyards attached to the parish churchs, the commercial cemeteries, and the private burial-grounds. As to the first of those classes, there is, I believe, no obligation on any parish to provide a churchyard; but when one is provided, it is vested in the parson as his freehold, subject to the right of every inhabitant of the parish to be buried there. There is, however, no obligation on any one to be buried in the parish churchyard—a man may, if he chooses, be buried in his own garden. The second class—the commercial cemeteries—are usually established by Act of Parliament, and when they are established the Cemeteries Clauses Act imposes on the companies who own them certain obligations as to enclosure and decent maintenance: the companies are to provide consecrated and unconsecrated ground, and when once they have obtained land for burial purposes they cannot devote it to any other purpose. The third class belongs either to individuals or religious congregations. Since 1852 and 1853 a fourth class of burial-grounds has been established under various Acts. The first of these applied to the metropolis; but they have since been extended to various parts of the country. Since 1853 no fewer than eight Acts relating to burials have been passed, the last of them in 1871. Under these Acts, and under the existing laws, when a burial-ground is closed by Order in Council, on the representation of the Secretary of State, the Vestry of the parish in which such burial-ground is situated is to be summoned, and it has power, to set up a Burial Board if it should so think fit. It cannot, however, be compelled to do so. It is almost unnecessary that I should inform your Lordships that such has been the case in Northampton, where the Vestry declined to avail itself of that permissive power, and there persons were buried in an unconsecrated burial-ground. Again, as the law stands at present it contains an additional anomaly. Neither the Vestry nor the Burial Board which it may have set up have powers for the compulsory purchase of land; but if the Burial Board do establish a burial-place it is bound to provide consecrated ground therein—consecrated ground must be provided for the members of the Church of England, although a churchyard may not be needed for the wants of a parish—that is to say,

  1837
  consecrated ground may exist without unconsecrated, but the latter cannot exist without the former. I now come to the areas of the burial districts. When the Burial Acts were first put in operation the parochial area was adopted—that is, the areas of the burial districts were the same as the Poor Law parishes. But afterwards an extension and the union of several parochial areas became not uncommon. Much confusion and complication resulted from this. There are instances in which one burial area overlaps another, and in which one portion of a burial area belongs to one parish and another portion to another parish, and owing to causes which I need not particularize it has sometimes been found impossible to decide in which jurisdiction certain churchyards lie. To show the intricacies of the Burial Acts and the necessity of consolidation and amendment in the case of those Acts, I will quote the opinion of three learned Judges. Mr. Justice Crompton, in delivering the judgment of the Court in the case of "Regina v. Coleshill Overseers," said—
  "It is impossible to come to anything like a decision which is perfectly satisfactory to our own minds amidst such confusion as exists in the provisions of the Burial Acts."
  Mr. Justice Blackburn, in the case of "Regina v. Walcot," said—
  "There are, I believe, ten statutes all applying to this one subject-matter, to be read together, and, if possible, reconciled. No wonder, therefore, that difficulties arise on the proper construction of the different sections of these Acts."
  Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, in the same case, spoke of "this complicated, entangled, and confused mass of legislation." I think that these opinions, as to the necessity of some legislation to explain and set forth with more perfect clearness the actual state of the burial laws, are a sufficient justification for the Government in their attempt to deal with the subject of consolidation and amendment. I do not, however, mean to rest my case solely on the necessity for consolidation. As I have endeavoured to explain, from 1840 to 1853, the general question was treated entirely as one of sanitary necessity. But it is to be borne in mind that this legislation was only partial, because it applied only to the metropolis and to certain parts of the
  1838
  country. In 1871 a Commission was appointed, which, among other things, was to inquire into, and report upon, the administration of the sanitary laws and the constitution of the sanitary authorities. That Commission was composed of men well qualified for the task imposed on them. I will read to your Lordships one extract from the Report of the Commission—
  "If it were not for the fear of delaying legislation, we should certainly recommend that all the Burial Acts should be consolidated and incorporated in the new statute; but under any circumstances the numerous Acts on this subject should be consolidated.…. The administration of the Burial Acts is under the Home Office, and should pass to the new central authority."
  Well, the Bill now before your Lordships is introduced for the purpose of carrying out the recommendations of that Commission. It purposes to consolidate the Burial Acts. It also proposes to treat the matter in a sanitary point of view, and to take from the Secretary of State the powers which he now possesses in respect of burial places, and transfer those powers to the Local Government Board. The latter proposal is made for an obvious reason—namely, that the Secretary of State has no authority to enforce inspection, which is so necessary in respect of burial-grounds, whereas the local Government Board can be readily made available for that purpose. Another provision of the Bill which the Government regard as of great importance is that it sets up a Burial Authority in every part of the country; because it may be that, although the Vestry is moved to consider the question, it may decline to do so, and there is no power to compel it. The Bill proposes that in every parish of the country there shall be a Burial Authority, which may be the Vestry, or a Committee of the Vestry, or even the Sanitary Board. That is the machinery by which it is proposed to carry out the amended law. The Bill contains no fewer than 88 clauses, but I shall only indicate its main provisions. The Bill proposes to define more strictly the existing powers for closing burial-grounds, and it imposes on the Burial Authority the legal obligation of providing new burial-grounds; and I call the attention of my noble Friend opposite (Earl Granville) to this—that it does so on these

  1839
  grounds, either that the burial ground of the parish is closed, or that there is not consecrated and unconsecrated ground sufficient and suitable for the inhabitants, or wherever the authorities think that, having regard to the population, additional burial-ground is required. There is a further important provision which will, no doubt, receive the attention of the noble Earl. There is a section in the Bill—the 6th—which enacts that, on requisition from a certain proportion of the ratepayers representing that the district is not provided with consecrated and unconsecrated ground "sufficient and suitable for the burial of the inhabitants thereof," the Burial Authority must provide new ground, unless the Burial Authority shall think that it is not required. But from the decision of the Burial Authority that ground is not required there is an appeal to the Secretary of State, who may require the Burial Authority to provide ground if he thinks that the existing burial-ground is not sufficient and suitable for the burial of the inhabitants of the district. Of course, the words "sufficient and suitable" will include the religious views of those who make the appeal. The Burial Authority and the Home Secretary will take religious views into consideration when determining whether or not the existing burial ground is "sufficient and suitable." The Secretary of State will not be compelled to set up consecrated in addition to unconsecrated ground, if he shall think there is sufficient consecrated ground in the parish churchyard. Except in cases where other provision is already made by existing Acts, the parochial system will be adopted by the Bill, and will confine Burial Boards to Poor Law parishes; and compulsory powers are given to the Sanitary Authorities to obtain land for burial-grounds. The Sanitary Authorities will moreover be vested with the powers of every Burial Authority within the sanitary districts, so as to provide against the case where a Vestry may neglect its duties. Large powers are also given for the purpose of promoting economy by enabling Burial Authorities to combine, under the supervision of the Local Government Board. I have now given a sketch of the main provisions of the Bill. I will now revert to what occurred in your Lordships' House last
  1840
  year when my noble Friend opposite (Earl Granville) brought forward his Resolutions. I do so for the purpose of answering by anticipation objections which, from the remarks he then made, I presume my noble Friend may make to this Bill. My noble Friend based his Resolutions on the ground that every person had a right to be buried in the churchyard of the parish where he resided, and that there were a great number of persons who, not being Churchmen, objected to being compelled to use the Services of the Church over the bodies of their deceased friends; and he maintained that those persons suffered a grievance. On the part of the Government I then endeavoured to show that, although in some small parishes a state of things might exist that might seem to justify that objection, yet the grievance of a want of burial places for such persons did not exist in any of the large towns of the country, and that, taking the country generally, the grievance must be confined to a very small number of persons, if they deducted from the whole population the Churchmen and the persons who, though not Churchmen, do not object to the existing state of things. I showed also that the number to whom it might be a grievance was constantly and steadily diminishing. I stated that up to 1866 the number of cemeteries established was 413; that between 1866 and 1875 235 were opened, and during 1875–76 36 more—making a total of 684. I also stated that since 1852 above 2,000 churchyards had been closed, and that by a Return made to the other House, out of 6,800 parishes, the non-Churchmen had burial places in 2,230, or one in every three parishes. I have made inquiries into the number of cemeteries provided since the date up to which the Returns were completed when I last addressed your Lordships on this subject, and I find that 38 Burial Boards have been appointed since that date up to the close of the past year, and nine during the present year; but, as several of these Boards have not yet succeeded in obtaining land, it is impossible for me to state with accuracy the total of the population now provided with cemeteries. I have further to observe that there is every reason to believe that under the law, when amended by this Bill, churchyards will

  1841
  be closed in greater numbers, and with greater rapidity, than they have hitherto been. I am not now speaking of large towns; because in those, church-yards do not exist, but of rural districts in which certain churchyards still open ought to be closed—churchyards in which the bones of the dead are brought to the surface at each new interment. It is, however, estimated that out of 22,000,000 people in this country, about 14,000,000 are not subject to the grievance; and from the remaining 8,000,000 your Lordships must deduct the members of the Established Church and those non-Churchmen who do not object to the Burial Service of the Church—leaving a very small residue whom the grievance affects. This Bill will, I believe, greatly facilitate and accelerate the movement in the desired direction. In many rural districts churchyards which ought to be closed are not closed, simply because there is no one to put the law into operation; and even if there were, there would be other difficulties in the way of bringing about the desired issue. This Bill indicates the Authority which is to take the requisite steps, and facilitate the object to be gained. Last year the noble Earl brought forward these two Resolutions:—
  "That it is desirable that the law relating to the burial of the dead in England should be amended: (1), by giving facilities for the interment of deceased persons without the use of the burial service of the Church of England in churchyards in which they have a right of interment, if the relatives or friends having the charge of their funerals shall so desire; (2), by enabling the relatives or friends having charge of the funeral of any deceased person to conduct such funeral in any churchyard in which the deceased had a right of interment with such Christian and orderly religious observances as to them may seem fit."—[3, Hansard, ccxxix 588.]
  I will take the second of these Resolutions first. I object to the proposal contained in it. I object to that proposal, because it is wholly subversive of the system which has prevailed in this country for many centuries; and it never has been recognized on the removal of disabilities. For instance, at one period no baptism of any child in this country could be registered unless that baptism was performed in the parish church. That state of things was altered by a provision which allowed the registration of baptism performed by other persons than the parson of the parish; but when
  1842
  that provision was made, no leave was given to any other person to go into the parish church, and there baptize a child. Again, up to 1836 no marriage was lawful in this country unless it was celebrated in the parish church. That was put an end to; but when they permitted persons who objected to be married in the parish church to have their marriages made legal, they did not permit those persons to go into the parish church and celebrate their marriages there. I object, then, to the second of the noble Earl's Resolutions. A measure introduced by my noble Friend the Lord Steward (Earl Beauchamp), and which passed through your Lordships' House some years ago, was framed on the principle of the first Resolution, and Her Majesty's Government have no objection to that Resolution now. Accordingly, a clause has been introduced in the Bill now before your Lordships which I think will carry out the principle of that Resolution in a satisfactory manner. I have not alluded to this clause before, because I preferred to rest my case on sanitary and consolidation grounds; but, inasmuch as the clause deals with the Motion brought forward by my noble Friend last year, I think it right to call special attention to it; and, as it is rather long, I will read it. The clause says—
  "Where the relative or person taking upon himself the duty of providing for the burial of a deceased person shall, by notice in writing to the minister whose duty it is to perform, when required, a religious service in the churchyard in which such deceased person is entitled by law to be buried, represent that the religious service or ceremony (if any) will be performed elsewhere, and request that the burial shall be permitted to take place in the churchyard without the performance therein of the burial service of the Church of England, the burial shall be permitted to take place therein at the ordinary time without the performance of any religious service or of any other ceremony; and this section shall in all Courts and proceedings be held to be a sufficient justification to the incumbent or minister for not performing any religious service. Notice under this section shall be given a convenient time (not being less than twenty-four hours) before the time of the burial."
  That clause, I think, carries out most distinctly the proposal of the first, at all events, of the two Resolutions which my noble Friend brought forward last year. I have now endeavoured to bring before your Lordships, in as brief a manner as I could compatibly with the

  1843
  importance of the subject, the main provisions of the Bill which I have now to present. It is a Bill which I believe to be thoroughly practical and useful. It will establish a uniform system throughout the country, remove many of the anomalies that are now admitted to exist, and tend to promote the health and well-being of the community.
  Bill to consolidate, with Amendments, the Burial Acts presented by The LORD PRESIDENT.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he did not think it was a very convenient course on the part of the Minister who introduced the Bill, after describing its provisions, to invite the House on the first reading of the measure to enter into a discussion of the whole question. It would certainly be an inconvenient course if it were generally followed. The noble Duke had, however, given them a very clear statement of the history of legislation on that subject. He had also, he believed, described with perfect accuracy the present state of the law; and he thought the noble Duke had made out a case for the consolidation of the various statutes bearing on that subject—indeed, he (Earl Granville) was not sure that a good case might not be made out for the consolidation of the law on almost every subject comprised in the Statute Book. The noble Duke had likewise made out a case for some change in the law upon sanitary grounds. There was no doubt that great scandal had arisen, for instance, from the state of things which existed at Northampton, and the noble Duke stated that this Bill would meet such difficulties as existed there. But when the noble Duke alluded to the debate of last year, and to the pledge which he then gave on behalf of the Government, he (Earl Granville) must say that he did not understand that to be so much a pledge in reference to consolidation or to sanitary grounds as one that the Government would take into consideration the best way of dealing with a subject of very grave importance both to those who did not belong to the Established Church and to those who did so; for, not only did the Dissenters feel that they laboured under a great grievance, but many, both of the clergy and the laity, of the Established Church concurred in that opinion, and thought that in the interests of the
  1844
  Church itself that grievance ought to be removed. The present Bill appeared to him, he confessed, not in the slightest degree to fulfil the conditions of the pledge given last year as he understood it. The Bill seemed to contain enactments giving facilities for closing churchyards and for forming burial beards. It proposed to constitute Burial Authorities throughout the country, who were to be the Vestries, unless the Vestries chose to confer their functions on sanitary authorities. There was to be a certain check over them through the Local Government Board; and also powers were to be given to the Secretary of State in the matter. But with regard to the existing grievance he thought that the Nonconformists had a right to complain of the measure. Their grievance was this—that having a right by common law to be buried in the churchyards of the country, that right was accompanied by conditions which in their opinion were entirely contrary to their religious freedom. In order to meet that grievance he understood the noble Duke to propose that if a requisition was made and was disregarded by the Burial Authority, in that case the Secretary of State would have the power to order the ratepayers of a parish to purchase additional land either wholly unconsecrated or partly consecrated and partly unconsecrated., and not merely to do it on sanitary grounds, but also to take religious grounds into view; and the noble Duke said that the Secretary of State would be always ready to consider the religious aspect of the matter. It was not very consoling to find that a power was thus given, should it be largely applied, to tax the ratepayers of about one-half the country for providing those additional burial grounds. He thought there was nothing less likely than that the large body of Dissenters in this country, with their feelings on that subject, would themselves voluntarily come forward and invite the Secretary of State to tax them and their fellow-citizens in order to do the particular thing which they objected to—namely, to exclude them from the churchyards of their parishes where they thought that by law and by equity they had a right to be buried. The only comfort the noble Duke gave them as to that was that he proposed to allow them, as was their right, to be admitted

  1845
  into the churchyards, but that they should be debarred from giving any vent whatever to their religious feelings at the most sacred moment and on the most solemn occasion in their lives. They were, when admitted there, to do that which every one of their Lordships would object in the strongest manner to doing, which was to consign the remains of those who were dearest to them to the grave without the slightest religious observance. The Bill was meant to be a settlement of the religious difficulties between Churchmen and Dissenters, but he (Earl Granville) did not anticipate the slightest good from it. The noble Duke had quoted some statistics which he seemed to think made a strong case and minimized that grievance; but on the second reading of the Bill he (Earl Granville) believed he should be able to prove the converse of what the noble Duke had said on almost every point.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I will not commit the solecism of criticising a measure which is not before the House; but perhaps I may be allowed, from the peculiar circumstances in which I stand, to say a few words in order to represent to your Lordships what are the desires and the feelings of one large portion of the community in reference to the Bill which the noble Duke has propounded. I have received during the Recess a very large Petition, the number of names appended to which I cannot exactly state, but the clergyman who forwarded it to me stated that the names, arranged in two columns, occupied seven yards of paper. I have received another Petition with about 400 signatures attached to it, and another with about 90. All who signed pressed upon me and upon the Bishops generally the expediency of taking or of urging on the Government to take some such step as the noble Duke's Bill seems to shadow forth. Even from the discussions which have occurred in this House on the subject, all your Lordships must see that this is a very difficult and intricate question. All questions are difficult and intricate which have to do with men's feelings, even when those feelings may not be very wisely directed; and even to deal with prejudices of which we disapprove must be a very difficult matter indeed. I am, there-
  1846
  fore, not disposed to criticize too minutely the mode in which the Government proposes to deal with this difficult question. At any rate, the noble Duke has, by the present measure, redeemed at the earliest moment the pledge which he gave last Session—that he would endeavour, as far as he could consistently with his feelings, to meet the difficulty and the grievance which were said to exist. No doubt this measure comes before your Lordships as a sanitary measure; and in that light, perhaps, a little discredit may be cast on it; because we know, of course, that it is not a great regard for the health of the community, but rather the desire to set at rest a difficult and annoying question, that has called forth the present Bill. I shall not myself be disposed to quarrel with the Bill; because, dealing with the matter in a sanitary aspect, it proceeds to deal with more difficult matters than those which concern the public health. The question relating to the burial of the dead is one in which I think all must feel deeply interested. It is quite an old story now that our churchyards in country places as well as in towns have been desecrated: ever since the time when Shakespeare called attention to the matter, and asked whether these bones of ours "cost no more the breeding, but to play at loggats with them." "Mine ache," he says, "to think on't." During the 300 years that have passed since certainly the desecration of our churchyards in this way has not diminished. With a greatly and rapidly increasing population no means have been taken to avoid this evil; and I think it is a good thing that an attempt is now to be made to deal with the evil, both on sanitary grounds and also on the higher religious ground of promoting reverence for our places of sepulture. Most of your Lordships have travelled in Ireland, and know, I dare say, the unwise reverence with which old churchyards there are regarded, although generation after generation has made use of them and they ought long since to have been closed—many of them being reduced to a condition very unlike a place for Christian sepulture. And since I have taken charge of the diocese with which I am immediately connected, I have had complaints made to me that in the neighbourhood of some church-

  1847
  yards there is evidence of the desecration that takes place in country districts. Therefore, it is in itself a good measure that enables proper steps to be taken to close these churchyards. The manner in which the churchyards pollute the wells—sometimes in the midst of the villages—may perhaps in a great degree account for the frequent outbreaks of fever in so many of our country districts. Therefore I will not quarrel with any measure which proposes both to care for our health and to restore our churchyards to the reverent aspect which they ought to bear; and which also indirectly, but I trust not so ineffectually as the noble Earl supposes, attempts to deal with the religious question. If I understand the noble Duke, the principle of his Bill is this—that in every community throughout the country, and in every parish, every person who is a subject of the Queen shall have a right to a proper place of sepulture; and if in any neighbourhood it shall so happen that the ancient churchyard is not a fit place for sepulture, there shall be easy means provided for obtaining a new burial ground. I presume that it is also a part of the noble Duke's proposal that all persons who now feel aggrieved because the religious opinions they held in life may not follow them to the grave, but that over their bodies must be read a Service against which they conscientiously objected during their years of health—it is, I hope, part of the noble Duke's proposal that this grievance where it exists shall be removed. I think it right to state, as a representative of the Clergy in this House, that I am aware that in the Convocation of the Province of Canterbury the question was carefully debated whether it would not be wise and well to provide some service which would be more acceptable to our Dissenting brethren than the ordinary Burial Service of the Church of England. At the present moment the Convocation of the Provinces of Canterbury and York are engaged, under Letters Patent from the Queen, in re-considering and revising the Rubrics of the Prayer Book of the Church of England, and it is certainly—so far as the matter has gone—the wish of the Clergy that advantage should be taken of this revision to introduce some service which may be read over our Dissenting brethren without violating the scruples
  1848
  which they feel against the whole service of our Church as it at present exists. I will add—if I may be allowed to do so—that when this matter comes into Committee, I will take the opportunity of making some suggestions that may meet the views of the Clergy in this respect. There will then remain but one grievance. Every man, whether a member of the Church of England or not, will be fully entitled to be buried in the churchyard of his own parish, provided that churchyard still remains—the only grievance will be that he will be buried by the minister of the parish. Now, I do not think it would be wise to overlook that which some regard as a mere sentimental grievance, that a man when dead cannot have the service read over his body by the person who was his spiritual adviser during his life. But the effect of the proposal, as I understand it, is this—that in almost every parish there will soon be a place adjoining that in which members of the Church of England are buried where the few—and they are very few, I believe—who object to the presence and sound of the voice of a clergyman of the Church of England, will be able to have the full services of their own minister. We know from examinations which took place before the discussions of last year that almost all those Dissenting Bodies who have services, departing from the old Puritanical system of burying the dead without any service, have adopted portions of the service of the Church of England. It is, then, no great grievance to have this service, either entire or altered as Convocation proposes, read over them; but if any have such an objection to the presence and the voice of the clergyman of the Church of England, that they cannot bear that he should read the service over the remains of their friends, in almost every such case, so far as lean understand this Bill, there will be a place provided where they will have it all their own way. I do not say that this meets all the difficulties of the case, but it goes a long way towards it. The noble Duke may be fully entitled to be considered as having redeemed the pledge he made last year, so far as it is possible for him to do so consistently with the thousand difficulties that cluster around this question. Some such scheme as we have heard, starting from a sanitary point of view—about which I will not quarrel—

  1849
  will minimise the difficulties that must surround this question, and I am one of those who think upon the whole that it is not a bad thing to accept half of a good measure if you cannot get the whole. It is not, it seems, possible, in the state of public feeling, to have such a Resolution carried as the noble Earl proposed last year. I think the feeling of the Clergy is quite as strong on the other side, and that we are quite as much entitled to consider their feelings as the feelings of others. If, therefore, we can accomplish what the Bill aims at we shall have done good work. I do not suppose that the Bill will satisfy everyone. Of course there are persons who delight in a grievance, and it will be a very serious thing for such persons to have their grievance diminished to the very smallest possible dimensions; but I am sure that there will be no disposition in this House to make political capital out of a measure so important as this, and I hope that our Dissenting brethren will not try to make political capital out of this question. It is for the interest of all that these unseemly conflicts over the graves of our departed friends should as soon as possible come to an end. We are all Christians, living together in one community, recognizing the same laws, human and divine. It may be inevitable that we should have controversies one with another; but let us choose same better battle-ground on which to fight out these controversies. Let not the bitterness be engendered which is sure to be caused by continuing controversies of this kind on so very difficult and tender a subject, and I do not despair but that when this measure has been fully considered in this House, and such Amendments introduced into it as the Government will be ready to listen to in Committee, that it will be acceptable to the Clergy and members of the Church of England generally, and also acceptable to the great majority of our sensible Dissenting brethren.
  Bill read 1a; and to be printed (No.27.)
  House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, half-past Ten o'clock.