^TJKfrV 
 
 1^^^ 
 
 ''•>v^a^? 
 
 ^^BBpl 
 
 H 
 
 ^^^ji 
 
 9 
 
 !^^'*^ 
 
 
 9^
 
 REMARKS 
 
 UPON 
 
 THE AMENDMENT 
 
 BURIAL LAWS 
 
 9 
 
 BY 
 
 T. W. OARR, M.A. 
 
 RECTOR OF BARMING, KENT. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 W. WELLS GARDNEE, 10, PATERNOSTER ROW. 
 
 WICKHAM & SON, MAIDSTONE. 
 
 PKICE TWOPENCE.
 
 *' Thou that intendest to ike Church to-day, 
 *' Come, take a turn, or two, before thou go'st, 
 "In the Church-yard ; the icalk is in thy ivay. 
 " But he that unirreixired rashly ventures, 
 " Hastens perhaps to seal his death's indentures/' 
 
 Christopher Harvie, 
 The Synagogue. 
 
 It is no disrespect to the supporters of tlie remarkable 
 Bill " for the amendment of the Burial Laws," now 
 before the House of Lords, to say that its title has some- 
 thing in it of painful mockery to a ver}^ large number of 
 clergymen of the Church of England. 
 
 The amendment of the Burial Laws ! They have long 
 thought that those laws pressed very heavily upon the 
 Church, and have earnestly desired to see their amendment, 
 and here is a Bill for the very purpose, which has passed 
 the House of Commons. 
 
 It introduces very radical changes, and new principles 
 into our English law and custom ; it is alteration rather 
 than amendment ; and yet in spite of this, when the Bill 
 is examined, the points on which these clergymen longed 
 for an amendment, are not even touched, or only touched 
 so far, that if these amendments become law as they 
 stand, their grievances will be worse, far worse, than before. 
 
 For this Bill with so hopeful a title, is not ah amend- 
 ment of the Burial Laws, in the interest of the Churchy 
 but in the interest of Dissenters, understanding here by 
 Dissenters, all bodies of whatever creed, who have some 
 registered place of worship in the country. 
 
 But taking it as it stands, the following points about 
 the Bill, (supposing it to be the same as that ameiulod 
 in committee last year) are worthy of special consideration. 
 
 1st. It is singular, that while the Bill is certainly for 
 those who do not belong to the Church, yet it is nowhere 
 specified that it is for them.
 
 At the request of some one who has the conduct of a 
 funeral, leave is given to any member or minister, of any 
 body having a registered place of worship, to conduct a 
 service in the Church-yard ; but though it appears that 
 only such members may officiate, yet the Bill leaves it 
 open to everyone, Churchman or not, to ask for their 
 services. The law will seem to say to everyone, if you 
 do not like the services of the clergyman at the funeral, 
 you may choose one or more members of any registered 
 body, for we will accredit these, pro tanto, as officiating 
 ministers. 
 
 The question then arises, why is the Bill made so very 
 wide in its scope ? has it some other object than to give 
 relief to professed Dissenters ? 
 
 2nd. Wide as the Bill is, we may further notice that 
 difficulties will still arise as to the interment of such as 
 are free-thinkers, unattached to any society. They may 
 perhaps register a place for the worship of humanity, and 
 have some kind of membership. If not, though they may 
 claim exemption from the service, they must follow to the 
 grave in silence, while at the next funeral some "embo- 
 died" secularist may have free opportunity to expound 
 his views on death and religion to the astonished crowd. 
 Possibly they are still to be left to the Office of the Church. 
 It is doubtful whether much is gained by the slight 
 restriction as to those who may take part, contained in 
 the term "members of a religious body having a registered 
 place of worship." Member is a loose term, worship not 
 very precise; is the clergyman to enquire about the 
 membership, and the registering, or to take any steps to 
 prevent the service being held if he doubt their reality ? 
 
 3rd. Are we honestly asked by the promoters of this 
 Bill to resjiect their conscientious grievances, and to make 
 concessions in consequence ? If so, these persons can 
 not refuse to consider the conscientious and deeply felt 
 grievances of Churchmen themselves. 
 
 Without referring to their feelings as to this assault on 

 
 old privileges, or to the pain which they feel, when every 
 form of religion or irreligion is permitted to be preached 
 in consecrated ground, (though these feelings deserve 
 consideration,) let ns take this point : — 
 
 Chnrclimen (especially clergymen, who having to act 
 in the name of the Church, are of course more alive to 
 the working of the present law,) have long been anxious 
 for some relief in consequence of the indiscriminate use 
 of the Burial Service. This is a deep, though, it must be 
 admitted, not an universal feeling. Now if the Dissenters 
 wish us to consider their grievance, which is that they are 
 forced to be silent when they would like to speak, they 
 ought in fairness to be ready to allow the consideration of 
 the grievance of the clergyman, which is that he often 
 must speak, when he had rather be silent ; and this 
 grievance is certainly the greater one of the two. 
 
 Surely it is a cruel thing to admit all sects into the 
 Churchyard, and leave the clergyman in the midst of 
 them, with his difficulties only aggravated. 
 
 4th. What after all is the real object of the Bill ? Is 
 it to give some comfort to mourners at the grave, or is it 
 to take advantage of a plausible opportunity to get a 
 firm hold on the Churchyards, with a view to further 
 aggression ? If the latter be the object, it is a wicked 
 use of a sacred subject ; but if the former, then why is it 
 not enoQgh to ask leave for professed Dissenters to dispense 
 with the Service of the Church ; or if that be not enough, 
 why ask for more than a quiet and reverent service at 
 the grave itself? Why, to permit this, should the Bill 
 give every one power to call in the services of any member 
 whoever he be, to make processions, to have any sort of 
 ceremony, to pray, to teach, to preach, if only what he 
 does is religious ; — and if it be not, who is to prosecute 
 and who to decide ? 
 
 6th. Have those members of the Church who helped 
 to pass this Bill through the House of Commons, really 
 considered the relative position of the clergyman of the
 
 Cliiircb, and the favoured individuals admitted to officiate 
 in his Churchyard ? It is simpl}^ this. 
 
 The law prevents the clergyman from using any but 
 one fixed service, from altering a single sentence, and 
 compels him to read it over all sorts of people, and also 
 over the Dissenters, if they can not find some one else to 
 conduct a service of their own; while it gives to any 
 member invited, absolute liberty to accept or refuse, to do 
 or say anything he likes. Can anything be more arbi- 
 trary and unjust than this result of the proposed law ? 
 anything more unreasonable and absurd than the different 
 power given to these respective parties by the State ? 
 
 In order to see the way in which the Bill will sometimes 
 work, let us take two cases not unlikely ones to happen. 
 Pass over the procession of the Roman Catholic, the great 
 local preacher brought up to improve the occasion, the 
 political Dissenter glad to get a legal footing in the Church 
 yard, or the curious gathering round the Morraonite, and 
 look at this case. Any factious man, suppose a Church- 
 man, has power under the Bill, at the funeral of his rela- 
 tive, himself perhaps a Churchman, to annoy his neigh- 
 bours, or his clergyman, or even his relatives, by inviting 
 some members of any body to pray or preach in the 
 Churchyard ; and it would seem these persons might even 
 use the service of the Church itself. 
 
 Or here is another case. Some notoriously bad charac- 
 ter is to be buried. His friends, attending a chapel, apply 
 for the services of their minister to perform some cere- 
 mony and to preach. If he likes he may accept the invi- 
 tation, but it is quite conceivable that he might say, 
 " this is a painful case, it would not be well for me to 
 officiate, but go to the Clergyman, he is obliged under 
 pains and penalties to read the service of the Church 
 over every one." 
 
 No one can doubt, who looks at it, that many reverent 
 v.ud touching services will be performed under this pro- 
 posed Act, but that is not the main question. Without
 
 the smallest intention to sneer at these, it is still ne- 
 cessary to point out that two such cases are possible and 
 likely; the first, because of the unnecessary provisions of 
 the Bill, the second because of the absence of any amend- 
 ment in ihe interests of the Church. Even were it granted 
 that some service were to be permitted under an Act of 
 Parliament to Dissenters in the Churchyards, it is quite 
 unnecessary that either of these cases should be possible 
 under the terms of the Act. Perhaps also these things 
 are possible in some town Cemeteries now, but it is quite 
 obvious, that what is done in a Country Church yard, in 
 the midst of the village, under the shadow of the Church, 
 has a very different aspect. 
 
 . It has been said in the House of Commons that to sup- 
 pose any Dissenters would abuse the opportunity to 
 foment any feeling against the Church, or would abuse it 
 in any way, is an insult to them. 
 
 The worthlessness of this argument may be easily seen. 
 If any question were raised as to entrusting the clergy- 
 man with full discretionary power as to refusing a service, 
 or arranging any service that he liked, it would be doubt- 
 less urged by the very same people, that this power would 
 be dangerous, and would lead to serious abuses. Perhaps 
 it might. But the Clergy of the English Church form a 
 select body out of the members of that Church, and it 
 would be readily allowed that they would not, for Chris- 
 tian spirit and gentlemanly feeling, compare unfavourably 
 with that large and mixed assemblage composed of all 
 the members of all the sects. Yet the Htate is expected 
 to entrust this large and heterogeneous multitude with 
 the most ample opportunities of annoyance to the Church, 
 and it is indignantly urged that in their hands no abuses 
 will arise! It is quite astonishing that any one, at 
 least if he be conversant with parts of England where 
 there is a strong Dissenting and Radical spirit, should not 
 see that abuses must inevitably arise from unchecked 
 ceremonies or speeches in parish Churchyards.
 
 8 
 
 Let every one who does not see that the Bill is a very- 
 serious one, look well to its ]3rovisions. Is it a simple 
 measure of relief for Dissenters ? Its terms admit of 
 every person using it, if so disposed. Is it merely to 
 allow Dissenters to secure the services of their own Minis- 
 ter ? It gives them the pick of all the members of all 
 denominations within their reach. Supposing its res- 
 trictions advisable, can they be carried out ? They are so 
 slight that a clergyman can not be expected to exercise 
 any check at all ; how can he enquire who is a member, 
 or decide if the service were " religious" ? 
 
 Is it again a temporary provision till other graveyards 
 can be formed ? There is a clause in the Bill, which 
 keeps all Church-yards open in many cases to its pro- 
 visions, and even those very Cemeteries made under the 
 proposed Act to be exempted. 
 
 But since the Bill has not yet passed the House of 
 Lords, how had it best be met by those who see its evils, 
 some of which only are dealt with here ? 
 
 There is a considerable number of persons, who simply 
 advocate resistance, and hope to remain in statu quo; but 
 the state of the law as it now affects the Church, and the 
 hostility of those ready to seize each recurring case of 
 grievance, and utilize it, makes this course undesirable, 
 if not impossible. 
 
 Others propose as a remedy, that a clergyman should 
 be permitted, at the wish of the friends, to dispense with 
 the service of the Church, leaving them to have any ser- 
 vice they liked at their house or chapel. 
 
 Such a permission is reasonable and much needed, 
 but it is believed that it will not be a satisfactory one for 
 these reasons : — 
 
 1. The service at the grave, (though not Scotch,) is 
 peculiarly English, and its absence is bitterly felt. 
 
 2. That being so, the silence which must be enforced 
 at the grave Ijecomes especially painful, and there is a
 
 kind of irritating void, if one may say so, wTiicli gives 
 room for discontent and opposition. The chief occasions 
 of difficulty are in the case of the nnbaptized, and this 
 alteration would leave these cases in precisely the same 
 position as before. 
 
 The Bill may be probably rejected this year, but it will 
 be very unwise, it is suggested, to shelve the subject on 
 that account, it would be far better for Churchmen to 
 alter completely its provisions, and give it a new character, 
 or to bring in a different Bill to meet the object in a 
 different way. 
 
 We do need, most emphatically let it be repeated, an 
 amendment of the Burial Laws. And if this be allowed, 
 then what time can be better than the present to secure 
 it ? Dissenters are now asking for an amendment from 
 their point of view, let us seek for one from ours, not in 
 a hostile, but in a generous and liberal spirit. 
 
 Once let the present Bill be carried, and we then secure 
 the opposition of the most active promoters of this Bill to 
 any advantage being gained by Churchmen at all. 
 
 The inconveniences and scandals to which the Church 
 is subject are to them so much capital in inclining the 
 mind of Churchmen towards disestablishment ; and it 
 would be to them like surrendering a position, or the 
 revictualling of a besieged town, to allow' an amendment 
 in the Burial Laws which improved the position of the 
 Church with her own members. 
 
 Now however this is not so, they are urging a conces- 
 sion, and pleading the feelings of the bereaved, and they 
 can not honestly object to an entire amendment of the 
 laws. The Church would ask for the amendment in the 
 interests of religion, they in the interests of bereaved 
 families, let both be fairly considered together; and this 
 is the time to do it. Let us, if we can, in settling the 
 question, separate the natural wishes of mourners for their
 
 10 
 
 own service, from the spirit of encroacliment whicli aims 
 at the destruction of the Church as an Establishment. It 
 must be allowed it is a capital foil in these practised 
 hands, this sorrow of the mourners and their yearning for 
 their own way of comfort ; let us disarm those who are 
 using it for their own purposes, by meeting the genuine 
 sorrow with kindness, and leaving the professional sym- 
 pathisers to find honester weapons for the coming battles. 
 
 Let us now consider whether an amendment of the 
 Burial Laws be not necessary for the Church ? It has 
 long been discussed, thousands of the clergy have peti- 
 tioned for it, and many a man has become heart-sick in 
 the hope long deferred. 
 
 We have a singularly beautiful Office for the Burial of 
 the Dead, but it was drawn up with a view to a different 
 state of things. 
 
 It is known that discipline was much stricter in the 
 Primitive Church, and a reference to the Canons, will 
 show that it was meant to be strict in our own. There is 
 now no discipline compared with that intended, and the 
 consequence is that the Oftice for Burial has to be used' 
 for a very large number of persons for whom the Church 
 did not mean it. It was not for the unbaptised, nor for 
 the suicide, nor for the excommunicate. It has expres- 
 sions of charitable hope, which by themselves could hardly 
 ever be unsuitable, but it deals with the deceased as a 
 brother in the Church, as a member of Christ, and we 
 give hearty thanks that it has pleased God '^ of His great 
 mercy to deliver this our brother out of the miseries of 
 this sinful world ;" and we beseech him " shortly to ac- 
 complish the number of his elect." Another expression, 
 " we commit his body to the ground, in sure and certain 
 hope of resurrection to eternal life," may be instanced also. 
 It does not properly refer to the individual, but it is gene- 
 rally understood by the hearers to do so. 
 
 It is very true that all these expressions may be 
 explained, and most true that it never was intended that
 
 11 
 
 the Service sliould be used over a few eminent Christians, 
 but over the members of a Church exercising healthy 
 discipline ; there is something very beautiful in the all 
 embracing charity which admits without question, anyone 
 to the last rites of the Church at last ; but the fact will 
 remain, that the present general use of the Service is 
 very painful. 
 
 When these words are read over one who has never 
 been known as a religious man in any sense, or over 
 another who has notoriously lived and died in disgraceful 
 immorality, or still more over an unbeliever in Revelation, 
 or a known scoffer at the Resurrection, then if words are 
 words, this is a sad scandal to the Church, which needs 
 amendment. The clergyman it is true reads the service 
 of the Church, feeling that it does not apply to this 
 individual, but those who hear him are for the most part, 
 either surprised, distressed, or even in some cases hardened 
 by the inferences which they draw. 
 
 The majority of Churchmen do not have these cases 
 brought before them, and do not think of them ; the 
 clergyman too often gets used to them; but it is well-known 
 that^this is a favourite point of attack against the Church 
 with Dissenters. Yet the fault does not lie with the 
 Church or the Service, but with the law of the land, which 
 fetters the Church from making amendments to meet this 
 state of things. The excommunicate person in the eye of 
 the law hardly exists, the felo de se is scarcely found in 
 the appalling host of suicides, and the law only requires 
 the exclusion of the unbaptised from the office of the 
 Church. It is true it is not suitable for them, but who 
 can avoid seeing what a prejudice is excited in carrying 
 out the law, when it is read over the known profligate, 
 and not permitted to the person who was under instruc- 
 tion for Baptism, when it can not be denied to the hoary 
 sinner, and must be refused to a little child who is not 
 bantized ? 
 
 The writer of this pamphlet once found himself obliged
 
 12 
 
 hastily to decide what to do, in a very painful case. He 
 felt it on the whole better to leave out a great part of the 
 Service ; a course which he believes was satisfactory to all 
 present, but it was an illegal course, most painful to take, 
 and which under other circumstances might have led to 
 legal proceedings. It was the least of two evils, both 
 great ; and he never can forget the distress it caused him. 
 
 Plans of amendment in the law have been frequently 
 suggested. One has been some alteration in the present 
 Service, which shall lower it from its present saintly tone, 
 till it shall suit every one ; a proposition which seems very 
 degrading to a Church which preaches the bond of Chris- 
 tian brotherhood in Christ's fold, and the hope of a blessed 
 rest and resurrection in Him. 
 
 Another has been, that of some alternative Collects to 
 meet those cases of notorious difficulty. This remedy 
 would be insufficient, because it could only be applied in 
 a very few cases, and would be very painful then. To 
 wait till death to exercise a tardy discipline, is a position 
 unworthy of the Church of Christ. 
 
 The expedient might also be worth some consideration, 
 of allowing the clergyman, after agreement with the 
 friends, either to dispense with the Service altogether, or 
 to use some other Service which he thought suitable to 
 the occasion. He would then have considerable discretion 
 allowed him, short only of what is proposed to be given 
 to those parishioners of his, who are members of some 
 registered body. 
 
 The plan suggested in this pamphlet, without any 
 pretence to originality, (though it is not known where it 
 is advocated,) is that the law should authorize the use of 
 a new Burial Service, which shall have been approved by 
 the Bishops, or it might merely authorise the clergyman 
 to use any service which had the approval of the Bishop 
 of the Diocese. Such a chano^e would seem
 
 13 
 
 one, yet it could not be called so by the side of tbe Bill 
 now proposed. 
 
 But supposing a Service were drawn up by the Bishops, 
 for general use, consisting of Scripture, Collects, Psalm, 
 or Hymn, for use at the grave, or in the Church as well ; 
 is there any reason to suppose that it would not become 
 as popular with the generality of people as the old one ? 
 
 Our present Service .would remain unmutilated, and 
 guarded by its present rubrics ; the new Service, like the 
 Consecration Services, need not be incorporated in the 
 Prayer-book ; the Clergyman being free to use it on all 
 occasions. Were the present Service desired before- 
 hand, he might think it best in any case, (except one 
 expressly excluded,) to use it, and how few cases of real 
 grievance could arise, in comparison with the present 
 state of things ? 
 
 This is one side of the amendment proposed, there is 
 still another, namely, whether any concession can be made 
 in the points now under discussion in Parliament. Could 
 Churchmen agree to any amendment in this direction ? 
 
 That the Bill demands a concession enormous and un- 
 reasonable, is not a sufficient reason for disposing of the 
 question, even if it were possible to do so. 
 
 Few persons would be disposed to resist an alteration, 
 which shall permit in certain cases the omission of the 
 Church Service ; but the writer must here confess, that 
 he for one now sees reason to go further than this. 
 
 In a foreign country, any one who had to commit the 
 remains of a dear relative to a cemetery in the hands of a 
 foreign Church, would be probably grateful for permission 
 to have his own service, if it could be accorded. 
 
 Yet in our own country such a permission would be im- 
 possible by law, either for a stranger, or for one belong- 
 ing to another communion. 
 
 Is it quite a desirable position for a large and liberal
 
 14 
 
 Church like the Church of England, to refuse permission 
 to another communion, on any occasion, to celebrate their 
 own rites ? 
 
 The answer would probably be, that this demand comes 
 from a party who avow boldly their determination to over- 
 throw the Church, and who will make use of this con- 
 cession for the purpose. 
 
 It is so unhappily ; and this avowed hostility hinders 
 our being ready to make concession, which otherwise 
 could be more easily done. 
 
 Yet it might be possible to make a concession wisely 
 guarded, redressing a practical grievance in a generous 
 spirit, yet avoiding those unnecessary concessions which 
 the Bill grants. 
 
 A service is desired at the grave, and there is this pe- 
 culiarity about the service, that if there be a grave ser- 
 vice, it can be held at one place only, at the grave. There 
 is therefore no logical parallel, with any service for which 
 the fabric of the Church is used. 
 
 Let Parliament facilitate the setting apart of Ceme- 
 teries in country parishes, where Dissenters may be per- 
 fectly free to act as they like. 
 
 But where they must bury in a Church-yard, if the 
 new Service is not desired, let them be allowed after 
 notice given, as provided in this Bill, to have a service of 
 their own. 
 
 Provided that it be specified. 
 
 That it be a short service at the grave ; 
 That any ceremony be orderly and religious ; 
 That no preaching or addresses be permitted in the 
 Church-yard. 
 
 Such limitations might be sufficient without any res- 
 triction as to the name of the person to officiate, or con-
 
 15 
 
 fining the choice to members of a registered body, as in 
 the present Bill ; they would obviate many of the incon- 
 veniences likely to arise, and they are neither harsh nor 
 unreasonable. It is very rare that the Clergyman ad- 
 dresses a crowd at the grave himself, and why should 
 those who are of other communions claim the liberty ? 
 It is the address, or oration, which will be the point at 
 which abuses would chiefly be possible, such as disturb- 
 ances to order, or the wounding the feelings of parishioners. 
 It can not be urged that an address is necessary for the 
 comfort of survivors ; (except such few sentences of exhor- 
 tation as are found for example in our service ;) a short 
 service of prayer and scripture or a hymn, would be all 
 that would be necessary to soothe the feelings of the 
 bereaved ; and those only could resist the restriction as to 
 preaching, who had other objects in view than the solace 
 of the mourners. 
 
 The amendments and concessions advocated in this 
 pamphlet are, it must be allowed, very large to thoughtful 
 Churchmen, but they are not too large for the circum- 
 stances. In explaining ih em, there has been no intention 
 to speak harshly against Dissenters, least of all against 
 those who are in sorrow, or who desire to comfort those 
 who are. It is a question which ought to be handled with 
 extreme reverence and charity. Death is so solemn, 
 Burial is so humiliating to our common manhood, sorrow 
 is so sacred, and charity should wait on it so willingly ; 
 that he who, at such seasons, would needlessly refuse a 
 courtesy, or he who would make grief a cover for other 
 designs, would both be deserving of severe reprobation. 
 
 The sad errand of following those they love, brings to 
 our Churchyards, mourners who ask for some comfort 
 peculiar to themselves at the grave. Let us grant them 
 their way of comfort if we can. But when those who 
 claim to sympathise for them, and to state their case, 
 wish for reasons of their own, to weight the permissions
 
 16 
 
 made with a license unnecessary, and likely to lead to 
 further demands, we may fairly reject their claims, as 
 made to further other objects, which we must resist. 
 
 Is it too late to hope that those with whom a great 
 responsibility at a critical time rests, may, dealing with 
 this question in a spirit of reverence and of charity to 
 all parties, arrange such an amendment of the Burial 
 Laws, as may be wide enough to remove the chief griev- 
 ances of Churchmen, and yet ample enough to give 
 comfort to others in their hour of sorrow, without giving 
 needlessly a point of attack in future years, against the 
 Church ? 
 
 F.S. — There are reasons, it is believed, which make it 
 unnecessary and undesirable that a new Service of the kind 
 advocated here, should receive the formal approval of Con- 
 vocation ; and for that reason it is assumed in this Pamphlet 
 that the Bishops would either draw up or sanction such a 
 Service,