L I B RA RY 
 
 OF THE 
 U N 1VER.51TY 
 or ILLINOIS
 
 v/O 
 
 THE CASE AGAINST 
 
 BURIALS BILL, 
 
 A PAPER READ BEFORE THE RURAL DECANAL 
 
 CHAPTER OF BOLTON-LE-MOORS, 
 
 LANCASHIRE, 
 
 AND PUBLISHED AT THEIR REQUEST, 
 
 BY WALTER CHAMBERLAIN, M.A., 
 
 VICAR OF ST. JOHN'S, BOLTON, 
 
 And Author of " The Christian Verity Stated," " A Plain Reply 
 to Colenso," &c., &c. 
 
 ONE SHILLING 
 
 MA?rCH ESTER: 
 
 T. RowoBTH, 21, St. Ann's Square. 
 
 October, 1875.
 
 THE CASE AGAINST 
 
 THE BURIALS BILL, 
 
 When the Eight Honourable Member for Birmingham 
 was closing the debate last April on Mr. Osborne Morgan's 
 Burials Bill, he exclaimed — " Somebody will get up and say, 
 Yes ! but in Scotland they don't care about these things, 
 because their ground is not — what do they call it, [Hear and 
 a laugh] , consecrated." A writer in The Times of April 
 22ud, describes this profane remark as an "irrepressible and 
 untimely sneer;" but, whether irrepressible or studied, it 
 affords an excellent starting point for argument on the whole 
 case, and against the Bill. It told the truth with unintended 
 candour, namely, that Dissenters do not value the Parish 
 Churchyard for its own sake ; they have no feelings towards 
 it of sanctity or religious veneration ; they know, they feel, they 
 acknowledge, no reason why it should be reserved for services 
 strictly religious ; they recognize no hallowed earth or building, 
 connected with it. Indeed, by their most solemnly boasted 
 principles, if consistently acted on, they are bound to object to 
 that Churchyard because it has been consecrated by epis- 
 copal service ; and, as matter of history, they really have so 
 objected to our Churchyards, and their use of them, by the 
 institution of public Cemeteries, which commenced with them 
 some fifty years gone by. So that all their sentimental 
 grievance — if on this subject they had any sentiment — 
 would crumble away if viewed only on this side. They regard 
 the Churchyard, at best, only as any other common piece of 
 ground ; and put in their claim to it only as a piece of public, 
 national property. Their attack on our Churchyards, through 
 this so-called " Burials Bill," is characteristically dishonest. 
 We shall see, in the course of this paper, that Dissenters
 
 as a body clo not object to our funeral service, nor to our 
 personal ministrations. Bat, if tliey really did, their complaint 
 truthfully stated, according to their most boasted religious 
 principles, would be this : — " There are in certain places no 
 other sites for sepulture but Parish Churchyards ; and, 
 therefore, we are compelled, against our religious convictions, 
 to bury our dead in them, with the services of the Church. 
 We complain of this compulsion as oppressive and wrong, for 
 we object to association either in life or death with the Church 
 of England, her services, and surroundings ; and therefore, 
 we demand that other places of sepulture, left unconsecrated, 
 be somehow or other provided for us ; even though it be at 
 national expense." In fact, by clamouring for burial with 
 their own religious services, in our consecrated grounds, they 
 are guilty of public self-contradiction of a very discreditable 
 kind. 
 
 It has been boldly asserted '* that all the Burial Grounds 
 that were in existence before the passing of the Church-rate 
 Abolition Act were established at the cost of the parish, and 
 therefore now are — as indeed they all are by law — the property 
 of the parish." The number of Churchyards acquired since 
 the abolition of Church Eates is comparatively few ; but, as 
 to the ancient Churchyards, is the fact so ? For if it be so, 
 and sound as an argument for the Burials Bill, it will hold 
 good, not only as against the Churchyards, but against the 
 Churches ; and the whole question of disestablishment is (so 
 far) settled. They who have an equal and equitable right 
 with ourselves to the use of the Churchyards have the same 
 right to the Churches which stand on them : and we had 
 better, if the case be so, acknowledge it at once like honest 
 men. Churchyards were, originally, mere sites for Churches ; 
 and, with the ground, goes the building : and, it is certain, 
 that Churchyards acquired in modern times are held upon 
 the same conditions, and to the same uses, precisely as their
 
 ancient predecessors. But, again I ask, is the fact as 
 assumed ? Were the Churchyards of England and Wales 
 acquired, and have they been maintained, previously to the 
 abolition of Church Rates, at the cost of the whole parish ? 
 Of course, nothing less than minute enquiry in each case could 
 exactly answer this question, and therefore, no such assump- 
 tion ought to have been made. But every one of ordinary 
 information in Church matters knows enough of the Church's 
 history to find reason for doubting the justice of the assump- 
 tion. Churchyards have, in the vast majority of cases, been 
 in olden times the mere complements of the Churches ; have 
 like the Churches themselves, been the voluntary benefactions 
 of pious members of the Church of England ; and there is no 
 reason to doubt but that the same has been the case with 
 numerous Churchyards acquired in more recent times : while, 
 as to others of which actual purchase has been made, the 
 money has usually been raised from Church people by the 
 personal energy of the Clergymen. 
 
 But even as to Churchyards, whether many or few, paid 
 for out of rates contributed by Churchmen and Dissenters 
 alike, they provide no ground for argument in favour of this 
 Bill. For, let it be carefully noted, the land so purchased by 
 all was conveyed for the use of all — only upon certain conditions. 
 And Dissenters have no reason to find fault if, by their own 
 deliberate choice, they refuse to comply with those conditions. 
 Churchyards, whether obtained by purchase or by benefaction, 
 are plots of ground dedicated to Divine uses, and handed over 
 to the parson and the parishioners, upon certain terms and 
 conditions, which all who claim a right to those Churchyards 
 are bound to fulfil ; and which if they cease to fulfil, as 
 Dissenters have ceased to fulfil, they cease also to have any 
 rightful claim as against such Churchyards. 
 
 Is there, then, any grievance which should be remedied in 
 the interests of Dissenters in any such way as this Burials
 
 Bill proposes ? Now here it is much to be lamented that not 
 only mistaken Churchmen who support the Bill, but also some 
 of our own leaders, pledged friends of the Church, who 
 oppose it, have with almost indecent haste admitted a grievance 
 where, in fact, none exists ; — none, that is, but what Dis- 
 senters have made, or invented, for themselves ; and of which, 
 therefore, they have no right to complain. Indeed, much to 
 the credit of some Dissenters, they are giving up the " grievance" 
 cry. The English Independent, for the present month, says 
 that it is not " the grievance of Dissenters " but " the rights 
 of the nation that are in dispute : " — and, again, " We have 
 no grievance if the Churchyards do not belong to the nation." 
 Thus Dissenters themselves now admit that they are not con- 
 tending for the removal of a grievance, but to obtain joint 
 possession with ourselves of the Church's property. Yet not 
 only the Eight Honorable W. E. Gladstone, Mr. Shaw- 
 Lefevre, and such reputed Churchmen, have asserted the 
 existence of a grievance of which Dissenters have a right to 
 complain : but even the Bight Honorable R. A. Cross, the 
 Home Secretary, and the Solicitor General Sir J. Holker, and 
 other pledged friends of the Church have made the same 
 mistake. Mr. Cross' words were — " I have always admitted 
 there was a grievance, and I would be glad to remove it if I 
 could do so without creating practically a greater one." Sir 
 John Holker's language, though more cautious, was to the 
 same effect ; — " No doubt, if it were a grievance and one of 
 sufficient magnitude to call for legislation, it ought to be 
 remedied, always provided that it could be remedied without 
 creating in its turn a grievance of equal or greater magnitude." 
 Had this language been concerted, it could scarcely have cor- 
 responded more closely. At any rate, these distinguished 
 gentlemen express as nearly as need be the same opinion ; 
 and, we can hardly doubt, have spoken the sentiments of the 
 present goveriiment. It is the language of infirmity ; the
 
 first token of yielding ground ; and that means, too often, 
 defeat and submission. It is time for the Church of England 
 in all her dioceses, and deaneries, to arouse herself under her 
 proper officers, and strenuously oppose any such arrangement 
 as Mr. Osborne Morgan's Bill contemplates. 
 
 The natural consequence of this unsound admission of a 
 grievance, and of this line of advocacy against Mr. Morgan's 
 Bill is that, during the present recess, an impression has got 
 abroad that a real grievance does exist as to the burial of 
 Dissenters ; and that the Church would act wisely and grace- 
 fully to volunteer some means of remedying it. In short, the 
 signal has been given for compromise : which, if acceded to, 
 will certainly prove fatal. Our injudicious friends would 
 compromise us off the face of the earth : and so improve the 
 Church of England, according to their judgments, that by- 
 and-bye there will be none of her left. There is a peculiar 
 weakness in the English character : our fear of taking unfair 
 advantage of the weak ; of availing ourselves too freely of 
 superior strength ; our tendency to gush out with generosity ; 
 to give more than we take ; our dread of not yielding fair 
 play enough ; is oft times so strong that it is apt to become 
 morbid. And, depend upon it, if our leaders once contrive 
 to convince themselves that Dissenters have a real grievance 
 touching burials, they will soon rush forward to remove that 
 grievance with a liberal hand — but to our great cost, damage, 
 and confusion : unless the Church of England steps forward 
 in unbroken union to prevent this. This "Burials Bill" 
 resisted by us, as by one man, may be made a grand occasion 
 for lasting good. 
 
 The debate on the 21st of April last consisted greatly of 
 appeals to the feelings, and attacked John Bull exactly on his 
 weak side just referred to ; and this was done best by the 
 Right Honourable Member for Birmingham. Support was 
 claimed for the Bill by appeals to kindness and heart, uatiu-al
 
 8 
 
 good feeling, the propriety that all feelings of discord should 
 cease at the grave, sympathy for sorrowing survivors, &c. ; 
 but scarcely a word of argument from sound religious and 
 ecclesiastical principles. No ! Not even from the Eight 
 Honourable W. E. Gladstone ! from whom there are still, 
 perhaps, some people living sanguine enough to expect better 
 things. Now, no audience can more deeply appreciate argu- 
 ments of gentle love and peace than such an audience as that 
 I now address. But, gentlemen, we have no right through 
 excess of tender feelings to bargain away, or compromise, or 
 fall from, public religious principles and duty; especially 
 when, by doing so, we are sacrificing not ourselves individu- 
 ally, but the welfare, the integrity, indeed the purity and 
 faithfulness, of that Apostolic branch of the Church of 
 Christ, which He, who counted us faithful, has entrusted to 
 our keeping. 
 
 The strongest attempt at argument for Mr. Morgan's Bill 
 was his own assertion (repeated by others) that every English- 
 man has a civil right to be buried in his Parish Churchyard, 
 of which no one has power to deprive him. Mr. Morgan's 
 words may put this argument before us once for all — " only 
 the other day he heard his Bill described as a Bill to confer on 
 Nonconformists the right of interment in Parish Churchyards. 
 But the Bill would confer no new right of burial. Because 
 Nonconformists already possessed to the fullest possible ex- 
 tent the right of interment in the Parish Churchyards. The 
 right was a civil right insomuch that though by a kind of 
 legal fiction the freehold of the Churchyard was vested in the 
 clergyman of the parish, he could no more prevent a 
 parishioner from being interred there than he could prevent, 
 under certain circumstances, a parishioner from obtaining 
 parish relief. Indeed to well was that understood that the 
 strongest arguments against the Bill had assumed the 
 proposition,"
 
 This exparte assertion of the civil right of burial was 
 truth, but not the whole truth. Every man has a right to be 
 buried in his Parish Churchyard — but only upon conditions. 
 The right never existed without the conditions. And no man 
 has, or ever had, a right to be buried in his Parish Church- 
 yard unless those conditions be complied with. This civil 
 right dates from time immemorial ; even long before Dis- 
 senters of the present sorts, in whose interests the Bill is 
 proposed, had found an existence to be regretted. And the 
 right has no necessary, nor essential, connection o'ith the 
 position they think proper to take up. The conditions, upon 
 which alone that civil right of burial could be claimed were 
 compliance, at burials, with the discipline, rites, and cere- 
 monies of the Parish Church, served by her proper minister. 
 If a man refused to comply with these he had no more right 
 of burial in his Parish Churchyard than the excommunicate, 
 unbaptised, or fdo de se ; who, it is admitted on all sides, have 
 none. Yet it would be false to say he was deprived of his 
 right by the Church or her officers ; — true, to say he de- 
 prived himself. When certain people refuse to accept the 
 ministrations of the Church of England they do, by their own 
 act and deed, forego their civil right of burial in the Parish 
 Churchyards. Every man conforming to the Church has that 
 right ; every man refusing to conform, gives it up : that is, he is 
 not deprived by others ; but deprives himself, and has no right 
 to complain. I deny, therefore, that Dissenters have any 
 gi-ievance of which they are justified in complaining. Both 
 legs of their grievance are broken, and cut away : First, they 
 refuse (as before explained) to comply with those conditions 
 upon which alone the Parish Churchyards were obtained, 
 given, or purchased : Second, though the Church, for which 
 the ground was obtained, stands by to serve them, they insult 
 her and refuse to be assisted. 
 
 This argument against the Bill is recognised, but much
 
 10 
 
 too faintly, by our friends who opposed it. Thus the 
 Solicitor-General — " The Churchyard was legally vested in the 
 Incumbent, and he held it as a portion of the property belong- 
 ing to the Established Church, and no parishioner had a right 
 to be buried without the observance of the laws and regulations 
 of that Church." So, too, Mr. Forsyth : — " There could be 
 no doubt of the right of every parishioner to be buried in 
 the Parish Churchyard, subject to having read over his re- 
 mains the Burial Service of the Church of England." Also 
 the Eight Hon. K. A. Cross, alluding to the first introduction 
 of the Bill : — " It was pointed out that, by the canon law, 
 every parishioner had an absolute right to be interred in the 
 Churchyard of the Parish according, of course, to the cere- 
 monies and rites of the Church of England ;" and again, 
 " The Nonconformists claimed as a right to be interred in the 
 Parish Churchyard by their own minister, and according to 
 their own form of Burial Service. That was a right which 
 did not belong to a member of the Churoh of England." 
 So that, as said before, the civil right of burial in the Church- 
 yard is not absolute, but conditional ; and the real purpose of 
 the proposed Bill is to remove those conditions ; to create 
 for Dissenters a right which no Churchman would expect 
 conceded to himself. Mr. Morgan's Bill is branded with 
 positive injustice. The Dissenters first put themselves in the 
 unhappy attitude of discordants ; they then clamour that 
 their baneful whims may be petted, and the very laws of the 
 Church be altered to indulge them. If to do so would not 
 be helping an offender to reap advantage from his own 
 wrong-doing, what would ? 
 
 Moreover, in the case of burials no humiliating conditions 
 are imposed upon Dissenters ; but only such as are honour- 
 able alike to us, and to themselves. Conditions, indeed, the 
 maintenance of which by the Church affect her religious in- 
 tegrity, and her fidelity to the most solemn obligations of the
 
 11 
 
 Christian faith : conditions, therefore, which she cannot, dare 
 not, forego. Those conditions are simply the use of the 
 Church's burial service put together in strict agreement with 
 the Articles of the Christian faith ; and in all cases, where 
 possible, by her own Clergy. None but professing Christians 
 can reasonably, nor legally, demand to be buried by a 
 Christian minister in a Christian Churchyard. And, as 
 bearing upon this part of the subject, and exposing the 
 hollow insincerity of Dissenters' complaints, as well as the 
 evil purpose which this Bill has really in view, it is important 
 to remember that by their greatest authorities Dissenters 
 have given in their adhesion, on all points of doctrine necessary 
 to salvation, to the articles and formularies of the Church of 
 England : and that, especially, as regards the Burial service 
 none can exceed Dissenters in expressed admiration of it. 
 This was abundantly admitted in the debate. Mr. Richards, 
 the Honourable Member for Merthyr Tyd^Tl, a bitter enemy 
 of the Church, may speak on this point for all : — Ho said, 
 " Again, it was an entire misapprehension that Dissenters 
 objected to the Burial service of the Church of England. Not 
 one in a hundred of them would object to it for its own sake, 
 or doubt that it was a beautiful and impressive service. There 
 was scarcely a funeral celebrated by a Dissenting Minister in 
 which a very large portion of that service was not used. By 
 far the greater part of the service consisted of selections from 
 Holy Scripture, made with admirable judgment and taste. 
 What they did object to was portions of the service to which 
 not only Nonconformists but many members of the Church of 
 England objected :" — Yes ! but they make one more objection, 
 which enables us to detect the real purpose and spirit of the 
 Bill. They object to hear the service read by the clergyman : 
 not in his own mere ministerial character, for to that they 
 dare not object ; seeing that, if they have any locus standi at 
 all, they get it through us : if we fall, they fall : but because
 
 12 
 
 his position as parish priest is privileged, and excludes their 
 own ministers. Mr. Morgan's "Burials Bill " is a " Dissen- 
 ting Ministers' Bill : " its real source is Dissenting pride and 
 ambition : and its great object is to impair the influence and 
 prestige of the clergy, by artificially forcing up the social status 
 and pretensions of those, who have taken upon themselves to 
 be ministers of Christ without having received that ordination 
 which Christ appointed. The secret fount and origin of this 
 " Burials Bill " is envy of, and ill will to, the Church of 
 England and her clergy. Yet it is rather odd to hear an 
 earnest Dissenter like Mr. Eichards objecting to the clergy- 
 man's declaring, when he buries a Dissenter, that the deceased 
 had and has a " sure and certain hope of a resurrection to 
 eternal life." 
 
 This is the proper place to put you on your guard against a 
 subtle plea for the Bill, professed to be urged on our own 
 behalves, viz., that we ourselves feel difficulty sometimes in 
 using our holy burial service over some Dissenters and certain 
 members of our own Church. Mr. Shaw-Lefevre (whose speech 
 in the debate was, perhaps, the bitterest and most hostile to 
 us) — Mr. Shaw-Lefevre (who perceived, or said he did, that 
 " in the interests of the Church herself it was desirable that 
 the grievance should be remedied " ) — Mr. Shaw-Lefevre 
 observed, " There was a growing feeling among the clergy 
 themselves that it was a hardship to be called upon to perform 
 the service over persons not in commumion with them." 
 Well ! no doubt it is a hardship, and we need relief in that and 
 several other particulars. But not relief in the manner of this 
 " Burials Bill ;" nor by such friends as Mr. Shaw-Lefevre. 
 ' Non tali auxilio' — you know the rest. This is one respect in 
 which we may see the mischief of not having properly attended 
 to our own affairs, and set our house in order for ourselves. 
 For years we have many of us been squabbling over trifles, 
 and some of us have been doing worse ; for years, now
 
 Id 
 
 many years, our proper leaders have been plaj'ing at con- 
 vocation, and making dull speeclies, without Laving originated, 
 or brouglit to pass, any one single improvement of practical 
 importance. Meanwhile the enemy, beckoned to by traitors 
 within, thunders at the gate. 
 
 "Would that the so-called " grievance," as already stated, 
 was all that Dissenters complained of. But, alas ! so motley 
 are their kinds, and so wanting in Christian principle are 
 some of them, that they also urge as a grievance that re- 
 ligious service of any kind should be required at the grave, in 
 cases where deceased or his friends are known to have ob- 
 jected to any. Incredible as it ought to seem, this is 
 nevertheless a fact, which forms for them another ground of 
 complaint against the Church, another ground for demanding 
 relief on behalf of Dissenters, as we shall presently more 
 clearly see. They demand that Dissenters of all religions, 
 or of none ; the Atheist, the Mahommedan, the Deist, the 
 Socinian, the Papist, the Socialist — they demand that all 
 these people shall have conceded the right of burial in the 
 Parish Churchyards of England with any religious service 
 they please, or with none ; and with whatever funeral orations, 
 bands, processions, streamers, the godless and eccentric 
 party of the deceased may choose. Do not suppose I am 
 exaggerating; presently it shall bo proved. And the fact 
 affords a strong argument against the Bill. Meanwhile let 
 Mr. Shaw-Lefevre speak : — " The right of parishioners to be 
 interred in the Parish Churchyard was not an ecclesiastical 
 right, but an indefeasible civil right. There was no exception 
 to this rule, and it not only belonged to Nonconformists and 
 Koman Catholics, equally with Churchmen, but a Mahom- 
 medan parishioner, if one could be found, would bo entitled 
 to be buried in the Churchyard of the Parish." No doubt 
 he would ; but subject to the rite and ceremony of the 
 Church of England ; and (which is of great importance) to
 
 14 
 
 the power of the clergyman to refuse, in whole or in part, to 
 read the service ; and to take the consequences ; or to place 
 himself under the protection of his Ordinary. Once let this 
 wise restriction be removed, and Dissenters of all kinds be 
 permitted to use their own services by their own Ministers or 
 agents, and the Churchyard is thrown open to every desecra- 
 tion, every form of false doctrine, even to blasphemy ; and 
 some false doctrine is blasphemy. It is impossible the 
 Church can submit to this. The Mussulman is a Dissenter, 
 so is the Papist ; the Jew is a Dissenter, so is the Atheist. 
 This country now holds within it all sorts of religionists from 
 the Cardinal of Rome to the Parsee of India ; and under Mr. 
 Osborne Morgan's " Burials Bill " each of them would 
 receive the right to bury in our Churchyards by their own 
 agents, and according to the rites and ceremonies of their own 
 religions. That is a concession, which the Church of Eng- 
 land, if faithful to her Divine Master, dare not consent to ; 
 that is a concession which, in some cases, must lead eventu- 
 ally to the use of the Church also : and I for one should be 
 curious to see worked out the bearings of this " Burials Bill" 
 in relation to the Church of Rome, the pretensions she is ad- 
 vancing in this country, her deep anxiety for all her dead, 
 and the services she holds in connection with their funerals. 
 There used to be, and probably are still, in many country 
 parishes of England, isolated Roman Catholic families, often 
 of considerable local influence, far removed from places of 
 worship of their own communion. Granted that Mr. 
 Morgan's, or any similar,— yes ! I repeat it with special signi- 
 ficance, — any similar " Burials Bill " be passed, what would be 
 the probable bearing of such a fact upon the efi'orts which 
 the Church of Rome is now making to become dominant 
 again amongst us ? Could the scattered existence of such 
 families be used as a lever for raising the power of Romanists, 
 on the plea that they are Dissenters ? Surely there is cause
 
 15 
 
 for saying that the Dissenters of England know not what 
 manner of spirit they are of. They may call for fire to con- 
 sume us, if they please ; indeed, they do : but it will never 
 come from heaven. Some ideas kindred to those I have just 
 suggested in relation to Roman Catholics may possibly have 
 occurred to the Lord Bishop of Chester, when at his Diocesan 
 Conference last October he referred to the funerals in our 
 Churchyards, without any service at present, as the practice 
 which " had long prevailed in the County of Lancaster, 
 where there were many hereditary Romanists ; and was very 
 general throughout L-eland." 
 
 Here I shall interpolate another agumeut against the 
 Bill which, like the last, points to a serious danger not noticed 
 by our friends but demanding their earnest attention. I 
 submit for consideration whether it be impossil)le that such a 
 Bill, any such Bill, if passed may, or must, eventually cause 
 the loss of the Parson's freehold in his benefice ? It seems 
 reasonable to expect that, the right of burial in our Church- 
 yards in their own fashion, and by their own agents, having 
 been conceded to Dissenters of all kinds, they will not brook 
 much longer that absolute authority which the Parson has, at 
 present, in his benefice. The essence of that authority in his 
 freehold. They will get restive about headstones and in- 
 scriptions ; nor will they submit to be liable to the Parson 
 alone for damages inflicted by their friends upon the Church- 
 yard, its graves, and other adornments. Here is another 
 particular in which some of our friends will discover by and 
 bye that " in the interests of the Church herself a remedy 
 ouf^ht to be found." I confess for myself that, when I read 
 the eloquent speech of the Right Honourable Member for 
 Greenwich, that devoted churchman Mr. Gladstone, and 
 noticed that he carefully abstained from arguing the Bill upon 
 high principles ; but, having pointedly attracted attention to 
 the fact that — " as matters now stand, the clergyman is by
 
 16 
 
 law invested with the freehold of the churchyard and is like- 
 wise the guardian of peace and order within its confines " — he 
 then burst out into earnest anxiety about " delicate and 
 fragile plants and flowers about the graves," and the Parson's 
 liability to " the burden of damage of any kind ;" — I confess 
 I thought that every word this high principled Orator uttered 
 suggested (no doubt undesignedly) one simple cure — " Take 
 away his freehold." At any rate it seems to me a mere 
 matter of course, a sort of practical syllogism; — 1. Given, 
 the Dissenters' right of Burial, as proposed by Mr. Morgan 
 and his friends ; 2. Necessitated, loss of the Parson's freehold ; 
 3. Ergo, Disestablishment. If so, and I submit it will be so, 
 that would be a most disastrous result. The Parson's loss of 
 his freehold must revolutionize the Church : and the argu- 
 ment requires the closer attention, because there are some 
 Churchmen weak enough to desire it. 
 
 Of course, it has been suggested that certain restrictions 
 can be imposed at Burials as " safeguards against abuse ; " 
 but, in Mr. Morgan's words, — '' Almost every safeguard that 
 human integrity could suggest was introduced, but it was 
 soon found that not one of those safeguards conciliated a 
 single vote. On the contrary, every so-called safeguard served 
 as a sort of peg upon which Honourable Members wanted to 
 hang another safeguard ;" and so Mr. Morgan took upon him 
 " to strike out all those precautions and safeguards, and to 
 bring the Bill back to the line of 1870." Such is the Bill 
 with which we have to do. It contains no restrictions or safe- 
 guards whatever. But let me emphasize the fact that it is im- 
 possible to invent safeguards of the proper kind. You may 
 have such as will prevent openly riotous and indecorous 
 conduct ; such as will prevent any breach of the peace. But 
 yu cannot put restrictions upon men's political and religious 
 opinions ; nor, in England, padlock the utterance of them. 
 Especially you could not prevent the covert, subtle, ill-
 
 17 
 
 intentioned utterances of bilious and disappointed Dissenting 
 Ministers against the Church of England. If Dissenters of 
 all kinds be permitted to officiate in our Churchj-ards, those 
 Churchyards may, and will, become arenas for the utterance 
 of all kinds of heretical, seditious, and even blasphemous, 
 opinions : of all kinds of false doctrine, unbelief, and heresy ; 
 especially of such as are most oflfensive to the Church and her 
 clergy : and therefore, again, this " Burials Bill" must be 
 opposed uncompromisingly, no matter what safeguards may 
 be proposed. Separate places of burial must be found for Dis- 
 senters ; who, years ago, showed their equally good taste, and 
 good feeling, towards us by the invention of Cemeteries. And 
 in future cases where the old Churchyards becomes full, the 
 new ground provided for the parish must be a Cemetery with 
 special reserve for Dissenters ; and not a Churchyard in the 
 good old sense of that term. 
 
 In course of the debate great stress was laid in favour of 
 the Bill upon the cases of Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. As 
 to Ireland and Scotland, that indiscriminate burials had long 
 been permitted in their Churchj'ards ; and as to Wales, that 
 the present state of our Burial Law pressed with peculiar hard- 
 ship upon Welshmen. Mr. Shaw-Lefevre observed : — " The 
 Churchyards were the exclusive property of the Church of 
 England, yet Ministers of all religions might perform any 
 ceremony they thought fit at the funerals of their flocks. He 
 had been assured by those best acquainted with the subject 
 that the Irish Burials Act had worked well. It had been 
 accepted as a measure of conciliation : and he would ask why 
 a measure which had succeeded so well in Ireland should fail 
 in England ?" And the Right Honourable W. E. Forster 
 was so good as to add : — " On the other side of the Channel, 
 in Ireland, the same evil had formerly existed, but had been 
 met. Fifty years ago the Irish grievance was dealt with by a 
 Tory Government." Both these references to Ireland are too
 
 18 
 
 unfortunately significant, and should arm us against the Bill. 
 The Burials Act, and such measures of conciliation, have 
 succeeded in Ireland ; and, behold ! the Irish Church is 
 disestablished. We quite agree with Mr. Shaw-Lefevre that 
 a "Burials Bill," to conciliate Dissenters, would succeed 
 equally well in England ! And the way for that Irish Act 
 was prepared by a Tory Government. It is a Tory Govern- 
 ment, may we not say a friendly Government ! which has just 
 sent round to our Churchwardens a paper of minute enquiries 
 about Churchyards, Cemeteries, and Burials ; with an evident 
 view to the adjustment of the Burials difficulty in England. 
 May it please God to guide them to conscientious and 
 Christian conclusions, consistent with fidelity to the Church ! 
 And that result, we may rest assured, depends in great 
 measure upon the Church herself : upon the action of all her 
 dioceses, which ought to be astir on this question ; and upon 
 such Decanal Chapters as your own. Those of us who know 
 somewhat of the Church of Ireland's history before her dis- 
 establishment, and who have watched her synodic action since, 
 may perhaps be disposed to think that she has brought her 
 fate upon herself. And if the Church of England be guilty 
 of the same infirmities (as gentlemen like Mr. Shaw-Lefevre 
 would advise) then the Church of England will deserve, and 
 no doubt will receive, the same treatment. 
 
 As to Scotland, it is enough to observe that the Ecclesi- 
 astical principles of all Scotch communions, except the 
 Episcopalion, are notoriously those which, in England, we 
 identify with Dissent. They are indifferent to, or unbelieving 
 in, Episcopal Orders and Apostolic Succession : they are not 
 earnest upon the sanctity, and indispensable efficacy, of the 
 Holy Sacraments : therefore, as Dissenters in England, so 
 Scotch communions in their native land, can and do admit to 
 their Conventicles and their Graveyards, professing Christians 
 of various denominations to celebrate religious services in their
 
 19 
 
 own way : but wlietKer they can do so altogether without any 
 sacrifice, or compromise, or abandonment, of i)ure Christian 
 doctrine and consistency may be questioned. I, for one, 
 have too great a respect for the professed doctrines of Scotch 
 Presb3-terians to believe that they can. Now, the diametrical 
 contrast between the Scotch and EngUsh Churches in this 
 matter should be carefully kept in sight. They think they 
 can consistently receive fellow-Christians of all professions 
 into their kirks and kirkyards ; we know that, consistently, 
 we cannot. For the very reverse of Scotland's case is that of 
 the Church of England. Thank God ! she does hold certain 
 Apostolic and Episcopal traditions : she professes to be a 
 genuine and integral division of the Church founded by the 
 Apostles : she does insist upon the necessity and validity of 
 Episcopal ordination ; and the unbroken transmission of such 
 orders from Apostolical times through Episcopal hands : she 
 does maintain the indispensable and essential vitality of the 
 Holy Sacraments : she holds a body of doctrine, clearly set 
 forth, to be necessary to salvation : and by these, and similar 
 considerations, which flow from them, she cannot, she dare 
 not, compromise the Burials question ; she cannot, she dare 
 not, be indifferent to what Ministers, or ministrations, find 
 admittance to her Churchyards or her Churches. Are our 
 consciences not to be respected ? Yet every body's conscience 
 but ours ? Are we to be defamed as bigoted, and intolerant, 
 or wanting in Christian feeling, because we refuse social con- 
 cessions, which the Catholic faith we have sworn we believe 
 to be necessary to salvation, and vowed to preach, forbids us to 
 allow ? 
 
 But Mr. Morgan's strong hold, as a Welshman, is Wales. 
 Let Welsh Dissent reply to him. I am told there arc twelve 
 counties in Wales, and the following letter from a Dissenting 
 Minister, published in The Wrexham Guardian, last July, 
 accounts for nine. Says the Writer : — " Our best thanks are
 
 20 
 
 due to you for your painstaking and complete exposure of 
 the fictitious nature of Mr. Osborne Morgan's grievance in the 
 counties of Denbigh and Flint. One of Mr. Morgan's own 
 party had, however, somewhat anticipated the result of your 
 investigation. Mr. Henry Eichard, the Eadical M.P. for 
 Merthyr, and a thorough enemy of the Church, has collected 
 statistics of the graveyard accommodation belonging to 
 Independent, Methodist, and Baptist Chapels in nine of the 
 Welsh counties. Permit me to quote his figures, copying 
 them from a Church-hating paper (the organ of a small Dis- 
 senting sect) which is not likely to have erred in favour of 
 your side of the question. 
 
 Ohanels Without 
 
 Anglesea 147 25 
 
 Carnarvonshire 240 35 
 
 Flintshire 113 13 
 
 Denbighshire 133 27 
 
 Merionethshire 173 47 
 
 Montgomeryshire 156 27 
 
 Cardiganshire 150 48 
 
 Carmarthanshire 255 149 
 
 Glamorganshire 332 162 
 
 1698 533 
 
 Hence it appears that more than two Dissenting Chapels out 
 of every three are already provided with Graveyards of their 
 own, and this in Wales, the reputed stronghold of the 
 grievance ! There remains less than one-third of the Chapels, 
 which Mr. Richards has not reported as so provided. It is 
 highly probable that most of these have Cemeteries at their 
 service, or have plots of ground adjacent, available for inter- 
 ments whenever any grievance is really felt. The question, 
 therefore, naturally arises, where are the Chapels, and how 
 many of them are there, which substantiate Mr. Morgan's
 
 21 
 
 case ? The answer is that the grievance exists only in the 
 heated imagination of himself and his friends. Anj'one who 
 knows Wales must have noticed that many Chapels have 
 gardens or yards adjoining, in which no interments have been 
 made. These unused grounds ailbrd abundant evidence that 
 the Dissenters have not experienced hardship in the matter of 
 burials ; for, of course, if any hardship had been felt, they 
 would have utilized the grounds which they have already at hand. 
 
 The entire grievance is as you have most justly called it 
 a sham. The agitation has been got up for political purposes, 
 by a party whose avowed aim is to rob you Churchmen, not 
 only of your Churchyards, but of your Churches also. It is 
 doubtful whether Mr. Morgan's triumph would permanently 
 strengthen political Dissent. I am certain that his success 
 must be disastrous to the interests of religious Dissent, and 
 ought therefore to be deprecated by my fellow Dissenters. 
 Covetousness and the prospect of plunder may serve to whip 
 up the decaying cause of Nonconformity for a short time ; 
 but this is done at the cost of the religious spirit upon which 
 Nonconformity depends for strength as a religious movement. 
 Some Radical Nonconformists seem almost to have abjured 
 the first principle of Christianity, which is that we should do 
 as we would be done by. They are seeking to inflict upon 
 the Church a wrong which they would bitterly resent if 
 planned against themselves. But happily that wi-ong has not 
 yet been perpetrated and legalised, and by the vigorous and 
 faithful resistance of Churchmen, aided by such Dissenters 
 as set right above party, it may be averted." 
 
 But now let us see more clearly what Dissenters really want. 
 The Pall Mall Gazette, of July last, has the following : — 
 " The Birmingham Post says that the Central Nonconform- 
 ist Committee decline to approve the compromise suggested 
 on the Burials question ; by which it was proposed to allow 
 religions sci'vicoi to bo conducted by recognised Nonconformist
 
 Ministers, and by tliem alone. Such a proposal, the Com- 
 mittee consider, surrenders the principle of religious equality- 
 They say, ' In the consideration of any proposals which may 
 be submitted to them, our friends should distinctly bear in 
 mind the great principle which they, and we, desire to see 
 established, viz., the Legislative recognition of the National 
 character of the parochial Churchyards. We are contending 
 for the principle not as Nonconformists merely, but as citizens, 
 and in any attempted settlement of the question we are bound 
 to insist that the right of no person shall be injuriously 
 affected by reason of his belonging, or not belonging, to any 
 recognised religious community. The adherents of religious 
 communities seek to secure the opportunity of performing 
 their own religious service in the National Churchyards. It 
 may be that others who, from honest conviction, are unable to 
 enter any religious community whatever, may desire to ex- 
 press on the graves of departed friends their estimate of their 
 lives and characters. We respectfully submit that this 
 privilege ought not to be denied them, and that Noncon- 
 formists ought not to be parties to any compromise which 
 does not concede it. It is one thing to submit to terms 
 falling short of this when conceded by a reluctant Legislature ; 
 terms which we should regard as being an instalment of the 
 complete justice for which we should still intend to strive : it 
 is quite another to accept, or take part in proposing, them as 
 a compromise, by which we are in honour bound to abide. 
 We further submit that to accept a compromise which, while 
 it conceded the rights of Nonconformists, would leave a brand 
 of infirmity upon a considerable portion of our fellow-citizens, 
 would be likely to place, us in a false position before the 
 nation, and to cast suspicion upon the motives by which we 
 are actuated, and the ol)jects we have in view in the struggle 
 to establish perfect religious equality in the relations of 
 Church and Siate,"
 
 23 
 
 Now this is above board and distinct : and the boldness 
 of the language shows what mischief has been done to our 
 Church's cause by the weak proposal of, and tendency to, 
 compromise. The public organ of The Central Nonconformist 
 Committee in Birmingham claims, as a national right, admis- 
 sion to our Churchyards for funerals, not only for all religious 
 Nonconforming Communities of whatever kind, but also for 
 all irreligious and nonconforming communities of whatever 
 kind : and distinctly repudiates all compromise which falls 
 short of this. So that the fussy and unaccredited clergymen 
 presently to be referred to, who proposed the compromise, 
 have not only humiliated us and damaged our cause, by putting 
 us in the position of suppliants for compromise, but have, 
 beyond anything that could be expected of them, done this 
 good, viz., they have shown that all compromise is impossible — 
 because the enemy refuses it. They have, without the least 
 wish of the kind, unmasked the pernicious and ungodly 
 designs of the political Dissenters, from whom alone this 
 agitation for a " Burials Bill " proceeds. The demand is that 
 Infidels and unbelievers of all sorts may hold what funeral 
 obsequies they please in our Churchyards ; and Mr. Morgan's 
 appeal — " Let them oppose the Bill, if they liked, upon prin- 
 ciple ; but let nothing more of those exaggerated statements 
 be heard about Atheists, Jumpers, Socialists, and so on " — is 
 proved to be deceptive and falls to the ground. Rather let us 
 reply in Mr. Forsyth's words — " They all knew that the parish 
 Churchyards were consecrated by prayer and were hallowed 
 ground," — (that is it at which the Right Hon. member for 
 Birmingham " shot out his arrow, even bitter words," his 
 "irrepressible and uutimely'sneer " already alluded to) — "and, 
 ^f Dissenters objected to the burial service of the Church of 
 England, surely they ought to allow members of the Church 
 of England to object to services which might violate the holiest 
 doctrines of their religion."
 
 24 
 
 I have referred to The Birmingham Central Nonconformist 
 Committee on this particular part of our subject. It may be 
 ■well to add that " The ultimate view of the Nonconformists 
 had been clearly expressed in the resolutions which had been 
 agreed to at the Nonconformist Conference held at Manchester 
 in 1872 ; in which it was claimed that the Nonconformists 
 had an equal right with Churchmen, not only in the Church- 
 yards, but also in the parochial churches." And the same 
 line of reasoning, and of action, apj^lies to the churches as to 
 their yards. All facilities for funeral rites in them, for all 
 sorts of persons, believers or unbelievers, will be demanded. 
 The ultimate object aimed at is the secularization of our 
 churches. We cannot, we dare not, compromise nor yield on 
 this "Burials Bill." If the Church of England be true to 
 the Christian faith, she must stand firm on this question. 
 
 I proceed with a part of our subject at which I know not 
 whether we shall kindle more with indignation or with shame. 
 Last July a report got abroad that a compromise was about to 
 be made on the Burials Bill ; and those of us who took most 
 interest in the subject, and knew most about Church matters, 
 wondered what in the world could be meant : especially, we 
 asked ourselves — who w'ere authorised, and by whom, to make 
 any compromise ? Then it leaked out that certain clergymen 
 and Nonconformist ministers, in London forsooth ! upon whom 
 the Burials question by no means pressed hardly, had put 
 themselves forward to confer with a view to compromise ; 
 actuated, as they said, "by an earnest desire to ascertain 
 whether by a full explanation and frank confession of mutual 
 views and difficulties they could assist in promoting a better 
 understanding on this vexed question." And at last, on August 
 2nd, a letter, signed by two of the conferring parties, a clergy- 
 man and a Dissenting minister, was published explaining the 
 whole matter. Here are the proposed items of compromise : — 
 1, That the burial of a deceased person in a parochial
 
 25 
 
 Churchyard may he made with or without a service, at the 
 option of the relatives or friends of the deceased. 
 
 2a. That if the relatives or friends of the deceased elect to 
 have any service performed in the parochial Churchyard, the 
 said service shall he a religious service, and shall he such as 
 is customarily used on the like occasions in the religious body 
 to which the officiating minister or person belongs. 
 
 2b. That if the friends or relatives of the deceased elect to 
 have any service performed in the parochial Churchyard, the 
 said service shall he a Christian service, and consist only of 
 prayers, hymns, or extracts from Holy Scripture. 
 
 3. That such funeral service may be conducted by a mini- 
 ster of any religious body or congregation which has any 
 registered places or place of public worship, or by a represen- 
 tative appointed by him ; or in cases where there is no stated 
 ministry, by any person officially appointed for the purpose 
 by the managers of the religious community to which the 
 deceased or his friends may have belonged. 
 
 4. That every person guilty of any disorderly or indecent 
 behaviour at any funeral, or wilfully obstructing a burial or 
 any religious service thereat, shall be guilty of misdemeanour. 
 
 5. That full and precise regulations shall be enacted defin- 
 ing the notice of burial to be given to the parochial clergyman, 
 the time of interment, the payment of fees, the registration of 
 the burial in the parochial registers, such as those contained 
 in the Bill which passed the House of Commons in 1873. 
 
 It will be observed that there are offered, in fact, only five 
 heads of compromise ; but that No. 2 is printed in two forms : 
 the first stipulating that the said service should be a religious 
 service, the second stipulating that the said service should be 
 a Christian service. Upon the other four items of compro- 
 mise they all agreed : but upon the second, and its alternative 
 form, the Dissenting ministers positively refused to agree. 
 In the words of the letter above referred to : — " The altcrna-
 
 26 
 
 tive form of No. 2 indicated the points over which they were 
 unable to arrive at a similar conclusion. The clergymen 
 present were convinced that, without the adoption of the 
 second form of No. 2, no ' Burial Bill ' could be framed 
 that would be acceptable to the gi-eat body of Churchmen ; 
 while the Nonconformists in the Conference did not feel at 
 liberty to accept it. The consequence is that both parties 
 agreed, in the most friendly spirit, to relinquish the attempt :" 
 Now, whatever we may think of this gratuitous attempt at 
 compromise, it is important for us to notice that the Noncon- 
 formist ministers conferring distinctly refused, on behalf of 
 Nonconforming bodies, to be limited to a Christian, mind — a 
 Christian, service ; and so, in their own fashion, expressed 
 about the same feeling as the Birmingham Central Noncon- 
 formist Committee did in theirs. In short, it is clear as sun- 
 light that the Nonconformists mean the secularization of our 
 Churchyards : that is, at the funerals of their people, in the 
 Parish Churchyards any sort of service, or none ; religious. 
 Christian, or otherwise; shall be performed by any body : and 
 that the acquisition of our Churchyards, with this profane 
 design, shall be an instalment of what they are pleased to call 
 their right as citizens ; only one step more towards possession 
 of our Churches, with similar profane designs. Any Govern- 
 ment that compromises the Burials question in this direction 
 required by Dissenters, viz., so as to give them the right of 
 burying their own dead in their own way in the parochial 
 Churchyards of England, would be a Government treacherous 
 to the Church ; and would throw Dissenters the Church keys. 
 Their doing so would be the first certain, direct, step forward 
 to disestablishment and secularization. In fact, gentlemen, 
 if we mean to be faithful to our Apostolical mission, our 
 Gospel charge, our Divine Head and Master, Jesus, we had 
 better be disestablished at once, than submit to any such 
 violation of our principles and office. Let us earnestly hope
 
 S7 
 
 (and we have jnst cause to) that the Government of our 
 country is at present in such hands that a kind and Christian 
 settlement of the question will soon be effected ; that the 
 statistical information, for which the Home Secretary has 
 recently applied, may prove a sound basis upon which an 
 arrangement may be made gratifying to all Chiistian and 
 conscientious Dissenters, without doing violence to the dearest 
 principles of our Church, or incurring the least risk of 
 compromising the clergy upon high and essential points 
 of doctrine, in any such way as would endanger our fidelity 
 as ministers of Christ. 
 
 Having given you, p,s I think, all through this paper, 
 abundant reasons for concluding that the Church should con- 
 sent to no " Burials Bill " of any kind which would permit 
 Dissenters of all kinds to bury their dead in her Churchyards 
 in their own way, I close by calling attention to the only 
 mode of settling the question. Four modes have been pro- 
 posed : — 1. Mr. Osborne Morgan's, of which this paper has 
 treated, and which cannot be accepted. 2. Mr. Talbot's, 
 which provides " that in cases where a person has expressed 
 his desire in writing to be buried without the rites of the 
 Church, the service may be dispensed with, and that the 
 deceased shall be entitled to a decent and solemn interment 
 in the Churchyard of the parish, with the express condition 
 that no other kind of service shall be performed :" to this we 
 may be quite sure Dissenters will not submit. It would be 
 unreasonable to expect that they should ; though this is the 
 arrangement of which Roman Catholics at present avail them- 
 selves. 3. That Dissenting funerals should be permitted in 
 all cases where a license has been first obtained from the 
 Incumbent and his Churchwardens. I confess that, in the 
 present advanced condition of the quarrel, this amiable sug- 
 gestion appears to me childish. 4. The plan proposed by 
 The Lower House of Convocation, viz., " That an act should
 
 2a 
 
 be passed enabling parishes to provide themselves, at the cost 
 of the rates, with burial grounds which shall be wholly un- 
 consecrated." This last proposal seems to point in the right 
 direction ; though the way of stating it is not likely to pro- 
 mote its adoption. But, why touch the fretting sore of rates 
 at all ? and make up a hotbed of discord in every parish ? 
 Also, why trouble to use the words "wholly unconsecrated," 
 unless to provoke Dissenting prejudices ? Is there any fear 
 of anything about Dissenters being consecrated too much ? 
 Are they likely to, or can they, consecrate at all ? Depend 
 upon it, they will not ask a Bishop to assist them. However, 
 if rates must be had recourse to, why not levy them as far as 
 possible from each parish ? and go to the imperial taxes, to 
 which we all pay, and which are only rates in another form ? 
 Moreover, this question is as large as England, and we are 
 all concerned to have it settled : and to raise the necessary 
 funds from the imperial taxes must lighten the burden for the 
 parishes demanding Cemeteries for Dissenters. Possibly the 
 difficulty would be met in the best way by an Act of Parlia- 
 ment empowering the State to give, or lend, money from time 
 to time for the purchase, or part purchase, of cemeteries for 
 Dissenters : and it should be provided that in all future cases, 
 as old parochial yards get filled, the additional ground obtained 
 should be a Cemetery, and not a parish Churchyard in the 
 good old sense of the word. Cases of this kind are already 
 to be found ; and that in the parish of Westhoughton, in our 
 own deanery, is much to the purpose, as showing that when 
 Dissenters have cemeteries they do not care to use them, nor 
 their own ministers either. The Vicar of Westhoughton 
 informs me that his Churchyard-cemetery was opened in 
 May, 1858, and that one-eighth part of the ground was left 
 " unconsecrated " for Dissenters, and that during the seven years 
 which have since transpired there have been burials in the 
 consecrated ground 1,962 ; but in the unconsecrated only 110.
 
 29 
 
 Now, to leave Dissenters only one-eigth part of the ground In 
 Westbougliton seems to be leaving them a small proportion 
 indeed ; but, whereas the whole number of funerals hitherto 
 has been 2,072, of which one-eighth part would be exactly 
 259 due to Dissenters, the actual number buried in Dissenting 
 ground has been only 110. No wonder that the Vicar of 
 Westhoughton informs us, that he continually buries Dissen- 
 ters, who prefer the Church's ground, the Church's service, 
 and the Church's minister : and so it would be all through the 
 kingdom if political agitators would leave pious Dissenters 
 alone. 
 
 The charge for finding all the Dissenting Cemeteries, if 
 any, required would not be great. Accurate information as to 
 the number of parishes requiring Burial-grounds for Dis- 
 senters has yet to be obtained ; and the questions lately for- 
 warded from the Home Office will, no doubt, secure it. But, 
 so far as statistical information is at hand, it seems likely 
 that not more than one-third of all the parishes yet without 
 Burial-grounds for Dissenters would require them. Mr. 
 Morgan stated that there were but 531 public Cemeteries in 
 England : and between 12,000 and 13,000 parishes in which 
 the Parish Churchyard was the only place of burial. Even if 
 this were an exact indication of the demand likely to occur, 
 the whole charge would not be heavy. For, it by no means 
 follows thata Burial-ground would be necessary for every parish 
 where, at present. Dissenters have none : for Cemeterial 
 purposes, two or more parishes, and even a whole union 
 might be joined. But, Mr. Heygate remarked that — " To a 
 circular asking for information on the subject, it was stated in 
 reply that out of 6,209 parishes, which sent in returns, 1,627 
 had Chapel Burial-grounds, 421 had public Cemeteries, while 
 in 2,140 no Dissenting Chapel whatever existed." It will be 
 observed that Mr. Morgan gave the whole number of 
 Cemeteries as 531 : Mr. Heygate's return included 421. Let
 
 30 
 
 us leave all Cemeteries out of the calculation. Then it 
 follows that Mr. Hey gate's circular replies for 5,788 parishes, 
 of which 3,767, i.e., nearly two-thirds are already accounted 
 for as to Burials. Xow Mr. Morgan roundly takes all the 
 parishes without Dissenting Burial-grounds at 12,000 or 
 13,000 : let us accept the mean, and take them as 12,500. 
 Then, raising Mr. Heygate's figures to even tens for the sake 
 of calculation, i.e., taking the parishes replied for at 5,790 
 instead of 5,788 ; and the parishes not requiring new Dis- 
 senting Burial-grounds at 3,770 instead of 3,767 ; it will be 
 found that, assuming Mr. Heygate's return to be a fair 
 average for all England, the whole number of parishes 
 already provided for in one way or another is 8,139, and a 
 small decimal : and that, therefore, taking 12,500 as the 
 gross number of parishes, at present, according to Mr. 
 Morgan, with no Burial-ground but the Churchyard, it follows 
 that only 12,500 minus 8,139, or 4,361, are likely to ask for 
 them : or to advance any claim for Government assistance. 
 There, then, is the sum and substance of the difficulty, as 
 nearly as can be known at present. Wanted, 4,361 little bits 
 of ground ; which, probably, Dissenters would not use if 
 given them to-morrow. Left alone they prefer, as at West- 
 houghton, the Churchyard. It is curious to notice that the 
 return I read you some time ago, from nine counties of Wales, 
 brings out about the same result, viz., that two-thirds of all 
 the parishes in England and Wales are satisfactorily provided 
 for. 
 
 Gentlemen, I conclude, thanking you most respectfully 
 for the indulgence you have shown me. Be assured, this 
 Burials difficulty, like the so-called " religious difficulty " in 
 our parochial schools, is a sham difficulty conjured into ex- 
 istence for a political purpose. It has no real, honest, con- 
 scientious existence ; and the more the affectation of it is 
 grappled with, the more certainly it will vanish away. What
 
 31 
 
 the Church of England now require!? is not compromise, hut 
 courage ; and our bishops and hiy leaders need to study not 
 the counsels of expediency, but the doctrines of consistent and 
 unflinching religious principle. But, even if the difficulty 
 were real, it is one which must every year grow less and less 
 as Churchyards are closed, and Cemeteries provided : one 
 which, so far as it would still remain, a very little upright 
 effort on the part of Dissenters would soon remove. They 
 can huild Cbapels when they want them, why not find Burial- 
 grounds — they have no wish nor need for them, except at the 
 cost and sacrifice of the Church of England. 
 
 Upon the whole, gentlemen, we may infer that the Burials 
 question is the most important now demanding the attention 
 of the Church. It is fraught with the most momentous conse- 
 quences, unless hetter protection is in store for us than we 
 have yet heen assured of: protection, however, which we may 
 hope for ; and may God secure ! The Church in all her 
 dioceses ought to he now astir under her proper leaders : and 
 petitions to the House of Commons on the subject should he 
 sent from every Rural Deanery in the Kingdom : and our 
 members, of both great parties in the House, should be given 
 to understand that not Mr. Morgan's, nor any similar, 
 "Burials Bill" will ever receive the acquiescence of the 
 Church of England. 
 
 T. llowoRTU, Fkinteb, 21, St. Akn's Square, Mancuestek.
 
 mi 
 
 52- ';'}'■ -j^^-^: : 
 
 4. "-- %V^- - * •■■>. '■■■■A 
 
 mk:- 
 
 mm 
 
 M.ri 
 
 ^k^-^- y^-- ^X^: 
 
 
 ,--^42cWi*i 
 
 
 ^rm\ ■^^' 
 
 ft) ■. ^;-»V^.;^ 
 
 w^^,-^'^^ 
 
 ■ -v.- rV'^Kr 
 
 '^^9?%:l\ ..~ '