Lords Sitting of 17 May 1877

MINUTES.
— Sat First in Parliament—The Marquess of Northampton, after the death of his Brother; the Lord Sudeley, after the death of his Brother.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Second Report—Intemperance.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Provisional Orders (Ireland) Confirmation (Artisans and Labourers Dwellings)* (78), and referred to the Examiners; Provisional Orders (Ireland) Confirmation (Ennis, &c.)* (79), and referred to the Examiners; Metropolis Improvement Provisional Orders Confirmation (Great Wild Street, &c.)* (81), and referred to the Examiners; City of London Improvement Provisional Order Confirmation (Golden Lane, &c.)* (82), and referred to the Examiners; Greenock Improvement Provisional Order Confirmation* (83), and referred to the Examiners.
Committee—Burial Acts Consolidation (27-80).
Report—Solicitors Examination, &c. (76).
Third Reading—Bankruptcy Law Amendment (41); South Africa (77), and passed.
Royal Assent—Customs and Inland Revenue (Duties on Offices and Pensions) [40 Vict. c. 10]; Judicial Proceedings (Rating) [40 Vict. c. 11.].

PRIVATE BILLS.
Ordered, That Standing Orders Nos. 92. and 93. be suspended; and that the time for depositing petitions praying to be heard against Private and Provisional Order Confirmation Bills, which would otherwise expire during the adjournment of the House at Whitsuntide, be extended to the first day on which the House shall sit after the recess.
PRIVATE BILLS.
  BURIAL ACTS CONSOLIDATION BILL. (The Lord President.)

    (NO. 27.) COMMITTEE.
    Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
    Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee on the said Bill."—(The Lord President.)
    THE EARL OF REDESDALEsaid, that as he would not be able to address their Lordships on the Bill when the House was in Committee (being Chairman of the Committee), and as he had not spoken on the second reading, perhaps their Lordships would permit him to say a few words on the Motion now before the House. In the first place, he wanted to point out that no one had an absolute and unconditional right of burial in the parish churchyard—the right each parishioner had was a right subject to certain conditions; and the object of this Bill was to deal with the conditions under which the right was now possessed. The parish churchyard was not the property of the parish, but the property of the Church—in the same way that the building in which Divine service was performed and the rectory or parsonage was the property, not of the parish, but of the Church. The question, then, for their Lordships to consider was—were the conditions annexed to right of burial in the churchyard reasonable or unreasonable conditions? The churchyard was consecrated to God for the burial of those who belonged to the Church, and the solo existing condition was that the funeral service should be performed by the clergyman of the church to which the burial place belonged. That was a very important point to consider in coming to a conclusion on this subject. It was unreasonable to demand an unconditional right of burial, and many persons thought that if it were conceded it would only be the prelude to further claims. The demand now made on behalf of the Dissenters involved within itself the right of Dissenters to perform the burial service, the service of matrimony, the service of baptism, and the ordinary services of Dissenters in the parish church. He said, therefore, that the demand was a monstrous one. To show that he took no extravagant view as to the demands of the Dissenters, he begged to call

    1041
    their Lordships' attention to this passage, from a speech reported to have been made on the 18th of April last by Mr. R. W. Dale, one of the accredited Liberationist leaders, at a meeting held in Birmingham. It was in these terms—
    "Nonconformists had not concealed what their real intentions were. What they were going in for was complete religious equality in life as well as in death; and as they asserted that the graveyards belonged to the parish, so they asserted that the Church belonged to the parish. They did not intend to disguise how far their principles carried them."
    It was clear to him that this movement concerning the churchyards was a purely political movement—it had been got up to promote political excitement. He did not believe there was a bit of conscience about it—it was got up for political excitement, and for nothing else. The noble Earl (Earl Granville), on the occasion of the second reading, alluded to a pamphlet written 40 years ago, in which the Dissenters urged their grievances. That was at a time when they were agitating for the abolition of Church rates, in respect to which he ventured to think they regarded their pockets more than their consciences. The only objection over raised to the Burial Service of the Church of England was that it was too charitable. The present movement had been got up to keep a political fiction in existence, and that fiction was called "the Great Liberal Party." It was a fiction for this reason:—What was a Party? An association of men who maintained the same principles. There might be shades of differences in their opinions, but they all maintained the same principles. Did "the Great Liberal Party" maintain the same principles? A large number of the members of that Party—all their Lordships, he believed—even those who sat on the other side of the House were Monarchical, and bore true allegiance to the Queen; but many of the members were Republicans—but both belonged to "the Great Liberal Party." Not a few of that Party supported the Church Establishment; large numbers of them were bitterly opposed to it, and would uproot it altogether; but both sections were still members of "the Great Liberal Party." The fact really was, that it was not a great political Party, but a great political humbug. It was kept up only by a succession of cries, such as that of throwing open the church-
    1042
    yards to Dissenters and their services. Under the appellation of Liberal principles, measures were adopted at one time which were repudiated at another, as the only means of keeping "the Great Liberal Party" together. At one time the demand of the Dissenters for opening the churchyards was viewed with horror by a leading exponent of the opinions of "the Great Liberal Party." Here was what was stated by The Edinburgh Review in 1834, when the Reform Government was still in existence; when Earl Grey was Prime Minister; when Lord Brougham was Lord Chancellor; Lord Lansdowne, President of the Council; and Lord Althorp, Leader of the House of Commons—
    "We must, however, in passing, remark that nothing can exceed the want of fairness and of common reason shown by some among the sectaries in discussing these questions. Thus they claim the right of burial in the very churchyards which they refuse the means of supporting. 'Let there be no rates,' say they; 'let Churchmen keep up the churchyard; but let us who pay nothing towards it have the privilege of burying our dead in it.' Except among Irish landowners and the accomplices or dupes of Irish agitators, was ever so glaring a want of fairness as in this pretension I We trust it is confined to a small body of the English sectaries."
    What was the course now taken by the representatives of the statesmen he had just mentioned? What their Predecessors condemned they found themselves forced to support for the sake of "the Great Liberal Party," and were led on from bad to worse. Let them take timely warning.
    THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I find myself in considerable difficulty in reference to this matter, and unless I took this opportunity of explaining the position in which I stand, I should not be doing justice to myself and those whom I represent. On two or three occasions I felt it my duty to speak against Resolutions proposed by the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville), and on every one of those occasions I took the opportunity of saying that I thought it was a mistake in the noble Earl to proceed by way of Resolution instead of by endeavouring to introduce in the Bill when it got into Committee such Amendments as would make the measure satisfactory to all parties. It is not desirable, my Lords, nor would it be respectful to your Lordships any more than to the Clergy and others interested

    1043
    in this question, that the words which I utter on this matter should have any uncertain sound, and that being so, I am desirous of explaining before the House goes into Committee, the views generally which I entertain on the Amendments before your Lordships. My Lords, my opinion is that the time has undoubtedly come when this matter, for the sake and in the interest of the Church of England, should be settled. I was in hopes when this measure was laid before your Lordships that there was every prospect of the question being settled. The 74th clause, which in its present shape is objected to by many persons, seemed to me, if not in itself entirely satisfactory, to afford the means by which a satisfactory settlement might be obtained. I am, therefore, placed in a position of some difficulty when I find that the 74th clause, if it has not actually disappeared, is very likely to disappear from the Bill. The cause of my difficulty I shall state very briefly. Nobody who listened to the debate and who has considered the division on the second reading of the Bill could, I think, have failed to come to the conclusion expressed by my most rev. Brother (the Archbishop of York) in speaking against the noble Earl's Resolution—namely, that the time when this question must be settled is near at hand; and that, at the same time, no one could doubt that no settlement was possible except in the direction of some greater concession to the Dissenters than that embodied in the 74th clause. Looking to the discussion on the second reading, and to the reasons given in that discussion by those of your Lordships who spoke in support of the Bill, I think that what occurred on the occasion to which I am referring pointed to the expediency of maintaining the 74th clause and amending it, and therefore, my Lords, I cannot but think it a mistake to withdraw that clause altogether, because, defective as that clause was, it promised to give us some sort of solution of the difficulty; and its withdrawal leaves the Bill one dealing only with matters of sanitary reform, which have very little to do with the question which is exciting so much interest at the present moment. I have always spoken with a certain amount of hesitation on this subject, because I felt myself opposed to the feeling of a large body of the Clergy; but, on the other hand, I
    1044
    must say that it is not an easy matter to ascertain the opinion of the whole Clergy on such a question. Though, if the Clergy were polled on the subject, I believe the opinion of a large majority would be found opposed to any compromise on this question; yet I venture also to say that there is a large and influential minority of them who are of opinion that it would be a dangerous matter to delay the settlement of this question. As strong evidence of this I may mention that two newspapers which are known as Clerical or Church papers, and which respectively represent very different sections of opinion in the Church of England have both within the last two or three weeks expressed very decided views in favour of settling this question. I was in hopes that a new class of Resolutions which have been before your Lordships for some days would afford a satisfactory solution of the question; but, at the same time, I felt that as soon as we began to grapple with the work of settlement, and came to the point of making concessions to the Dissenters, then, on the other side, concessions must be made to the Clergy of the Church of England, who have a considerable and practical grievance in connection with the Burial Laws, which would not have been removed by the Resolutions on the Paper. Your Lordships will remember that as far back as the year 1863 there was a long and important discussion in this House as to the relief which should be given to the Clergy in respect of the compulsory duty of reading the whole Church Service over persons at whose funeral there was a religious service in the churchyard; but who were not in communion with the Church. It was to meet such difficulties that my most rev. Brother and myself gave Notice of Amendments, with the view of bringing about what I think every one would agree to be only a fair concession to the Clergy. Passing from that, let me say a word on the proposal of the noble Earl near me (the Earl of Harrowby). The noble Earl has given Notice of an Amendment which I had hoped would have proved a solution of the question, but which has not, it appears, received from Her Majesty's Government that amount of support which he had hoped for—they thought that it did not contain sufficient safeguards; but the noble Earl has expressed his wil-

    1045
    lingness to provide addititional safeguards, and therefore it is within the bounds of possibility that the Government may not oppose the proposal of the noble Earl. If we discuss this point now I think we shall be better able to understand the relations in which these clauses stand to each other. I repeat, my Lords, that it is not desirable the Bill should go forward as a simple matter of sanitary reform. It might, perhaps, be carried in this House in such a form even by a considerable majority; but I should be much surprised should we hear any more of it after that triumphal progress. I have expressed my desire to have this matter settled—my reason is my belief that it will be dangerous to the Church of England to leave the matter open any longer. I do not say it is desirable in the abstract to make the concession; but I do say that it is inevitable. Every Speaker who addressed your Lordships on the second reading—even those who were in favour of the Bill—said that this concession must sooner or later be made. If, then, it must be made, surely it would be better to make it with a good grace. Corresponding concessions might now be obtained for our own Clergy which it may be impossible to obtain hereafter. I, for one, should regret if we went to a General Election with this question open before the country. It is not desirable that the whole country should be divided upon a question which ought not to enter into a political contest at all. Great injury, I cannot help thinking, will be done if the impression should get abroad in the country that the Church of England is unable to accept in a generous spirit any proposal for the settlement of a question like that now before your Lordships.
    THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGH: My Lords, I ask your Lordships' indulgence before the House goes into Committee on this Bill. As I differ from the most rev. Primate I am anxious to express my views to your Lordships. I deeply lament that I am obliged to differ from his Grace, but I am sure that no one will more heartily pardon me for that difference than the most rev. Primate himself. I feel most thankful to him for having afforded us an opportunity of putting before your Lordships the real situation in which we are placed before we are called upon to go into
    1046
    Committee on this Bill. My Lords, I hope you will pardon me for a few moments—especially as I had not an opportunity of addressing the House on the second reading—if I endeavour to state my views in reference to the Bill and to the Amendments now on the Paper—for no definite conclusion can be arrived at before it is clearly settled what relation there is between the Bill and the Amendments. I think I cannot better describe the position in which the House is placed than this — We are called upon to vote for the second reading of a perfectly new Burials Bill. The Amendment of the most rev. Primate, if Clause 74 is struck out, will make an entirely new Bill, which will not have any necessary connection with that presented by the Government. I hope that if I point out the difference which exists between my views and those of the most rev. Primate I shall not be understood as underrating the importance of what he has said in the observations which he has just addressed to your Lordships. Now, will not this be practically a new Bill? In the object sought to be effected I entirely sympathize with every word which has fallen from the most rev. Primate. I feel it is important for the Church of England—and I will say for the Christianity of this country—that as soon as possible we should close this miserable controversy which is now being carried on over the open graves of this country. I am also happy to agree with the most rev. Primate that if ever this controversy is settled it must be by a compromise. But when the most rev. Primate sketches the compromise, there I must part with him. In his sketch the most rev. Primate says that the measure of concession consists of two parts—first a great concession is made to the Dissenters, and then a great concession is made to the Clergy; and he calculates that those concessions so balance one another, that the Clergy may be induced to agree to the concession made to the Dissenters in return for the concession of them. Now, my Lords, I am entirely in favour of a compromise. But a compromise should have two elements. It should be a satisfactory compromise, and it should be a lasting one. A compromise that will not last beyond the hour in which it is made, and that is not based on a satisfactory principle, is not one which ought to be adopted. In my

    1047
    opinion the compromise of the most rev. Primate is of that class. It has not the element of being satisfactory, and I am convinced it has not that of being lasting. But allow me to state to your Lordships why I think that. The most rev. Primate's settlement or compromise may be considered in respect of the manner it affects Churchmen, and it may be considered in respect of the manner it affects the Dissenters. I propose to examine it in both respects. The most rev. Primate proposes that the Clergy and Laity of the Church — for this is not solely a Clerical question; the Laity feel as strongly in the matter as the Clergy—should receive a certain concession, and that there should be a concession to the Dissenters. Now what is the concession to the Dissenters? It is absolutely everything against which the Clergy have been contending. Whether rightly or wrongly it concedes this is a question which for the moment I do not argue; but I do say that with the Amendments of which we have heard, this Bill will be what is known as Mr. Osborne Morgan's Bill. Well, that is what it is proposed the Clergy should accept. Obviously this is extremely distasteful to many of the Clergy and Laity of the Church, and for this reason — They believe that a plain principle in involved in this question. The Clergy have been subjected to cruel injustice in connection with this question—they have been accused of a "bigoted sacerdotalism" and "clerical tyranny;" but it should be borne in mind that their feelings are deeply interested. The Clergy are a much more liberal body than they are represented to be, and in this case they act on what they conceive to be a plain principle. They assert that churchyards belong to the Church; and there never has been a serious attempt to disprove that. I know it is flaunted daily in our faces that the churchyard belongs to the parish; but I repeat that there has been no attempt to prove this. Then, I say that the proposal now made in respect of the churchyards will deeply distress many of the Clergy; and what is offered them by way of compromise to induce them to accept it? What gilding is there round this bitter pill which they are called upon to swallow? I take first the two Amendments of the most rev. Prelates, which profess to be large concessions to the Clergy. The Clergy first asked for
    1048
    the relief which those concessions are meant to afford them. Long ago and repeatedly the Clergy asked it; but again and again most rev. and right rev. Prelates delayed to give it to them; but now the most rev. Prelates come forward and say—"You shall have what is just and right and expedient, but you shall not have it unless with it you concede what is unjust, unrighteous, and inexpedient." I do not think that is a very conciliatory policy towards the Clergy. I do not think it will tend to the peace of the Church that the most rev. Bench should come forward with a vast, enormous, perilous, and dangerous concession. The relief proposed by the most rev. Primate of whom I have the honour to be a suffragan (the Archbishop of Canterbury) is that the clergyman who holds that the performance of the services of the Church of England would under the particular circumstances of the case be scandalous and offensive, may omit to perform it; but he may not refuse unless he transmits a statement of the grounds of his refusal to the Bishop of the Diocese; who is to declare, in writing, whether it has been shown to his satisfaction that there were reasonable grounds for such refusal. Why, my Lords, this is to give the Clergy post-mortem excommunication, and the right to pronounce posthumous libels on the parishioners. This would be simply to transfer from the necks of the Dissenters a yoke which they deem intolerable to the necks of the Churchmen. The present scandals would, in fact, be succeeded by other infinitely greater. The burial scandals between Dissenters and the Church of England are to be done away with, and burial scandals between the clergy and parishioners substituted in their stead. I very much doubt whether the Clergy will accept this concession, and I doubt whether the Laity in your Lordships' House and the other House of Parliament will accept it. The most rev. Prelate reminds me that this is an enlargement of a plan which I myself prepared. I am obliged to his Grace, for that forms the basis of my argument. What I proposed was a concession to the Dissenters, and not what this is—a concession to the Clergy. My proposal was intended to meet the case of those Christians who defer baptism till after the age of infancy. In order to meet

    1049
    their case, and therefore as a concession to them, I made the proposal which would have enabled the Clergy to read a different service over the children of those persons when such children died without baptism. That was a concession to the Baptist communion, and I regret that the Lower House of Convocation rejected it. This concession to the Clergy, coming from the most rev. Prelate is quite a different thing, and the moment the House adopts the noble Earl's Amendment it becomes perfectly needless. Then, putting together the concessions of the most rev. Prelates and the Amendments of the noble Earls, you have, on the one hand, an exasperating and humiliating concession to the Clergy, and, on the other hand, a concession alarming to the feelings of the Laity and repugnant to the feelings of the Clergy. I have the greatest respect for anything coming from the most rev. Prelates, but the proposal which has their approval on this occasion appears to me to be a sort of tripartite partition, very like the tripartite operation of opening an oyester. In this case it appears to me that while the oyster itself is handed to the Dissenters, the most rev. Prelates, with fatherly kindness and episcopal gravity, hand the clergy and Laity of the Church the two empty shells. But will the Dissenters accept what is offered? I hope they will not—if they are true to their religious and political honesty they cannot. What has been their demand? Religious equality. Again and again have they told us that their demand is religious equality for all Her Majesty's subjects. I ask, will the Resolution which the noble Earl (Earl Granville) proposes give that equality? It will do nothing of the kind. This proposal for equal rights stops short at "Christian." Unfortunately, my Lords, there are many subjects of Her Majesty who are not Christians. Will the Dissenters who support this compromise deprive Her Majesty's subjects who are not Christians of privileges which are to be conferred on orthodox Nonconformists? I should be sorry to believe of them that all their religious equality is to be confined to religious Nonconformists; that when they level down, they level no lower than themselves; and that when they demand equal rights of burial for all Her Majesty's subjects they have no in-
    1050
    tention of giving those rights to the unorthodox. I cannot believe that this measure will be satisfactory to them, unless you wipe the word "Christian" out altogether. No—I believe that in this proposal the Nonconformists are perfectly sincere, and when I read between the lines I think I can see very clearly what they mean. It is said that in the Amendment of the noble Earl there is the safeguard of a "Christian" service. That word affords no safeguard. The proposal for full equality in the matter of burial is carried between the lines to the heart's content of those who are agitating for the change in the present law. But the noble Earl proposes that the service must be a "Christian" one, under, if I mistake not, the penalty of misdemeanour. But who is to define what a "Christian Service" is? Is it within the capacity of Parliament, with all its combined wisdom, to define what is a Christian service? Can you define Christianity by Act of Parliament? How are you to secure that the services shall be Christian? The noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Selborne) said that might be safely left to the tribunals of the country. Certainly, it might be, if the noble and learned Lord were to be the Judge in all cases—there is enough of law and enough of Christianity in the mind of the noble and learned Lord to secure a right decision on the point; but how will it be when you throw down the question to be decided by the ordinary tribunals throughout the country—before unlearned magistrates or before a jury, the foreman of which would perhaps tell you that he "does'nt believe in nothing." To have the definition of Christianity defined by such tribunals is a proposal that I cannot sufficiently characterize. Of the gentlemen of the long robe I wish to speak with the greatest respect; but it is not too much to say that they are not always typical saints, and if you have them discussing in Court what Christianity really is, you will have two burial scandals instead of one. The first burial scandal will be the service at an infidel funeral, and the second an unhappy wrangle in the Law Courts as to the meaning of Christianity. But we have often heard it said that in this matter of propriety of conduct in the churchyards we may trust to the good

    1051
    feeling and upright minds and orderly dispositions of Englishmen generally. Well, if that is so, why provide this misdemeanour penalty? Why do you apply this legislative chloroform to induce quiet in the churchyards, if you do not fear that there may be an abuse of the liberty given by this Bill? Scandals have occurred, and, unhappily, will occur again. If I am challenged for an instance of disorderly conduct, I will give you an instance of it in a burial-place. I am a living witness in the matter—the thing has occurred within my own experience. Three years ago it was my good fortune or my ill fortune to be called on to consecrate a portion of a cemetery near a large town in my diocese. I found myself in the presence of a large mob of some 2,000 persons, drawn together by handbills which had been circulated during the previous week, in which the ceremony of consecration was described as "miserable howling" and "blasphemous mockery." Sentiments of this kind formed a running commentary in the service as it proceeded, interspersed with hooting and jeers and blasphemous jokes. I cannot say that personally I felt much resentment then, nor do I now. I contented myself with inflicting on them the painful humiliation of an Episcopal blessing and dismissed them from my mind. What was the result? The Burial Board, at whose request I had come, was invited to vindicate the law and prosecute those who had acted in the manner I have described; but it declined to do so; and there was some pleasantry about planting the freshly consecrated ground with potatoes, one gentleman expressing an opinion that consecrated potatoes would bring a very high price. These are the quiet, self-contained, well-conducted Englishmen on whose good feeling the noble Earl depends. It may be said that such scenes are rare. That may be true; but with quite as much truth it may be said that the instances of clerical bigotry are also rare. Again, it must be borne in mind that the most provocative man in the world will scarcely say an offensive thing when Nobody is present. An infidel service in the corner of a large cemetery would have no zest; but an infidel service under the cave of the church and beneath the windows of the clergyman's house would have a relish.
    1052
    As your Lordships keep yourselves informed in modern literature you will remember the scene in one of Dickens' works where a schoolmaster whacks a boy in a hackney coach. The reason he gives for it is the novelty of the thing. He said it had a relish. I want to know what will be the feelings of a Christian mourner who, on visiting a churchyard and standing by a tomb on which is engraved an expression of his hopes in the Redeemer who has risen, hears an infidet lecturer delivering a blasphemous lecture, and declaring that there is no resurrection? One word more. I will ask the noble Earl this question—Does he regard these safeguards as efficient or not? If they were efficient, they would sow the graveyards of the country with an abundant crop of law suits. If not, what would become of the Christianity which he seeks to preserve? Who is to prosecute? Is it not a mockery to tell a poor clergyman that by the expenditure of a few hundred pounds he may get redress for the insults offered to him? Is that to be the protection which we wish to secure for Christianity? I say that there is no sufficient protection on the principle of religious equality which is supplied by the settlement of the most rev. Prelates or of the noble Earls opposite. I believe that the result would be that it would unsettle everything and settle nothing. It would replace burial scandals of one kind with worse burial scandals of another kind. It would fill our burial yards with scenes disgraceful to our common Christianity. And sore as is the shame and vexation of the present system, I believe that the vexations, the dangers, the scandal, the anger, and humiliation of the system which would take its place would be infinitely greater. The noble Earls have a right to say, If you reject this proposed compromise, have you nothing better to offer in its place? My Lords, I do not wish to leave things as they are. I do feel from my heart an intense desire for a speedy, peaceful, and righteous settlement of this great question. ["Oh!"] I do not know whether noble Lords opposite mean to deny my sincerity, but I assure them that I am as anxious for it as noble Lords opposite can themselves be—I am sincerely and honestly desirous that a controversy, which I have described as a miserable one,

    1053
    should be closed, and speedily closed. I have no sympathy with any jealousy or dislike of the Nonconformists. I would gladly welcome the prayer of any good man at the grave of the departed in any churchyard of which I might be incumbent, and far from thinking the churchyard desecrated by it I should hold that the graveyard had thereby received a fresh consecration. And if a Dissenting minister said to me—"My Christian brother, will you allow me to bold a burial service over one of my people who has never frequented the services of the Church," I should say—"Yes, most heartily and readily." Nay, more, I would listen to his service and say, "Amen," with bared head and reverent heart to the prayer of hope that rises from any Christian man over any Christian departed from this life. I would add that I am ready to clasp your hand across the grave, and to thank God that there is one place where the jealousy and strife of opposing creeds may be forgotten. But if the Christian Dissenter says—"I will not take your concession to the feelings of the mourners—I insist on beating down with an Act of Parliament the entire defences of your churchyard, and insist on marching in with the infidel and the blasphemer," then I reply—"I cannot consent, because you ask me to surrender rights which are not mine to give away." I would, however, most thankfully accept any service which had previously obtained the permission and licence of the incumbent. This is the only way in which you can secure a Christian service; because the safeguards held out to us in these Amendments are a mere paper fence of no greater value than the paper on which the Bill itself is printed. We hear of a prepared service, but we cannot have a better than that in the Prayer Book. The national Clergy are the natural custodians of the national graveyards, and I would allow the Dissenters to use any service of which they approved—with an appeal to the Bishop if you please. This would be a real concession. It is one that has worked well for 40 years in Ireland—a country in which, as your Lordships are aware, political and religious strife has never run quite so high as it does just now in England. But Lord Plunket's Burial Act has shown that it is quite possible to surmount the difficulty without strife
    1054
    and without scandal. There is no law now in England to prevent any Dissenting minister or layman from holding such a service in the parish churchyard with the consent of the incumbent. There may be an ecclesiastical law against it; but I have told the Clergy of my diocese that there is no danger of being prosecuted, and that no clergyman in my diocese shall ever be prosecuted with my consent for such a concession. This, I think, will show noble Lords opposite that I am in earnest in my desire to settle this question in a reasonable way. If, however, it comes to this that the two parties can conic to no agreement—if the Churchman will not give you religious equality, and the Dissenter says—"I will take nothing short of it," then the best remedy is that which is found in the Bill, which says if you cannot agree about the churchyard, we will find you a place where, without scandal, you may agree.
    EARL GRANVILLE: In what clause?
    THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGH: The Bill without the 74th clause. It then becomes a sanitary Bill pure and simple. It says to the disputants, if you cannot agree here—and this is an unseemly place for strife—we will find you some place where you can agree. We will ask the Churchmen to give up the chnrchyards, and we will find new burial-places in which we may together lay our dead in peace, and whereby we may find a quiet and really peaceful and lasting settlement of the question. My nostrum may be as wrong as those of others, but I felt bound to submit it to your Lordships. But I feel that either this plan of mine, or the plan of the Government would be infinitely preferable to either that of the most rev. Prelates or that of the noble Earls, which would settle nothing and unsettle everything.
    THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: My Lords, after the eloquent speech of the right rev. Prelate, I feel it only right to say that we go before the country ready to avow that a large and important concession is about to be made by the Clergy and Laity of the Church of England—not from any sense or feeling of apprehension, but from motives of a more creditable description. My clause does not allow a clergyman to pronounce "a postmortem excommunication." He is not to state whether he thinks that a person

    1055
    brought to be buried has when living led a scandalous or offensive life—that is not the meaning of the Amendment—but he is to consider conscientiously whether a scandal and offence would arise in the minds of his parishioners from his using the Burial Service. The right rev. Prelate, as I understand, does not deny that it would be useful to have an alternative Burial Service; but I regretted to hear it mentioned as an objection to a concession that it was not a concession to the Clergy, but only to the Laity.
    THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGH: I said it could hardly be called a concession to the Clergy, but that it was almost entirely a concession to the Dissenters.
    THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: But is it an objection to the concession that it is made to the Laity?
    THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGH: The Dissenting Laity.
    THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: I should wish to say a few words on the position which I unwillingly occupy in this matter. We give credit to the Government for having intended to settle this great question; the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) gave something like a pledge last year which he has now come forward to fulfil; and I quite understand the position of the Government now. They say—"We offer you this concession; you do not seem ready to accept it; therefore we must withdraw it and give up the matter altogether." The Bill has suddenly become a Bill of one subject instead of two. But those who say the Government have placed the matter on a new basis cannot allow the Bill to go quietly through as a mere Bill for providing burial grounds; they say the question no longer stands in the position in which it stood before, as the Government have made a concession; they have said that the law of the Church shall no longer prevail, and that, except as to three classes of persons, burials need not take place according to the present law with the service of the Church of England. Who shall say the question does not stand in a new position? It is not on political grounds we come here. No doubt, as suggested, Dissenters would like to take possession of our churches, and we shall do our best to prevent them; but we have a right to choose our own battle-ground,
    1056
    and there fight the battle in the most advantageous way. It is the easiest thing in the world to get up feeling about anybody's funeral; but it would be different if Dissenters set up a claim to preach in the church. What have we been witnessing for a long time past? A committee of the Wesleyan Body has been corresponding with me about an epitaph on a tombstone, and it turned out to be a question not of dogma, but of doggrel—of the fitness of the words of a hymn to be used in the inscription. A question arose in another case about the grave of a man who was a distinguished cricketer; and, though I am not aware that in the manly game of cricket there is anything of political or dogmatic significance, the reporters came, notebook in hand, well knowing that nothing took so much with the public as a burial scandal or a scene at somebody's interment. All this shows a state of unwholesome and irritated feeling which we ought, if we possibly can, by legitimate means, to put an end to. It seems to me that in taking its stand here the Church is fighting a losing battle. The Dissenters in attacking burials appeal to sympathies and feelings different from those that are aroused on any other subject; and so long as you dispute the question by the side of the grave, so long will the odds be against you, and infallibly turn the battle against you in the popular mind. I was unable to reconcile two portions of the speech of the right rev. Prelate. He pictured the results of passing this measure, and anticipated the use of offensive language under the windows of the parsonage. If the people of England are so ill-disposed, I do not understand why they do not do these things now after the funeral, and when the clergyman has turned his back.
    THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGH: So they do.
    THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: There must be a great difference between the dispositions of the people in different parts of England. The right rev. Prelate was a little at fault in his instance. He gave an example of such conduct by stating what had occurred at the consecration of a churchyard; but the consecration of a churchyard is a totally different thing from a funeral. A great many idle people come together to witness a consecration by a famous Prelate,

    1057
    one of the first of orators of the day, and, not being so much impressed by the solemnity of the service as they expected to be, they who came out of mere curiosity remained to laugh and jeer. I am very sorry for it, but I never saw the like, and, except in this case, I never heard of it; but it furnishes no proof whatever how the sorrowing relatives — be they Wesleyans, Independents, or Baptists—will conduct themselves when they come to bury their dead in the churchyard, and perform the last sad offices to the departed. The right rev. Prelate's picture was a very brilliant description—potatoes and all; but it has nothing whatever to do with the case before us. But the right rev. Prelate shadowed forth his plan. Like the rest of us he sees something must be done; he, too, would admit the Dissenter, and be there with him; the Dissenter must come with his licence, and he must authorize the service.
    THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGH: No; authorize the man, not the service.
    THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: I object to authorizing either the man, or the service. I know what the Burial Service is to which I subscribed, and I hold to the Church Service for Churchmen. The Dissenter when he comes to the churchyard may wish to use a service which seems to him as good; but all I should know about the matter was that it was not my service, and should leave the Dissenter to his discretion. I am not going to undertake to revise the service of the Dissenter; and the only sound basis on which to settle the question is to give a discretion, and to leave the persons concerned to exercise it. The effect of the course taken by the Government will be to place the Episcopal Benches in a somewhat invidious position—we are, in fact, left to originate a part of this Bill. We have no desire to act in any hostile spirit—we are ready to share with the Government the responsibility of settling the question, and we do not desire to act in a spirit hostile to them. The Amendments proposed would leave the Bill still incomplete, as it would be unwise and unjust to the ratepayers to apply its provisions in places where no grievance exists. Where burial grounds have been provided for Nonconformists as well as for Churchmen the Bill should not apply. I do venture to hope that the Government
    1058
    will not lose sight of this question. This is a very important issue we have before us. An appeal is made to the Clergy to extend to others the same toleration they would wish to have accorded to them in a foreign country. The appeal was not made too soon or out of time, for there can be no doubt that the public opinion of this country is ripening fast, and in two or three years the question is sure to be settled in one form or another. Is there any harm in our endeavouring to settle it now, while there would be some grace in concession. The two chief organizations—one representing the Low Church, and the other the moderate High Church party—and a great number of the Clergy belonging to each have pronounced in favour of a settlement—a course which they would not have adopted, if they had not fully understood the signs of the times. It is not a political question; but by resisting a settlement, we shall consolidate the ranks of those who are opposed to the Church, and we shall deprive them of a cry by agreeing to a settlement. I therefore implore Her Majesty's Government not to neglect the signs of the times. It will be impossible to pass anything tonight in the face of the resistance of the Government; but I feel sure that the same things are working in their minds that are in the minds of those who feel deeply for the welfare of the Church. I therefore call the upon the Government to take the subject earnestly in hand, and the Bench of Bishops will be willing to take their share of responsibility in arriving at a true settlement of the question if possible.
    EARL NELSONdesired to explain that he had brought forward his Amendment entirely on his own responsibility, and without consulting any one. The object of his Amendment was to secure that some proper service should be performed, and the only way in which it appeared to him that could be secured was to have some person who should be responsible—and that was the incumbent. He altogether repudiated the idea of having acted in any representative capacity, either as regarded the Clergy or Laity of the Church.
    EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I am perfectly aware that this is not the most convenient moment for entering into the abstract merits of this Bill and the Amendments which have been proposed

    1059
    to it. But in a discussion of so much importance to the Church of England and the other Denominations, I must say I am more desirous of adopting the tone and temper of the two most rev. Prelates, than that of the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Peterborough) who has just addressed you. It appeared to me that the two most rev. Prelates were most anxious to see the Clergy of this country acting on the large and great principles of charity, toleration, and political wisdom; while the right rev. Prelate rather seemed to wish that they should drive the hardest bargain they could with the Dissenters. I admit the right rev. Prelate is a very able antagonist—but I deny this is a question of Party; what we have to consider is the result which would be most consonant with the interests of all. I was very much struck with what the right rev. Prelate said at the beginning of his speech. He stated in the strongest manner that it was desirable that "this miserable controversy" should be settled by a compromise, and not only settled, but immediately settled. I listened to his whole speech with the view of discovering what the compromise was which he suggested, and what was it? The only compromise he suggested was, that it should be a permissive measure; he said this, however, on his own authority alone, and without concert with any party whatever. I very much doubt whether he would find 40 Peers who agree with him on that point. But almost in the same breath he said that the compromise existed at present, for there was nothing now to prevent an incumbent allowing any service he approved in the churchyard. I can only say, although the right rev. Prelate may be most sincerely desirous that his compromise should succeed, I certainly do think it not well calculated to effect the object he so sincerely desires. He found great fault with my safeguards—to which I do not attach so much importance as some others have done; but, acting on excellent advice, I placed clauses before your Lordships which met with very general concurrence. The only objection of the right rev. Prelate to those safeguards was this—either they are efficient, or they are inefficient. If you make them efficient—and I believe them to be efficient—instead of settling the question, they will produce a crop of law suits. Now,
    1060
    that is an objection which is applicable to every preventive law. I do not mean to go farther into the general argument; but I think it may be convenient to your Lordships to know the course likely to be taken by the Government in the Committee. The right rev. Prelate said the effect of the withdrawal of the Amendment by the Government and other Amendments would give a different character to the Bill. I should therefore like to know, whether the Government merely propose to omit their own Amendment, or to alter others on the Paper. With regard to my own Amendment, I mean to abandon it, and I will explain my reasons for doing so. Your Lordships will remember what occurred. Acting on excellent advice, I gave Notice of a clause before the second reading which, I believe, very accurately sets forth the object I had in view. The same evening my noble Friend (the Earl of Shaftesbury), in the most conciliatory spirit, gave Notice of an Amendment, by way of compromise, which he thought would probably be accepted. Some seven or eight days after that, my noble Friend sitting near the Table (the Earl of Harrowby) gave Notice of another Amendment, very much carrying out the substance of what I desired, but containg some provisions which I greatly regret would have obliged me to vote against it. The noble Duke the President of the Council at a very late period gave Notice that he would move to omit the 74th clause. It was then necessary for me to consider my position. My noble Friend (the Earl of Harrowby) gave an amended form to his Amendment, adopting my safeguard to which the right rev. Prelate objected so strongly. At the same time, my noble Friend (the Earl of Shaftesbury) stated his intention to abandon his Amendment. In determining to abandon my Amendment, I wish to make it perfectly clear why I did. so. Can noble Lords opposite, looking at this question as statesmen, as sincere Churchmen, as Members of the Conservative Party, and with a view to the well-understood interests of the Church, refuse to admit that this question should be soon and immediately settled? I do not blame noble Lords opposite in the slightest degree if they should be reluctant to vote for an Amendment moved by one who is opposed to the present policy of Her Majesty's Government;

    1061
    but I cannot help thinking that when a Conservative Peer, one of the strongest supporters of Her Majesty's Government, and one whose attachment to the Church of England is undoubted, does propose an Amendment of substantially the same character, I do not say all, but some of those Peers may think that by voting with him they are giving expression to their own conscientious convictions, and also possibly that they may be assisting the Government in coming to a more speedy conclusion on the subject than I could myself have brought about. I may be wrong in thinking there is a chance of the settlement I have at heart; but, at all events, I desire to try, and therefore I have abandoned my own Amendment, and will give my hearty support—and I believe I may speak for noble Lords near me—to the Amendment of the noble Earl at the Table.
    THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON: Before answering the Question of the noble Earl who has just spoken, I would ask whether he would be kind enough to express the views of his own side of the House only. The noble Earl has not only given the opinions of noble Lords who sit behind him, but has travelled out of that region in order to state the opinions of those who sit on this side. On a recent occasion it was stated in "another place" that one of the few and scanty privileges of the Opposition was that of managing its own affairs. If that can be laid down as the doctrine for the management of the Opposition in "another place," I think I can claim for Her Majesty's Government that they have an equal right to manage their own affairs. Therefore, I will state without further preface that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to offer a decided opposition to the clauses to be proposed by the most rev. Prelates, and also to the clause of the noble Earl (the Earl of Harrowby).
    LORD TEYNHAMclaimed for the Nonconformists equal rights for the burial of their dead in the graveyard of the parish without let or hindrance.
    Motion agreed to; House in Committee accordingly.

PART I.
Closing of Burial Ground.
Clauses 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.

PART II.
Providing new Burial Ground.
Clause 5 (Where burial ground closed as population increases, legal obligation to provide new burial ground).
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, his noble Friend (Earl Spencer) had given Notice of an Amendment to leave out the words "consecrated and unconsecrated" ground; but his noble Friend had requested him to postpone moving the Amendment to a subsequent stage.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 6, 7, and 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 (Providing of chapel accommodation for burial service according to the Church of England and other rites).
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN,who had given Notice of an Amendment on this clause, to insert—
"and may in pursuance of a special resolution of the burial authority, sanctioned by the Local Government Board, provide chapel accommodation for the burial service,"
said, he wished to postpone moving his Amendment.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, if noble Lords were to postpone their Amendments in that way much time would not be gained by passing the clauses.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 10 to 73, inclusive, agreed to.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYrose to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice, after Clause 73, to insert the following clause:—
"In cases where the burial service of the Church of England cannot lawfully be used, but where it shall appear to the incumbent or curate in charge desirable to use some religious service, and the person having charge of the interment shall desire the same, it shall be lawful for the minister, if he shall think fit, to use any service authorized by the bishop, provided that nothing except hymns shall be introduced into such service which does not form part of the Holy Scriptures or of the Book of Common Prayer: Provided that notice shall be sent to the bishop within seven days of any such use of the said service by the person using the same.
"In cases where the burial service of the Church of England might lawfully be used, but where the person having charge of the interment shall request that the said service authorized by the bishop as aforesaid shall be used instead of the burial service of the Church of England, the minister shall not be subject to

1063
any penalty for omitting to use the service of the Church of England and for using the said authorized service in lieu thereof: Provided that in every such case he shall report the facts of the case to the bishop within seven days, and provided that the bishop shall thereupon approve the said omission and substitution in writing under his hand."
The most rev. Primate, in moving his Amendment, said, he had regretted to hear the noble Duke the Lord President say that he should oppose this very innocent Amendment; and he the more regretted it because while the Bill contained the 74th clause, there were some words in it which, though a little ambiguous, made room for the very Amendment of which he had given Notice; and, on the strength of being encouraged to move that Amendment, he had ventured to deliver two speeches in favour of the Bill which had been introduced into the House. Of course circumstances had changed, and the Bill as introduced with the view of settling this considerable question, had, from causes which had not been explained, and which he would be very glad to hear explained to their Lordships' House, altogether lost the character to which it was entitled from the pledge given by the noble Duke last Session, and which certainly made him (the Archbishop of Canterbury), for one, give it his support when the first and second reading were proposed. He did not mean to say there might not be the most admirable reasons for dropping the 74th clause, and all that was necessarily or naturally, and by a sort of tacit agreement connected with the 74th clause; but the House was entitled to hear what these reasons were. One of them, he supposed, to be this—that the Dissenters were not satisfied with the clause because it gave them no more than a silent funeral; and he could imagine that the Government might be of opinion that as they had endeavoured, so far as their followers would allow them, to make concessions to the Dissenters, and as the Dissenters had rejected those concessions, the best thing they could do was to drop altogether any idea of conciliating anybody by means of this legislation. Now, he (the Archbishop of Canterbury) considered that the innocent clause he had proposed, even though if it stood by itself it might not satisfy the Dissenters, was at all events a move in the right direction. It would enable a clergyman who was at present prohibited from reading
1064
the service over his Dissenting brethren to use a decent service such as many of them would be willing to accept. The clause had considerable authority in its favour. First, it had the authority of his right rev. Brother (the Bishop of Peterborough), and was in fact his clause, adopted from him when he was obliged to give his conscientious vote against it. That was one authority upon which he based the clause; but there was also another—namely, the body called the Ritual Commission, who had considered what was to be done in this matter. The clause proposed was as nearly as possible a rescript of the recommendations of that Commission, and was the result of the deliberations of a very equally balanced and thoroughly representative body of Churchmen. That body, representing as it did the Laity as well as the Clergy, did not make the recommendation without good reasons; for in the year 1863 there had been an important discussion, which had ended in his predecessor's promising to take the subject into his earnest consideration, and to propose some such scheme as the one he now brought forward. The object of the Amendment was this. Certain members of the Church of England were exposed to a very serious wrong. Sometimes children died by the visitation of God before it was possible for them to receive the rite of baptism. The fault was certainly not in the child, and it might not be in the parents. The omission of the rite might perhaps be due to the accidental absence of the clergyman from his parish. And yet when the parents brought the child to be buried in the parish churchyard the clergyman, it appeared, was by the existing law prohibited from reading a small portion of God's Holy Word, and offering up a prayer over the body for the consolation of the parents. Everybody who was exposed to this grievance must feel it to be real. What would be the feeling of the parents when what they deemed an indignity was cast upon them for no fault of theirs? It might be said, however, that the Clergy, as represented in the Lower House of Convocation, had expressed an opinion adverse to having a religious service over unbaptized children. He did not think this was a true statement of the case; and, moreover, their Lordships must bear in mind that the Lower House alone could not state

1065
the opinion of the Convocation. What the Lower House of Convocation really objected to was having a regular service formulated in the Prayer Book to be read over unbaptized persons. Now he did not propose to do this. The Act of -Uniformity Amendment Act, passed a few years ago, authorized the Bishop of the diocese to allow a service taken from the Book of Common Prayer to be read in certain cases. Some persons believed, indeed, that that Act at present applied to the case of unbaptized persons, and therefore there could be nothing unconstitutional or contrary to the opinions of the Clergy to propose, as he did by this Amendment, that the Act of Uniformity Amendment Act should apply in the case of unbaptized children of our own communion. There was another large class of members of the Church in reference to whom a grievance load arisen. He meant those who from conscientious motives had given up the practice of baptizing infants, and did not present their children to be baptized until they had reached an adult age. A great many persons died unbaptized at an early age, and although they might have been models in the community to which they belonged, yet the Church service could not be read over their bodies. It might be said that the Church of England allowed them to be interred without any service; but the declaration of Her Majesty's Ministers respecting the 74th clause had thrown a doubt upon that. Therefore, these people were in a worse position now than they were before this Bill came on for consideration. But even supposing that they might be buried with a silent funeral, he thought they had a cause of complaint. The Clergy were not unwilling that such persons should be buried with a religious service; on the contrary, they were anxious to read over their bodies the Word of God, and to offer up some prayer. Therefore, he proposed by his clause that both classes of persons to whom he had referred should have their grievance remedied in the simplest possible manner. Again, in cases of scandal, where persons died in those miserable ways which were described in the debate of 1863, he supposed their relatives would seldom be so insensible that they would not acquiesce in some decent service being read without the necessity of using all the strong expressions of hope,
1066
and even of exultation, which were to be found in the ordinary Burial Service of the Church of England. In these cases also his clause would apply a very considerable remedy. He believed his proposal would go a considerable way to heal the bitterness at present existing. Therefore he trusted that the hopes of having the question settled would not be frustrated, and that their Lordships would not merely resolve themselves into a Sanitary Commission to consider the Bill. In conclusion, the most rev. Primate moved his Amendment.
Moved, after Clause 73, to insert the following clause:—
"In cases where the burial service of the Church of England might lawfully be used, but where the person having charge of the interment shall request that the said service authorised by the bishop as aforesaid shall be used instead of the burial service of the Church of England, the minister shall not be subject to any penalty for omitting to use the service of the Church of England and for using the said authorised service in lieu thereof; provided, that in every such case he shall report the facts of the case to the bishop within seven days, and provided that the bishop shall thereupon approve the said omission and. substitution in writing under his hand.—(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
THE BISHOP OF CARLISLEsaid, that he felt great delicacy in voting upon this subject, because lie knew how strong the feeling was that was entertained in his own diocese upon it. Last year the subject was introduced to his diocesan conference by two papers, read by gentlemen holding as contrary views as possible, so that each side was strongly argued. The result was that a resolution against the views represented by the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) was carried by a majority of 10 to 1 —that majority consisting of clergymen and laity together. And he might remark that on that occasion, as in the present debate, some of the strongest expressions of opinion had come from laymen. No mistake could he greater than to represent this as a merely clerical question. Therefore, he felt some difficulty as to the course he should take this evening. He did not feel disposed to follow the lead of the Government and to vote against all the Amendments, because he thought that the Amendments, taken together, did seem to offer some possibility of settling the question. He might say, however,

1067
that if all the Amendments were negatived, the result would be not altogether a bad one: the Bill without Clause 74, which had always struck him from the time it was first described by the noble Duke as alien to the general character of the Bill, would be complete in itself, and would by its operation in the course of a few years get rid of all fair ground of complaint with respect to burial. Nothing could be more unjust than to describe the Bill as a mere sanitary Bill: it was nothing of the kind; it was a Bill which grappled with the real difficulty of the whole matter—namely, that at present there was no authority whose business it was to see that Her Majesty's subjects were properly buried. The difficulty of obtaining cemeteries on the ground of expense had been absurdly exaggerated; frequently the ground would be given freely; and even where it had to be purchased, it should be remembered that agricultural land did not pay more than 3 per cent, so that the application of land to the purposes of a cemetery would be generally a profit rather than a loss. At the same time, if the Bill could be carried embodying such provisions as those proposed in the three clauses of the most rev. Prelates and the noble Earl at the Table (the Earl of Harrowby), it would, while having the effect which he had described, be of a more kindly and conciliatory character than in its present shape. Although, therefore, he feared the course which he was about to take might be disapproved by some of his Friends, he, having an intense desire that the question should be settled, would vote for the Amendment before the Committee; but if the Amendments proposed by the most rev. Prelates should be negatived, he would certainly vote against that proposed by the noble Earl.
EARL STANHOPEexpressed his intention of supporting the Amendment, believing it to be just and reasonable.
LORD DENMANremarked that he could not vote for or against the Amendment of the most rev. Prelate, he considered the 14th clause far preferable. He had himself desired to be buried near the place of his decease, but if one of the past Lord High Commissioners or the present Lord High Commissioners of the Church of Scotland were to leave directions that he should be buried silently, "after a religious service else-
1068
where," the clergyman of any parish of the Church of England could not dispense with a religious service in the churchyard. He had attended the funeral of the person whom, of all others, he had most respected (in Scotland), after a religious service in her house, and had been honoured by an invitation to the funeral of the late Marquess of Tweedale, and nothing could have been more reverent than the religious service in both instances, nor more solemn than the interments.
VISCOUNT MIDLETONsaid, it would be the height of folly to miss any opportunity that presented itself that had in it the elements of a satisfactory settlement of the question; but he did not think the passing of the Bill without the 74th clause, or some substitute for it, would be satisfactory to the country. That there was a grievance to be remedied had been practically admitted, but there were two parties implicated in the matter. There were the political Dissenters, with whom he had no sympathy whatever, because they regarded admission to the churchyards as merely obtaining possession of the threshold of the church, and desired to keep the question alive and make it the stalking-horse for other purposes. But there was another class of Dissenters with whom he sincerely sympathized, and whose wishes he should as far as possible like to meet. He alluded to those who, living in remote country parishes where it would not be so easy to provide a cemetery as the right rev. Prelate who had just spoken supposed, desired to be buried in the churchyard in which their forefathers were interred, and on whom it was a real hardship that a decent and orderly service might not there be read over the remains of their dead. Those persons were sincerely desirous of a reasonable settlement of the question, and it would be well if such could be found without delay. There were, he knew, many earnest Churchmen, both Members of their Lordships' House and outside of it, who would think it a thousand pities if the present opportunity were lost of putting "this miserable question" at rest for ever. Such an opportunity as the present was not likely to occur again; and while there was a general desire on both sides of the House for a settlement, he could not but believe that some reasonable compro-

1069
mise might be devised which would prevent this from becoming a mere sanitary Bill. Otherwise, their Lordships would not close this question.
EARL NELSONsaid, he approved of the clause standing alone, but he should vote against it as a compromise.
THE BISHOP OF SALISBURYsaid, he wished to explain that he should vote for the Amendment of the most rev. Prelate, but not because he thought that any question of compromise or mutual concession ought to enter into such a matter. That which was just he would support; but that which was not just he would resist with all his might. His reason for voting for this clause was that death, burial, the resurrection, and the judgment were matters of tremendous significance, and he could not bear to think that some words of sacred truth, in reference to these solemn verities, should not be used at the burial of everyone, so as to bring the sacredness of the occasion before the minds of the survivors.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he would explain the course which the Government intended to take with respect to the clause of the most rev. Prelate. He hoped that in doing so he should say nothing to cause any bitter feelings on the other side of the House upon a subject which ought to be approached with great solemnity—and still less would he introduce into the discussion anything of a Party character. He very much regretted to hear the most rev. Prelate, before the Bill went into Committee, shadow forth the effect upon the country at a General Election if this question were not brought to a settlement. He was astonished and grieved, considering the position which the most rev. Prelate occupied in the Church and in that House, that he should condescend to bring this question out of the higher region to which it belonged into that lower region of Party and political warfare.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I said I feared it would so fall—that my object was to keep it out of the lower region into which I feared it might fall if the clause were not adopted.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON: If that had been his object he should not have selected the mode adopted by the most rev. Prelate. He understood him to indicate that the Amendments proposed by himself and
1070
the Primate of the Northern Province and by the noble Earl (the Earl of Harrowby) were parts of one entire scheme which ran pari passu, and might hang together. They all formed one great scheme of compromise which they were told ought to be adopted by their Lordships, and would be satisfactory to the country. He should have no hesitation in saying that, taking these clauses as one scheme, he should oppose them; because, as was well put by the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Peterborough), it would be found that they were no compromise at all and settled nothing. The speech of the most rev. Prelate, however, had put the matter in a very different light. He had, in fact, divided the clause into two separate clauses. The first dealt with the case of unbaptized children—a question involving a grievance which most of their Lordships desired to remedy by providing some service which could be performed over those who died previous to being baptized. The second part related to a wholly different matter. That part of the clause ran as follows:—
"In cases where the burial service of the Church of England might lawfully be used, but where the person having charge of the interment shall request that the said service authorized by the bishop as aforesaid shall be used instead of the burial service of the Church of England, the minister shall not be subject to any penalty for omitting to use the service of the Church of England, and for using the said authorized service in lieu thereof."
That raised a wholly different issue, and if he had to vote upon the whole clause as connected with others and forming One Burial Bill, lie should be constrained to vote against the clause as it stood. But, believing that there were grievances which might be remedied by the first part of the Amendment, he should be prepared, on the part of the Government, to accept the first part on its own merits as dealing with the case of unbaptized persons. He, however, repudiated the second part of the Amendment as necessarily forming part of the three clauses to be proposed. Therefore, while accepting the first part of the Amendment, he should propose to negative the second part, and should reserve to himself the view of the whole matter he had endeavoured to express.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he could not be a party to a bargain or compromise in an invidious sense, and must

1071
vote on Amendments as he thought them right or wrong. No doubt it was very convenient for the noble Duke to deprecate Party feeling; he did it himself when he was in office and Party feeling was against him; but he would bargain to request his own Friends not to be influenced by Party feeling on this question if the noble Duke would promise that his Friends would not allow Party feeling to influence their votes. He thought the whole clause a very good one, and was willing to accept the cherry whether at two bites or one.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYasked leave to divide the Amendment for the purpose of taking the opinion of the House on the first part.
Then the first part of the said clause put, and agreed to.
Then the second part of the said clause being proposed—
VISCOUNT CARDWELLsaid, it would be interesting to know why this part of the Amendment, which was now proposed as an independent clause, was not acceptable. By adopting the first part they had for the first time sanctioned a new service to remedy such a grievance as that which the noble Earl (Earl Granville) had brought forward on a previous occasion—of a Baptist who had built a church and could not bury his daughter in the churchyard. Why should they thus meet the case of the Baptist and not that of the Wesleyan, or why should they remedy a grievance in the case of children, and not remedy it in respect of any adult Nonconformist who might have a conscientious objection to any part of the Burial Service of the Church?
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that when he mentioned the case of Sir Morton Peto's daughter on a previous evening, he had been misinformed. He now understood that Sir Morton Pete built a new church in an old churchyard; so that he was wrong in stating that he had created the churchyard.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONregretted the introduction of the personal illustration, which compelled him to say that either the noble Earl had been misinformed or he was. He was informed Sir Morton Peto's daughter died in London and was buried in London. The case for the first part of the clause rested on the position of the Baptists and the feelings
1072
of parents on the interment of children who had not been baptized on account of the religious views of the parents. The case for the second part of the Amendment was wholly different, and it was part and parcel of the three clauses which were supposed to deal with the whole question.
VISCOUNT CARDWELLsaid, that if the personal illustration was wrong it did not affect the argument. Why should they meet the case of the Baptist and not that of the Wesleyan or any other Dissenter, or even of a member of the Church of England who objected to any part of its Burial Service?
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that the first part of the clause was perfectly clear—it enabled a clergyman to do what he was now forbidden to do, however anxious he might be—namely, to read a religious service, to be authorized by the Bishop, in cases where the Burial Service of the Church of England could not lawfully be used. The second part applied to cases where there was no lawful impediment to the use of the Church Service, but where the relatives desired that the alternative Service should be used; and the section protected the clergyman against penalties for omitting the Church Service and using the alternative one—the two enactments were quite distinct.
LORD SELBORNEsaid, he did not see why they should not consider the second part of the clause on its merits as well as the first. It was proposed to allow an alternative form of service, but only when the friends of the deceased might request it. That request might not improbably be made, to prevent painful controversies, and at the same time relieve the consciences of clergymen in at least some cases where "gross and notorious scandal" attached to the life of the deceased? He thought that, if it were for that reason only, provision should be made for allowing the use of an alternative service, as in the case of unbaptized persons.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he would be glad if a remedy could be applied to meet such cases; but the form must be previously drawn up and authorized, otherwise it might go much further than the evils indicated and bring about a considerable abuse. There might be a Bishop whose sympathies were I strongly in accord with those who ad-

1073
mitted prayer for the dead, and it would be perfectly possible for him to authorize a service in which that practice should be adopted. It might be said that the first part of the clause, to which no objection had been raised, was open to the same difficulty; but it applied to a very narrow and restricted number of cases, and the evil would not be great. But this section would practically allow a new burial service for the whole community, and if they allowed clergymen and Bishops between themselves, without any limitation whatever, to settle what kind of doctrine might be included in the hymns to be used on these occasions, he was afraid they might have a service that might not be acceptable to the more Protestant section of the community.
THE BISHOP OF OXFORDconsidered the clause simply as an application of the Uniformity Amendment Act to another service. Anything done in this direction would be subject to the same ecclesiastical law as any other part of the Services of the Church of England. The general objection was not to the omission of any particular words over the body of a deceased person, but that no service at all should be performed over a deceased relative was felt to be a great grievance to the family. A decent religious service, to be approved by the Bishop, would at once relieve the family from this grievance and the conscience of the clergyman from an oppressive obligation.
THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGHsaid, the effect of the clause would be to provide first and second class services, and he would put it to their Lordships whether the use of the second service would not be regarded as an affront by the survivors. Besides, this was the first instance in which the parishioners had the right of objecting to the service; that matter had hitherto always rested with the clergyman under the direction of the Bishop. He feared the effect of it would be to prevent the revival in the Church of godly discipline, which was so much desired. The true way to prevent scandal was by raising the discipline of the Church, and enabling it to correct during life, as was done in almost every other communion, the sins and irregularities of its members.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKsaid, that before such a service could be adopted there must be the double consent of the clergymen and the relations. The latter
1074
would not be able to choose a service to which the clergyman objected.
On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 65; Not-Contents 60: Majority 5.

CONTENTS.

Canterbury, Archp.

Salisbury, L. Bp.

York, Archp.

Winchester, L. Bp.

Bedford, D.

Abercromby, L.

Cleveland, D.

Aberdare, L.

Devonshire, D.

Auckland, L.

Somerset, D.

Balfour of Burley, L.

Westminster, D.

Boyle, L. (E. Cork & Orrery.) [Teller.]

Lansdowne, M.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Northampton, M.

Camoys, L.

Airlie, E.

Carlingford, L.

Amherst, E.

Congleton, L.

Camperdown, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Chichester, E.

Delamere, L.

Cowper, E.

Ebury, L.

Dartrey, E.

Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

Ducie, E.

Essex, E.

Gordon of Drumcarn, L.

Fortescue, E.

Hammond, L.

Granville, E.

Hatherley, L.

Harrowby, E.

Lanerton, L.

Kimberley, E.

Lawrence, L.

Morley, E.

Leigh, L.

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Monson, L. [Teller.]

Portsmouth, E.

Overstone, L.

Verulam, E.

Plunket, L.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

Cardwell, V.

Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

Romilly, L.

Selborne, L.

Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)

Carlisle, L. Bp.

Exeter, L. Bp.

Strafford, L. (V. Enfield.)

Hereford, L. Bp.

Llandaff, L. B.

Sudeley, L.

London, L. Bp.

Talbot de Malahide, L.

Oxford, L. Bp.

Truro, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Cairns, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Hardwicke, E.

Jersey, E.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Northumberland, D.

Nelson, E.

Richmond, D.

Powis, E.

Redesdale, E.

Hertford, M.

Rosslyn, E.

Salisbury, M.

Stanhope, E.

Stradbroke, E.

Annesley, E.

Waldegrave, E.

Beaconsfield, E.

Beauchamp, E.

Bridport, V.

Bradford, E.

Hawarden, V. [Teller.]

Cadogan, E.

Hill, V.

Carnarvon, E.

Strathallan, V.

Derby, E.

Bath and Wells, L. Bp.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Chichester, L. Bp.

Ely, L. Bp.

Lichfield, L. Bp.

Feversham, E.

Lincoln, L. Bp.

Haddington, E.

Peterborough, L. Bp.

1075

Rochester, L. Bp.

Hawke, L.

Heytesbury, L.

Bagot, L.

Massy, L.

Brancepeth, L.(V.Boyne.)

O'Neill, L.

Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

Clanbrassill, L. (E. Roden.)

Raglan, L.

Clinton, L.

Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

Colchester, L.

de Ros, L.

Ross, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Elphinstone, L.

Silchester, L. (E. Longford)

Forbes, L.

Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston.)

Skelmersdale, L. [Teller.]

Hampton, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)

Winmarleigh, L.

Wynford, L.

Motion agreed to.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKmoved, after Clause 73, to insert the following clause:—
"No incumbent or curate of the Church of England shall, after the passing of this Act, be liable to any penalty for refusing or omitting to perform the burial service of the Church at the funeral of any deceased person, if it shall appear to the satisfaction of the Bishop that in such refusal or omission he acted under a reasonable belief that scandal and offence would be occasioned to the parishioners by the use of the said service: Provided that in every such case it shall be the duty of the minister declining to perform such service, if he would otherwise be required in law to perform it, to give notice of his refusal to the relatives or persons taking upon them the duty of providing for the burial of such deceased person, in such a manner and within such time as to enable proper provision to be made for such burial: Provided, further, that in case of such refusal it shall be lawful for any other minister of the Church, who may be willing to do so, to read the burial service of the Church at the burial of such deceased person in any churchyard in which such person had at the time of his death a right of interment: Provided also, that the incumbent or curate so refusing shall at the time transmit a statement of such refusal, and of the grounds thereof, to the Bishop of the diocese, who shall thereupon declare to the said incumbent or curate, in writing, whether it has or has not been shown to his satisfaction that there were reasonable grounds for such refusal."
The class of cases to which the clause pointed was not very numerous, but it related to cases in which the Clergy felt very strongly indeed; and the congregations themselves might feel that the expressions of faith and hope were inappropriate. He felt sure that it was desirable to absolve clergymen from using the Church of England service in certain circumstances; but he could not accept the view that the Clergy had better take the law into their own hands and risk a prosecution, and he knew that a
1076
large part of the Clergy desired some such safeguard as this clause. He asked the House to view the clause as if it had no comprehensive measure before it; the concession was not a great one, and many of the Clergy would think it a considerable boon.
LORD SELBORNE,in supporting the clause, said, that the subject was one of extreme difficulty; but he thought, on the whole, that the reasons for its adoption preponderated. Forty years ago a numerously signed Petition was presented, representing that it became in some circumstances a strain on the minister's conscience to use the Church Service; and no less a personage than Archbishop Longley had said than in those cases he should decline to use the service, holding himself compelled to do so by a law higher than human. The Clergy ought to be relieved from this unfair position; nor was it a safe state of things, if they wished the law to be obeyed, to place it in such direct conflict with an honest sense of conscientious obligation. The clause was so surrounded with safeguards as to reduce the danger of its being abused to the lowest possible limits. Taking these matters into consideration, he should certainly support the clause.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, the speech of the noble and learned Lord had given a reason why their Lordships should not agree to this clause, for he gave as an instance where the burial service should be refused, the case of a man who died drunk. Now, in this country, where in many places every second house was a public-house, and when a drunken man was so liable to be run over, or killed in other ways, this would not be a justification for what had been so wisely called post mortem excommunication. Besides, in many cases drunkenness was a disease and not a crime.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he was unable to accept the proposal of the most rev. Prelate. The clause which had, unfortunately, been passed, that which was now under consideration, and the clause which was to be proposed by the noble Earl (the Earl of Harrowby), all formed part of one system to which he objected. He would ask their Lordships to consider the position in which the right of objection by the clergymen would place Dis-

1077
senters. A clergyman might take an extreme view, and conscientiously refuse to read the burial service over the body of a deceased Dissenter. Much as he respected the Clergy, he could not give them the liberty of exorcising such an option as the clause appeared to give.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYadmitted that the Clergy had a grievance in this matter, and would have been exceedingly glad if he could have supported the present proposal, but he was unable to do so because he thought it was not well adapted to secure the object in view. It would be a hazardous thing to put into the hands of any clergyman the extreme power of deciding whether he would or would not read the burial service over a parishioner on the plea that that parishioner had led an immoral life. Such a power might be safely trusted with most of their clergymen; but it was likely to be abused by an unwise or indiscreet clergyman.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, that when a law was habitually broken there was probably something in it which had better be repealed. As the law at present stood, clergymen who refused to bury persons who had died in a career of notorious sin ran great risk of incurring penalties. The Clergy had long felt this to be a grievance, and they very naturally objected to having to choose between the alternative of either breaking the law or violating their consciences; and this clause would give relief to the Clergy in these cases. As the law stood it produced by no means a wholesome state of things, and it was not right, he thought, that the Petition of 4,000 clergy of various shades of opinion should for the last 14 years have had no attention paid to it—for he could testify from his experience that such cases as had been mentioned continually occurred. It was far better to put the law in a condition in which the clergyman could obey it, as the clause proposed to do, than that he should be encouraged to think lightly of it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYobjected to the clause—not because it yielded too much to the Clergy, but because it would tend to place them in a position of greater difficulty and responsibility than they now were. He thought that if a clause of this nature were to be carried, giving to the Clergy an option
1078
in certain cases of omitting to read the Church Service, Parliament ought to define with precision what those cases were. As it stood, the clause gave to the Clergy a vague and irresponsible power, which was open to indiscretion and abuse. He did not wish to be thought insensible to the conscientious grievance which it was sought to remove but he must confess he did not see the remedy; but if a remedy was to be given it must be one which would not leave any doubt or ambiguity as to the extent of the liberty to be given to the clergyman.
THE EARL OF CHICHESTERopposed the clause on the same ground. The clause would place the Clergy in the invidious position of making themselves the judges of the conduct of their parishioners after death. He objected to the Clergy being allowed to decide upon the question of a man's life.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that brevity in an Act of Parliament was a quality much to be desired, and therefore he ventured to submit to the most rev. Prelate a form by which his clause would be greatly shortened. It might run thus—
"Henceforward no clergyman of the Church of England shall be obliged to read the burial service over a parishioner if the Bishop believes that the clergyman believes that the parishioners believe that such parishioner had led an evil life."
LORD HATHERLEYthought the vexation to the friends of the deceased at having the ordinary burial service refused would be greatly enhanced by its being formally reported to the Bishop that such an interment would be a scandal to the neighbourhood. And in the parish it would create the greatest possible feuds between the partizans of the relatives and the partizans of the clergyman. He deeply felt the grievance, but did not think the right remedy had yet been hit upon.
THE EARL OF POWISmade a few remarks.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, this subject had been carefully considered by himself and the Friends near him, but the matter had appeared to be too difficult for a layman to bring before their Lordships. It was impossible not to be struck by the force of some of the objections raised to the clause; and, having brought it before the House, he would recommend the

1079
most rev. Prelate not to press it to a division.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKsaid, the grievance was a real one, and the Lower House of Convocation of Canterbury had passed a resolution urging the Bishops that relief might be provided in cases of an extreme and scandalous character. If this were not done, the result would be that the Clergy would be left under an obligation to inter with the Burial Service of the Church those cases which were so bad that the Dissenting ministers did not care to come forward and take a part in. There were difficulties in the way, no doubt, but he believed they would be minimized by this clause, which had been carefully drawn under the best advice. After the opposition from so many quarters, he had little hope from a division, and so he might find himself obliged to accept the suggestion that he should not divide the House.
On Question? Resolved in the Negative.
THE EARL OF HARROWBYmoved to insert after Clause 73 the new clause of which he had given Notice, to the effect that where the friend or other person having charge of the funeral of a person dying in any parish, shall give notice in writing to the incumbent or curate in charge of the parish, that it is his desire that the burial of the said person should take place without the burial service of the Church of England, person such should thereupon be at liberty to inter deceased with such Christian and orderly religious services at the grave as they may think fit, or without any religious service. For the precautions to be taken as to the character of the rites, he would refer to the clause in their Lordships' hands. The noble Earl said, he was glad to find that no attempt was now made to depreciate the grievances of the Dissenters as merely sentimental, and, therefore, not deserving of much attention. Indeed, the attempt to meet the grievance by silent burial was in itself an admission of its existence, though inadequate to its object. Such grievances were not to be met by material considerations, or by statistics as to the number of occasions on which they might never occur. Like explosive gases, they might not be seen or handled; but for all that they were not the less capable of being
1080
deeply and widely felt, and exercising most destructive power. Even the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Peterborough) fully admitted the grievance, though he rejected the remedy. He (the Bishop of Peterborough) would confide to the clergyman of the parish the perilous power of admitting or rejecting, in each case, the claim for the exercise of rites other than those of his own Church. Was it possible to conceive a proposal less likely to have a soothing effect on either party? The party applying had to apply for permission to the minister of another persuasion than his own; and the clergyman applied to had to exercise his discretion as to the character of the rites! The suggestion was monstrous, and would produce greater evils than those which it was intended to remedy. It must be put aside. In fact, the presumption ought to be in favour of the common burial of men of one parish in the same graveyard, and by the religious rites of the several parties; the presumption ought to be in favour of the differences which existed during life being buried in the grave, unless some grievous evil could be proved to result from the operation of that principle. This could not be called a right—no such right could be established; but it was a natural instinct to wish for it, and some good reason must be shown to prevent its indulgence. The reasons which had been most strongly alleged on the other side rested mainly on apprehensions that the grave would be made the scene of irreligious, or unseemly demonstrations or of outbreak of sectarian bitterness. Well, the clause which he had proposed, and borrowed in great measure from one which had been placed before their Lordships by a noble Friend of his (Earl Granville), was very peremptory on this subject, and was, in fact, a better security than any which now existed. If it could be strengthened, by all means let it be so; but he trusted still more to public feeling, which would unanimously condemn any attempt to make an ill-use of such an opportunity. They were not to take their measure of all Dissenters from the language of the Liberation Society. They, no doubt, would be in no degree mitigated by any concession on this or any other point, short of the total disestablishment of the National Church; but there were large numbers

1081
of Dissenters who were actuated by no such feelings of hostility — who had, indeed, a respectful feeling for the National Church—and on whom the concession proposed would have a most wholesome and healing effect; whereas the present exclusion of their religious rites exasperated the feelings of every Dissenter in the country. That exclusion was now the sole question; and was it possible to imagine that it could be long maintained? Let only the state of opinion in this House be looked at, and what would be the result? What was to be done, let it be soon done. Delay was needless exasperation, and the conversion of concession into defeat. He had little hope of being able himself to do anything material towards the object; but if he could elicit from any material number of their Lordships an expression of their desire to remove this grievance, of that brotherly feeling towards their Nonconforming fellow-subjects, which he knew they entertained in their hearts, he would feel that he had done some slight service to his country and his Church.
Moved after Clause 73 to insert the following clause:—
"When the relative or other person having charge of the funeral of a person dying in any parish, or having had a right of interment in any parish, shall signify in writing to the incumbent of such parish, or to the curate in charge of the same, that it is his desire that the burial of the said person shall take place without the burial service of the Church of England, the said relative or person shall thereupon be at liberty to inter the deceased with such Christian and orderly religious services at the grave as he may think fit, or without any religious service; provided, that all regulations as to the position and making of the grave which would be in force in the case of a person interred with the service of the Church of England shall be in force as to such interment: Provided further, that notice of the time when it is the wish of the relatives or other persons as aforesaid to conduct the said interment shall be given to the incumbent or curate in charge at latest sonic time the day before: Provided further, that the said interment shall not take place at the time of or within half an hour before or after any service in the church, or of any funeral already appointed in the churchyard.
If any person shall in any churchyard use any observance or ceremony or deliver any address not permitted by this Act or otherwise by any lawful authority, or be guilty of any disorderly conduct, or conduct calculated to provoke a breach of the peace, or shall under colour of any religious observance or otherwise in any churchyard wilfully endeavour to bring into contempt or obloquy the Christian religion,
1082
or the belief or worship of any church or denomination of Christians, or the ministers or minister of any such church or denomination, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor."—( The Earl of Harrowby.)
THE BISHOP OF LINCOLN: My Lords, it is with regret that I dissent from any proposal of the noble Earl, for whom I entertain the highest respect. The noble Earl is actuated by the best motives in making that proposal, the design of which is to relieve certain grievances of persons dissenting from the Church of England. The special grievance which he desires to remove has, it is universally allowed, no existence in populous places. It has been removed by the provision of cemeteries in our towns. The grievance, whatever it is, is confined to our rural districts. And if the present Bill, for which we are deeply indebted to Her Majesty's Government, and which would provide cemeteries in our rural districts, should become law, as is much to be wished, then, by the provision of cemeteries under its operation, the grievance would be greatly diminished in rural districts, and would eventually vanish there, as it has vanished in our towns. But, my Lords, what, after all, is the grievance? Has it not been greatly magnified? I may claim some right to speak on this point. For nearly nine years I have had the Episcopal oversight of what is now the largest diocese in England in extent, and which is mainly agricultural—the diocese of Lincoln. I am stating a fact which is notorious to most of my right rev. Brethren, and to many of your Lordships, that the Protestant Dissenters of England in such dioceses greatly prefer to be buried with the service of the Church of England, and by a minister of that Church. Let me cite one specimen among many in evidence of this. About three years ago I was called upon to consecrate a portion of a cemetery in a large village in North Lincolnshire—the village of Laceby, near Grimsby, containing more than 1,000 inhabitants, many of whom are Dissenters. In the present Spring I held a confirmation there, and inquired how many persons had been buried in the consecrated portion, and how many in the unconsecrated part of that cemetery. The answer was that more than 30 had been buried in the consecrated part, and only one in the unconsecrated; and it was

1083
added that this one person had given special directions that he might be buried in the consecrated portion, and had pointed out the spot in it where he wished to be interred; so that in will at least all the burials were in the consecrated part. The noble Earl desires to administer relief to religious and conscientious Dissenters. His Amendment, if carried, would, I venture to say, have the opposite effect. It would place religious Dissenters at the mercy of political Dissenters. Religious Dissenters, as I have said, prefer the Church of England Burial Service, said by a minister of the Church. But if this Amendment is legalized, then they would become the victims of the intimidations of political Nonconformist agitators, who would tell them that they were bound in honour to employ the services of Dissenting ministers officiating in the churchyards of the Church of England; and thus, my Lords, you would create other grievances — grievances which would press heavily on the Clergy of the Church of England. In the diocese of Lincoln there are more than 1,000 clergy. I have deemed it my duty to ascertain their feelings on this subject. As far as the rural parishes are considered—the question, I repeat, does not affect the towns—I believe the clergy of the diocese to be almost unanimous in imploring your Lordships to accept the Bill of the noble Duke, and to reject the noble Earl's Amendment. I believe that the noble Duke has received some intimations of this unanimity from some of the most distinguished clergymen of my diocese. They deprecate the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment is proposed as a measure of peace, and as a settlement of the question; but it will stir up strife and settle nothing; it will open the gates of our churchyards to every form of religious schism and heresy, and will make those quiet resting-places of the departed to be the battle-fields of angry polemics. The very safeguards which the noble Earl has introduced into the Amendment are themselves suggestive of this. The interments under its provisions are to be "Christian and religious." Let me be allowed to ask the noble Earl —"Is there any form of sectarianism, Protestant or Romish, which does not claim to be 'Christian and religious?' " Some of them make it a part of their religion to
1084
deny the Divinity of Christ, others reject His humanity, others repudiate the resurrection of the body and the eternity of the future life: all these would be enabled under this Amendment to proclaim their dogmas in our churchyards over the graves of our departed friends. The noble Earl's safeguards will prove illusory and abortive. In the year 1874 your Lordships tried to check Romanising practices in our churches and churchyards by the Public Worship Regulation Act. And now in this Amendment proposed by the noble Earl, who has been regarded hitherto as one of our most courageous champions in the cause of the English Reformation, you are invited to open the doors of every churchyard in England to the funeral ceremonies of the Church of Rome. If you admit all services that are Christian and religious you cannot exclude them. Is this likely to promote peace in our parishes? I think not. If this Amendment passes you will have scenes like those of St. James's, Hatcham, promoted by Act of Parliament. The noble Proposer of the Amendment seems to have had some apprehension of this calamitous result; for he has provided in it that no interments shall take place under it during Divine service in the respective churches of the graveyards, or within half-an-hour before or after any such service. Now, if this had been a message of peace, surely no such precautions would be necessary. But they shadow forth other consequences. I regret to say that defections to the Church of Rome are becoming more and more common among us. They are due to our religious divisions and to other causes, to which I will not now refer. We must expect to see their results in religious demonstrations, especially on Sundays, when larger congregations are gathered together in our churchyards. Suppose, now, that you have Romish processions of priests in splendid vestments, with crosses and crucifixes, and banners flying and music playing, and all the other paraphernalia of a Romish funeral parading our parishes till the half-hour had expired and the time arrived for a triumphal entry into our English churchyards for the celebration of Romish services, which would come in under the designation in the Amendment as " Christian and religious"—do you think, my Lords, that such things

1085
as these would do much to settle this vexed question (as it is called) and to promote the cause of peace? I think not. They would cause great unsettlement; they would attract the admiration of some, and bitter grief and great scandal to others of our people, and would distract our parishes with the conflicts of a religious war. And to conclude the catalogue of these visionary safeguards, the remedy for any disorder that may occur at any interment that may take place under this Amendment is that the party who causes it is to be "held guilty of a misdemeanor." My Lords, may I venture to ask, is the clergyman of the parish with his slender income to incur the expense of legal proceedings for punishing offences which will have been encouraged by the Amendment, opening our churchyards to all contending religionists, especially in this restless age? And if the clergyman does not endeavour to defend the churchyard, who will undertake to do it? This safeguard, like the rest, would be utterly frustrate and abortive. But, my Lords, I have done. Only a few words more. We who sit on this Episcopal Bench have the privilege of a place in this House in order to represent the Clergy, and to communicate their feelings to your Lordships. The Clergy of England are more than 20,000 in number. The Church of England is one of the most loyal Churches in Christendom, and the clergy of the Church of England are among the most patriotic citizens of England, and among the most loyal subjects of the English Crown. For the sake of the country, as well as of the Church, I entreat you not to alienate the affections of the great majority of the Clergy by assenting to this Amendment. They feel strongly on this matter, and I feel deeply with them; and, if I speak strongly, I trust that I may be pardoned for doing so. We feel very deeply in his matter, not for our own interests, but for something far dearer than that; we feel strongly for the honour of Almighty God, to Whose honour and service our churchyards have been set apart by a solemn act of religious consecration, and for the sanctity of that consecrated ground, which is God's acre, and which would be liable to be invaded and desecrated continually if this Amendment becomes law. The Clergy look to your Lordships—especially do they look
1086
to us, the Bishops of the Church, to defend them and their cause in this crisis, and not to betray that cause to those who, in the name of religious equality, would subvert the Church of England, and level it to the ground. The present time is one of great religious restlessness, of great religious distress—especially to the Clergy. Do not add any more bitter ingredients to their cup of sorrow, which is almost full, and ready to overflow; do not wound their tenderest feelings; do not, I entreat you as a suppliant in their behalf—do not aggravate their unhappiness by revolutionizing to-night the ancient law of the Church of England with regard to her churchyards, by means of a Parliamentary enactment, in opposition, as I firmly believe, to the mind of the Church herself. Do not, I implore you, my Lords, accept the present Amendment.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, the Resolution or Amendment of the noble Earl (Earl Granville) was incomplete, since whilst it professed to be based on a broad spirit of toleration and religious liberty, yet by the exclusion of certain classes of Her Majesty's subjects who were not of sufficiently numerical importance, the Amendment appeared as though it had been dictated by Party considerations and a regard for certain constituencies. If the supporters of the Amendment thought that the churchyards of England were national property in the sense that the existing possession of them by Churchmen, and the objections of Churchmen to other ritual than theirs were not to be regarded, why did they stop short where they did, and why did they not propose the words, "Jewish, Christian, Mussulman, and orderly religious observances?" thus including all Her Majesty's subjects who worship the same God, and who venerate the same patriarchs and prophets. If the advocates of religious liberty and of a toleration which they wished to enforce upon others refused to go thus far, and urged that Jewish and Mussulman burial services differed too much from those which they had in view, then they must admit the full force of the objections felt by members of the Church of England to other services than those which that Church provided. But if the noble Earl (Earl Granville) intended to be consistent and

1087
logical, he had no longer any option in the matter of advocating the admission of Jews and Mussulmans to all the privileges which he claimed for Nonconformists. For the noble Earl and his supporters had repeatedly asserted that all Englishmen had a common law right to be buried in the churchyards of England, irrespective of and free from any conditions imposed by the Church of England; which conditions, though they had descended from the earliest times, were treated by the supporters of the Amendment as usurpations. If this theory of a common law right to burial in the churchyards were true, it was clear that an English Jew or Mussulman had all the rights that any other Englishman had, whether he were Nonconformist or Churchman. The Amendment, both in spirit and tendency, was materialistic, and entirely disregarded the theory and intention of burial grounds, the object of which was not merely to dispose of dead bodies, or to secure a sentimental union of the bodies of those who were disunited during life on the most important matter of life. The theory and intention of burying men together in one spot had been in every age, in every country, and in every religion the spiritual object of uniting travellers by the same road to the next world, and of facilitating that journey. For this reason burial grounds should be appropriated to those who hold one and the same belief; and it was unreasonable to wish to intrude persons into the burial places of those whose belief they did not share, and whose religious observances they rejected and refused; and it was unreasonable to claim a right to shock the feelings of believers in immortality, or to vitiate their religious observances, by the intrusion of addresses or inscriptions denying the immortality, such as those the Secularists had printed. And if the theory of the common law right of burial in churchyards was to stand, the secularists would claim under it all the privileges the Amendment sought to confer on Nonconformists; and there were many persons in Birmingham, Northampton, and elsewhere who would not rest satisfied with the Amendment now proposed, wide as it was.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, that the noble Earl (the Earl of Harrowby) appeared to consider
1088
that the 74th clause was an insult to the whole Nonconforming body.
THE EARL OF HARROWBY: No; I said that the Nonconformist had viewed in the light of an insult what was intended as an act of conciliation.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he confessed he was very much astonished to hear that the insertion of a clause in a Bill not intended in any way as an insult to the Nonconforming body should have been accepted by them in that sense, more particularly as on two previous occasions that clause was inserted in a Bill which passed through this House, and through some of its stages in the other House. The noble Earl proposed the clause now before the Committee as a means of healing the differences which separated us from our Nonconformist brethren, and he said that it was absolutely necessary for that purpose that some such proposal as he had made should become law. But the noble Earl was hardly consistent; for he went on to say that Dissenters in country places did not differ at all from members of the Church of England, that the parents and children went one to the church and the other to the chapel, and that they did not object in any way to the ministrations of the clergymen of the Church of England. And yet the noble Earl said, in order to do away with the difference between Nonconformists and Churchmen, a clause like this must be passed into law. The proposal would be very difficult to carry out in practice. The noble Earl proposed that the relative in charge of the funeral should have the deceased interred with such Christian and orderly services as he might see fit; but what were Christian and orderly services? Mr. Osborne Morgan, in "another place," had found it impossible to make a definition. Nor was this all; for there were a certain number of persons in this country who held peculiar opinions, and objected altogether to religious rites at funerals. Again, the noble Earl had laid some stress upon the fact that everyone had a common law right to be buried; but did this right belong only to Christians? If the argument were followed out it would be necessary to allow secularists to bury their dead with any service they thought proper. He submitted, then, that the precautions taken were not definite

1089
or distinct. He hoped the House would seriously consider the question; and he wished to know why the Church of England was the only body which was not to be allowed to set apart a burying-ground for its own dead? He would like to have an answer to that question.
LORD SELBORNEsaid, that some of the noble Duke's observations called for a reply. He did not consider it necessary to attempt a definition of what was a "Christian" service, seeing that the law would not hold anyone to be a transgressor unless the service held by him were proved to be neither Christian nor orderly. The law would have no difficulty in determining if there were profane, or secular, or irreligious performance; and there already existed laws of the land on such subjects. Great legal authorities had dealt with this particular question. There was an Act of William III., imposing penalties on any person educated in or having made profession of the Christian religion who should by writing, printing, teaching, or advised speaking deny the Christian religion. That Act was still in force; and several well-known cases had been decided by great Judges, as prosecutions for blasphemy, in which no difficulty had been found in determining what was an assault upon Christianity in general, as distinguished from the lawful exercise of private judgment as to particular tenets, concerning which there were differences of opinion among persons calling themselves Christians. In the view of the law, all denominations calling themselves Christian, who were within the toleration Acts, and their religious observances, would be assumed to be Christian. With regard to secularists, they would be left in the position of persons who, not believing in religion, used no religious service; for, as to an irreligious form, it would not be a "service" at all. The two things were a contradiction in terms. There was, therefore, no question of religious liberty in their case. The case of the Jews would, of course, occur to all of them; but it was very rarely necessary to bury Jews in one of our churchyards, and we need not get into difficulties for their sakes. These clauses would leave them exactly in their present position. At present they could have a silent burial, and they would have a silent
1090
burial if these clauses were passed. There was no reason why we should not do what was necessary and sufficient to meet the case of Christian Nonconformists, a large and important body of their fellow-countrymen, without on that account giving up the Christian character of our churchyards. He had been much astonished to hear from a right rev. Prelate, (if he understood him rightly), that the Nonconformists could not, in his opinion, be consistent with their own principles, if they were satisfied with less than full liberty for irreligious and un-Christian, as well as religious and Christian observances. The right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Peterborough) agreed that a state of things now existed which could not be safely allowed to continue, and that it was consistent with the principles of the Church of England, rightly understood, to permit services of Dissenting ministers in our churchyards.
THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGH: With the leave of the incumbent.
LORD SELBORNEthought if any scheme could be liable to practical objections it was that of the right rev. Prelate. If the clergyman of a parish were willing to admit a Dissenting minister and a Dissenting service he would have to assume the official responsibility of this departure from the ordinary practice of the Church. Again, supposing that in a diocese containing 200 parishes 100 clergymen were to grant this liberty while the remainder refused it, would such a state of things be conducive to peace? If the principle were right the law ought to settle the mode of carrying it into effect, and he did not know how this could be done better than by adopting the clause now under consideration.
THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGHsaid, he had no desire to degrade the character of Christianity or to facilitate un-Christian and disorderly services in our churchyards. It was almost unnecessary for him to make this denial but for the interpretation which the noble and learned Lord seemed to have put on his words.
On Question? Their Lordships divided: — Contents 102; Not-Contents 102:—The numbers being equal, it was (according to ancient rule) Resolved in the Negative.

CONERNTS.

Canterbury, Archp.

Carrington, L.

Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort)

Bedford, D.

Cleveland, D.

Congleton, L.

Devonshire, D.

Cottesloe, L.

Grafton, D.

Crewe, L.

Saint Albans, D.

de Clifford, L.

Somerset, D.

De Freyne, L.

Westminster, D.

Delamere, L.

De Mauley, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Dorchester, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Ebury, L.

Northampton, M.

Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

Ripon, M.

Foley, L.

Abingdon, E.

Greville, L.

Airlie, E.

Hammond, L.

Camperdown, E.

Hanmer, L.

Cawdor, E.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

Chichester, E.

Hatherley, L.

Clarendon, E.

Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

Cowper, E.

Dartrey, E.

Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)

Ducie, E.

Fortescue, E.

Granville, E.

Lanerton, L.

Harrowby, E.

Lawrence, L.

Kimberley, E.

Leigh, L.

Morley, E.

Londesborough, L.

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Lovat, L.

Northbrook, E.

Lyttelton, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Lyveden, L.

Suffolk and Berkshire, E.

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

Sydney, E.

Monck, L. (V. Monck.)

Verulam, E.

Monson, L. [Teller.]

Zetland, E.

Mont Eagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

Cardwell, V.

O'Hagan, L.

Eversley, V.

Plunket, L.

Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

Poltimore, L.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

Halifax, V.

Powerscourt, V.

Robartes, L.

Romilly, L.

Exeter, L. Bp.

Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

Oxford, Bp.

Sandhurst, L.

Abercromby, L.

Seaton, L.

Aberdare, L.

Sefton, L. (E. Sefton.)

Acton, L.

Selborne, L.

Auckland, L.

Sherborne, L.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)

Beaumont, L.

Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) [Teller.]

Strafford, L. (V. Enfield.)

Breadalbane, L. (E. Breadalbane.)

Sudeley, L.

Talbot de Malahide, L.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Truro, L.

Vernon, L.

Carew, L.

Waveney, L.

Carlingford, L.

Wolverton, L.

NON-CONTENTS.

Cairns, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Bristol M.

Hertford, M.

Salisbury, M.

Northumberland, D.

Richmond, D.

Amherst, E.

1092

Annesley, E

Salisbury, L. Bp.

Beaconsfield, E.

Beauchamp, E.

Airey, L.

Belmore, E.

Ashford, L. (V. Bury.)

Bradford, E.

Aveland, L.

Brownlow, E.

Bagot, L.

Cadogan, E.

Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

Carnarvon. E.

Coventry, E.

Churston, L.

De La Warr, E.

Clanbrassill, L. (E. Roden.)

Derby, E.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Clinton, L.

Colchester, L.

de Ros, L.

Eldon, E.

Digby, L.

Ellesmere, E.

Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

Feversham, E.

Haddington, E.

Dunsany, L.

Hardwicke, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Harewood, E.

Elphinstone, L.

Jersey, E.

Forbes, L.

Lanesborough, E.

Forester, L.

Lonsdale, E.

Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston.)

Mar and Kellie, E.

Nelson, E.

Grey de Radcliffe, L. (V. Grey de Wilton.)

Onslow, E.

Orford, E.

Hampton, L.

Poulett, E.

Harlech, L.

Powis, E.

Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)

Redesdale, E.

Stanhope, E.

Hawke, L.

Stradbroke, E.

Heytesbury, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorn, E.

Inchiquin, L.

Kenlis, L.(M. Headfort.)

Tankerville, E.

Manners, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Massy, L.

Wharncliffe, E.

O'Neill, L.

Wilton, E.

Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

Bridport, V.

Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

Hardinge, V.

Hawarden, V. [Teller.]

Raglan, L.

Hill, V.

Rayleigh, L.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Rivers, L.

Ross, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Strathallan, V.

Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

Bath and Wells, L. Bp.

Skelmersdale, L. [Teller.]

Carlisle, L. Bp.

Chichester, L. Bp.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Ely, L. Bp.

Strathnairn, L.

Hereford, L. Bp.

Tredegar, L.

Lichfield, L. Bp.

Tyrone, L. (M. Waterford.)

Lincoln, L. Bp.

Llandaff, L. Bp.

Winmarleigh, L.

Peterborough, L. Bp.

Wynford, L.

Rochester, L. Bp.

Remaining clauses agreed to.
The Report of the Amendments to be received on Monday the 18 th of June next; and Bill to be printed, as amended. (No. 80.)

PROVISIONAL ORDERS (IRELAND) CONFIRMATION (ARTISANS AND LABOURERS DWELLINGS) BILL [H.L.] (NO. 78.)
A Bill for confirming certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board for Ireland relating to the boroughs of Dublin and Belfast: And

PROVISIONAL ORDERS (IRELAND) CONFIRMATION (ENNIS, &c.) BILL [H.L.] (NO. 79.)
A Bill for confirming certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board for Ireland relating to Waterworks in the towns of Ennis and Limavady:
Were presented by The LORD PRESIDENT; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.

METROPOLIS IMPROVEMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (GREAT WILD STREET, &c.) BILL [H.L.] (NO. 81.)
A Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State for the improvement of certain unhealthy areas within the Metropolis:
CITY OF LONDON IMPROVEMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (GOLDEN LANE, &c.) BILL [H.L.] (NO. 82.)
A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State for the improvement of certain unhealthy areas in the City of London: And

GREENOCK IMPROVEMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [H.L.] (NO. 83.)
A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State for the improvement of certain unhealthy areas in the Parliamentary Burgh of Greenock:
Were presented by The LORD STEWARD; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at half past Eleven o'clock, to Monday the 4th of June next, a quarter before Five o'clock.