'^^^:^.^- 
 
 ^ 
 
 "^- 

 
 LI E) RAR.Y 
 
 OF THL 
 
 UN IVERSITY 
 
 or ILLINOIS
 
 PETERBOROUGH DIOCESAN CONFERENCE, 
 
 Oct. 26, 1877. 
 
 BUKIALS BILL. 
 
 What is the present duty of Churchmen respecting 
 the Burials Question ? 
 
 Mr. Heygate, M.P. — I confess to have undertaken the task 
 of opening this discussion with considerable hesitation. That 
 hesitation arises, not from any doubts as to the rights of the 
 question in the abstract, or as to the expediency of resisting 
 the claim (which was first set up some twelve or thirteen years 
 ago, but which was never seriously urged until the abolition of 
 compulsory Church Rates,) of equal unconditional rights of all 
 persons in our consecrated Churchyards, nor do I believe that 
 any real grievance has been felt, much less substantiated, on 
 the part of those who ask for the removal of the conditions 
 subject to which the common right of burial has been so long 
 enjoyed. On these points I see no reason to vary or modify the 
 views I have all along entertained, in common with those who 
 have resisted the claim from the first, believing it to be (as 
 indeed many plainly avow it to be) simply one step to Dis- 
 establishment. 
 
 My present hesitation arises from the new and unexpected 
 position in which the question has been placed by the action of 
 the House of Lords, and notably of our two Archbishops, which
 
 led to the withdrawal of the Government Bill of last Session. It 
 is impossible not to feel that we have arrived at a fresh point of 
 departure in the history of this controversy, and it becomes the 
 duty of Churchmen once again calmly to review the situation, 
 and try to discover whether any compromise is possible, whether 
 any concession is expedient, and whether by meeting the attack 
 half way we can in any degree modify the mischief which I fear 
 must result from the admission of any and every kind of service 
 by any and every kind of person in those ancient Burial Grounds 
 which are so closely connected with our Churches, and which 
 are endeared to us by so many associations. 
 
 I do not desire, nor is it necessary to our present purpose, to 
 argue out closely the whole case of the Burials controversy. I 
 think I may take it for granted, after last year's debate, that 
 the great majority of the members of this Conference have pretty 
 decided convictions on the question ; but it is necessary, in order 
 to reply to the queries I have suggested, to examine for a 
 moment the nature and origin of the demand made. 
 
 Be it observed, then, that the demand is simply this, that 
 certain conditions hitherto attaching to Churchyard interments 
 should be removed. No one has ever proposed to limit the 
 ancient right, or to impose fresh or invidious distinctions at 
 the grave. At baptism, at marriage, at her ordinary services. 
 and at the grave, the Church knows of no sect or distinction. 
 All are entitled to the same service (with the exception of the 
 unbaptized and suicides), and the very liberality of the Church 
 in this respect has been made an accusation against her on the 
 part of religious Dissenters. It is necessary to remind ourselves 
 of this, because we so often hear the question argued as if the 
 Church were desirous of ousting Dissenters from some ancient 
 right — as if the aggression was from our side — as if we were 
 anxious to impose some new difficulty in the way of Noncon- 
 formist burial ; and I really beheve that many quiet good people 
 actually imagine that such is the case ! Now let any one ask 
 
 ^^ivTfe , 

 
 himself and inquire among his neighbours whether, with the 
 exception of a dissenting minister here and there, any sensible 
 number of persons (I might almost say any person at all) has 
 asked for a change of the existing law. Further — and this is 
 very significant — does the demand proceed from the country 
 districts, unprovided with public cemeteries, to which alone the 
 change proposed would apply ? I believe the answer would be 
 almost universally in the negative. We all know that Wales is 
 the great focus of the agitation, and yet statistics tell us that 
 even there at least one in every three Dissenting Chapels has 
 a Burial Grround attached to it, and as there are often two, 
 three, or more chapels in each Parish, it follows that nearly 
 every Parish possesses already the opportunity of interment with 
 other services and other ministers than those of the Church of 
 England. 
 
 Then again, though the question has now been on the tapis 
 for a dozen years, to how small an extent was it put forward at 
 the last General Election. I have asked many M.P.'s their own 
 experience, and have been assured that the subject was hardly 
 even mentioned. No wonder then that on the last division in 
 the House of Commons Mr. Osborne Morgan was defeated by 
 108 English votes and the majority reduced to 33 by Welsh, 
 Scotch, and Irish votes alone. The Bill only affects England 
 and Wales, and counting Welsh votes there was a majority of 
 95 against it. 
 
 Now all this proves that the agitation is entirely fictitious and 
 political, and proceeds from a feeling which is not to be allayed 
 by concession. 
 
 Let us look at another point. The population of England and 
 Wales is in round numbers about twenty-two millions. Of these 
 fourteen millions have means of burial according to their own rites 
 in cemeteries already existing. Eight millions remain, for the most 
 part the population of our rural parishes, and of these three-fourths
 
 are Churchmen, leaving two million only out of the twenty-two 
 who can possibly desire a change. But it is notorious that the 
 vast majority of these are quite contented as it is, and prefer 
 the Church Service and the Church Ministers at their funerals, 
 as the statistics of Cemeteries abundantly prove. 
 
 We thus see the real proportion of the grievance, and surely never 
 was so important a change of law proposed in deference to so infinite- 
 simal a grievance. Surely the majority of the House of Lords 
 must have been what Mr. Bright calls " up in a balloon " when 
 they voted last summer for the Harrowby Amendment. It has 
 been well said, " The majority no doubt pictured to itself a vast 
 number of pious persons who in the hour of sorrow are harshly 
 deprived of the comforts afforded them by the Ministers of their 
 own persuasion, and thought that the removal of restrictions 
 would cause a cordial feeling between Dissenters and Church- 
 men, not dreaming that the invader is an intolerant foe. If this 
 view had been correct, the matter would have been long since 
 conceded." The majority of the House of Lords are not ac- 
 quainted with the practical side of the matter. A few years ago 
 the average Nonconformist too was entirely ignorant that he had 
 such a grievance, and we have candid admissions, enough and 
 to spare, which disclose the real object of the movement. 
 
 We are referred often to the experience of Ireland in this matter, 
 and I well remember that, on the last occasion when petitions 
 in favour of Mr. Osborne Morgan's Bill were got up and pre- 
 sented to the House of Commons, a very large proportion pro- 
 ceeded from Ireland and Scotland ! The illustration is singularly 
 unhappy. The history is very brief and telling. In Ireland at 
 first a Bill was passed permitting various services in the church- 
 yards hy leave of the Rector. Next, the necessity to obtain the 
 Hector's licence was abolished. Thirdly, the Church was dis- 
 established and disendowed ! Post hoc is not always propter 
 hoc, but I hardly think the Irish example is a tempting one to 
 follow.
 
 Knowing what we do of the Liberation Society, its vast reve- 
 nues, its numerous publications, and its avowed aims, I believe 
 there must always be a grievance which will be the stalking-horse 
 of the moment, and that unless we can see reality in it ourselves, 
 and that justice requires its removal, nothing is to be gained by 
 mere concession for concession's sake. I regret to come to this 
 conclusion. I wish I could see it differently, but 1 cannot. I 
 think concession reached its limits in the Government proposals 
 of last Session. Silent Burial legalised, where desired ; 
 shortened service to be used at the request of friends ; cemetery 
 system to be extended in certain cases. These are the lines on 
 which concession alone can proceed without doing violence to 
 feelings we are bound to respect on the other side. They are, 
 roughly speaking, the lines of the Government Bill, and I think 
 we owe the latter a debt of gratitude for the proposals they 
 made. They were, to a great extent, in conformity with what 
 was demanded, and with the customs of many classes of Non- 
 conformists ; but we know how the offer was received, how it was 
 denounced as an insult, and how the Primate, after winding up 
 his first speech on the Bill in the House of Lords by saying 
 that it would be " acceptable to the great majority of our sen- 
 sible Dissenting brethren," helped (of course unintentionally) 
 to wreck the Measure by supporting a clause inconsistent with 
 its main provisions. 
 
 It is true that the fatal Amendment aimed at providing for 
 the Christian character of the new services it sought to legalise. 
 Nothing could be more futile. All past experience proves that 
 such " securities " are not worth the paper on which they are 
 written. 
 
 Any limitations of the kind proposed would but lead to 
 fresh agitation, and would soon be swept away. Moreover, 
 they would be illogical and unjust. We have already gone 
 over all that ground years ago in the Lower House. Mr. 
 Morgan himself made the attempt in one of his many Bills, and 
 abandoned it as untenable. In his Bill of 1873 he proposed
 
 6 
 
 to limit the services and define the Minister, but he only found 
 that he offended his best supporters. 
 
 The Conference of London Clergy and Dissenting Ministers 
 in 1875 failed to agree on this one point, and broke off their 
 negotiations as the result. And, still later, we are assured by the 
 Nonconformist newspaper that "to deny to any Jew, or Posi- 
 tivist, or Secularist the use of such observances as he 
 approves in Burial Grounds, that are as much his property as 
 ours, is entirely inconsistent with religious equality." 
 
 I am driven, then, most reluctantly to the conclusion that the 
 question does not now admit of compromise. It is simply 
 childish to imagine you can disestablish the Church in the 
 Churchyard, and establish in its place a sort of " Christianity 
 unattached." If it comes to the worst, it would seem to be 
 better policy to allow the churchyards to be severed from the 
 Churches, to be, so to speak, de-consecrated, handed over to the 
 State as the one Burial Authority, and controlled by it. You 
 must have one master in the churchyard, and, if he is not hence- 
 forth to be the Parson, the State is obviously the proper autho- 
 rity to make all the necessary regulations, and insure the decent 
 conduct of all funerals therein. The suggestion is open to obvious 
 objections, but it has this great advantage, that thereby a line is 
 drawn (and in no other way that I can see can a line be drawn) 
 between the use of the Church and the Churchyard. 
 
 My answer then to the question submitted for our discussion is, 
 that " the present duty of Churchmen respecting the Burials 
 Question " remains, as hitherto, to resist proposals similar to those 
 of Mr. Osborne Morgan and Lord Harrowby, but at the same time 
 to facilitate by every means in their power the formation of public 
 cemeteries in places where no other means of interment exists 
 beyond that afforded by the Churchyard, and where there would 
 seem to be any reasonable desire for their establishment. 
 
 But let us suppose that such resistance is unavailing (and I be- 
 lieve it will be the fault of Churchmen themselves if such should
 
 be the case), let us see what modifications can be suggested which 
 mipht mitigate the injustice. The following Amendments would 
 appear to be only reasonable. The Act (supposing an Act to be 
 passed admitting services of all kinds in the Churchyards) should 
 not apply 
 
 I. In the Churchyard of any parish or district which at the 
 time of the passing of the Act contained a cemetery or other 
 available place for burials. 
 
 II. In the Churchyard of any parish or district where any 
 public cemetery should be thereafter provided, by gift, subscrip- 
 tion, or otherwise, subject to the approval of a Secretary of 
 State. 
 
 III. In any Churchyard provided entirely by private bene- 
 faction within a period of ( — ) years before the passing of such 
 Act and attached to a Church. 
 
 Conditions similar to these, though not exactly identical, have 
 already been proposed by Mr. Osborne Morgan and his friends 
 in some of the numerous Bills brought forward by them within 
 the last few years, and could not therefore be so successfully 
 resisted by them. They would have the advantage of meeting 
 the case by removing the only shadow of grievance that has 
 ever been made good, viz., that, in parishes where no other 
 available means of interment existed, a deceased person must 
 either be buried with the Church Service or with none at all ; 
 at the same time affording an opportunity to those who valued 
 the sanctity of their consecrated Churchyards of retaining them 
 as hitherto hj submitting to a certain pecuniary sacrifice. 
 
 I do not flatter myself that these conditions would satisfy 
 politicians who, like Sir W. Lawson, say, " I admit fully — let 
 me be honest about it — that if you let the Nonconformist into the 
 Churchyard, it is only a step towards letting him into the 
 Church ;" nor do I believe it would be wise to rely on such 
 conditions. To vote for the Second Reading of a bad Bill with 
 the intention of improving it in Committee is an illusory pro-
 
 8 
 
 ceeding, generally ending in disappointment. Still it is as 
 well to keep such suggestions in view in the event of possible 
 contingencies. 
 
 In conclusion I would beg you to observe the singular — the 
 unprecedented — unanimity with which the Clergy of the Church 
 have expressed themselves on this subject. No one who at- 
 tended the recent Church Congress at Croydon will forget the 
 burst of enthusiastic applause with which Canon Ryle's declara- 
 tion in favour of preserving the Church's rights in her Church- 
 yards was greeted by the thousands there assembled. It is in 
 fact the one point on which Churchmen of all schools of thought 
 are practically unanimous. I shall be surprised if this Diocesan 
 Conference does not exhibit a similar agreement on the part of 
 the Laity.
 
 W^r\.
 
 :^% 
 
 
 fe« 
 
 w^mjtm 
 
 ^.--r