'^^1»*' 
 
 
 
 
 Vj:4>^.. ' ^liU.
 
 C^^t^:^ ^^^ /^^^^ ^^^>->- 
 
 
 THE 
 
 
 BURIAL 
 
 QUESTION. 
 
 
 BY 
 
 
 MORTON 
 
 SHAW, 
 
 M.A., 
 
 RECTOR OF ROUGHAM, SUFFOLK : RURAL 
 
 DEAN. 
 
 1^0nb0iT : 
 
 
 W. SKEFFINGTON 
 
 & SON, 163, 
 1879. 
 
 PICCADILLY. 
 
 PRICE 
 
 ONE SHILLING. 
 
 
 yi/I Ri'^hts Reser'ved.
 
 ADVERTISEMENT. 
 
 The following has been written and published at the pressing 
 instance of friends, to whose judgment and wishes the Author 
 felt bound to defer. And this must be his apology, if he 
 should seem to other persons to be offering only a redundant 
 contribution to the treatment of a (perhaps) already over- 
 debated subject.
 
 THE BURIAL QUESTION. 
 
 It has not imfreqiiently of late been cast in the teeth of 
 those who claim specially to represent the interests of the 
 Church on this question, that they have wantonly thrown 
 away a great opportunity of having it settled to their own 
 advantage, by not accepting Lord Harrowby's proposal 
 with regard to it in the House of Lords. But the fact is, 
 that the persons so reproached do not view this question 
 as one of mere advantage, either to themselves, or even to 
 the Church whose interests they claim to represent ; but 
 as a simple question of political justice and equity. And 
 accordingly, they have not been able to accept Lord 
 Harrowby's proposal, because, kindly and considerately as 
 they knew it to have been intended on his part, it appeared 
 to them to involve the infliction of a distinct political 
 wrong, not on Churchmen alone, but also on a certain other 
 class of persons, who are, as it happens, theologically, of 
 all people in the world, farthest removed from Churchmen. 
 
 And, to pass by for the present the wrong to Church- 
 men, let me point out the injustice which they believe the 
 proposal would have inflicted on the other class referred to. 
 
 B 2
 
 ( 4 ) 
 
 Now Lord Harrowby proposed to allow to people in 
 rural districts who objected to having their dead buried with 
 the service of the Church, freedom to hold " Christian and 
 orderly religious services " of their own, at burials in their 
 parish Churchyard. And, most assuredly, this would have 
 met the grievance of such as desired only to have religious 
 and Christian services at their funerals. But, what of 
 those who might wish to have *' orderly " burial rites that 
 were neither ** Christian," nor even, in any true sense, 
 ** religious ?" He does not propose to allow these a similar 
 freedom in our Churchyards. For he would, probably, like 
 most other devout Churchmen, have felt a very decided 
 repugnance to granting any such concession. Still, he was 
 not prepared to support the Government measure, which 
 would have given to these, in common with the other 
 aggrieved classes, new burial grounds, where they might all 
 alike have been free to use their own respective modes of 
 burial. So that, in fact, his proposal would have left this 
 class altogether unrelieved and unprovided for. And yet 
 they are, I fear, not only a very increasing class, but also 
 one whose grievance we must assume to be quite as real, 
 and whose claim to relief is, of course, ])oliticallij , just as 
 valid, as that of any other of the classes referred to. I do 
 not think, therefore, it is at all to be wondered at, that 
 Churchmen who had any desire to be considered logical and 
 conscientious politicians, should, even on this ground alone, 
 have found themselves unable to adopt Lord Harrowby's 
 proposal. 
 
 But, then, on the other hand, if even the proposal had 
 been generally acceptable to Churchmen, I cannot discover 
 that it has ever had the slightest chance of being accepted 
 
 - . f^\ 
 
 \ uiuc !.
 
 ( 5 ) 
 
 by Mr. Osborne Morgan and his part}^ as a complete and 
 final settlement of the question. This point, indeed, has 
 been rendered quite clear by the announcement that Mr. 
 Morgan has made of the course which he intends to take 
 with regard to the somewhat kindred proposal of Mr. Bal- 
 four in the House of Commons. Mr. Balfour's measure, 
 like Lord Harrowby's, proposes, under certain conditions and 
 restrictions, to admit alien burial rites into our Churchyards. 
 And Mr. Morgan tells us that he is prepared to let the Bill 
 pass the House unchallenged on its second reading ; but 
 that, when it gets into Committee, he shall simply move 
 that all the conditions and restrictions be dropped out of it. 
 So that it will then be made to admit into our consecrated 
 Churchyards every description of burial rite whatsoever, re- 
 ligious or otherwise, without distinction or limitation. 
 
 And I confess it is not easy to see how Mr. Morgan and 
 his party could, with any decent show of consistency, have 
 taken a different course. For, maintaining, as they do, — 
 though most unjustifiably, as I venture to think and hope 
 presently to show, — that our Churchyards are the mere pro- 
 perty of the State, in the same unrestricted and absolute 
 sense in which our County Gaols and Union Workhouses 
 are so, they must obviously find it impossible to acquiesce in 
 any measure which would give to only a portion of the com- 
 munity rights in the Churchyards, from which any other 
 portion, having equal political claims, were distinctly ex- 
 cluded. For, might not the excluded portion, in such a 
 case, very justly turn round upon them, and accuse them of 
 having lent themselves to a dishonest conspiracy with the 
 common enemy to defraud them of their manifest rights ? 
 
 With regard, then, to Lord Harrowby*^ proposal it
 
 ( c ) 
 
 would seem that logical politicians, for the most part, on 
 both sides, have felt themselves unable to accept it, because 
 they have both alike deemed it an incomplete, and so, in 
 fact, an inequitable, solution of the burial difficulty. And 
 hence they have been driven, either, on the one side, to 
 adopt Mr. Morgan's alternative, of a complete and total neu- 
 tralization of our Churchyards, or, on the other, that of the 
 Government, or something like it, for providing new burial- 
 grounds where required, and leaving the Churchyards under 
 the same conditions and relations as heretofore. 
 
 But let us now proceed to consider Mr. Morgan's 
 alternative. And I must confess it seems to me that, if 
 this escapes one form of injustice, it is only to rush into 
 another of far more formidable magnitude ; though, I am 
 sorry to say, this latter form of injustice is, to some extent, 
 shared in by the proposal of Lord Harrowby himself. For, 
 in fact, both measures are chargeable with ignoiing the 
 special rights of Churchmen in our Churchyards ; though 
 undoubtedly Mr. Morgan goes very far beyond this ; since 
 his does not merely ignore those rights, but explicitly chal- 
 lenges and denies them. It takes its very start, indeed, 
 from the assumption that no such riglits exist, but that the 
 Churchyards are simply the property of the State, and 
 nothing else ; an assumption which, I confess, appears to 
 me to involve the gravest political injustice. 
 
 I do not, however, of course, deny that there is a sense 
 in which our Churchyards are the property of the State ; 
 that sense, indeed, in which all property of every kind is 
 so ; and this, too, whether it be held by bodies of men, or 
 by single individuals ; since, as we know, all alike h held.
 
 ( 7 ) 
 
 o]i certain legal and equitable conditions, under the supreme 
 lordship of the State, and is all equally liable, on failure of 
 tlioso conditions, whatever they may be, to lapse to the 
 State, as its primary and ultimate owner. 
 
 But, more than this, I am ready to admit that the State — 
 or, in other words. Parliament — has the poicer, if it chooses 
 to exercise it, of reclaiming or confiscating any property, 
 no matter what it is, or by whom it is held; and this, too, 
 quite irrespective of any conditions on which it may be 
 held by them. 
 
 Still, I suppose that Mr. Morgan, like most other 
 politicians in this country at the present time, would admit 
 that there are certain principles of political justice and 
 equity, which ought to restrain and govern Parliament in 
 the exercise of the power referred to. He would admit, e.^., 
 that Parliament is bound to respect the conditions under 
 which, by its own authority, or with its own sanction and 
 connivance, property has come to be possessed by its present 
 holders, and would recognise the fact that by virtue of such 
 conditions some descriptions of property are, in certain 
 senses, less the property of the State than others, and 
 that, consequently, Parliament has become politically less 
 free to deal with those kinds of property than with 
 others. 
 
 And I will now proceed to give a very simple illustration 
 of what I mean by this. Let us take, then, the case of our 
 great London and County Hospitals, on the one hand, and 
 tliat of our Union Workhouses, on the other. Now both of 
 these two classes of institutions are, of course, the pro- 
 perty of the State, in the primary sense before spoken of; and 
 both, too, may be termed, in another sense, national
 
 ( 8 ) 
 
 institutions, inasmuch as both are intended for the 
 benefit of the general public. But there is another sense 
 in which they are not equally national institutions, nor 
 yet equally the property of the State. The Hospitals 
 were founded and are supported by private benefactions, 
 and are governed by bodies of men, who certainly 
 have not derived their right to govern them from the 
 appointment of the State, though they may perhaps be 
 said to exercise that power under the sanction and protec- 
 tion of the State. The Union Workhouses, on the other 
 hand, derive their whole existence directly from Parliament, 
 and are governed entirely under the authority and appoint- 
 ment of the State. And these, therefore, may be said, in 
 the fullest and most unrestricted sense, to be the property 
 of the State, and nothing else, and may consequently be 
 dealt with by Parliament quite freely and with a simple 
 reference to the exigencies of the public interest, and of 
 that alone. I do not think, however, that Mr. Morgan and 
 his friends would hold that Parliament was equally free to 
 deal with our London and County Hospitals. Suppose, 
 e.g., some one were to say that it is a very heavy burden 
 on ratepayers to have to keep up Union Hospitals for their 
 pauper sick, — and no one can deny this, — and suppose he 
 were to point to our London and County Hospitals, and to 
 say that here are these all ready to hand, and that they are 
 national institutions, and the property of the State, and 
 that therefore Parliament ought to pass a short Act au- 
 thorising every Board of Guardians to give orders for the 
 gratuitous admission of their sick paupers into the nearest 
 of such Hospitals ; 1 think that most probably Mr. Morgan, 
 as well as the majority of English politicians at the present
 
 ( 'J ) 
 
 time, would hesitate to admit the political justice and equity 
 of such a measure. 
 
 And let us now see how these considerations bear upon 
 the question of our Churchyards. For I contend that these 
 are just about as much the property of the State as our 
 London and County Hospitals are, and no more so. 
 
 For, first, the Churchyards were certainly not given 
 originally by the State, but by the Lords of Manors, and 
 given, too, by these, not to the State, or to the Nation, but 
 to the Church, as such, i.e., to the Church, as an essentially 
 spiritual organization, deriving its true and proper origin from 
 a purely spiritual source. I admit, of course, that it is not 
 easy to say precisely when the gift was made ; for we have 
 only very scanty records of this undoubtedly remote period. 
 There are, however, some incidental proofs* of the fact to 
 
 * Probably the earliest liistorical references to this subject that we 
 have are to be found in certain Church Canons (a.d. 925 — 9G0), 
 which forbid the burial in any consecrated ground of persons who 
 have been guilty of particular offences ; some of these being of a 
 distinctly religious ^id ecclesiastical character. From these Canons, 
 then, it seems tolerably plain that the Church at that time dealt with 
 the consecrated grounds, or, in other words, the Churchyards, as 
 if they were the recognized and undoubted property of the Church. 
 (See Johnson's English Canons, Oxford, 1850, vol. i., pp. 367, 381, 
 416, &c.) 
 
 Again, about the same period, we find, among the laws of King 
 Edgar, two, referring more specifically to the matter of tithes, but 
 showing indirectly the origin of these consecrated burial-grounds. 
 Before the time in question. Churches were very few ; being, in fact, 
 only the Cathedrals and other great Minsters ; and these had to 
 serve for very extensive districts. And the tithes of such districts 
 were then paid to these Churches, and to them alone. But, in the
 
 ( 10 ) 
 
 be found ill the early annals of both the Church and Nation. 
 And tlicre is, at any rate, one very significant fact which is 
 patent to us all, and which, I think, speaks volumes on 
 this point. It is, that, when the Lords of Manors gave 
 our Churchyards to the Church, they did not make the 
 gift absolutely ; but, with regard to this, as well as other 
 property which they presented to the Church, they reserved 
 to themselves, and to their heirs and assigns, a right of 
 nominating, from time to time, the persons in whom the 
 freehold of this property should be successively vested. 
 And this right, or, if I may so call it, this reserved property, 
 in the Churchyards and the rest, has been actually trans- 
 mitted from the original donors, through all these many 
 
 course of time, the Lords of Manors (Thanes) began to build 
 Churches on their estates, and for their own families and dependants ; 
 and then they desired to have the tithes paid to their new Churches. 
 This, however, was expressly forbidden by a law of King Edgar, as 
 being a reappropriation on their part of funds which they had 
 already disposed of, and which had consequently passed out of their 
 control. Still, they were allowed by a subsequent law to transfer one- 
 third of their tithes to the new Church, on condition of its having a 
 burial-ground attached to it. From this, then, it appears that King 
 Edgar encouraged the Lords of Manors to give Churchyards to the 
 Church, though certainly these Churchyards can, in no true sense, be 
 said to have been the gift of the King himself or of the State. 
 
 Again, the Mortmain Acts throw some light on this question. 
 These Acts were meant to restrain private persons from giving their 
 lands to the Church ; and one of them (15 llich. II., c. 5) expressly 
 lays down that the giving of land for a Churchyard came witiiin the 
 prohibitory operation of these Acts. It cannot be said, therefore, 
 that, even at this later period, the Church owed her Clinrchyards to the 
 liberality of tlie State, thougli rarliament seems to have connived at 
 the appropriation of land for such an obviously necc-^sary purpose.
 
 ( il ) 
 
 centimes, imcler the name of patronage, to its present holders, 
 either by inheritance, beqnest, gift or sale ; though in some 
 instances it has passed to the Crown by way of lapse. Now 
 this, I think, is a very telling piece of evidence, as to where 
 our Churchyards came from in the first instance. 
 
 But, secondly, though, as I am aware, additions have 
 been made to the Churchyards since that time from a 
 different source, yet care has always been taken to render it 
 quite clear that these additions were made as gifts to the 
 Church. When ruch additions, indeed, became necessary 
 in a parish, and were not otherwise provided for, it was per- 
 mitted by the common law to a majority of the ratepayers, 
 in consideration of the benefit thus accruing to the whole 
 population, to levy a tax upon the entire body, under the 
 name of Church Rate, in order to obtain the needful ground 
 for this purpose. When, however, the ground had been thus 
 obtained by the parochial authorities, it was formally pre- 
 sented by them to the Bishop, as representing the Church, 
 and was by him formally accepted, on behalf of the Church, 
 and was then solemnly consecrated by him for the purpose of 
 burial according to tlie rites of the Church. So careful, then, 
 was the law in all this proceeding to guard the principle of 
 the ov/nership of the Church in our Churchyards. 
 
 But, thirdly, this principle has had a more signal and 
 ineffaceable endorsement given to it, in a very different 
 shape, through the legislation that took place, a few years 
 ago, with regard to the abolition of those very Church 
 Rates, which had before occasionally furnished the means of 
 making necessary additions to our Churchyards. A large 
 party, indeed, in the country— one, as it happened, very 
 nearly coinciding with the present political clients of Mr,
 
 ( 12 ) 
 
 Osborne Morgan himself — protested against being obliged 
 to pay Church Rates. They said to Churchmen, at that 
 time, " As for those Churches and Churchyards for which 
 these rates are levied, they are not ours, but yours. 
 We repudiate them. Take them, then, and maintain 
 them for yourselves and at your own cost, and do not 
 throw the burden any longer upon us." And, after a long 
 and persistent demand from this party to Parliament, to be 
 relieved from the payment of Church Rates, the demand 
 was at last acceded to, and the rates were abolished. And 
 from that time forward it was left to the Incumbent and 
 Churchwardens of each parish to provide as best they 
 could for the maintenance and enlargement of their 
 Churchyards, by means of voluntary rates and offerings. 
 Presumably, of course, these new funds are the contributions 
 of Churchmen, though there can be no doubt that a portion 
 of them comes now and then from Nonconformists and others ; 
 just as subscriptions are sometimes given by Churchmen 
 towards the establishment and support of Nonconformist 
 places of worship. But, as these latter contributions give 
 the donors no property in those places of worship, nor any 
 right to interfere with the character of the worship to be 
 used there, so the occasional offerings of Nonconformists do 
 not make our Churchyards less the property of the Church 
 and of Churchmen than they otherwise would be. 
 
 Looking, then, at all these facts, I think one is perfectly 
 justified in saying that the Churchyards are the special 
 property of Churchmen as such, and that if Parliament 
 were to deal with them in any way that was not in full 
 accordance with the views and feelings of Churchmen 
 generally, it would be guilty of the same kind, and of at
 
 ( 13 ) 
 
 least the same degree, of political injustice, as it would be 
 in dealing with our London and County Hospitals in the 
 way before referred to. 
 
 I know, however, it is sometimes contended that, even if 
 the Churchyards do belong to the Church, yet, as the 
 Church itself claims to be National, we must, of course, 
 assume that every Englishman is a member of it, and has 
 therefore an equal property in its Churchyards, and an 
 equal right to be buried there in whatever way may be most 
 agreeable to his own sentiments and convictions. 
 
 But in answer to this, I may observe, first, that, in 
 whatever sense the Church may be called National, it 
 certainly is not so, in such a sense as to make all Englishmen 
 members of it. For, in point of fact, and even in the eye 
 of the law, they are not all members of it, as, e.g., those 
 who are unbaptized. 
 
 And, secondly, if even it were a National Church in this 
 absolute and unrestrained sense, we should remember that 
 it has its own proper and national burial service ; and 
 therefore, while it may be perfectly logical, on the hypothesis 
 before us, to say that every Englishman has a right, when 
 he dies, to be buried in his parish Churchyard with the 
 national burial service* yet, on the other hand, if it be 
 
 * And certainly there does not appear to be any common law right 
 of burial in a Churchyard, except icith the Service of the Church, 
 and so, in fact, except to persons who are nominally Churchmen. Of 
 the only two classes of people who are buried there without it, viz., 
 suicides and the unbaptized, the former are so by virtue of Statute 
 law (4 George IV., c. 52, s. 2) ; while the other have apparently come 
 to be so buried by the acquiescence of the parochial authorities, 
 through lack of any other public burial ground.
 
 ( 1-i ) 
 
 contended, on the same liypotliosis, that he has a right to be 
 buried there wltJi any other service, it is not very easy to 
 understand the logic of such a contention. 
 
 Besides, as a matter of fact, those who are now claiming 
 for Nonconformists and others the right to be buried in our 
 Churchyards with other rites than tliose of the Church, are 
 doing so, not on the ground that they are, but on the dis- 
 tinct and express ground that they are not members of the 
 National Church, and that they do not like the National 
 Burial Service. So that, when people argue in favour of 
 such a concession on the ground of the alleged nationality 
 of the Church, one can hardly feel that their line of argu- 
 ment is even ingenuous, not to speak at all of its logic. 
 
 But, of course, if we are to look the matter honestly in 
 the face, we must admit at once, that, if even there ever 
 was a time when the Church could be said to be National, 
 in the sense of being commensurate with the nation, and 
 with the vv'hole extent of its population, — and there never 
 was a time when this could be said with perfect truth, — yet 
 certainly it cannot be said now. For, indeed, the Church 
 has ceased to be National, in anything like such a sense, 
 through the avowed withdravv'al from her Communion of a 
 large section of the people themselves. And this large 
 section have not only renounced her Communion, but have 
 also expressly repudiated all concern in her Churches and 
 Churchyards, and have, on this very ground, succeeded in 
 obtaining exemption from all liability to maintain them. So 
 that, indcetl, the Cliurchyards ought now to be frankly 
 recognized, both by these and by the nation at large, as the 
 concern and property of hond fide Churchmen, and of them 
 alone, I know, of course, that there are practical anomalies
 
 ( 15 ) 
 
 inYolvecl in such a state of things as this. But surely these 
 anomalies should be dealt v/ith fairly and honestly, on both 
 sides, and should not be turned, by either side, to one set 
 of uses on one occasion, and then, to an opposite set, 
 whenever it may happen to be convenient, for party purposes, 
 go to apply them.* Few Churchmen, I believe, will deny 
 that the present condition of things operates very disad- 
 vantageously, in many ways, to members of the Church, as 
 well as to those who have separated from her Communion. 
 And this applies, no doubt, among other things, to the 
 question of the Churchyards and of burial rites, — a question 
 on which, I am sure, both sides would joyfully hail some 
 change in more ways than one. But, at any rate, I am 
 persuaded that Churchmen generally would gladly see 
 effectual relief given to Nonconformists and others, in those 
 respects in which the existing state of the Burial Law 
 operates to their disadvantage. E.g,, I believe there are 
 few who would not rejoice to offer their voluntary contribu- 
 tions tov/ards providing new burial grounds in rural 
 districts; where, as in the urban cemeteries, all might 
 freely use their own burial rites ; although there can 
 be no doubt that it is the proper duty of the State, 
 rather than of any particular religious bod}^, to provide 
 places of burial for all alike, — for Churchmen, no less than 
 for others ; as, indeed, it has actually done, in the 
 case of our urban population. I may mention, too, 
 that I believe there are not a few Churchmen, clerical as 
 well as lay, who would willingly, as a matter of personal 
 kindness and friendship, accord to devout and orthodox 
 
 * See Note, p. 41.
 
 ( 10 ) 
 
 Nonconformists liberty to celebrate their own burial services 
 in our country Churchyards, although there would obviously 
 be a practical difficulty in carrying out such an arrangement, 
 unless those who were to avail themselves of it would con- 
 sent to use a definite formulary, as Churchmen have to do. 
 For, if liberty were to be given on any other terms, and 
 given only to the orthodox and devout, some one or more 
 persons would, of course, have to determine in each case 
 whether the requisite conditions were fulfilled, or not. And, 
 in doing so, they must inevitably, sooner or later, have to 
 draw the line of exclusion somewhere. But how intensely 
 painful this necessity would be to men of tender hearts, as 
 well as of tender consciences, — and I hope Mr. Morgan, and 
 Mr. Bright likewise, will believe that there are such persons 
 among Churchmen, and even among the Clergy, although 
 they may not perhaps agree with them on this burial 
 question, — I say how intensely painful it would be to such 
 persons to have to give a decision which they must know 
 could hardly fail to bring fresh grief to some already over- 
 burdened hearts. And I can well believe that there are 
 Churchmen to whom it would be almost easier to acquiesce 
 in Mr. Morgan's scheme of a complete neutralization of our 
 Churchyards, than to incur such a responsibility. 
 
 In saying this, however, I would not for one moment 
 be thought to imply that Churchmen generally are able to 
 feel anything at all like acquiescence in Mr. Morgan's 
 scheme, or, indeed, in any other that would involve an 
 enforced or extraneous neutralization of our consecrated 
 Churchyards, even if it were ever so partial a one. And, 
 considering the actual relations in which Churchmen and 
 the rest of the community now stand respectively to the
 
 ( 17 ) 
 
 Churchyards, it does appear to me that, if Parliament were 
 to pass any measure even tending in that direction, without 
 the clearl3'-expressed concurrence of a considerable majority 
 of bond fide Churchmen, it would be doing nothing less 
 than a very grievous act of political injustice. 
 
 And I venture to think there can be no reasonable 
 doubt as to what the real sentiments of Churchmen are, for 
 the most part, lay as well as clerical, on this question. I 
 might, indeed, appeal on this point to the almost unanimous 
 expressions of opinion that have been given at recent 
 Diocesan Conferences, — assemblies where, pre-eminently, 
 the voices of our most earnest and thoughtful Church laity 
 are to be heard. But I will rather appeal to another kind 
 of testimony, which will probably carry more weight with 
 politicians, generally speaking, and which, I confess, is to 
 my own mind absolutely irresistible ; all the more so, 
 indeed, because it comes to us through a somewhat oblique 
 and indirect medium, and is consequently the less open to 
 any suspicion of having been called into existence for the 
 mere occasion. The testimony to which I refer is that 
 which is to be drawn from the statistics of our urban 
 cemeteries. 
 
 Before, however, I proceed to make my immediate 
 appeal to this testimony, it may be well, perhaps, by way of 
 helping us better to appreciate its true value and signifi- 
 cance, that we should just look at one or two points in the 
 constitution of our urban cemetery system. 
 
 And, first, let us observe that the system is, in the 
 fullest possible sense of the expression, an institution of the 
 State; having been created entirely by Act of Parliament, 
 being maintained exclusively by means of public rates.
 
 { 18 ) 
 
 and being aclministerctl under the sole authority of the 
 State. 
 
 But, secondly, while it is thus a purely State institution, 
 yet it does its work, — that of affording to our urban popu- 
 lation the requisite means and facilities for burying their 
 dead, — with the utmost practicable regard for individual 
 freedom. It gives to all, indeed, perfect liberty to bury 
 their dead in just that manner and with those burial rites 
 and observances, religious or otherwise, which are most 
 agreeable to their own respective tastes and convictions. 
 
 And it is, as I conceive, in the strictest possible 
 accordance v/ith this very principle of liberty, that a certain 
 portion of each cemetery is always set apart and consecrated 
 for the exclusive use of those who desire to bury their dead 
 in such consecrated ground. 
 
 But, in order to understand the full significance of this 
 provision, as a measure of freedom, it is necessary, perhaps, 
 for us to bear in mind what consecration is, as applied to 
 places of burial ; not, however, so much vv^hat it is, in itself, 
 and in its spiritual essence, as what it is, in its legal and 
 practical effect upon such places. And, if we want to hnov/ 
 what this is, we have only to go into one of our urban 
 cemeteries, and to see there what it is that practically 
 distinguishes the consecrated from the unconsecrated 
 portion of it. And we shall see, first, that the difference 
 between them does not certainly consist in the former being 
 at all more effectually and permanently secured for the 
 purposes of burial than the other ; for, in tliis respect, we 
 shall find them both exactly alike. Nor, again, docs it mean 
 that tlic unconsecrated portion has not, like the consecrated, 
 a distinct and proper sacrcdness of its own. For Gliristian
 
 ( 10 ) 
 
 people, at all Gveiitt^, if none else, will be ready to admit 
 that any place wliicli lias been properly secured as a resting- 
 place for the bodies of redeemed men and women, till the 
 great and final day of resurrection, must havo derived some 
 special sacredness from this circumstance alone, quite 
 irrespective of any definite and formal act of religious 
 consecration. The real point of distinction, indeed, between 
 the two is, that, while the consecrated part admits of no 
 religious ministrations within it, except those of the Church 
 and of her clergy, the unconsecrated portion owns no such 
 restriction. And this, I may add, is really the thing which 
 distinguishes consecrated buildings, including cemetery 
 chapels, from those which are unconsecrated. 
 
 Now it is, as I presume, in the full cognizance of this 
 distinction, that Churchmen have always been allowed to 
 have one side of each urban cemetery consecrated for their 
 ov^'n special use. And, as I maintain, this concession has 
 been made to them in the clear interest of religious equality 
 and freedom, — on the principle, indeed, of giving to every 
 section of the community alike, whether Churchmen or 
 otherwise, the largest possible measure of individual 
 liberty. 
 
 And I may mention also that, in accordance with the 
 same principle, a similar concession is usually granted to 
 Roman Catholics, who have their special plot of ground for 
 their exclusive use, on the unconsecrated side of each ceme- 
 tery. And, for my own part, I can see no reason why any 
 other body of persons that is of sufficient number to justify 
 such a concession, or, in other words, to make it practicable, 
 — for, obviously, the indefinite subdivision of cemeteries would 
 be a physical impossibility,— should not have a like privi- 
 
 c 2
 
 ( 20 ) 
 
 lege, if they desired it. I am not aware, however, that any 
 other religious body has ever indicated any desire for it. 
 The religious Nonconformists, indeed, as a rule, seem 
 content to use their burial rites in company with those of 
 any other section of the community, — not even excluding 
 unbelievers and atheists, — if we may judge from the efforts 
 which they are using in order to secure for themselves this 
 companionship in our consecrated Churchyards ; not caring 
 very much, apparently that, in doing so, they are likewise, 
 in effect, seeking to force the same thing upon Church- 
 men, notwithstanding their known and avowed repugnance 
 to it. 
 
 I ought, however, perhaps, to mention one very esti- 
 mable body of Nonconformists, who seem to form an exception 
 to the prevailing indifference on this point ; viz., tlio Society 
 of Friends. For I find, among the published rules'^' of this 
 Society, the following : — " Burials of persons not members 
 of our religious Society may take place in our burial- 
 grounds, provided they be in all respects conducted as the 
 burials of Friends are conducted. Friends are to exercise 
 discretion as to complying with any application that may 
 be made in such cases ; and as to appointing a meeting for 
 worship on the occasion. — 1832 — 1861." And, certainly, 
 I cannot, for my own part, see why the sentiment 
 embodied in this rule should not bo gratified, in our urban 
 cemeteries, in the case of this Society, wherever their 
 numbers are sufficient to justify such a concession being 
 made to them. 
 
 * See " Doctrine, Practice, and Discipline," published in London 
 at tke Friends' Book Depository, 12, Bisliopsgate Without, 1864,
 
 ( 21 ) 
 
 But I know there are people, who, — somewhat in the 
 spu'it of those French politicians that seek to enforce purely 
 secular burial on their fellow-countrymen, and to suppress 
 all sorts of religious observances at funerals, — would object 
 to any concession being allowed to the sentiment in ques- 
 tion in any quarter. They would maintain, indeed, that the 
 sentiment is, in its very essence, illiberal, no less than 
 superstitious, and, therefore, that it is contrary to the true 
 principles of political freedom to give it any sort of favour or 
 countenance. 
 
 I venture, however, to challenge this doctrine at all 
 points. For, first of all, I will take upon me to deny that 
 the sentiment is either illiberal or superstitious. And, in 
 doing so, I think I am not only justified in assuming the con- 
 currence of the Society of Friends, but also in claiming the 
 practical support — as I shall presently show — of a very 
 large majority of the urban population of England. But, 
 secondly, I maintain that, even if the sentiment were both 
 illiberal and superstitious, this would form no sufficient 
 ground, on the truest principles of political freedom, for 
 refusing to it the concession of which I have been speaking. 
 Those principles, indeed, as they have been accepted by 
 Parliament, and frankly and courageously applied in the 
 constitution of our urban cemetery system, demand that the 
 whole population, without distinction of class or creed, shall 
 have the utmost practicable facility for burying their dead 
 in such manner and with such forms and usages, religious 
 or otherwise, as are most in accordance with their own 
 feelings and convictions. And, therefore, the question is 
 not whether those feelings and convictions are such as other 
 people, be they many or few, may happen to approve of.
 
 ( 22 ) 
 
 But it is, first, whether they are entertained by a sufficient 
 number of persons to make the required concession to them 
 practicable ; and then, of course, whether it can bo made 
 without inflicting wrong on any other sections of the 
 community. And, as regards the question of sufficiency of 
 numbers, this is obviously one to be determined, in each 
 case, as it arises, by the proper local authorities ; while, as 
 regards the other point, — that of inflicting wrong* on other 
 
 * A case of ostensible grievance was brought before the House of 
 Commons on the 15th February, 1878, by a member, who represented 
 it as his own ; though it wcuhl seem rather as if he were speaking in 
 jest, and intending only to state a pofslble and hypothetical case. 
 He describes himself as having had two wives, one a member of the 
 Church of England, and the other a Roman Catliollc, and as having 
 lost both; he himself being a Nonconformist, And his grievance 
 was that, having buried the former wife in the consecrated portion of 
 his urban cemetery, and the other in the Roman Catholic, and ex- 
 pecting himself to be buried in the neutral portion, he should be 
 separated alike from both. And he spoke of his grievance as if it 
 resulted in some way from a restriction on his liberty, under the 
 existing arrangements of our urban cemetery system. But, if he had 
 taken the trouble to think a little about the matter, he would have 
 seen that his grievance does not really arise from any restraint upon 
 his freedom, but, on the contrary, from a sheer excess of liberty, and 
 from nothing else. For who, let me ask, must have given orders for 
 the burial of each of his two wives, in the way described ? It must 
 have been, of course, himself. And he did so, no doubt, in both 
 instances, just because he thought he v/ouldthus be carrying out their 
 respective wishes. So that he was, obviously, on both occasions a free 
 agent, but unfortunately too free, inasmuch as he had the option of 
 consulting the supposed wishes of his two wives, when he Avould really 
 have preferred hamg forced to disregard the w'shes of both, so that ho 
 mii2,lit thus obtain for himself tlie double satisfaction of being buried
 
 ( ^3 ) 
 
 portions of the comai unity, — this is quite out of tlio cjuestion, 
 if only caro bo taken to carry the thing out in such a way 
 as not to involve imposing any undue share of pecuniary 
 burden upon other classes. For, as respects their liberty, 
 that would not bo affected by it in the slightest degree. 
 They would be left, in fact, just as free to use their own 
 burial rites in their own neutral portion of their cemetery, 
 as if no concession of the kind had ever been permitted to 
 any other class, whether Churchmen, Koman Catholics or 
 others. And, more than this, their liberty would not be the 
 least enlipjiccd, if every such concession were to be at once 
 cancelled, and if the consecrated, or otherwise appropriated, 
 portions of each cemetery were to be thrown together with 
 the rest, into one common and neutral ground. 
 
 I think, therefore, I am perfectly justified in maintaining 
 thot the concession of consecrated ground to Churchmen in 
 our urban cemeteries, — and this is my immediate point, — is 
 
 with his own form of burial service, and, at the same time, of having 
 his Anglican and Roman Catholic wives resting peacefully on either 
 side of him. 
 
 And here, by the way, I should like to observe that 1 think a great 
 deal too much has been made, in this burial controversy, of the point 
 of separating relatives in death. It is obvious, indeed, that, on every 
 occasion of establishing a new ur""oan cemetery, or of enlarging an old 
 Churchyard — which is a matter of continually recurring necessity — 
 sucli separation becomes inevitable, as the almost universal rule. And, 
 even in an established cemetery, or in any ordinary Churchyard, it is 
 almost impossible for people, unless they can afford to pay for the 
 reservation of a large space of ground, to secure being buried in close 
 proximity to their ancestors or near relatives. I cannot see, therefore, 
 Avliy this consideration should be made to override every other, as it 
 is often attempted to mate it, in dealing with this burial question^
 
 ( 24 ) 
 
 in the strictest possible accordance with the true principles 
 of civil and religious libert}^ For it is, in fact, only giving 
 to them what is given to all the rest of our urban population, 
 viz., the opportunity of burying their dead in the way most 
 agreeable to their own feelings and convictions. 
 
 And now, having made these remarks upon the consti- 
 tution of our urban cemetery system, I think I am in a 
 better position to make my proposed appeal to the statistics 
 of the cemeteries. And what is it that these statistics 
 show ? First of all, they show to what a large extent even 
 our urban population have testified their appreciation of the 
 opportunity afforded to them, in those cemeteries, of burying 
 their dead in consecrated ground, Lc, in ground where only 
 the ministrations of the Church and of her clergy are per- 
 mitted. And, secondly, assuming, as I think we may 
 undoubtedly venture to do, that this feeling is even very 
 far more prevalent and more earnest in rural than in the 
 urban districts, the statistics show, indirectly and by in- 
 ference, how very severe would be the blow inflicted upon 
 the great bulk of our rural population, if the opportunity 
 in question, which they have enjoyed so long in their parish 
 Churchyards, were now to be wrested from them, as Mr. 
 Morgan proposes to wrest it, by his scheme of total and 
 absolute neutralization. 
 
 I proceed then at once to appeal to these statistics, at 
 least, so far as I am able to do so. For I am sorry to say 
 there have been no Parliamentary returns on this point, as 
 I think, there might very well have been. So that, in fact, 
 I am obliged to content myself with some rather partial, 
 though still very valuable and interesting statistics, that 
 have been lately collected and published by the TIev. J.
 
 ( 25 ) 
 
 Milner, Rector of Middleton-in-Teesdale.* This gentleman 
 informs us that he " obtained a complete list of all the 
 Burial Board Cemeteries, and the names of many of the large 
 Cemetery Companies, and sent out a circular asldng for the 
 required information," and that he *' succeeded in obtaining 
 returns from nearly one-half of the former — about 250 — 
 and from seven of the latter." If these returns, therefore, 
 are not so complete as we could have wished, this is not 
 from any fault on Mr. Milner' s part. And although, un- 
 fortunately, returns are wanting from some very important 
 places, there are yet returns from other places not less im- 
 portant ; and, at all events, it cannot be said that the places 
 actually represented in the returns have been selected by 
 Mr. Milner himself, as being more favourable to the object 
 he had in view in collecting them. I am able, moreover, 
 to supplement these returns by a few additional particulars 
 taken from the Church Quarterly Review of January, 1877, 
 p. 508. So that I think we may fairly accept the whole as 
 a sufficient, though, of course, not exhaustive account of 
 the matter. And from these combined sources we learn 
 that in 271 cemeteries there have been, since their first 
 establishment, in the consecrated portions, 879,636 burials, 
 and, in the unconsecrated (including the Roman Catholic) 
 portions, 435,317; showing a proportion of rather more than 
 two to one in favour of the former. 
 
 These figures, then, prove that, in the cities and towns 
 
 * "The Burial Question: a Voice from the Cemeteries." By the 
 Rev. John Milner, B.A., F.B.G.S., Rector of Middleton-in-Teesdale, 
 and Chaplain in Ordinary to H.R.H. the Duke of Edinburgh. 
 London : William Ridgway, 169, Piccadilly, AV. Price Sixpence.
 
 ( 23 ) 
 
 liere represented, if not in all tbroiigliont tlic kingdom, 
 there have been at least two out of three of all the inhabi- 
 tants, who liave deliberately and spontaneously elected to 
 bury their dead in consecrated ground, i.e., in ground where 
 the ministrations of the Church and of her clergy alone are 
 permitted ; while they might, if they had preferred it, have 
 just as easily, and (as I am told) more cheaply, buried 
 them in the unconsecrated or neutral ground, where every 
 form of burial rite is freely admissible. And this choice, 
 be it remembered, has been made by these two -thirds of 
 the people, not under the excitement of political or sectarian 
 agitation, but on occasions when we must presume their 
 feelings to have been calmed and subdued under the 
 influence of sorrow and bereavement, and when, therefore, 
 their action may be taken as affording the truest index to 
 their real sentiments and convictions. 
 
 This verdict, moreover, given by so large a majority of 
 the urban population, and in so remarkable a manner, is 
 not to be contemptuously set aside, as people will often 
 attempt to set aside any merely clerical expression of 
 opinion on a subject of this description. For it is pre- 
 eminently a lay verdict, and one, too, that is all the more 
 telling and emphatic, in this very point of view, from 
 the fact of its emanating from our cities and towns ; where, 
 certainly, no one can say that clerical influence is 
 particularly rampant, whatever may be said sometimes of 
 our country villages in this respect. To my own mind, 
 indeed, these figures present a far more genuine and 
 trustworthy reflection of lay opinion on this subject, than is 
 to be derived from any conceivable number of got-up 
 declarations and petitions respecting it, or even from the
 
 ( 27 ) 
 
 many debates and divisions about it in botli Houses of 
 Parliament ; especially considering what great temptations 
 there are, often, in those places, even to politicians of the 
 highest rank, to subordinate such questions to the mere 
 interests of party warfare. 
 
 Looking, then, calmly and honestly at these statistics, 
 and at what they so plainly indicate, I cannot help thinking 
 that, in the view of any candid and truly liberal poli- 
 tician, it would seem a needless act of cruelty for Parliament 
 even only to deprive our urban population of the consecrated 
 portions of their cemeteries ; undeniably as, of course, it 
 may assert its right to deal with these cemeteries as (in 
 tlic fullest sense of the expression) the property of the 
 State. But it would surely be an act of tenfold greater 
 cruelty, and even injustice, to despoil our rural population 
 of their consecrated Churchyards. For, not to speak of the 
 far wider area of privation that would be thus inflicted, — and 
 I do not think there can be the smallest doubt that a vastly 
 larger number of people would be injuriously affected by 
 this latter measure, — it should be remembered, likewise, 
 that the persons thus affected can claim for themselves a 
 special right and property in their Churchyards, which urban 
 Churchmen can by no mOvans claim in the consecrated por- 
 tions of their cemeteries. Then, further, we should not 
 forget that the Churchyards are the precincts of the 
 Churches, And devout Churchmen are apt to feel that 
 whatever impairs in any way the sanctity cf their Church- 
 yard tends also, more or less, to impair that of the Church 
 itself. 
 
 And let me illustrate this latter point, as well as, indeed, 
 anotlier, at the same time, by indicating one of the possible
 
 ( 28 ) 
 
 results of Mr. Morgan's scheme, if it should ever become 
 law. 
 
 At present, as I need hardly mention, the Incumbent of 
 any parish holds by law the freehold of its Churchyard. 
 Still, he can, under no circumstances, perform there any 
 sort of burial service, except just that which is strictly en 
 joined in the Prayer Book. And I am not aware that Mr. 
 Morgan desires, or that any one else ever expects, to see a 
 relaxation of this rule. At][all events, I believe that, under 
 Mr. Morgan's scheme, the Incumbent would be just as 
 rigidly bound by the rule as he is now. Let him, however, 
 only resign his benefice, and with it, of course, the freehold 
 of the Churchyard, and let him then, further, proceed to 
 repudiate his Holy Orders and (so far as that is possible) 
 become a layman ; nay, let him take just one step more, 
 and renounce his Faith and become an Atheist ; and then 
 this very same individual may be invited by the surviving 
 relatives of some deceased quondam parishioner, who had, 
 perhaps, through his instrumentality, become an Atheist 
 like himself, to come back to the old Churchyard and 
 deliver a funeral oration over their kinsman's grave, possibly 
 within a few feet of the hallowed spot where the ex-Priest 
 had formerly been wont to celebrate the Holy Eucharist ; 
 and here, over this open grave, he may stand and pour 
 forth his impious utterances against GOD, and against 
 the Eternal State, and against all that Christians, not 
 to say Churchmen, hold dear and sacred. Nay, more, 
 this very same person, who, while he was Incumbent, 
 was under such rigid restraint in his own Churchyard, may 
 now, at the request of the surviving relatives of any de- 
 ceased person, go not only to his old Churchyard, but to
 
 ( 29 ) 
 
 any other Churchyard throughout the kingdom, and 
 may there give unbridled expression to whatever impiety 
 he pleases ; and this, too, be it remembered, not as a 
 mere casual irregularity which the proper authorities 
 should take care to prevent ; but in the exercise of an 
 indisputable legal right, which no authority in the realm, 
 not even the Queen herself, could challenge or interfere 
 with. And let it not be supposed that this is at all an 
 impossible case. Would, indeed, that we might believe it, 
 in the not very distant future, to be an altogether impro- 
 bable one ! But what, let me ask, would be the feelings of 
 devout Churchmen, who should see their Churchyard and 
 their parish Church alike thus insulted and desecrated ? 
 Nay, may I not ask, what would any congregation of 
 religious Nonconformists, who might happen to have a 
 burial-ground attached to their place of worship, be apt to 
 think, if they were compelled to witness a like scene taking 
 place there ? I cannot believe that they would look upon it 
 with any feelings at all approaching to resignation or 
 equanimity. 
 
 And now lot me call attention to another effect of Mr. 
 Morgan's scheme, as showing how unjust and oppressive its 
 operation would be, with respect to the consecrated burial- 
 grounds of Churchmen. And it is, that, under his scheme, 
 those grounds would become neutralized, as the direct con- 
 sequence, or, I might almost say, penalty, of their very 
 consecration. It would be the mere fact, indeed, of their 
 having been formally and solemnly consecrated by the 
 Bishop for the exclusive ministrations of the Church and of 
 her clergy, and nothing else, that would bring them within 
 the scope of his measure of neutralization.
 
 ( 30 ) 
 
 Let me explain this more fuU^^ It should be borne in 
 mind, then, that there are in the rural districts of England, 
 many Nonconformist places of burial. But, of course, Mr. 
 Morgan's scheme would not touch any of those. And why ? 
 Just because they have not been consecrated by a Bishop. 
 Again, if ',ve take the case of those numerous burial-grounds 
 which have been established by Churchmen during the last 
 fifty years or more, with the undoubted object of having 
 them used exclusively for the service of the Church, wc 
 might not unreasonably suppose that, if the donors of these 
 had only been able to anticipate Mr. Morgan's scheme of 
 neutralization, they would, at all events in many instances, 
 not have had them consecrated in the usual way, but would 
 have kept them in their own hands, or in the hands of 
 Trustees, and so vv^ould have secured them, in some such 
 way as Nonconformist burial-grounds arc usually secured, 
 for their intended purpose. And, I would ask, could Mr. 
 Morgan's scheme have reached these burial-grounds of 
 Churchmen in such a case ? I think not. Indeed, it would 
 be the fatal incident of their consecration, and nothing else, 
 that would bring them within its operation.* And so, with 
 
 * On February 19, 1879, Mr. Osborne Morgan said, in the House 
 of Commons, respecting the consecrated burial grounds given ]>y 
 private donors within the last fifty years, that " they have been given 
 to the Niition.^^ Now I should like to call his attention to the case of 
 Barnard Ciistle, — mentioned in the pamphlet of the llev. John Mihicr, 
 before referred to at page 25, — where, as we are told, the conse- 
 crated burial ground of tlie town " was given to the Church by the 
 Lord of the Manor, and the cost of fitliug it up and building a chapel 
 on it was defrayed by the voluntary contributions of Churchmen, 
 At the same time anotlier piece of ground was given by the same donor
 
 ( ol ) 
 
 regard to any faiuro burial-grounds that Churclimen miglit 
 desire to establish, under similar conditions, in the event of 
 Mr. Morgan's scheme becoming law. I suppose that, so long 
 as these grounds should remain unconsecrated, they might 
 be kept used in strict conformity with the intentions of their 
 founders. But, if any founders should incontinently yield 
 to the temptation of letting the Bishops into them to con- 
 secrate them, then the grounds Vv^ould become, by that very 
 process alone, neutralized, or, in other words, disconsecrated. 
 So that, in fact, under the operation of Mr. Morgan's 
 scheme, formal religious consecration would be simply 
 transformed into legal and practical disconsecration ; and 
 all this, in the vaunted name of civil and religious liberty ! 
 
 But I must now hasten to a conclusion. And I should 
 desire my conclusion to be, as far as possible, a practical 
 one. For I do not wish to expend my force, v/hatever it 
 may be, on mere criticism. I admit, then, most freely, that 
 some nev/ legislation is required on this subject. For it is 
 easy to see that there are grievances, at least in our country 
 parishes, vidiich need to be promptly and effectually dealt 
 
 to the Dissenters, and a third portion to the Roman Catholics for use 
 as burial-grounds." Now I should like to know whether or not iMr. 
 Morgan considers the latter two grounds to have been " given to the 
 Nation ;" and, if not, why they are not, while the consecrated ground 
 of the Church is supposed to be thus given. Is it that he thinks the 
 consecration makes all the difference ? In other words, is that which 
 was meant to have the effect of excluding all other burial rites but 
 those of the Church, to be made the sole ground and plea for ad- 
 milting every other ? For this is obviously the praqticpj issue of hiss 
 co]iteution.
 
 ( S2 ) 
 
 with. There is, c.r/., the undoubted grievance of the religious 
 Nonconformist, who has, generally speaking, no opportunity^ 
 in a rural parish, of burying his dead in the way that would 
 naturally be most full of comfort to him in his hour of deep 
 sorrow and desolation. Then, there is the grievance of the 
 unbeliever and Atheist, which, though not as yet, perhaps, 
 so importunate in its cry for redress, will, no doubt, as 
 infidelity becomes more open and aggressive, declare itself 
 with increasing obtrusiveness and emphasis. Churchmen, 
 too, and especially the Clergy,* have their indisputable 
 grievances, with regard to the Burial Question, though 
 theirs, for the most part, are such as fall within the pro- 
 vince of ecclesiastical, rather than of imperial, legislation. 
 But those other grievances, before-named, are strictly and 
 properly political, and should be dealt with by Parliament, 
 and at once. Let them, however, be dealt with honestly 
 and manfully ; not, indeed, as mere matters of party 
 
 * It is surely a very serious grievance to a conscientious clergyman, 
 who has any sense of the meaning and force of words, to have to use 
 the language of our Burial Service in some cases where the law now 
 compels him to use it. This grievance was alluded to by Mr. Bright, 
 in his very temperate and considerate speech in the House of Commons, 
 on Feb. 15, 1878 ; when he suggested as a remedy that the language 
 of the service should be toned down so as to suit any and every case. 
 This, however, I conceive, would involve a needless privation to the 
 friends and relatives of persons who had really lived a Christian life 
 and died a Christian death. Are there not other ways of meeting 
 the difficulty? Would it not be better, e.g., to retain the present 
 service for hond fide Communicants, according to the terms of the 
 llubric at the end of the Commucion Service, and of Canon XXT. 
 (1604), and then to have a new service, such as Mr. Bright suggests, 
 for the rest ?
 
 ( 38 ) 
 
 manoeuvre, with, perhaps, ulterior views to something else ; 
 but in a straightforward and statesmanlike spirit, with a 
 simple regard to the true nature of the grievances to be 
 redressed, and to the most appropriate and effectual means 
 of redressing them. And, above all, do not let us, in en- 
 deavouring or pretending to remove one set of grievances, 
 create fresh oneS) that would probably be felt even more 
 keenly, as well as far more widely, than those now ex* 
 isting. 
 
 And the proper remedy is really as simple and easy as 
 it could well be. Let Parliament, indeed, only deal with 
 the question on the most obvious principles of political 
 justice and right, and the thing may be done at once. For, 
 let me ask, whose real business and duty is it to provide the 
 means and facilities of burial for our rural, as well as for all 
 our other population, Churchmen, Nonconformists and all, 
 alike ? It is not surely the work of Churchmen in par- 
 ticular, nor yet of any other religious body, except just so 
 far as they may choose to undertake it themselves ; in 
 which case Parliament would, of course, naturally leave 
 them free to do it in their own way, so that they only took 
 care to avoid infringing any sanitary and other laws in 
 their mode of procedure. But it is obviously the normal 
 function of the State to make this provision wherever and 
 whenever it may be required, and to do so by means of 
 public taxes bearing on the whole community alike. 
 
 I believe that Mr. Morgan's party meet this pro- 
 posal with the cry that it would add to the already too 
 severe local burdens of the agricultural ratepayer. And no 
 one would sympathize with that objection more sincerely 
 than myself. But even supposing that the whole expense
 
 ( 34 ) 
 
 were to fall on the local ratepayer, — which is, I think, by no 
 means to be taken for granted, — I should still maintain that 
 if the thing were only carried out in a sensible, practical, 
 and business-like manner, the tax involved, wherever it 
 might fall, would be almost infinitesimal, and would cer- 
 tainly not bear the slightest comparison with that of a School 
 Board, which, however, Mr. Morgan's party are only too 
 eager to force, if they can, upon every district, agricultural 
 or otherwise, throughout the kingdom. 
 
 But let me briefly suggest a method of dealing with the 
 question, — nearly corresponding with that of the Govern- 
 ment, in 1877, — which would, I think, be at once simple, 
 economical and just. 
 
 And, first, I should say, let the Churchyards be left 
 alone, except that they should all be subjected to an imme- 
 diate Government Inspection, and, when reported full, be 
 closed at once against all future burials, whether of Church- 
 men or others. It is quite revolting to see, as one often 
 does, beside an open grave, decayed fragments of a coffin, or 
 even human remains, lying exposed among the soil that has 
 been dug out of it. No ground, surely, ought to be used a 
 second time in any Churchyard; and, when all of it has 
 been used once, the Churchyard should either be closed or 
 enlarged forthwith. If, however, the Churchmen of a 
 parish are willing to enlarge their Churchyard, or otherwise 
 to have a new burial-ground elsewhere for their own use, let 
 them do so, of course ; but only at their own cost. And, if 
 they decline to do this, then let them take their chance with 
 other people in the cemeteries to be hereafter provided at 
 the public expense. 
 
 These new cemeteries would obviously not be of neces-
 
 ( 35 ) 
 
 sity parochial, like the Churchyards. But this would involve 
 no inconvenience to any religious body, except, perhaps, to 
 Churchmen, since no other is, in any sense, parochial in its 
 organization. And it would, no doubt, very often be found 
 convenient, as well as more economical, to combine two or 
 more parishes, so as to form a district with an aggregate 
 population of (say) not less than two thousand. Each Poor 
 Law Union, indeed, might be divided into districts of this 
 kind, and the Board of Guardians, with the aid of local or 
 district committees, would naturally be the body to under- 
 take the formation and administration of the cemeteries for 
 the several districts comprised in the Union. 
 
 Supposing, then, that for each of such districts a 
 cemetery, consisting of (say) an acre, more or less, were 
 provided, and were furnished with a suitable fence, entrance, 
 and gravel-walk, such as may be seen in any tolerably 
 well-appointed country Churchyard, this is really all that 
 could be required as a matter of necessity. For I should 
 certainly, for my own part, say that there is no need what- 
 ever for these expensive and unsightly erections, — the duplex 
 chapels, — which usually disfigure our urban cemeteries. If 
 people wish to have any in-door service at their funerals, 
 whether they be Churchmen or otherwise, they would surely 
 find it far more comforting to have them in their own usual 
 place of worship, or even at home, than in these hideous 
 and abnormal structures. And, even if this should involve 
 the necessity of going a little out of their way, yet, as 
 funerals are, happily, not of very frequent occurrence in 
 families, this would hardly be a matter of any great con- 
 sideration. At all events, it is what rural Nonconformists 
 would have to submit to, under Mr. Morgan's scheme, if 
 
 D 2
 
 ( 36 ) 
 
 tliey desired an in-door service ; since he does not, as yet, 
 propose to admit them into the Churches, but only to the 
 Churchyards. 
 
 And now let us see what would be the probable cost of a 
 cemetery of this kind, even supposing that the land for it 
 had to be purchased at its full market value ; though I have 
 little doubt that, for such a purpose, it would often be sold 
 at an almost nominal price, if not even given, by liberal 
 landowners. It would be well, however, perhaps, in any 
 legislative measure, such as I am here suggesting, to provide 
 against the possibility of extortionate demands, in case of 
 any proprietors being otherwise disposed. But, assuming 
 the land to have been purchased at its full market value — 
 and, as it would most probably be selected in some retired 
 situation, its value could hardly be very considerable — I 
 should think that the entire cost, including fence, gates and 
 gravel walks, need not exceed £60 or £80. Let us take it, 
 however, at the larger amount, and let us suppose that this 
 sum is borrowed from the Public Works Loan Commis- 
 sioners, and made repayable in (say) forty yearly instalments, 
 — the School Board loans are repayable in fifty years, — this 
 would involve an annual liability of £2 in respect of instal- 
 ment of principal. Then, as regards interest, I should 
 venture to suggest that Parliament might not unreasonably 
 allow such loans to be made free of this charge. For I 
 cannot think that, under all the circumstances of the case, 
 the general tax-payer would have any pretence for com- 
 plaining of this, as it is obviously most unjust to lay all the 
 burden of burying the whole community upon the owners of 
 rateable property alone. But, even supposing that Parha- 
 ment could not be brought to accede to this most equitable
 
 ( 37 ) 
 
 proposal, and that, in consequence, an average yearly interest 
 of (say) £2 had to be paid upon the loan, for the full 
 period of forty years, this would bring up the entire 
 annual charge to £4. Assuming, then, as we have been 
 doing, that the cemetery is to serve for a district of at least 
 two thousand people, we may fairly estimate the rateable 
 value of such a district at not less than ^10,000. So that, 
 in fact, the annual rate that would have to be levied upon 
 the district, in order to meet this yearly charge of d£4, 
 would be something less than one-tenth of a penny in the 
 pound.* 
 
 So much, then, for the first establishing of the 
 cemetery. And, as regards the care of it afterwards, I feel 
 
 * There are some persons who seem to think it quite unreasonable 
 that the ratepayers should ever be expected to provide new burial- 
 grounds, even at this very trifling cost, and who take it for granted 
 that things are always to go on as they are now, even though our 
 Churchyards should become neutralized, as Mr. Morgan proposes that 
 they should be. But what right has any one to assume that, when 
 our Churchyards are full — and many of them are so already, while the 
 rest are fast filling— Churchmen will care to enlarge them, or to pro- 
 vide new burial-grounds elsewhere, under the very altered circum- 
 stances of the case ? For, if it be so very unreasonable, as some appear 
 to think, that the whole body of the ratepayers should be called on to 
 provide burying-places for the entire community, when, with their 
 facilities for borrowing, they can do the thing so easily and at so light 
 a cost, can it be so very rational to expect that Churchmen will be 
 anxious to go on for ever volunteering this provision, when they have 
 not only to pay down at once the; full purchase money for the new 
 grounds, with every other item of cost, but have also to see the 
 grounds used afterwards, under conditions of which they themselves 
 so thoroughly disapprove ?
 
 ( 38 ) 
 
 snre there would be no difficulty in finding some trustworthy 
 person, who would be quite willing to undertake this, in 
 return for the usual Sexton's fees and gratuities. And, as to 
 any other expenses, these would, I suspect, be more than 
 defrayed by the sums received for graves, head-stones, &c., 
 leaving, probably, a balance over, to be applied towards 
 reducing the one-tenth of a penny rate. 
 
 Then, as to what I may perhaps call the internal 
 religious economy of each cemetery, I would venture to 
 suggest that the utmost practicable consideration should 
 be shown, in this respect, to the wishes and feelings of all 
 who might have to make use of them. E.g.j Eoman 
 Catholics, where there were any, should be allowed to have 
 their special corner reserved for them, as in the urban 
 cemeteries. Again, I can see no reason why one or more 
 communities of Nonconformists might not, if they wished, 
 and could agree among themselves about it, have a portion 
 allotted to them, in Hke manner ; nor yet why secularists and 
 unbelievers should not, if they cared for it, have their 
 portion also. Churchmen, too, I suppose, might have their 
 portion, — though not necessarily consecrated by the Bishop, 
 — if, through the closing of their Churchyards, and the 
 absence of any proper Church burial-ground, they should 
 desire it. And it ought, of course, to be understood that, 
 whatever expenses might happen to attend upon any such 
 appropriations of ground should always be defrayed by the 
 parties on whose application they were granted by the burial 
 authorities of the district. I need scarcely add that there 
 would, of necessity, be still an ample residue of neutral 
 ground, where every form of burial rite might be used that 
 was desired, not even excluding any of those for which
 
 ( 39 ) 
 
 special provision had already been made in the reserved 
 portions of the cemetery. 
 
 Now I cannot but think that this mode of dealing with 
 the burial difficulty would be at once practical, inexpensive, 
 liberal, and just. In these latter respects, indeed, it would 
 be framed almost exactly on the same lines as our present 
 urban cemetery system. And it would afford to rural Non- 
 conformists, as well as to other now aggrieved persons, 
 just the relief they need and ask for, without inflicting on 
 Churchmen the very serious wrong involved in Mr. Morgan's 
 scheme. For that scheme, as I have before shown, would 
 rob Churchmen — in their own Churchyards, too, which are 
 their own special property, and are kept up and (when 
 needful) enlarged at their own cost — of a privilege which, 
 in our cities and towns, has been frankly and generously 
 accorded to them entirely at the public cost. 
 
 I have sometimes heard people say, in support of Mr. 
 Morgan's and other such like schemes for admitting alien 
 burial rites into our country Churchyards : — " The Non- 
 conformists and others in our cities and towns have the 
 opportunity of burying their dead as they like best ; why 
 not give to rural Nonconformists the same opportunity, 
 and so put country and town on the same level in this 
 respect?" And I should say in reply: — " By all means, 
 do place both on the same level ; but let it be a real, honest, 
 uniform, and consistent level. And, while you give to rural 
 Nonconformists and the rest, as is right, with open hand, all 
 that their brethren in the cities and towns already enjoy, 
 do not deprive rural Churchmen of a privilege, which is at 
 present both rightfully possessed, and deeply and grate- 
 fully appreciated, by Churchmen in town and country
 
 ( 40 ) 
 
 alike. And may I not venture to claim as much as this, 
 at least, for rural Churchmen, not on the grounds of 
 political justice and equity alone, but also in the honoured, 
 though too often misappropriated, name of civil and re- 
 ligious liberty ?"
 
 ( 41 ) 
 
 NOTE. (Seep.U.) 
 
 I might, perhaps, be asked whether I should myself be prepared 
 to give due weight to these anomalies, in their bearing upon the 
 question of disestablishment. And I should answer at once that 1 am 
 quite prepared to do so, and should not shrink for a moment from 
 dealing with the whole subject from that point of view, on a proper 
 occasion, though I can hardly be expected to do so at any length here. 
 I may remark, however, by the way, that, in treating of the general 
 question of disestablishment — and of disendowment likewise — a very 
 important distinction needs always to be kept in mind. For it is 
 obviously one thing to admit — which, probably, most loyal Churchmen 
 would be willing to do, — that, if the Church had not been long since 
 established in its present legal status and authority, it might be 
 impossible, even if it would be just or politic, to establish it in that 
 sense now, for the first time, considering its diminished proportions. 
 But it is another and a very different thing to allow — which I 
 believe few Churchmen would be willing to do — that justice and 
 sound policy demand its immediate disestablishment, under all the 
 circumstances of the case, merely because of its reduced numbers and 
 influence. 
 
 And, similarly, as regards the question of disendowment, it may 
 be freely admitted that, if the work of endowing the Church were now 
 to be undertaken for the first time, a considerable portion of what 
 she at present enjoys, including a good deal of the tithes, would not 
 be found among her endowments. For, of course, we can hardly 
 suppose that those who are outside of the Church would now volun- 
 teer the payment of tithes. But, when we come to the question of
 
 ( 42 ) 
 
 dispossessing lier of her actual property, it is by no means so easy 
 to say what either justice or sound policy might dictate, with regard 
 to it. For my own part, I think that the same principles should be 
 observed in dealing with the endowments of the Church, that would 
 be adopted in dealing with those of any unestablished religious com- 
 munity which might happen to be in possession of large property. 
 For it is quite unhistorical to suppose that endowment is a mere 
 incident or consequence of establishment, even in the case of the 
 Church of England. Supposing, then, that any other religious body 
 were possessed of large endowments, which had been given to it at a 
 time when its numbers were far greater than at present ; let me ask, 
 what extent of decrease in those numbers would be deemed suf- 
 cient to necessitate the total, or even partial, confiscation of such 
 endowments, on the part of the legislature? It is, no doubt, quite 
 conceivable that the amount of diminution might become so extreme, 
 as to leave the endowments entirely without any appropriate claimants ; 
 in which case, they would obviously lapse to the State, as their primary 
 and natural proprietor. But surely a far smaller measure of decrease 
 might render it incumbent on the legislature to readjust their applica- 
 tion, from time to time, or even to make an entirely new distribution 
 of them? And in a similar way, but only in such a way, could it ever 
 be, as 1 conceive, the duty of Parliament to deal with the endowments 
 of the Church. For it is absurd to say that the Church originally 
 received them from the State. A good deal of her property, indeed, 
 has been at different times, whether rightly or wrongly, taken away 
 from her by the State. But very little can be said to have been ever 
 given by it. Even the tithes were not the gift of the State. The 
 Church, no doubt, from the first, taught her members, as Moses had 
 taught the Israelites, to give tithes to their clergy. And, accordingly, 
 the landowners, from the highest to the lowest, from the King to the 
 humblest Thane, seem at once to have made the payment of tithes a 
 perpetual charge upon their respective lands. And, although the State 
 has, from time to time, legislated for the regulation of such payment, 
 it certainly cannot be said to have created the charge. 
 
 I may be told, perhaps, that all this might have held good, if it had 
 been said of the Church as it existed before the Reformation ; but that
 
 ( 43 ) 
 
 the Reformation has entirely altered the state of the case. But, if this 
 means anything, it means that the Church is now a different Church 
 from the unreformed one, and in fact, that it is a neiv Church. I can 
 only say, however, that those who took the chief part in the Reforma- 
 tion of the Anglican Church would have been deeply affronted if they 
 had been told that they were creating a new Church. This, indeed, 
 was as far as possible from their intentions ; for we know that they 
 did their utmost to preserve its continuity, not only by maintaining 
 unbroken its line of episcopal succession, but also by perpetuating, to 
 a very great extent, its ancient ecclesiastical constitutions and laws. 
 
 Swift & Co., Printers, Newton Street, High Holborn, W.C.
 
 
 r*^^* 
 
 I 
 
 ^-^'-'t 
 
 
 w ft 
 
 4- 
 
 ''?^ ^i 
 
 
 ^^'1 
 
 a^, ^^^v