(NO. 123.) THIRD READING. (Hansard, 15 July 1879)

§ LORD ABERDARE
rose to move the insertion of three new clauses, which he hoped would receive the support of Her Majesty's Government and also of the Bench of Bishops. Those clauses were not of his own invention, but were embodied, nearly word for word, in a Bill which was introduced by Her Majesty's present Government in 1877. The clauses he proposed were as follows:—

EARLSTANHOPE
said, he was unable to accept the Amendments proposed by the noble Lord. The Bill was on a broader basis than the proposed Amendments—which, indeed, were virtually included in the Bill already, as it was to be construed with the Cemeteries Act of 1847. Under the Burials Act the vestry was obliged to provide consecrated ground; but in the Cemeteries Act this was entirely optional, and the clause ran as follows:— The Bishop of the diocese in which the cemetery is situated may, on the application of the company, consecrate any portion of the cemetery set apart for the burial of the dead according to the rites of the Established Church, if he is satisfied with the title of the company to such portion; and the part which is so consecrated shall be used only for burials according to the rites of the Established Church. The Local Authority, which was a much, more important body than the Vestry or Burial Board, was under the Local Government Board, who would probably see to the carrying out of the Bill, and who had to make an annual Report to Parliament. But there was another argument. The noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) had refused the other night to introduce Amendments into the Racecourses Bill, on the ground that it would endanger the loss of the measure "in another place." In the same way he did not wish to accept Amendments to this small and unpretentious Bill, lest it should fail of being carried in the House of Commons.

THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK
said, he could not support the Amendments—although he approved of many of them, and thought they might have the effect of providing additional safeguards—because, from the late period, of the Session and the state of Business in "another place," to accept them would simply be to lose a very useful Bill, which would supply country communities, where the people did not care much about the Burials Question, with additional pieces of ground for the purposes of interment at a little distance from their overcrowded churchyards. Cases where this was required existed probably in thousands. With regard to one of the Amendments, he did not see the advantage of the unanimity which was insisted on as a condition of providing a consecrated ground only. Why 439 should one factious guardian have the power to insist on having two burial-grounds instead of one in a parish where all others were agreed? It had been said that, whereas an abuse existed at Northampton under the Cemeteries Act, none could exist under the Burials Act. But this was not so, as he knew from experience. In a large town in the North of England, which was under the latter Act, the guardians had refused to apply for consecration of any portion of the burial-ground and to pay the necessary fees, although bound to do so by the Act. A portion of the ground was, however, consecrated, as it were, by invasion. But when that portion was exhausted the clergy were compelled, in defiance of the law, to bury in unconsecrated ground. The present was a practical measure, of a healing and excellent character, but one which would not ease off the Burials Question. To send it to be discussed in "another place" would simply be to vote to get rid of it, and that they did not desire to do.

§ LORD SELBORNE
pointed out that the abuse just mentioned by the most rev. Prelate had been in violation of the law, and remedies were provided for disobedience to the law. Those persons who felt themselves aggrieved through the Burial Board refusing to carry out the law might come to the Queen's Bench for a mandamus to compel the Board to do their duty. The Cemeteries Act was never intended to be a compulsory measure; but companies were enabled to acquire land with their own money, and they were at liberty to use it either as consecrated or unconsecrated ground. But the present measure proposed to reverse the policy of the Church Rates Abolition Act, and to use the power of taxing communities by rates for the purpose of providing sectarian burial-grounds. This principle was both new and bad. Those who supported the measure could not have calculated its effect. The fact that particular towns had incorporated the Cemeteries Act in their Improvement Acts furnished no answer to objections on principle to general legislation of this kind. Those Acts belonged to private legislation, and could afford no argument for enabling the Local Authorities everywhere to levy rates in order to provide denominational burial grounds.

§ EARL GRANVILLE
said, he did not think it necessary to add anything to what the noble and learned Lord had said as to the abstract principle of this Bill. He merely wished to make one remark. The noble Earl opposite (Earl Stanhope) had referred to his refusal to introduce an Amendment into the Racecourses Bill, lest the measure should be lost through delay. But he could not conceive that there was really any comparison between the case to which the noble Earl had referred and so important an Amendment as the present, which involved the equal treatment of Nonconformists. The Bill as it now stood would inflict upon the Dissenters an additional grievance. He believed the Nonconformist Members in the other House of Parliament felt so strongly as to the justice of these Amendments that if they were introduced they would not oppose the Bill when it went back to "another place."

§ VISCOUNT CRANBROOK
thought there was a complete misapprehension with respect to this Bill. It was not a question of voting by majorities. The Local Authority was quite different from the Vestry to which the noble Lord wished the appeal to lie. It was a Local Sanitary Authority—in fact, the Board of Guardians—who might, if they thought proper, provide a burial-ground for two or three parishes. The Local Government Board would have to be referred to, and would see that the burial-ground was a proper one. All the circumstances of the case considered, he believed that there was absolute security that justice would be done to all parties.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
said, the Local Government Board had no control over the urban authorities, but only over the rural. In his opinion, the Bill would destroy the equality provided by the Burials Act. Though it might be desirable to make better arrangements for cemeteries throughout the country, it ought not to be done at the expense of committing as much injustice as would result from the Bill.

§ LORD ABERDARE
said, that in the present state of the House he would not press his Amendment to a Division.