§ Commons Amendments considered (according to Order).
THE LORD CHANCELLOR,in asking their Lordships to take into consideration the Commons Amendments to the Bill, said, that he had much pleasure in being able to state that, according to the view which he, at all events, had taken of this measure, the Bill came back to that House with its essential character unchanged. Besides embodying in the Bill those provisions which were intended to settle this question, and to put an end to the long and painful conflicts to which it had given rise, it had been his anxious desire, as the organ of the Government in the preparation of the measure and its introduction into that House, to show all possible consideration for the feelings of the clergy of the Church of England, to soften and mitigate its effect, and to prevent any of those mischiefs arising from its operation of which some persons were apprehensive. There were two provisions in the Bill to which, for those reasons, he had attached much importance. One was the provision that such religious services, other than that of the Church of England, as might be allowed to be celebrated in the churchyards, should be of a Christian character. That provision had been the subject of considerable discussion elsewhere; and he apprehended that its intention had been misunderstood by those who alleged that it was inconsistent with the principle of the Bill, which was to recognize, as a civil right to be enjoyed on terms consistent with religious liberty, the right of burial in the churchyards of this country. The civil right was to interment alone, and did not include the right to read any particular burial service, or any religious service at all. The inconsistency in the present state of the law which the Bill was intended to remedy was, that the civil right of interment was accompanied by, and fettered with, an ecclesiastical condition which required all who did not come under certain categories to be buried by clergymen of the Church of England, with the services of the Church of England; and, in introducing that measure, he had ventured to state his belief that, it was not possible to justify a state of the law 1161 which accompanied the civil right of interment with such a restriction. He had never suggested that the civil right of interment entitled any person to be buried with any kind of religious service. What he had said in introducing the measure was, that it would be wise on the part of their Lordships to go as far as they reasonably could, in permitting interments to be accompanied by religious services. It would, however, be going too far, and much further than any sound principle required, if they were to permit the churchyards to be made use of for the purpose of anti-Christian demonstrations, whether they were or were not called religious services, and he saw no way of drawing a line in the matter, except by saying that the services should be of a Christian character. He had intentionally used that word in its widest sense; and had proposed that every person who professed Christianity might be buried with his own religious service, which could not be presumed to be of a character to give offence to other professing Christians. He rejoiced to say that the House of Commons had, by a considerable majority, retained in the Bill that safeguard. For that he was very thankful. By another clause in the Bill, reference had been made to certain recommendations which had been made by the two Convocations of Canterbury and York. The House of Commons had struck out the words referring to those recommendations. There was found in the House of Commons, a general disinclination to adopt that clause as it stood; and that not only on the part of supporters of the Government, but on the part also of many Members of the Opposition, including some who were certainly not hostile to the Church. The clause, indeed, met with so little support, that no Division took place in reference to it, and an Amendment was adopted embodying the main substance of the recommendations of Convocation, but without any distinct reference to them. He had carefully considered the clause as it now stood; and was of opinion that it hardly departed at all from the substance of the original proposal. Indeed, it was so far more favourable to the clergy, that it provided that any service might be used to which the Ordinary had given his assent, without certain restrictions which the Convo- 1162 cation of Canterbury had proposed, and which, in his own judgment, were better omitted. He hoped, therefore, it would receive the approval of their Lordships. There was another matter, as to which he regretted to see that some of their Lordships thought they ought not to agree to the Commons Amendments. He referred to the striking out of that which had been the 7th clause, one which was inserted in the Bill in the course of its passage through their Lordships' House. That clause limited the operation of the Bill to parishes in which there were no cemeteries. He regretted very much, at the time, that their Lordships agreed to that clause; as its tendency was to prevent a settlement of the question, and to keep the controversy alive for polemical and political purposes, while it would encourage agitation to procure cemeteries for parishes, in which they did not exist, for the mere purpose of taking those parishes out of the Act. The Government were of opinion that the settlement of the question was of vital importance, even to the Church itself, and that great evils and dangers would arise from keeping it open. The House of Commons took that view, and, by a majority of between 80 and 90, rejected the clause; and to that Amendment, he hoped, their Lordships would agree. The remaining Amendments related to matters of detail, and did not change the substantial effect of the Bill.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKsaid, he could not understand how the rejection of the 7th clause was essential to a settlement of the question, when Mr. Osborne Morgan's Bill of 1873, when the present Government were also in Office, contained a provision to this effect—"No burial shall take place under this Bill in any parish where a cemetery is provided." If it was essential that cemeteries should now be dealt with, for the purpose of closing the question, the framers of the Bill of 1873 fell very short of that which it was their duty to do. The Burials Acts were now to be repealed, as they would be unworkable under the Act, and they were at least a compromise. The motto on which the Nonconformists were acting was—"What is yours is mine, and what is mine is my own." They were to have the right to their own ground in cemeteries, and an unlimited power of using other people's. Churchmen would bury 1163 only in the consecrated ground, and would never dream of going to the unconsecrated ground; but Nonconformists in many cases preferred and would have the power to go to the consecrated portion, even though they had the unconsecrated ground open to them. The question would then arise, how were they they to proceed to get new burial grounds. Mr. Marten's Act, passed last Session, was said to be practically unworkable; the expense of adopting it was too great, and its conditions were too onerous; and there was no other mode of obtaining a cemetery, except such as the Burial Acts provided. Were they to ask the parish to form a cemetery with two chapels; and were they to say, that one belonged to the Church, with full right to Nonconformists to come in, and the other to Nonconformists, with the right to Churchmen to come in? This practically amounted to a confiscation of property in the case of the existing cemeteries, and to almost an insuperable obstacle to the formation of new cemeteries. If the Burial Acts were to be superseded, let them be repealed and something substituted in their place. At the proper time, he should move that the Lords Amendment on the clause be agreed to and the Commons Amendment disagreed with.
§ Several Amendments agreed to.
§ Moved, "To agree to the Amendment made by the Commons in Clause 1, page 1, line 13, to leave out from ('place') to ('or') in line 15."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, he was not such an admirer of the system of cemeteries as his most rev. Brother. The existence in them of two chapels opposed to each other appeared to proclaim to the whole world that the English nation was divided equally into two bodies—one belonging to the Church, and one to Dissent. This was a state of things that he would not regret to see altered. Therefore, if this Bill brought about a discontinuance of the system of having a consecrated and an unconsecrated chapel in the same burial-ground, he, for one, would not object to it. He did not think the clergy were much enamoured of these cemeteries. They were very expensive to the ratepayers. The existence of a Burial Board in a parish 1164 deprived a clergyman of certain rights and advantages he at present enjoyed. Of course, provision must be made when the parish churchyard was full. But additions could be made to churchyards in most agricultural parishes. These additions, which need not of necessity be contiguous to the existing churchyards, would be infinitely more popular with the clergy than the establishment of cemeteries. He, therefore, agreed with the Amendment of the Commons.
THE BISHOP OF CARLISLEdid not think the objections of the first most rev. Prelate were met by the most rev. Primate. There wer6 many cases in which they could not enlarge the churchyards. Sanitary considerations required the establishment of cemeteries. If a cemetery was to be established, was it to be all consecrated? If it was, the Nonconformists would regard it as an unwarrantable concession to Church privileges. If it was all left unconsecrated, Church people would not be satisfied. It would be an absurdity to divide it into consecrated and unconsecrated ground, while the law gave the Nonconformists power not only to use the unconsecrated portion, but to have free use of the consecrated portion as well.
THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, he might be very dull, but he could not see the absurdity of the position. They would have in cemeteries both consecrated and unconsecrated ground. While the Bill would permit Nonconformists to use the consecrated ground, which they would wish to do when relatives had been buried there, it would not compel them to use it. The consecrated ground would be open to those who conscientiously preferred it.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEsaid, he had supported the Government throughout upon this Bill. He thought, as regarded graveyards, there should be no distinction. That system had worked well in Scotland and Ireland, and he did not see why it should not work well in England. As regarded consecrated ground, he wished to know whether Episcopalians and Roman Catholics would, by this Bill, be placed on an equality; or whether, in the part of public cemeteries now set apart for Roman Catholics only, Roman Catholics could be buried? He feared this would be the working of the Bill, and, if so, it 1165 would give an unjust advantage to the Roman Catholic Church, instead of putting all Christian Churches on an equality.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that where parishioners had rights of burial in consecrated ground, whether of Roman Catholic or of Anglican consecration, the operation of the Bill would be exactly the same. With regard to cemeteries, he might state that the House of Commons were unanimous. They did not divide on the Question whether cemeteries should be included under the Bill.
LORD DENMAN,in reference to a remark of the most rev. Primate, stated that, in his view, it would be impossible to do away with the Burial Boards already established.
§ THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)put it to the most rev. Prelate, whether it was necessary to divide on this Amendment? The Division might be taken on the 7th clause.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKsaid, he gave his Notice on Clause 7 under a mistake. That clause was very much wider than the Amendment he supported. He simply wished to maintain the authority of the two or three Burial Acts.
§ On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 61; Not-Contents 26: Majority 35.
1166| CONTENTS. | |
| Canterbury, L. Archp. | Oxford, L. Bp. |
| Selborne, L. (L. Chancellor.) | St. Asaph, L. Bp. |
| St. David's, L. Bp. | |
| Grafton, D. | Belper, L. |
| Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) [Teller.] | |
| Camperdown, E. | |
| Clonmell, E. | Brabourne, L. |
| Derby, E. | Braye, L. |
| Granville, E. | Breadalbane, L. (E. Breadalbane.) |
| Kimberley, E. | |
| Lucan, E. | Calthorpe, L. |
| Morley, E. | Carew, L. |
| Northbrook, E. | Carrington, L. |
| Spencer, E. | Chelmsford, L. |
| Suffolk and Berkshire, E. | Churchill, L. |
| Clermont, L. | |
| Sydney, E. | Congleton, L. |
| Dormer, L. | |
| Eversley, V. | Ebury, L. |
| Sherbrooke, V. | Emly, L. |
| Ettrick, L. (L. Napier.) | |
| Chichester, L. Bp. | Gwydir, L. |
| Exeter, L. Bp. | Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.) |
| Llandaff, L. Bp. | |
| London, L. Bp. | Lawrence, L. |
| Leigh, L. | Strafford, L. (V. Enfield.) |
| Lismore, L. (V. Lismore.) | Stratheden and Campbell, L. |
| Methuen, L. | |
| Monson, L. [Teller.} | Sudeley, L. |
| Monteagle of Brandon, L. | Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.) |
| Mount Temple, L. | Vaux of Harrowden, L. |
| O'Hagan, L. | |
| Romilly, L. | Vivian, L. |
| Sandhurst, L. | Waveney, L. |
| Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.) | Wolverton, L. |
| Wrottesley, L. | |
| NOT-CONTENTS. | |
| York, L. Archp. | Lincoln, L. Bp. |
| St. Albans, L. Bp. | |
| Northumberland, D. | Winchester, L. Bp. |
| Winchester, M. | Amherst, L. (V. Holmesdale.) |
| Doncaster, E. (V. Buccleuch and Queensberry.) | Bagot, L. |
| Bateman, L. [Teller.] | |
| Beaumont, L. | |
| Feversham, E. | Denman, L. |
| Mount Edgcumbe, E. | Ellenborough, L. |
| Redesdale, E. [Teller.] | Forester, L. |
| Hawke, L. | |
| Hawarden, V. | Oranmore and Browne, L. |
| Melville, V. | Wynford, L. |
| Bangor, L. Bp. | Zouche of Haryngworth, L. |
| Carlisle, L. Bp. | |
| Hereford, L. Bp. |
§ Resolved in the Affirmative.
§ Further Amendments agreed to.
§ Moved, "To agree to the Amendment made by the Commons, to leave out Clause 7."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ THE EARL OF MOUNT EDGCUMBEsaid, that in considering this question he had always endeavoured to put himself in the position of a Dissenter, and to realize the grievances which Dissenters might suffer. Any real grievance on their part he would be willing to redress; but this matter was being used as a grievance throughout the country by men whose object was the disestablishment of the Church of England, and the overthrow of the Church. It would be admitted by all that no compromise would be accepted by the Liberation Society. When the churchyards were opened in the manner proposed, then the necessary standpoint would be provided for establishing concurrent rights to the churches also. He believed that the clergy themselves, if they felt that what they conceived to be the interests of the Church were abandoned by those to whom they looked for support; if they felt that their sentiments were disregarded, and that 1167 they had no hope for the future, would be very much inclined to prefer disestablishment, in order to put an end to the uncertainty in which they wore placed. Many persons had built churches and given land with the distinct intention that both should be the property of the Church alone, in the same way as others had given similar gifts to other denominations, and if they believed that their gifts would have boon interfered with they would have taken stops to give effect to their intentions. If the burial ground had been detached from the church, he would gladly hail any proposal for the removal of anything like a wall of partition between denominations in the last stage of our common humanity. In that case there would be no heartburnings. But with the burial-ground attached to the church, the clergy would be placed in very trying circumstances, and many occasions for ill-feeling would arise. All he could say in regard to the measure was that if the clergy were capable of great self-control under circumstances very trying both to their consciences, their prejudices, and their self-respect, and if agitators, who did not desire peace, refrained from stirring up strife, this measure might be a message of peace; but he could not but feel that if these things were not noticed the Bill would be the cause of great heartburning. He thought the clause he proposed was a proper one, and he would rather see it restored in an amended form by leaving out the word "unconsecrated." At the same time, seeing the feeling of the House, he would not press the Amendment. He would, however, ask their Lordships to consider well whether it would not be worth while to promote some better way than this Bill of arriving at a satisfactory conclusion upon the question; and with that object in view, he suggested that the whole matter should be postponed until next Session. It would be better to stand by the Church while she existed, and to look all possibility of disestablishment boldly in the face rather than to give up every point one by one.
§ On Question? Resolved in the Affirmative.
§ In reply to a noble LORD,
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that the Bill would affect all parts of all parish churchyards; a burial trust, there- 1168 fore, to be exempt from the Bill, must be a trust entirely separate from that of the proper parish burial-ground. There was a provision to exonerate a clergyman from all penalties for officiating in unconsecrated ground. The noble and learned Lord then moved that the Commons Amendment, striking out the reference to Convocation, should be agreed to. He reminded their Lordships that he had already stated the reasons why he should advise their Lordships' House to adopt the Amendment.
§ Moved, "To agree to the Amendment made by the Commons, striking out the reference to Convocation."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYvindicated the title of Convocation to have settled the form of alternative service to be used in cases when the clergy had scruples about using the full service. Whatever might be the opinion of the House of Commons about Convocation, they ought to recognize it as long as it existed. Although he should have preferred the retention of the words struck out, yet as the same relief of the clergy was substantially secured by the clause as it now stood, it would be foolish to quarrel about the form. He should not, therefore, put the House to the trouble of dividing upon the matter.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKremarked, that Convocation did exist, and that the mere fact of striking out this reference to it in the clause would not affect its position. But for the certainty of defeat, in the present condition of their Lordships' House, he should feel bound to divide against the Commons Amendment. Convocation did much useful work, although it was the habit of some people to refer slightingly to it. He agreed with the most rev. Primate that the substance had been secured.
THE BISHOP OF CARLISLEthought the clause confused in its language, because it spoke of a minister being authorised to perform the burial service in cases in which the performance of such service was forbidden. He also objected to the expression "unconstitutional" being applied to Convocation, which was referred to in the Act of Uniformity as an ecclesiastical authority.
THE BISHOP OF OXFORDexpressed his regret at the way in which the Convocation Clause of the Bill had been dealt with in Parliament. Such objections to the mention of Convocation 1169 seemed to him to betray the influence of a somewhat illiberal prejudice, and of a very imperfect acquaintance with the facts of English history. But, as some of the clergy had disclaimed the wish to have the recognition of Convocation, which the Bill originally contained, it was hardly worth while to insist upon it in opposition to the Commons Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLORreminded their Lordships that the real responsibility for this change in the Bill was, at least, shared with the House of Commons by Convocation itself, and by some of the strongest champions of the Church. In the final debate on the Bill, before it left their Lordships' House, one of the most eloquent Prelates on the right rev. Bench pulled the recommendations of the two Convocations mercilessly to pieces, and bestowed upon the whole clause something very different from a parting Episcopal benediction. He had been told, that in the Lower House of the Convocation of Canterbury itself, language had been hoard from some, from whom it might least have been expected, encouraging the House of Commons to throw out the clause, and he himself had been present in the House of Commons, when a right hon. Gentleman, one of the Members for the University of Cambridge, who moved the rejection of the Bill upon the second reading, told the House that they would not be fulfilling the wishes of Convocation if they adopted that clause; inasmuch as both the Convocations had declared that they did not wish any recommendations of theirs to be carried out unless an Act of Parliament were first passed to regulate, in a manner suggested by them, the whole course of legislation as to Liturgical questions; and no such Act had been passed, or was likely to be proposed. Very little was said for Convocation by the Conservatives in the other House. Under circumstances such as these, he really thought that those right rev. Prelates who felt the importance of the object aimed at by this clause might have been as much rejoiced as he was that the Bill was not more radically changed in its passage through the other House.
§ On Question? Resolved in the Affirmative.
§ Remaining Amendments agreed, to.
1170§ Moved, "That a Message be sent to the House of Commons to inform them that this House hath agreed to their Amendments of the Burials Bill."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE BISHOP OF LINCOLNMy Lords, as I felt it my duty to move the rejection of this Bill when it was first presented to your Lordships, three months ago, I will ask leave to offer a few remarks upon it now that it has virtually become law. I am fully persuaded that this Bill was intended by its framers to be a message of peace; and that it was designed, according to the announcement made in the Speech from the Throne at the beginning of this Session, to be an equitable settlement of a painful controversy. But I very much fear that the expectations of the promoters of this measure will be greatly disappointed. I fear that this Bill will be the cause of bitter strife and endless animosities; and that, instead of being a message of peace, it may prove—unless great caution and forbearance are used—the signal for the outbreak of a religious war. My Lords, these are not times, as it seems to me, for discountenancing and discouraging loyalty, and for inflicting pains and penalties on those who are well affected to our national institutions, and who earnestly desire to maintain them. But this Bill, I fear, will be found to have inflicted heavy pains and penalties on one of the most loyal classes of Her Majesty's subjects—the clergy of the Church of England. I cannot find words adequately to express the grief and sorrow, the consternation and alarm, with which this Bill is viewed by them. A very short time ago I received an address from between 600 and 700 of the clergy of a single diocese, the diocese with which I am connected—the diocese of Lincoln—and representing those feelings of sorrow and alarm; and I am persuaded that these sentiments are shared by an overwhelming majority of the clergy of the Church of England. I feel bound to declare my concurrence in the opinion of the clergy, that this Bill was unnecessary; that it is unreasonable and unrighteous; and that it may lead to such sacrilegious desecrations of holy things, and of holy places, as may be expected to be visited by Divine judgments. But, my Lords, in saying this, I am bound now to recognize the fact that this Bill has virtually received the sanction of the Legislature; and, in re- 1171 cognizing that fact, I am bound also to acknowledge that it will be my duty to endeavour—within my limited means and powers—to mitigate and neutralize the evils which I apprehend from it. I, therefore, feel constrained to state publicly that I have heard with regret an announcement that some of the clergy—I hope they are not many—are combined in a deliberate resolve to resist the operation of this Bill by an energetic and organized, if not by a violent, opposition. I cannot, indeed, advise anyone to do anything contrary to his conscience. I cannot recommend any clergyman to violate or contravene any of the solemn vows to which he was pledged at his ordination. But I feel bound to say that the clergy are ministers of peace, and ought to be supporters of order and law; and that, if they cannot in conscience comply with a legislative enactment, they are bound to submit patiently to the penalties annexed to non-compliance, and even, if need be, to resign their cures. But I am sure that none of your Lordships would desire that any of the clergy should be driven to such an alternative, or that anything should be done which might lead to a secession from the Church, or to a disruption of it; and while I trust that, in their present very painful position, the clergy may be guided and animated by a spirit of wisdom, patience, and charity, it is to be hoped that others also, who differ from them, may be influenced by a similar temper. And, my Lords, suffer me to add one word more. Whatever trials may now await the Church of England—and many things seem to indicate that a time of severe suffering is before her—I trust that she will never forget that she has a Divine commission and a Divine constitution, independent of, and superior to, all temporal accidents and secular powers; and that if she is true to her Divine commission, and mindful of her Divine constitution, she is sure of Divine support, and may even be strengthened by suffering and grow by persecution. And, also, I earnestly hope that, whatever treatment she may receive from the secular power, she will never be provoked to retaliate, or be betrayed into angry feelings and acts of impatience and resentment; but will render good for evil, and endeavour to promote the cause of peace and order, loyalty and law, and to maintain the 1172 welfare and prosperity of our national institutions, and of all classes of the community.
§ EARL GRANVILLEsaid, their Lordships were all aware of the conscientious objections which the right rev. Prelate entertained to the Bill, and that fact rendered all the more valuable the sound, excellent, and Christian advice he was prepared to give to the clergy.
§ On Question? Resolved in the Affirmative.