The Cambrian News and Merionethshire Standard

TH!1 BURIALS RIlOLuTIO i IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS. Mr Osborne Morgan introduced his resolution on the Burial Laws, on Friday, Mirch 3rd, in the largest House that has ever taken part in a division on the question. The hon. and learned member delivered a very able speech, and .-hen he sat down twenty or thirty of his friends crowde round him to offer their congratulations, and some of them declared the speech to have been one of the most effective ,hey had ev&r heard in the H!JUstJ of Commons. John Bright was very warm in his congratulations. The debate Wis prolonged to an advanceu hour, and the Resolution was th?n defeated by 279 to 248. Mr OSBORKB MORGAN, on rising to move the following rsolution, was warmly c .eered on the Liberal side of the Housj "That the parish churchyards of England and Wales, having been by the common law • >i .Lugiaaa appro- priated to the use of the entire body of the parishioners, it is just and right, while making proper provision for the naaincenauce of order and decency, to permit interments in such churchyards, either without anv burial services, or with burial services other than those of the Church of Eng- land, and performed by persons other than the ministers of that Caurcfl." Tiae hon. and learned member sa'd— Before moving the resolution I think it is my duty to offer the fctause some explanation of the reasons which have in- duced ma to deviate from the course usually pursued on oc- casions of this kind. That explanation is short and simple. I came down to the House on the first day of session pre- pared to do what has been done for four or five years, namely, to bring in a L;ili but fortune, which has hitherto smiled upon me, was not propitious this year, and in the unquenchable thirst for legislation, which has seized on pri- vate members, principally from the other side or Chan- nel, I fuund myself crowded out. If I had persevered in my determination to briog in a Bill I should have been re- mitted to the Derby or to the second Wednesday in July. Under these circumstances I made a virtue of necessity, withdrew my Biil, and determined to proceed by resolution. I am not sure thai; I have any reason to complain of the accident which drove me to this. Resolutions have some- times led to useful results. I believe it was a resolution which first paved tne way to the passing of the Koman Catholic Emancipation Act. and I know that in later times resolutions have been fraught with equdly momentous con- sequences. Whatever may be the special effect of passing such a resolution as mine, I may express a hope that the calmer and wider discussion which an abstract resolution involves, may clear away some of the prejudices which still overlie this question, and may place it on a sure footing. That will be my object in placing thid resolution before the House, and if I fail I shail fail from want of ability, and not from lack of honest endeavour. Before I proceed I should like to make one preliminary observation, and that is that we now approach this question with an amount of light which was never thrown up m it before. I may be told that when I brought forward my Bill before, I was taunted with having brought forward a very small Bill. I havs been told that it is not only a smill grievance, but that it iaoue which "grows smaller by degrees and beauti- fully less," because it was said that every week old church- yards were being closed and new cemeteries opened. I thought that waa an allegation that required testing, be- cause it was altogether contrary to my personal experience. In the first place my experience had led me to say that the churchyards of England are by no means full, and that even where they are full the churchwardens do not go and invoke all the powers of the Burials Act. Some liberal landlord gives a neighbouring piece of land to the Church of Eng- land, or perhaps the land is purchased by subscription, and in that; way the churchyard is extended to meet the wants of the par.sh. That is an allegation that was often made, and I determined to teat it. In June last I moved for a return giving the name and population of every parish in England and Wales, together with the number of churches and churchyards, open or closed, consecrated burial grounds or unconsecrated burial ground, and of tbe number of Cemeteries. The return I asked for was so complete that I am afraid it never will be completed. or the present at all events I have to content myself with information which is less exhaustive, but which nevertheless throws a great deal of light on the subject bef Ire us. When I went to the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department I was treated with a degree of courtesy and kindness which I can- not sufficiently acknowledge. It is impossible for any minister to do more to aid a member of the Souse than the Under Secretary of State did for me. (Hear, hear.) I went to my hon. friend, and he told me that although he had done everything that could to expedite returns rom the most trustworthy sources, a large number had not come in, and those which had come in were so voluminous that it wottld take six months to print them all idea of obtaining them during the present session had to be aban- doned. But that portion of the return which I have obtained certainly throws an amount of light which I never expec- ted. I should mention that returns were received from 7,369 parishes of England and Wales, but 2,339 parishes have supplied no information, so that one quarter of the parishes in England and Wales had sent in no information. Of course I have my own impressions as to the reasons why no information was sent in these cases. I have no reason to impute mala fides, but I may say that I believe the authorities kept back the returns for their own reasons. Had the returns been all before us they certainly would not have been more unfavourable to my case than they are at pre- sent. (Hear,hear.) Wherever Burial Boards have been estab- lished, and are headed by responsible authority whose busi- ness it is to answer;enquiries, information can be obtained, and wherever cemeteries have been constructed you have the information you want, and those portions of the country from which no returns are made, are mainly the rural paiishes, which of course would go to strengthen my case. A fuller return, which was published to-day by the Home Office, which I suppose is from the Burials Office, differs very little indeed from the returns presented two days before. According to one return the number of consecra. ted burial grounds closed was 791, whereas according to the other the number was 843. When I come to Wales I find the parishes from which returns ha I ben received is 541,and the number from which returns wtre not received is 204, shewing that two-fifths of the authorities there decline to give information. Taking the information I have got it shews that the churchyards now open in England and Waljs amount to 9 989—in round numbers 10,000- and the number closed amouuts only to 794, so that the churchyards open in proportion to the churchyards closed are ia the ratio of nearly 13 to 1. (dear, hear.) I may add a significant fact which appears by the return this morning, that only 60 churchyards have been closed in the last ten years, being an average of only 6 a year. When I come to unconsecnted ground the results are still more marked. Tuere are at present in England and Wales only 539 cemeteries available for Dissenters on. ,unconsecrated ground. There was a return moved for by the hon. member for West Surrey, which contained the number of cemeteries constructed three years ago, amounting to 531, so that in the course of three years only eight new cemeteries appear to have been constructed. That tallies with the fuller re- turn we received this morning, which shows that only eight burial grounds were closed within the last two years. The cemeteries available for Dissenters are only 539. as against churchyards which number nearly 10,000. (Hear, hear.) Of course you miy aay that cemeteries have been established in towns. I am not at all sure that is so. I'he contrary would appear from one or two figures which are set down in these returns, because I observe that in the county of Line In there are 6:54 Dissenting chapels, 546 churchyards, and 43 cemeteries. Bat whether that He true „f Englaad or not it is not true of Wales, because there if the Church is strong at all it is la the urban and not in the rural districts No v I hive come LO my own country—the Principality of pa ity of Wales, and here; he results are overwhelming. Taking Wales and Monmouthshire, which is Welsh in everything except name. we have of churchyards open 788, of church- yards closed '2.^ and of cemeteries 21—21 cemeteries for a scattered popc&don of a rniil on aTd a half. (Hear, hear.) The churchyards open to the churchyards closed are in the proportion of 31 to 1. and the churchyards open to the cemeteries open are 39 to 1. Take another case. In Anglesea, the most Nonconformist county in Wale. there is not a inS{l" cemetery, in Merionethshire there is one, Montgomeryshire one, Flintshire one, Carnarvonshire one, and Denbighshire thr-e thi-1 sh'«ws, so far as these returns go, that the grievance so far from being a minimum, so far fr 1m extending only to a few hundreds or thousands of persons,'extends to persons who may be coasted bv miliums. In North Wales there are be- tween 400 000 and 500.000 persons who feel the pressure of this grea* grievance. The return also show-3 that while the number of chapel Vard-i of burial grounds attached to ch in England and Wales ands uueonsecrated is 2,833 t 14,060, or only 20 p.r cent., the churchyards are to the in the prd,,rt i,n of 88 per cent. I demur entirely to c assify trie'e b irial grounds which are private property in the same category with parish churchyards, in which ev-rv parishioner t as a vested right of interment. I call i, to this b"Caii3e so much stress is laid on it by my opp°nen'S. For mv own part I say that if a thing is just and ri 'ht the number of persons who demand it is compara- tively unimportant. (--{. a".) I was challenged by the right h"n""1tl"rp'¡n, th" Prime Minister, to produce this infor- miti m I have produced it, and all I can say is I hope he ia satisfied with the results. I now come to the resolution itseif It has be n a time before the House and the country and of course it has been I don't say at all unfairly, bur it has been s.ver-iv criticised. It was said by a lead- ing journal that the p-a"iMe of the reso[ntioa was unnecessarily menacing I hoped I have hved long enough to know that menace of ewy kiu.l, and particularly need- les men ce. is a i ni u licious in point "f policy as it is repre- hensible in point Of taste. Therefore in the remarks ram ab >ut to make I shall not make one that will wound the Bu»<:«u>t'hilities of any ,illc:1, menib-r in this House. In uany case, I wi .sh this to be understood, that whether meraoing or not it is most certainly true. A it has been denied on high aut:i<>ri'y that the riifht to be buried in the churchyard is everv inao's, it is only fair that I soould have -i.ri opportunity of dem>nsfrarin £ it as clearlv a< 1 can. Before entering on tha.t part of the question I must sav that there" re two s^p irate rilrhts-a man's ri^ht of interment in the parish church, which is one th ng, and the rjht to use the service of the (hurch of England, which is another. One i < a civil and c .mmon hw right, tr b bv a civil court the other is *„ "ccleaiastieal rL'ht, tri hie by the ecelesiasMcai c mrts. The latter is the ri>'ht of those which are ac'ual or constructive members of the Church of Kngland. The Hon e ken *s that by a decision c.ivenat,nat sixtv vears aw it was held -hat any person wtwoaid tith,, s w r. instructively a t«Vr of the Church, and as such en'i i t" funeral servioe. That is th-right of the mem- ;ie-t o' the '■ hurn -f En-loirl. The right of interment ..•rht of ."V bo tv. It, is the ris/ht of the Turk *nd the infid'-l, for v~ry one who has once obtained eh- ri/h'S » parishioner in the oariah. L-t that be un. d-r t o 1, because if WP einrate those two rights we shall I fii,i,,n This has been laid down by a great I ^•lesi.stic-d aui-h >rity. whose name I may not, tdve out, tha It has been argued that the rnrht of burial is the n.r,o or Christian bu'i* tn-iN th-ref,.re, those persons who are disqualified from Christian burial have no right to burial i,t the churchyard. But the more correct opinion seems to be, that these rights are separable, and that the right of interment may exist where there is no right to require the peiforoiance of tne Church service." That the right of interment is the right of every parishioner, natu- rally and independently, is lail down without quilifijation in every text book beginning with Bishop Gib.,on a id ending with Sir R Phillimore. But it does not rest on text-books. I have taken the trouble to look up the leading case of King v. Taylor, and I have obtained a manuscript note of that case. This case has been fol- lowe,l by Lord Teuterden A heretic parishioner having died in the parish of which one Taylor was rector, the parson Taylor ordered the sexton not to dig a place for her, aud obstructed the burial of the corpse in the churchyard, he giving for reasons that she.being a Protestant Dissenter, of the persuasion of the Baptists, was nev-r baptized, and therefore ou.;(ht not to be buried in the churchyard, which was consecrated ground.' The matter being brought before the Court of King's Bench, Judge Fortesque said,Every parishioner has a right to burial in the churchyard, otherwise they cinnot be buried anywhere if they have not land of their own, for other persous are not obliged to per- mit their burial in their property." In fact it has been held that it is a trespass to bury. The full Cmrt t hen said they would grant criminal information (which was a very different thing then from what it is now), upon the ground that every parishioner has a right of sepulture in the church- yard. Defendant, however, saved them trouble by per- mitting the body to be buried, but he refused to read the service. This is important as shewing that the right of in- terment is entirely irrespective of the right of service. This master was again brought before the Court of King's Bench, but this time the Court declined to interfere saying ''As to refusing to read the Burial Service that was a Spiritual matter not belonging to them." That shews the right was a civil right. I have therefore got that perfectly settled by the case laid down not only in the Court of King's BeDch but by other tribunals. The only man of any note who has doubted the proposition was the late Bishop of Exter, and I might almost say of that case that the exception proves the rule. Then let us go a step further. Of course common law rights had nothing to do with rites and ceremonies. Be- fore the Reformation the Ecclesiastical Courts having to deal with this question, dealt with it in a liberal spirit. They laid down that every man having been admitted into the Church by baptism was to be presumed to be a member of the Holy Catholic Church, and was entitled to be buried with the service of that church that being the only form of Christian burial then common in this country. That right was formed upon the assumption true in fact as well as in theory, na nely, that every parishioner was a member of the Holy Catholic Church. But so far from any objection to Christian burial the direst threat of that day was that of being interred without Christian burial, which was supposed ta involve everlasting penalties. The threat has now become a fiction. Nobody supposes that Christian burial is necessary to salvation-at least the Noncon- formists do not. The right I now speak of is a right 1 hat was never dreamed of in those days. What a change has come oyer religious feeling It is not that right to re- fuse the ssrvicej of the Church to those who want them, but the right to impose those services on those who do not want them. (Cheers ) The right to force on unwilling ears a service which ceases to be solemn that moment it ceases to1 be welcome—(hear, hear)—the right to force the corpse into the bosom of that Church which the living man had abjured. (Cheers.) Now I put it to hon. gentle- men on that side as well as on this side, does it not seem an insult to call this a party question ? (Derisive cheers.) If this has wounded the susceptibility of any one, if it has wounded the susceptibilities of the hon. member for Bury St. Edmund's, I will withdraw it. (Laughter.) It is a right we gave up forty years ago when we allowed Dissen- ters to marry with their own service. I know the answer that will be given to that. It will be said, II Y ps, we admitted .Dissenters, but we never admitted Dissenting ministers to our churches, but now you ask us to admit them to the churchyards." Churchyards are much the same thing, and if we admit you to one we must admit you to the other,i I will endeavour t) meet the objection because I feel the force of it entirely, and if hon. gen- tlemen will bear with me I will endeavour to meet it as best I can. (Hear, hear.) There is this distinction between the two caafii-the object of the Church primarily is the performance of worship, the object of the churchyard is the interment of the dead, and I suppose decency requires that the dead should be interred in the same locality. Nobody, not even the wildest Liberationist has suggested that the religious ceremony should be performed under the same roof. There is nothing in common between jthe church and churchyard, excpt possibly that both were included in the same ceremony and consecration. It is now agreed that the act of consecration is unauthorised, if not illegal, because the ordnance on which it is founded is a Bill which passed both Houses of Convocation in 1712, but when it came to Queen Anne, who was jealous of interference with the Royal prerogative, she refused to giye her sane ion. Consequently that Bill is in the position of a Bill passed by both Houses, but which has not received the Royal assent. That was why Bishop Thirlwall said he could consecrate a churchyard quite as well in his own study as elsewhere. As to the question of juxtaposition, that is a matter of recent origin, because I find it is stated by a great authority on Ecclesiastical law that when Christianity was first introduced into England, and for many centcries after- wards, the graveyards, so far from encompassing the church, were at a great distance from it, and the contiguity was comparatively modern. This derives some authority from the time when monko aad priests, beginning to offer prayer for the souls of the departed, procured leave, for their greater ease and profit. that liberty of sepulture might be in churches or places adjoining them, because to the friends and relations of persons deceasing, as often as they came to these sacred places, seeing their graves, may re- member them and pray God for them." is regards churchyards in a modern sense, I may mention an Act of Parliament passed after Christianity was introduced into this country. It recites that now of late, by subtile imagination aDd by art and engine, some religious persons, parsons, vicars, and other spiritual persons, have entered in divers lands and tenements which be adjoining their churches, and of the same have made churchyards, and by Bulls of the Bishop of Rome have dedicated and hallowed the same, and in them do make parochial burying without licence of the King and of the Chief Lords; therefore it is declared that this is manifestly within the compass of the Statute of Mortmain" It may be said that is interesting but now let us get to something more practical. I am willing to reit my case upon those two propositions which I will proceed to state. I hold it to be q iite clear that no man by any law, natural or human, is compelled to enter his parish church, but, un- fortunately, there are several thousand parishes in England containing millions of inhabitants, in which every one was compelled, at some time or other, to enter the parish church- yard. Of course I do not mean the territorial magnates who can build their own mausoleums. I am speaking of the poor who are compelled to be buried in the place wher- they die. Therefore to say as is said by mv honourable friend the member for Ches-er, that the use of the churchyard in- volves the use of the church is a statement that really he- gins by ignoring the first law of poor human n,,t,ire. -that we must all die and be buried. In fact, as an Irishman said to me the other day, Burial is the one act in a mm's whole life which is not optional." (Laughter.) If that be so, do we or do we not, by our present law, compel dis- enters to be buried with rites and ceremonies of which they disapprove. Do we, or do we not, compel them bv our present liw to be buried, just as formertv we indirectly, but not on that account the less effectually, comoMled them to get married with rites and ceremonies of which they dis- approved. If that be so. is that compulsion, undue though it may be, is it consistent ? I do not say with rtligious equality, because I never put this on the grounds of religious equality, but is it consistent with the barest measure of religious toleration ? (Cheers.) Let me ask you to look around and see what is done in other countries. I stated some time ago that in almost every civilized country the law, which I a.mendeavounag to introduce into this country, ilreA ly prevails. I was then contradicted, and I do not care to repeat the statement on my own authority. I will shelter mvself under the authority of a man whom we all respect I mean the Archbishop of Canterbury—the Arch- bishop of Canterbury stated on one occasion, when mv hon. friends the members for Cambridge and West Kent were present, and subsequently in Convocation, that he had taken the greatest pains to ascertain what -was the law ef foreign countries on the subject, and he ascertained that in Austria and Russia—two countries not verv remarkable for religious toleration—Protestant ministers were allowed to perform their owi burial ritjs over their own floek. We know that in Ireland first under Lord Plunket's Net. wh;cl, gave a sort of permissive right, and secondly, under Lord Emlv's Act, both Presbyterian ministers and Catholic priests are allowed to perform their own burial service over their dead. We know that in Scot] Pili not hv Ac' of pw liarnent, but, thanks to the more Liberal spirit in which the clergy have looked at this question, not only Dissenting ministers and Episcopalian ministers, but Roman Oatholic priests, are allowed to bury in the graveyards. (Hear, hear.) Why should England he so far b-hind. I will not Flay Ireland and Scotland, but Austria and Russia. (H>ar, h ar.) We boast enough of our position among nations We go about thanking God that England is not as other nations an,1 we gravely boast of our religious tolera- tion and libertv of speech. Why did we concede t ) ev rv o'her the liberiv we deny to onr own nation. (Hear, hear.) I cannot conceive hut that the consciences of hon ger.tle- mon opposite are not quite easy because I see they have in- j troduce 1 no less than six bills to deal with this ques'iou There is a bill brought in by the hon member for 'Ve,1- Kent, a bid bv the hon member forSalford, and al-o a bill brought in by the hon member f,)r the University of Cam bridge. I row pass to the amendment This amendment is actua'lv* the seventh red herring vou have driwn across mv p"f-h. (Laughter) I may tell the hon member fir West Kent that I entirely approve of it as an abstract pro- positi ,no But what has it got to do with my resolution ? (Hear, heir.) If hy hi amendment he means that ev-rv I facP'tv should be given^forso useful a pirpose as the ac- quisition of land for burial grounds, and that this shall be done as cheaply as possible no sane ran will disagree with him (Hear, hear ) I may say three vears ago, before the hon gentleman thought of the subject I carried through Parliament an Ac 37 of thp Queen cap 50 actuilly giving the facilities the hon gentleman pronoses to give the per- sons willing to bestow or sell land for burial grounds. I would therefore suggest to my hon friend that in- stead of amending my resolution he should atnnnrl my act, which I may remark his been Vprv useful, and he would have my mo=t z-alous c i-opjration. One does not like to boast of one's legislative performances, parn'cu'ariy of one so meagre and sm i'I as mine, but T ma-<t sav that during this session the only drawback to my satis- faction has been that I have been so often called upon to explain the provisions of the \ct. but T miv say that a number of sales of churches and chaoels his been effected unrler it and I kno iv als,) tha:, it ha* been put into operation to acquire a small burial eronnd. The reason is obvious The Undowner does not wan1- to give the land, the p trishioners do not want to pay f'-r it. If the hon. member means thia, and I cannot help suspecting he does-if he means by his amendment tho, in every place, whether a churchyard is empty or full, whether cemeteries are wanted or not, there land shall be acquired for the purpose of making a burial ground, all I can say that such a proposal coming from a member of a party which has always prided itself oa its resistance to anv increase of the rates is some- thing monstrous. (Cheers.) Can you calculate the cost of this ? I find that in the year 1872 when the last return was obtained, no less than tl,400,009 had been expended in the acquisition of cemeteries, and of course that su>n has been greatly increased since. If you were to cover the country wich these cemeteries you would have to spend many hundreds of thousands of pounds, because it would not do, in my country at least, to have but one cemetery attached to each Union, because the people would then havesomecimes to drag a funeral 10 or 15 mile. and overhigh ( mountains. I wans to know from what source is the money to come. Is it to come out of the rates ? I think I see the President of the Local Government Board in his place, and if so I should be exceedingly glad to know what his views are I do not see my hon friend the mem ber of South Norfolk (Mr Clare R ial) who to his honour resigned a place in the Government, to which he had been called by the voice of the House and with the assent of the country, because the Government could not keep pace with his views on local taxation. (Cries of "Nn, no," from the Conservative side.) I am sure if I have made a mistake I have done so innocently. It realty does not, matter. I want to know what the hon. member for South Norfolk, who is most z-alous in his endeavours to cn", down local expenditure, would say to such a proposal My hon. friend opposite, the member for Leicestershire (Mr Pell) has also distinguished himself by his attempts t. cut down local expenditure. I should like alio to know whit my hon. friend the member for North Shropshire would have to say. Still more would I like to know what his constituents would have to say to it. To shov how completely at sea people get when they come to curry these proposals into anything like practice, let me read to the House the results of a letter which the Bishop of Salisbury sent to his runl d-inerips throughout the diocese asking for opinions as to the; Burials Bill. The bishop says About 600 clergv and represen- tatives, communicants, and laity, have given answers to the questions proposed. To the first question—whether the present law of burial should be u icompromisingly main- tained-the answer is uniformly in the affirmative, two deaneries a l ling as regards services.' To the second ques- tion—whether if any change were to be made the proposal of Mr Osborne Morgan's Bill should be accepted, the answer is absolutely in the negative; not more than three voted in the affirmative. To the third question — whether silent burials should be accepted according to Mr Talbot's plans, three deaneries onlv answered in the affir- paation.the divisions in them being 12 to 8, 9 to 7, and 12 to 3, To the fourth question, whether cemeteries should be for one or more parishes according to the recommendation of the lower house of convocation, two deaneries answered decisively in the negative the rest answered in the affir- mative, but with great variety of opinion. As to the funds from which the cemeteries should be provided, several objecting to the charges falling on the rates, three pro- posing it should ba borne by the Dissenters, one that half should be defrayed by subscriptions, and half by Govern- ment Grant the rest not specifying the fund from which it should come. That shaws how utterly at sea you get the moment you come to answering questions as to the practical working of a com- promise on this question. What a babel of discord does not convocation become when they attempt to deal with this question. The Lower House sent a message to the Upper House, and the Upper House sent it back to know what it meant, and then they did what was perhaps the wisest thing, and postponed the consider- ation of the question until a more convenient season. It is a significant fact that although six bills have been brought forward to deal with this "infinitessimally small grievance," not one of those bill" has ever been sub- mitted to tne full and ample consideration which every hill receives on coming up for second reading. (Hear, hear.) Not one of the authors has dared to submit his hill to the full and ample di-cussion which comes when a bill is read a second time. (" No, No," from the Ministerial side ) To a great extent the proposals which have been made have been modified. I entirely acquit the hon. member for West Kent of any intention to do so, but surely he has not the slightest idea how deeply he wounded and pained the Non- conformists of England by his proposal for silent burial. It is true that as optional silent burial. (Hear. hear, from the Ministerial side ) It is one thing to propose these burials as optional and another to require them. (Liberal cheers.) I altered my resolution in accordance with the opinions of my Scotch friends, who say that it is the custom in Scotland to bury without any service. In England the silent service is not a usual service. Silent service is the service of the suic de, and consequently it imposes a stigma which makes people recoil from it. I am glad, therefore, that my hon. friend has dropped his proposal for silent interments. That being so you would submit to the House that something ought to be done, and yet you are not prepared to tell us what ought to be done. Have I not therefore a right to ask you to tell as a little more specifically what are vour objections to my resolution. (Hear, hear.) Surely it is natural that a man should desire to be buried in a man- ner most consistent with his feelings Surely it is natural that he should desire a funeral service to be performed over him by the man who had been his spiritual adviser through life, and who w is to he the spiritual guide and consoler of his bereaved family. Surely that is so natural and so human that to look for its origin in what is called an outbreak of ultra-political Dissent seems to me as ridiculous as it is un- feeling. (Cheers.) Then what is your objection ? In that remarkable speech of the Prime Minister delivered two years ago, he said that if the Dissenters wanted to have the churchyards they ought to pay for them. Well, I en- tirely agree with that, and in my original Bill I inserted a clause throwing the cost of keeping up the churchyards on the parishioners generally. But do not forget this, that although churchyards are now kept in order by Church- men, yet they were originally constructed by rates borne by Dissenters as well as Churchmen. But I do not put this on a pecuniary footing, because I do not attach much importance to that point of view. It is said there is no reciprocity, and that the resolution is one sided, because it frees the dissenting minister and binds the parson. That is rather hard upon me, because it assumes that I am res- ponsible for the Burial Service and the Rubrics. You might as well say that I am responsible for the Thirty-nine Articles and the Athanasian Creed. (Laughter.) Do you not see how inconsistent you are, when you ask a Dissenter to have the Church service per- formed over his remains In many cases you compel the clergyman to perform a duty which is objec tionable to himself. In such cases this resolution would give relief to the parson as well as to the dissenting minister. Then there is another objection that there would be a danger of abuse. That is a horse which has been ridden very harrl. One hon. member said that if the Bill passed he should be afraid you would havefumpers and Shakers in the churchyard an,ither was afraid of dancing in the churchyards. Another hon. member, the hon. member for Bedford, sees in imagination a vista of 30 or 40 Mormon widows following their husband to the grave (laughter). Now it has been suggested that the Malay after being relieved of the pressure of his domestic difficul- ties at Perak will come over here and tike advantage of the change of the lav to pollute our churchyards with his horrid and obscene rites (renewed laughter). Does any one believe this absurd nonsense (cheers). If you look back to the Bills of 1870 or 1871 [ adopted almost every safeguard which has been suggested. I went a great deal further. The hon. member for West Kent (Mr Talbot), had put down on mylbitl an amendment requiring the service to be either according to the prescribed ritual, or to consist of hymns and prayers and portions of scripture. I accepted that amendment and put it in the Bill of 1873, but no sooner had I done so than the hon. member began to quarrel with his own amendment. That Bill of 1873 was the Bill which the right hon gentleman the Prime Minister came down to the House with all the weight and eloquence of his authority to denounce. Of course mv resolution leaves the matter entirely open. It is not the office of a resolution to prescribe what service is to be performed, or by whom. That is a matter necessarily left open. If I am asked the question I will tell you frankly what safeguards I propose. None whatever. (Cheers.) I think that is a matter you might safely trust to the good sense and good feeling of our f. How countrymen. (Hear, hear.) If not have you got a policy? (Murmurs.) Have you found any safeguards necessary in case of cemeteries in this country. (Hear, hear.) I have a great deal of evidence on the subject. I will give you a short extract from a letter put in my hands this morni, g from a member of the Burial Board of Liver- pool. In that cemetery 60 000 people have been buried since it was first established I have bee t a member of the Burial Board of this parish from its ori u i, and from the day of the opening of our cemetery at Vnfiel to the i>r. sent, the burial services in the Nonconform st division of the ground have been conducted vith at least as much II coram, if not more, than in the Church of Engl mrl ground. Th" Church of Eag'and ground is bounded on one side by the R man Catholic ground, and on the other side by the general or Nonconformist arou,id, b ing separated only by open w dks or roads, a. although the services at the grive sides are often b:v ina c inducted at the -ame time in each of the three divisions, all are conducted with order and decorum, and no occasion for complaint arises from one or the other "f any irregularity. That is what the whole of my correspondents tell me—that the service in uncons.c ated gr -und is just as devotional is the service in consecrated ground Some go further Hnd say it is more so I do not wish to d'aw distinctions of that kin 1. If t'oat be so what are you afraid of? Why should you be more afraid of churchwards than of cemeterie i ? Take Ireland. Mv hon friends (the frish members) will forgive me for saving that Irish funerals are not always conducted on the strictest principles of decorum. Has there ever heml an instance of riot or indecorum at a funeral in churchyards in Ireland -[An hon. member: Yes ] — Well, I asked thtt question Look at Scotland. Has there ever been any riot in Scotland, where religious feeling runs at 1,1.St, a-i high as in Rn. ? I believe that, last year the Episcopalian Bishop of Brechin and R"man Catholic Bishop of Dcry were laid to their rest in the churchyard of St. Cuthbert. Was there any riot? Then I ask ,hit right have we to libel "ur fellow countrymen by in- sinuating that they, alone, amongst civilized men, will be guilty of these outrages upon the feelin s of the living and tl memnrv of the dead. (Cheers) Bur. this is only the f/ig(-' of ihe question (rIear, hear ) The real objection, we are Told, liesjdeeper down. Disestablishment under disguise "hat I am told is the real objection to my resoitrion, but as I understand it, it is put somewhat in this way. You hri ng: forward this motion. You are in favour of disestab- lishment. therefore this is a motion in favour of disestablish- ment. (Laughtr) Thv is the syllogi m How am I to meet it? h- I fiav- felt in arguing this question is thit the grounds u o-i which I am caltJ:1 upon to argue it are con'inu lly shifting. vo sooner do I raise one issue than you meet it by raisin* another. First it was th" Parsons'freehold," then it, was the sm dlness of the grievance," then it was the "rlnprof abuses" and now it is Disestablishment 11 disguise." I ready begin to feel like Ly^aoder in the Midsummer n'ght dr-am He goes before me and yet dares me oil, When I come where he Calls, then he is gone, Demetrius is much lighter heeled than I, I follow fast but he doth faster fly. It is my belief that if, when that very moderate Bill of 1873 wa-i brought forward, the Prime Minister, instead of coming down to oppose it a outrance had exercised the ju t and great control whieh he wields over hi* party, to educati them into sometningl ike reason on this subject—that Bill .might have been passed, the burning question might have been settled, and by this time we might almost have forgot- ten its existence. (Cheers) But in an evil hour for the Church of Kngland, in an evil hour for everybody, certainly in an evil hour for mtJ, some z alous but mis guided children of the Church determined in defiance of reason and logic to confound the Church with the churchyard, to link the living with the dead, and to fight the battle of the Establishment upon this ground. D,¡n't supp .se that the Liberation Society quarrel with you for that. They know what an admirable weapon you have ) placed in their hands. They know that if they had been I allowed to tke their choice from the whole area of ecclesi- astical questions tiey could not have selected a battle- ground more admirably adapted to their purposes than this. I have heard it said that this is to be'the Thermopyla, round which you will fight to the last gasp for the entrance to the Church. Take cire that vour Therrnopylse does not turn out to be the Ciu line Forks. (Hear, hear.) The wisest men among you-the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Deans of Westminster and Durham, of Chester and Manchester, the head masters of our great public schools, entirely disavow all connection with this suicidal movement If opinions are to be weighed in-tead of reckoned, surely the memorial presented to the Prime Minister yesterday, signed by so many distinguished clergymen, ought to have some weight with the Govern- ment and this House. Unfortunately, however, all the leaders of ecclesiastical thought among us are not equally far-seeing. Let me read to the House the views on this subject of one of the most learned and active Bishops of the English Church—a man of whose great scholastic and theological erudition I wish to speak with the greatest rd- spect-I mean Dr Christopher Woo fsworth, bishop of Lin- coln. And I hope that every word will go forth to the House and to the country, not only because it is a very fair typo of the arguments which are daily urged against me, but because I am continually told that the proper statement of this question would be to do as was formerly done in Ireland to leave each case as it arises to the discretion of the incumbent with the right of appeal to the bishop. "A bishop," I am told, "is always reasonable and always just." "Surely you can always trust a bishop." Now let us see what chance an unfortunate Nonconformist would have of having his appeal listened to in the large and important diocese of Lincoln. The bishop of Lincoln, writing tQ one of the principle London newspapers a short time ago, savs • — The bishops and clergy and parish priests of En'ol^d are not the owners of the churchwards (so far we are entir lv agreed), they are only trustees of them under God, who is their proprietor, and they cannot, without breach of trust and without being guilty of a heinous offence in his sight take away from God a single foot of a churchyard for the purpose of giving a share in it for public funeral services to persons who rend asunder his Church by schism which is condemned by him in his holy word as a deadly sill. Such an act on the part of bishops and clergy would be a robbery of God. It would be an act of sacrilege, treachery, and cowardice. It would not avert Disestablishment it would only hasten it." Hasten Disestablishrnent Don't you think that such a. letter as this—coming as it does from one of the most prominent prelates of our national Church-will do more to hasten Disestablishment" than all the Burial Bills that ever were invented? (efear) bear.) Why sir these Church Defence institutions have done more to pull down the Church of England in two years than the Liber- ation Society did in twenty. And why ? Because they have alienated and are alienating from the Church of England that large body of Englishmen who don't know much and don't care much about theological dogmas but who, nevertheless, entertain a deeply-r ,oted conviction that the first duty of a Christian Church is to be iusr and tolerant to her fellow Christians. And that is why I cannot help thinking that, if she had been wise in her generation, the Church of England, instead of hankering after impossible union with semi-barbarous churches, would have looked nearer home, and hprself have set to work to devise some scheme for relieving her own ministers from a position which is always false aud often painful. (Hear hear.) For, believe me when I say that, galliog'and irri- tating and exasperating as the prolongation of this wretched struggle undoubtedly is to the Nonconformists, the real sufferer by the prolongation of that struggle is the Church of England herself. We-my honourable friends and myself-cctn afford to look forward to the result of to-night's division without the slightest misgiving. We know that by the aid of what I will venture to call a "mechanical ma ] onty you can defeat this resolution. But we also kaow that the day will surely come when common sense and common justice aye, and I may add common humanity- will prevail, as they always do prevail in England and when some measure, based upon the lines of this resolu- tion, will become the law of the land. (Cheers). Of that we are as sure as we are of our own existence. But is it quite so sure that the Church of England-strong though she be, deeply-rooted in the affections of the people though she be-can much longer afford to be defended by such ut- terances as these Non tali auxilio nec defensoribussistis tempus eget. But, be that as it may, that is not the ques- tion upon which you will have to pronounce a verdict to- night. The question npon which you will have to pronounce a verdict to-night is not, I repeat, the Disestablishment of the Church of England. It is a question infinitely smaller both in its proportions and in its consequences—a question. indeed, which, in this age of universal toleration, I am al. most ashamed to submit to the House of Commons-whether you will any longer tolerate this musty remnant of old Ec- clesiastical law, which, although it was perfectly just, per. fectly suited to the age which gave it birth-has become so ill-suited to the changed religious condition of the country that it cannot be upheld without a fiction or enforced with- The hon. member, amid loud cheers, con- cluded by moving his resolution. Mr WYKEHAM MARTIN seconded the resolation, desiring, as a Churchman, that the scandal of the prssent state of things should be put an end to. Mr CROSS, admitting the conciliatory tone of Mr Morgan's speech complained that he had overlooked altogether the grounds on which Churchmen objected to this measure. As to the mode of procedure he pointed out that Resolutions had usually preceded Bills, not followed them. If this Resolution were passed it would lead to no legislation consequently Mr Morgan would be in no better position than if he had had a discussion on his Bill in July. The cases of the Church and the Churchyard were so intimately con- nected that if if thit3 Resolution were carried, by sub- stituting "churchyard" for "church," it would be im- possible to refuse the use of the churches to the Dissenters, Was the Resolution limited to the ancient parish church- yards, or did it extend to the ecclesiastical districts, many of which had been founded by private benevolence ? If the first, then the resolution would come to very little but if the second, then it would be gross tyranny to declare that to Churchmen should be denied the right of founding burial-places exclusively for their own communities The grievance was not heard of when tho Church Rate was being discussed, and more was said of it for Dissenters than by them. He disputed altogether the acruracv of Mr Morgan s statistics, for between 1866 and 1875 235 ceme- teries had been opened, and there was cemetery accommo- dation for fourteen out of the twenty-two millions of popu- lation in England and Wales. Moveover, out of 6 00 ) parishes from which returns had been received, in one out of three the Nonconformists had provided burial-grounds, and, although the Nonconformists claimed to be one half of the population, the burials in churchyards and conse- crated ground far exceeded all others. The precedents of Ireland and Scotland, Mr Cross showed, were altogether un- applicable. Were the Nonconformists, he asked, ready to permit other bodies to come into their burial-grounds with services other than their own ? The only religious body which had considered the question was that of the Quakers, and they had passed a resolution that, other sects might bury in their grounds on the condition that the burials were conducted as the burials of Friends. The Resolution went too far for Its purpose, for it would not onlv give liberty to Dissenters te conduct their own services hot it would permit the Church of England ser- vice to b performed by laymen, and it would admit the services of the he real evil was the absence of any Common Law liability imoosed on parishes to provide burial- places; but this would disapp ar in course of time without that shock to the feelings of Churchmen which this rue t-ure proposed. Since 1859, 2,000 churehvards had been closed, a1 sanitary considerationMr Cross argued, called for the closing of many m >re. In the debate which followed, Mr WATKIH WILLIAMS said he felt that it was a bold thing on his part to rise at so late a period in the deb tte, when the House was impatient to proceed to a division. But hon. members need not he ilarmed at the formid- able bundle of notes with which he appe ired to be armed, for he assured them if th y would indulge him for a few minutes, he would not at that late hour inflict upon them thi speech which he admitted he ha 1 prepared for that evening. (Lau,ht-r and cheers.) The burials ques ion, which had been before thA. House and the cou try in various forms ever since the yea- 1857, had now assum d the shape of a clear, simple, an ) intel igible issue namely, whether the inh bita-its of a parish ought or ought or not to possess the rizht, of b'irying their dead in the parish churchyard, according to those rites and cer"mnnes which were dearest and most acceptable tohem upon so solemn an occasion. That was the issue thev had before them, and to that issue he not only g ive an unhesit ting answer in the affirmative- (hpar, hearl- bllt he believed that upon a just review of the le-'al and his- torical aspect, of the ']tl'stinn,:tn'l h .vm-? regard to tho-e principles IIf religi ti,,i liher,v for which they had foil-flit., aod fouidu success- fully ever since the great Reform ition, it could be sh >wn that, the Nonco f rm;st, parishioners, in making the r present demand, were only asking to be restored to those ancient rights which they were in strictness entitled to ac ording to the common law. (Chee-s ) Io approaching this subject he had endeavoured, as the rioh- hon. gentleman, the Secetarv of S'ate for the Home Department (Nir Cross) ha entreated them to do, to place him- Relf in the position of those who w* re oponsed to his views so that he might he able to ap 'reciate and fairly grapple with their true objections, and also avoid us fa as pos ible savin1; anything that might cause pain, or even annoyance to those w' Io looked "t the n,tler from an opposite pont of view-I hear, hear) -and he felt the less difficulty i i d n'ng this h"call.e b dng hims If a Charchman, his sympathies with the c aim of the Nonconfor- mists in this matter were not founded upon any agreement with their reiigious opinions, but unon a conviction that th y suffered grievous iiijtiitic, and onpre-sion in bauig deprived of th ire >rn- mon righ's as fellow citizens and fellow countrymen (No, and cheers )T"iere was a time and that, not H, very distant on",when this irritating griev mca a,t,ni, t e of a f,tir compromise, and when by a timely and generous concession, he Church ight have s rengtbened her position in the hearts of the people by proving l-w S1° capable of .egardi g conscientious changes and diffc-enc- s of opinion as to the m de of performing the rites of burial with ao enlarged and liberals irit, but sh let the g. Men opportunity pa s, and he cl-rgy, unfortun itely too truo to the worst traditions f the Chu-ch, wo Id lear • nothing foroet nothing, and give way l > nnthiu E. (Conse-vative cheers ) The opportunity was passed, nev* r to return- (Cheers ) Tho Ch-ireb party took their stand boldly and firmly, and declared that th°v would not co cede Pon inch. They denied the very existence of the grievance, or th. y said th t it had h-en grossly xao-nerated an 1 that the propos d remedy would s ibstUute other grievances and evils far greater than th,se which it was intended to re- move. The Home Secretary had ■ isput d that nortion of the resolution which a--ert'd the com non law right of every paris'doner to be buried in the churchyard, and the righ' hou. gentleryiin the Chairman of th Committee of Ways an-4 Means (Mr Cncil Raike-) had asse-ted that there was no rifcht of eenulture separate from a burial according to the rite* and ceremonies of the Church of England. To this proposition he hesged to give the most unqualified contradiction. (Choe s.) How did toe mitter stamH The oriain of the dedication of he cburchyar 3 to th- u c "f t^e p iridium o-s, whether it was by private grant 0: through iiui'lic contribution- was wholly 10 t in antiquity, but this thav did km v, that at the time they were so dedicated the whole neople professed one common and uniform fai h, and that the Roman Catholic faith Since that time they had changed th ir faith, a id also their habits and customs and religious p actices in many essen- tial p trticulars, which had been recoguised and sanctioned bv our aws in spite of the most strenuous and persistent opposi tion from the clerical party. Now the parish churchyards" were vested in the parson for the u-e of the parishione s for the burial of their dead, but. the Church o! Enlantl had not kept pace with the advancing and varying opinions of the people and now claimed the right to force its ritual upon all alike, a-i a con- dition of their using the common burial ground of the parish. Long pract'ee and some legal decisions had undoubtedly con- firmed this claim. But he believed that it was originally with- out foundat on and that the common law right to burial was not subject to any condition. He would ask the attention of the House to the lauguage of a great Ch,-i,chm;tn aud Tory, and one of the profountlest lawyers who had ever sat upon tho Ecclesiastical R-nch of this country, he alluded to T.orrl StOW1 1, who in his famous judgment in tile iron coffin case said:—The practice of sepulture has varied with respect to the places where performed. In ancient times caves seem to have been in high request-then gardens or other private demesnes of proprietors-inclosed spaces out of the walls of town-or bv the sides of roads, and finally, in Christian coun- tries churches and churchyards, where the deceased could re- ceive the pious and charitable wishes of the faithful who resorted thither on the various calls of public worship. The connection (between burial places and churches) imnorted from Rome by Cuthbert, Archbishop of C tnterbury, took place about the year 750. In what way the mortal rem dns are to be conveyed to the grave and there deposited I do not find any positive rule of law or of religion that presc ibes. The aothoritv under which the received practices exist is to be found in our manners rather than in our laws-thpy have their origin III natural sentiments of public decency or private .afTe tion they are ratified by common usage and con- sent and heing_ attached to a subioct of the gravest and most impressive nature remain unaltered by private caprice and fancy amidst all the giddy revolutions that are perpetually varying the modeg and fashmns that belong to the lighter circumstances of human life." The learned Spelman also in his chapter de gP-P dtura, in defending the right of free burial in the parish churchyard says— The grave is tho only inheritance that we .ire certainly b >rn to, the inheritance which <>u-grandmother the earth hath left to descend in g velkind among her ch ldren. Shall one enter and hold another out, or drive him to pay a fice ? I, our te"ure base like copyhold, ad voluntatem Domini, or not. rather noble by francke almoigne free frorn all payments and services." After this what became of the claim of an immemorial right to force the ritual of the Chur<:h upon a non con'orming narishioner. (Cheers.) No doubt it had now acquired the sanction of law, and it was to alter this grievous innovation in the law, and to restore the parisa.oners to their ancient rights, that the present anpeal was made to that H use. (Cheers.) Honouraole members h id spoken of a compromise and settle- ment of this question, but of late years the claims of the Church had been put forward more loudly, and her re istance had been more obstinate and determined than ever. What was the cau-e of this? He was afraid that it was due to the alar ning s read of sacerdotal claims and pretensions on the p1t'.t of the clergy, claims with which the laity of the Church had no sympathy, and which, in fact, they had determined to check. (Cheers.) Depend upon it. the more the clergy seek to associate superstitious ideas and practices with th ■ burial of the dead, the louder and louder will be the public demand for the unrestricted opening of the churchyards, for there is an unmistakea")e and steadily growing feeling that the matter of the burial of the dead should oe dealt with as one of civil concern exclusively, and that all burial places should be pi iced under the control and management of civil functlo aries. (Cheers.) H mourahle members hul mis- understood thereference to Scotland and Ireland. The experience of those countries had been referred to, to refu e the suggestion that the change would lead to irreverence, indecency, or dis- urb ince. (Hear, hear.) The suggestion was as ridiculous as it was insulting, and was w thont a sh dow of foundation. The examples of Russia, Austria, Germany, aud other foreign countries might also be cited in proof of this, and it was melancholy to think that Eng- land stood almost alone in this respecf, and they had the humiliation of being obliged to confess that it had be m left to the Ministers of the Established and Reformed Protestant Chu cli of England to set an example to the rest of Europe of bigotry and intolerance. (Oh 'h I) Yes, he repeate 1 it, of bigotry and intolerance—(Oh Oh and cheers)—in a matter which touched the heart and conscience of the people to the very quick (Cheers.) He hoped that that night the re resents- tives of the people in that House asstmbled, on whichever side they sat, would emancipate themselves from this clerical influ- ence and control, and show to Europ and the world that in spite of sacerdotal bigotry and intolerance they would nIt allow their National Church to be any loneer open to the reproach of being so unworthy of the gr^nd and liberal principles of religion which they had inherited from the G"eat Founder of Christianity, and that they should not be compelled to cry in the words of the learned an 1 generous Spelman, "O! shame on our religion, when Heathens and soldiers are more gracious to their deal enemies than Christian ministers to their friends and brotheren." (Ohee>s.) Mr DISRAELI, though he admitted this was an interesting question, denied that it was so all-important as had been repre- sented, for after all, as he showed, it affected only six millions of the popul ition. The con,tition of our chllrclHrls was most unsatisfactory, and called urgently 'or improvement. Treating this rather as a sanitary than a sectarian matter, he was opposed to dealing with the churchyards in a y other way than by placing them in a condition favourable to public health, and by shutting up all those the condition of which was hopeless. No doubt however, it was a sectarian question in the sense that it was part of an insidious design to destroy the connexion between Church and St <te, and was promoted by the active party which had Disestablishment for its avowed aim. Therefore, though he regretted to give a vote which might appear to savour of exclu- siveness and bigotry, he was constrained to offer an uncompro- mising resistance to the Resolution. Lord HARTINGTON declined altogether to treat this as a ques- tion of Disestablishment. It was a grievance which affected the whole Nonconformist Body, and no amount of Sanitary Im- provement woald remove it. It was in this light alone that the Government apparently was prepared to deal with it; but the shutting up of a few gravevards here and there (and they could not all be shut up) would not allay the agitation. No doubt many gentlemen opposite were sincerely anxious for a compromise, but no other settlement than that proposed by the Resolution would be accepted. Mr NEVILL endeavoured to address the House from the Minis- terial side in support of the Resolution, but was not heard in the impatient cries for a Divisioa. On the Division being taken, Mr Morgan's Resolution was negatived by a majority of 31-279 to m. Tbe announcement of the numbers was received with prolonged cheering and counter cheering.