^te5 
 
 
 I
 
 L I E> R.ARY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 U N IVLRSITY 
 
 or ILLINOIS
 
 ^^■^ ^ ---(^^i^;^ ^l...y^^.t^^_j,X 
 
 THE 
 
 PRESENT ASPECT AND THE TEFE SETTLEMENT 
 
 OF THE 
 
 BUEIAL QUESTION, 
 
 A LETTER 
 
 TO THE 
 
 EIGHT HON. THE EARL BEAUCHAMP 
 
 LOUD STEWARD OF HER MAJESTY'S HOUSEHOLD. 
 
 BY 
 
 EDWARD MILLER, M.A., 
 
 VICAR OF EUTIiER'S MARSTOX, 
 FORMERLY FELLOW AND TUTOR OF NEW COLLEGE, OXFORD. 
 
 LONDON: 
 C. KEGAN PAUL & CO., 1 PATERNOSTER SQUARE. 
 
 1878.
 
 THE PRESENT ASPECT 
 
 AND 
 
 THE TEUE SETTLEMENT 
 
 OF 
 
 THE BUEIAL QUESTION 
 
 My deak Loed Beauchamp, 
 
 Tliis Letter, which, by your kind permission, is addressed 
 to your Lordship, has taken rise out of a paper which was 
 read to the Clergy of the North and South Kineton Deaneries 
 at two separate meetings. On both occasions, the Clergy 
 present passed unanimously a resolution requesting me to 
 publish the substance of my remarks. And I deem myself 
 peculiarly happy in securing, besides, the consideration of a 
 Nobleman who, from the time of his undergraduate life at 
 Oxford, as I well remember, up to the completion of the 
 noble College of which the Hall and Library have just been 
 opened, has, notwithstanding the avocations of high political 
 duties, ever been an attached and earnest member of the 
 Church, and has laboured assiduously and energetically in 
 her behalf. 
 
 I fear that my Letter may seem to your Lordship to take 
 a wider range than might have been desirable in the discus- 
 sion of a well-worn subject. On two points especially I 
 request attention. 
 
 Too few people, as I believe, in the investigation of this 
 subject, observe that the Church and Churchyard are both 
 
 A 2
 
 practically and legally one. I shall endeavour to prove this 
 position in detail, and also to suggest a solution of the general 
 difficulty which rests upon the true relations between the 
 Church and the State, which would violate no interests, 
 which would give liberty of action to all the bodies con- 
 cerned, and which is grounded upon the course taken in 
 recent legislation upon an analogous question. 
 
 Whatever else is contained in this Letter will, I trust, be 
 found to be only such as is subsidiary to these two important 
 features. I shall be far from attempting, either by implica- 
 tion or allusion, to say all that might easily be advanced. 
 
 It should be further premised that I start as one who, 
 without doubt or hesitation, signed the celebrated Memorial 
 last year as one of the 15,000 Clergymen. 
 
 Now those persons, I am aware, who seek to maintain the 
 existing law relating to Churchyards, are often treated as 
 irreconcilables who raise a cry of ' No surrender.' They are 
 taunted as if they were men of narrow and illiberal minds, 
 who care little or nothing for their fellow-countrymen that 
 differ in opinion from them, and who are ready to fight out 
 a hopeless contest to the bitter end, and even in their con- 
 genial pugnacity to imperil great interests, because they have 
 not the wisdom or the generosity to part with a small portion 
 of treasure in order to save a sinking ship. 
 
 This taunt would be harmless, if it issued only from the 
 lips of avowed opponents. It would be part of the ammuni- 
 tion of war, and would be as likely to miss aim as to take 
 effect. When, for example, such persons are branded by Mr. 
 Frederic Harrison as ' fire-eaters who consider it an outrage 
 that their Nonconformist fellow-citizens should have reli- 
 gious burial after their consciences,' the extravagance of 
 the language leads people to refer it either to a love of clever 
 phrase-making, or to an impetuous attack in the role of a 
 literary Circassian or Bashi-Bazouk. 
 
 But the case is greatly altered when this is brought as a 
 serious charge by the two Leaders of the army, and when they 
 are followed, as is natural, by a large body of officers, as well 
 as by a considerable proportion of the rank and file. And 

 
 we may then ask ourselves, and are indeed forced to ask 
 ourselves, whether it be well founded — whether, in resisting 
 the intrusion of unauthorised services and unauthorised 
 ministers into the grounds of the Church, we are, after all, 
 really selfish, illiberal, un sympathising obstructives, — whether 
 real width of mind and duty do indeed require us to make 
 some compromise, — whether the true policy be not to 
 strengthen the position of the Church, by wiping away a 
 grievance out of the pleadings of our opponents. 
 
 The objection which I have to combat is plainly of a most 
 formidable character. Obstinate obstructiveness, irrecon- 
 cilable prejudice, carelessness about the feelings and opinions 
 of other people, if they be well-grounded charges, would 
 certainly in these days be fatal to the general influence and 
 usefulness of the Clergy. If we are really open to these 
 imputations, we had better strike our flag and make the 
 best terms we can. We had better take the advice so freely 
 given, and at least secure the reputation of calm wisdom, 
 and of generous and self-denying liberality. 
 
 The question before us therefore is, whether we are in a 
 position to make a compromise with our opponents. Ought 
 we, in the interests of peace and concord, to make an ad- 
 vance to them, if they will make an advance to us ? Is it 
 possible, in this case, to avoid contests, disagreement, and 
 the ill-will thus engendered, by mutual concession ? , 
 
 In answering these questions, it is not my purpose to notice 
 the inconsistency of Dissenters in getting relief from Church- 
 rates whilst they seek for more power over the Churchyard ; 
 nor to point out the impossibility of the State allowing, upon 
 any grounds of equity, the orthodox Dissenter to use any 
 words he likes over the grave, without letting the Atheist 
 outrage holy feelings by proclaiming his unbelief, or con- 
 sistently with preserving a form of words binding upon the 
 Clergy ; nor to show the popularity of the Chm'ch's Burial 
 Service by quoting the statistics of cemeteries. Nor again 
 shall I discuss the last, and perhaps the flimsiest, of poor 
 expedients, under which it is sought to commit to the 18,000 
 Parish Priests of the English Church the invidious duty of a
 
 spiritual policemanship, as if it were possible for so large a 
 body of men to agree in any one line of policy, when each 
 might do exactly as he liked, and as if they had not already 
 enough disagreeable and invidious duties to perform. 
 
 My course is now perhaps sufficiently narrowed, and we 
 may come to the consideration of the nature of the com- 
 promise which finds so many supporters. 
 
 We have had, may I remind your Lordship, many instances 
 of compromise in public matters. We compromised the 
 question of the Alabama Claims, and paid six millions in 
 order to set a dangerous question for ever at rest. Again, 
 the difference about the British and American territory in 
 North America was settled by drawing a line in 1842, to 
 which both nations assented ; and either party received less 
 than it had at first claimed, upon a peaceable principle of 
 compromise. 
 
 But in these and such like cases, it will be found that it is 
 essential to compromises about property, that such a division 
 should be made as would put an end to double or joint pos- 
 session. Why were copyholds so unsatisfactory, and why was 
 the authorised arrangement so greatly preferable, which 
 closed for ever such joint-holdings by making them the 
 entire property of one or the other party ? A freedom of 
 management is produced by placing the sole disposal in the 
 hands of a single person or corporation. Delicate questions, 
 of a petty nature indeed, but perhaps none the less trouble- 
 some and embarrassing, are thus excluded. Accordingly 
 such a result has been considered to be worth an outlay 
 larger than was felt to be demanded, as in the case of the 
 Alabama Claims, or a concession of territory more than pro- 
 portional, as in the Ashburton negotiation, when seven- 
 twelfths, with even a better case, was conceded to the United 
 States. But the only justification of such transactions is, 
 that joint possession should cease, and that the property 
 should be made permanently over to one party or the other, 
 either by the payment of a sum of money, or by a division 
 of the disputed land. 
 
 But is there any probability of a permanent settlement
 
 being made by allowing Nonconformists to bury their dead 
 with their own services in our Churchyards? It will be 
 found, that there is not the remotest chance of the claims 
 that are advanced being satisfied by any such a compromise. 
 The Liberation Society have put out their scheme, so that we 
 may learn what they want by referring to their own words : — 
 
 VI. — The Disposal of Buildings. 
 
 13. Both ancient and modern buildings, as well as all endow- 
 ments now appropriated to the use of the National Church, must 
 be regarded as national property at the disposal of the State. It 
 would not, however, be consonant with public feeling to act 
 strictly on this principle, however logically defensible. It may, 
 therefore, be assumed that, in the disposal of the property now 
 devoted to ecclesiastical uses, regard will be had to the voluntary 
 origin of many recent Churches and endowments. 
 
 14. With such exceptions as may be determined on, the 
 Cathedrals, Abbeys, and other monumental buildings, should be 
 under national control, and be maintained for such uses as 
 Parliament may from time to time determine. Provision should 
 be made for the retention for public use, or else for the disposal, of 
 the Bishops' Palaces, and also of the buildings in the nature of 
 appendages to the Cathedrals. The educational endowments, 
 and other charities, connected with the Cathedrals should be 
 separately dealt with, for the national benefit. 
 
 15. In all cases, parochial burial-grounds attached to Churches 
 should be transferred to some parochial body ; for the continued 
 use of the parishioners, who should have equal rights therein. 
 
 16. Proprietary Churches should remain in the hands, or be 
 at the disposal of, the present proprietors. 
 
 17. All Churches existing at the date of the passing of the 
 first of the Church Building Acts (1818) should be deemed to be 
 ancient Parish Churches. 
 
 18. Ancient Churches (as defined in Sec. 1 7) should be vested 
 in a parochial board, to be elected by the ratepayers, which board 
 should have power to deal with them for the general benefit of the 
 parishioners, in such ways as it may determine. The power of 
 sale, at a fair valuation, and under proper regulations, should also 
 be given. 
 
 19. Churches erected after the date already named, which 
 have been built at the sole expense of any person who may be 
 living at the date of disestablishment, should, on his application, 
 be vested in him, or in such persons as he may appoint.
 
 8 
 
 20. Churches (other than parochial Churches which have 
 been re-built) erected after the date named, by means of volun- 
 tary subscriptions exclusively — and also Churches not claimed 
 under the above-named provision — should become the property 
 of the existing congregations, and be held in trust for their use. 
 If, within a given time, such Churches be not accepted on behalf 
 of the congregations, they should vest in parochial boards, and 
 be dealt with as ancient Churches. 
 
 21. Churches built after the date named, which have been 
 erected partly by subscriptions, and partly from parliamentary 
 grants and other public sources, should in like manner be offered 
 to the congregations ; but the amount so derived from public 
 sources should be a charge upon the building, to be paid, or 
 redeemed, in accordance with regulations made by Commissioners 
 under the Disestablishment Act. 
 
 This plan is, at all events, clearly expressed. Ancient 
 Churches and Churchyards are demanded, as being no longer 
 justly Church property. Will these Liberationists be content 
 with Lord Harrowby's proposal, — or even with Mr. Osborne 
 Morgan's, — as a permanent settlement of the question about 
 the Church and Churchyard? Can it be imagined for an 
 instant, that those who demand that ancient Churches should 
 be removed out of the control of the Church, and transferred 
 to parochial boards for the use of all alike, would be satisfied 
 by the conveyance of a right to them of burying their dead 
 with their own rites in the Church's Churchyard ? 
 
 But it is said that there are ' two classes of Nonconformists 
 with which the Church has now to count — the one, friendly 
 or neutral ; the other, hostile, determined, and powerful.' 
 With respect to the former of these two classes, we hear 
 that ' it is well known that the greater number of Wesleyans 
 are, on Church questions, either friendly or neutral, and the 
 same may be said of the Presbyterians, and of very many 
 also in the Primitive Methodist and New Connection 
 Churches.' We are further told that ' it would be well to 
 note at the same time, that a very considerable number of 
 the lower order of rate-paying working men would be found 
 to support Liberation principles at an election, through their 
 strong dislike of privileged classes. With these facts before 
 them, it should be the aim of the Clergy, by friendly and
 
 9 
 
 conciliatory action, to secure the interest of the well-disposed 
 Nonconformist, and as far as may be, to silence the arguments 
 of the Liberationists ; and thus spoil them of the weapon 
 they now use so effectually to the hurt of the Church.' ^ 
 
 The purport of this ' friendly ' advice is, that Churchmen 
 should lessen the number of their foes by attracting to their 
 own side a large portion of them, through the adoption of some 
 equivalent to Lord Harrowby's well-known amendment. Is 
 this advice — plainly the wisest in many circumstances — ad- 
 missible in the present case ? 
 
 Even allowing that there is really more than a plat- 
 form grievance, — which as generally felt I very much 
 doubt, — and admitting that friendly Nonconformists would 
 thenceforward ever after withhold their support from further 
 Liberationist attacks, — I yet venture to urge positively that 
 the nature of the present case absolutely forbids any such 
 compromise. It will be found, I believe, that the Church 
 and Churchyard are indissolubly bound together, and that 
 any expedient for admitting Nonconformists to any amount 
 of joint-tenure of one affects the other, and impairs jpro 
 tanto the title of the Church of England to the possession 
 of both of them. 
 
 1. This position, my Lord, may be made good, in the 
 first place, from a consideration of various minor particulars 
 in which the use of the Churchyard will be found to interlap 
 the employment of the Church itself. 
 
 Suppose that Mr. Osborne Morgan's or Lord Harrowby's 
 proposal were adopted, the question would immediately arise 
 whether the Church bell was to be rung or not. If the 
 solemn and familiar sound is not heard through the town or 
 village and over the surrounding champaign, one of the most 
 imposing features in the burial of the dead would be con- 
 spicuously absent, with detriment to the dignity of the funeral. 
 But if the bell be tolled, then the Nonconformist is so far 
 virtually within the Church. 
 
 Again, are the Parish Kegisters to be used ? And if so, 
 
 1 Letter in the Guardian of April 10, 1878, from 'A Friendly 
 Nonconformist.'
 
 10 
 
 what entry is to be made by the Parish Priest who is the 
 lawful custodian, or by whora ? What duty is the clerk, or 
 sexton, or other officer of the Church to execute in the 
 funeral ? 
 
 And then about gravestones, or other monuments. What 
 a temptation there is, amidst funerals of a various character, 
 to introduce flaunting inscriptions, which would strike a note 
 harshly discordant to the principles of the Church, and dis- 
 turb the peaceful calm that should reign around the remains 
 of the dead lying in repose till the great Eesurrection. 
 
 Also we must be prepared for days when perhaps a deluge 
 of rain, or a pelting hail-storm, or a driving fall of snow, 
 might seriously impede the delivery of a long oration, or the 
 offering of lengthened prayers, or the singing of a series of 
 hymns. We can easily fancy a paragraph going the round of 
 the newspapers some ten years or so after the change was 
 inaugurated, and depicting in terms of scathing indignation 
 the unfeeling want of charity which led people to refuse the 
 shelter of the Lord's House to those who were battling with 
 the elements in an endeavour to honour Him as they held to 
 be best. And for myself, I confess that I should deprecate 
 hardly anything more than to be forced to be the instrument 
 of exclusion in such a trying case to people whom I believed 
 to be well-meaning, however I might differ personally from 
 their opinions. 
 
 Doubtless, some of these particulars are of small import- 
 ance, and a decision one way or the other on some of them 
 might be accomplished so as to secure some sort of settle- 
 ment. But surely, taken together, and taken as specimens, 
 they show pi'actically the connection that subsists between the 
 Church and Churchyard. And they show besides that any 
 attempt to sever that connection, or to treat it as it if were 
 not really a factor in the calculation, must contain seeds of 
 future disturbance. 
 
 2. The fact is, that from the natural state of things these 
 two must be taken as constituting one entity. The Church- 
 yard is a plot of ground : the Church is a building reared 
 upon that plot of ground.
 
 11 
 
 Who in England ever heard of a house and garden being 
 held upon a different form of tenure ? Or who that happened, 
 by some strange freak of fortune, to be the owner, if he could 
 be so called, of such a hybrid piece of property, would not do 
 all he could to expel the alien right from his lawn or his yard ? 
 What would my Lord Harrowby, or his Grrace the Archbishop 
 of Canterbury, or his Grace the Archbishop of York, think, if 
 the good people of Croydon, or York, or Lichfield, had the 
 right of playing where they pleased at croquet, or lawn- 
 tennis, or bowls, upon the lawns under the windows of their 
 mansions ; or of planting what they liked in the garden, and 
 of setting up monuments of their varied tastes over the 
 grounds, with inscriptions dictated by their own choice ? Of 
 one thing, at least, I am quite sure, — that if Lord Harrowby 
 were thinking of conceding such a right in his generous 
 consideration for the enjoyment of his neighbours, and 
 proposed to grant it by deed for ever, his professional 
 adviser would warn his Lordship that his project was full of 
 future peril to the property which he has inherited from his 
 ancestors. 
 
 In fact, when a man wishes to build a house, he buys the 
 plot of ground, and erects the house upon it. The tenure of 
 the one regulates the tenure of the other. No arrangement 
 of stones, no beams or decorations, no walls, or doors, or 
 locks, can make a house a man's own, if the ground on which 
 it stands does not wholly belong to him. And who lets the 
 lawn, or the yard, or the walks or drive, which are close under 
 his dwelling ? When was a house and garden — the garden 
 that is, close round the house — put up for auction in two 
 lots? When were the children of a Nonconformist school 
 allowed as of right to play hy themselves — for that is the 
 question — in the playground of a Church school ? When did 
 Nonconformists ever make a demand which is evidently so 
 preposterous ? 
 
 The two hold together as one, house and garden, — building, 
 and the plot of ground immediately about it, — for there is 
 no question about such as can be easily detached. ' A Church- 
 yard that is dedicated is the soil of a Church' are the
 
 12 
 
 words of one of the statutes of Edward I.^ 'We read in the 
 Theodosian Code,' says Mr.Curteis,^ «a law about "asylum," on 
 which Van Espen comments as follows ; " Hoc totum spatium 
 (i.e., the septum ecclesice, the fore-court of the Church) sub- 
 jaciens adjaciens Templo, hand aliter quam ipsum Templum, 
 asylo cedere vult." ' (V. E. IV. Part 2, p. 68.) The conveyance 
 of a site at the present time to the Ecclesiastical Commis- 
 sioners makes the buildings upon it to be the property of the 
 Church for ever. 
 
 Thus Churches and Churchyards follow the principles 
 which regulate all real property. 'Land,' as we read in 
 Blackstone,^ 'says Sir Edward Coke, comprehendeth in its 
 legal signification any ground, soil, or earth whatsoever, as 
 arable, meadows, pastures, woods, moors, waters, marshes, 
 furzes, and heath. It legally includeth also all castles, 
 houses, and other buildings, foi^ they consist, saith he, of two 
 things : Land, which is the foundation, and Structure there- 
 upon, so that if I convey the Land or ground, the Structure 
 or building passeth therewith,^ It is indeed needless to 
 linger upon the proof of a principle of law which is so 
 certain and so well known, that we can only wonder that the 
 House of Lords, which consists of Noblemen well versed in 
 the knowledge of the nature of property, and which holds 
 the loftiest reputation for sound judgment in questions of 
 business, should have been momentarily induced last year to 
 adopt a resolution which constituted a distinct infringement 
 of an elementary principle. 
 
 For we are confronted with this contradiction, where by 
 law there should be no contradiction, — the Churchyard pro- 
 posed to be held upon a dual title, and the Church supposed 
 to be the sole possession of the Body which would not be 
 the sole possessor of the soil on which the Church is built 
 How can the introduction of such a contradiction be sup- 
 posed to be a satisfactory settlement of the question ? How 
 
 ^ 35 Edw. I. Stat. 2. {A Word to Englishmen on the Burials Question. 
 Leaflet of Church Defence Institution.) 
 
 2 ( An " Anglican " View of the Burial Laws/ Macmillan for April 
 1878, by the Rev. G. H. Curteis. 
 
 ^ Commentaries on the Lazvs of England, II. 2, p. 16.
 
 13 
 
 can its advocates ever delude themselves by imagining that 
 such a settlement can possibly be final ? 
 
 And indeed many people, including especially the Libera- 
 tion Society, as we have seen, do not wish it to be final. And 
 they rest their arguments upon grounds which are at least in- 
 telligible, though no Churchman who is really a Churchman 
 can assent to the grounds maintained. ' The Church of 
 England is a Parliament Church,' is the burden of a great 
 portion of nearly all the addresses now delivered under the 
 auspices of the Liberation Society. ' The Church, as by 
 law established,' we read in the practical suggestions of the 
 Liberation Society, ' being a national organisation for eccle- 
 siastical purposes, its adherents, in an ecclesiastical sense, 
 have no other pecuniary rights in connection with it than 
 are possessed by the rest of the nation.' ^ ' Though an Epis- 
 copal Church may afterwards be organised on a dififerer.t 
 basis, when Disestablishment is determined on there will be 
 no body having a legal existence capable of either claiming, 
 or receiving, compensation.' ^ 
 
 Such is the central Source-tenet, so to speak — with 
 which we have to do battle. In contradistinction to the 
 belief expressed in the article in the Creeds that there is 
 ' One Holy Catholic Church,' and the inference involved in 
 it, that the Church of England, if a Church at all, is a 
 Branch of the Universal Church, it is maintained that the 
 National Church, or group of Churches, is merely a creation 
 of the State. This opinion is maintained by these promoters of 
 Disestablishment, either on the theory of Congregationalism, 
 — that any congregation may by the association of individuals 
 become a Christian Church, if only it embraces a certain 
 amount of Christian truth ; or on that of Nationalism, — that 
 a nation may in like manner set up a Church which becomes 
 distinctively Christian, only in consequence of the belief that 
 it embraces. 
 
 It is, of course, not within my present purpose to reply 
 to this allegation, by showing that it entirely differs from 
 the account rendered of the Church by Churchmen them- 
 
 ^ Practical Suggestions, ^c, IV. 5, p. 7. ^ Id. p. 2.
 
 14 
 
 selves ; that the very considerable property given to the 
 Church during the present century has been so given by 
 individuals as a voluntary gift, and that the presumption 
 therefore, in the total absence of proof to the contrary, is 
 tliat earlier gifts were made upon the same system ; that 
 the Church is historically and demonstrably traceable back 
 through an unbroken succession of priests and people to a 
 double origin in the sixth century ; that that double origin 
 consisted first in the British Church, then in active exist- 
 ence, and being the living remains of the Church in England 
 of primitive times, dating back to the second century, and 
 secondly in the mission of St. Augustine, who brought with 
 him a new Episcopal succession and a body of ordained 
 ministers from Eome ; that also in the Name by which she 
 has been perpetually designated, in her accredited Convoca- 
 tions, in her faith and teaching, in her self-directing life, 
 and in her possession of property, the Church has ever shown 
 that she holds an existence independent of the State, even 
 if her freedom of action may have been tampered with at 
 certain periods of Her history. 
 
 What I beg you, my Lord, to observe is, first, that here 
 we find the real source of the divergence of opinion ; and 
 secondly, that it is useless to think of conciliating foes with 
 such intentions by a slight concession. They are determined 
 to get possession of our citadel if they can : what is the use 
 of surrendering to them an outpost which they will turn 
 into a fortress ? The Kussians would never have been con- 
 tented with Rustchuk alone ; but if it had been given up to 
 them at the outset of the war, they would have refortified it 
 and have turned it into a new point cVapjpui. Just so the 
 Liberationists would argue, after such a concession, that 
 part of the just rights of the Nonconformists had been at last 
 acknowledged ; that they could have the right of burying 
 with their own rites in the Churchyard only upon the theory 
 that the Churchyard belonged to the people, not to the 
 Church ; that under this theory thus established, Noncon- 
 formists were treated most unfairly ; that therefore all rights 
 ought to be made equal ; that accordingly, the Churchyard
 
 15 
 
 is virtually the property of the nation, and should be 
 treated as such, and, in consequence, the Church also. Is any 
 one ignorant that in legal and political strifes generosity 
 counts for nothing; but that all that is gained by the 
 receiving party, with whatever pretext it may be conceded, 
 is regularly reckoned by them as so much tribute to the 
 justice of their own contention ? It follows, therefore, that 
 if w^e are anxious to add strength to the arguments of 
 Liberationists, we may readily do so at once by such a policy 
 of surrender. 
 
 But it is said that we ought to propitiate the friendly 
 Nonconformist. Dare we do so, if at the same time we give 
 an advantage to our real foes ? Are we in such a position as 
 to be able to afford to open the door to friendly dissentients, 
 and let in with them bands which are armed from head to 
 foot ? Can we exchange our sole title for a dual title, when 
 we know that nothing will content the most clamorous except 
 our being deprived of the title altogether ? Surely this is a 
 case where the only compromise that could be made is of that 
 vicious kind which is really no compromise at all. 
 
 But then it is replied : Is nothing to be done, and is the 
 Burial Difficulty to remain unsolved ? 
 
 The true solution seems to be indicated in the settle- 
 ment which the nation has at last effected, after many years 
 of controversy, in the case of Primary Schools. 
 
 That controversy ran through three distinct stages. 
 First, there was the time when people were naturally loth to 
 disturb that connection between the State aiad the Church 
 which was grounded upon the theory of the two being co- 
 extensive. The Conscience Clause was resisted, and the 
 Church was upheld as the sole educator recognised by the 
 State. 
 
 Next to this succeeded tlie Denominational stage, when 
 it was maintained that all education in all cases must be 
 committed to the various Religious Bodies, the fact of the 
 Church not covering all the area of the nation being now 
 acknowledged. At the same time another loud contention 
 was heard issuing from those who maintained that education
 
 16 
 
 belonged to the State alone, and that no assistance should be 
 given out of the public funds to any but Stat e schools. 
 
 Under the third and last phase a combination of the 
 contending theories was devised and introduced. For people 
 came to the conclusion that the State must legislate, not 
 upon an abstract theory, but with reference to various 
 opinions generally entertained by the people ; that strife 
 could only be assuaged by a concession of liberty to the 
 Church and to the Denominations, and by the State under- 
 taking the supplementary duty of filling up the space which 
 was left void by their several efforts. 
 
 Accordingly, it will be remembered that the settlement 
 made included three heads of arrangement, viz. — (a) assist- 
 ance to be rendered under specified conditions to Denomina- 
 tional schools ; (6) a Conscience clause ; and (c) the formation 
 of State schools in order to meet cases which the Denomina- 
 tions did not reach. 
 
 We must now observe that the Burial Question has 
 followed the course of the School controversy. First, we had 
 the period which passed away long ago, when no change at all 
 was admitted by Churchmen. 
 
 Then we came to that period of fierce contest between 
 the Denominational principle, as represented solely by the 
 Church — for except in town cemeteries there were scarce any 
 other burial grounds in existence — and the State principle, 
 which, in its stiffest phase, refuses to allow even the existence 
 of the Church as independent of the State. Denomina- 
 tionalism culminated in the G-overnment Bill of last year, 
 when the Duke of Eichmond and Gordon, on behalf of Her 
 Majesty's Grovernment, and in representation of opinions 
 widely entertained, made efforts which, though unsuccessful, 
 merit the lasting gratitude of Churchmen. And the exclusive 
 State principle has been lately exhibited in the scheme of the 
 Liberation Society. 
 
 We are now, I believe, ready for the final period. And 
 if, following in the wake of the Schools Acts, we apply the 
 principles which they embodied, we shall, as I apprehend, 
 arrive at the three following general regulations : —
 
 17 
 
 I. That where the members of any Denomination require 
 a Burial-ground, one-third of the expense should be defrayed 
 out of the Consolidated Fund, subject to the approval of the 
 President of Her Majesty's Privy Council. 
 
 II. That there should be a right to bury in all Denomina- 
 tional Burial-grounds without any service at all. The offices 
 of the ministers of the Church, or of any Nonconformist 
 ministers, must be forced upon no unwilling persons. This 
 would be equivalent to the Conscience Clause. And it would 
 be wise in the Church to supplement this regulation by a 
 conciliatory attitude, and by such regulations as might prove 
 to be not inconsistent with the laws of her being and her tradi- 
 tional observance, the direction of which might be indicated 
 by the use of hymns in Church and at the grave, which might 
 be selected by the mourners, subject to the approval of the 
 minister. I am told that this arrangement works well in 
 some parts of the country. 
 
 III. That in all cases where Burial-grounds are needed, 
 whether generally or by a considerable section of the popula- 
 tion, they may be provided by a rate upon the parish, or 
 district, or township, one-third of the outlay being contri- 
 buted as before from the Consolidated Fund ; but that in all 
 Burial-grounds so provided, independently of the voluntary 
 contributions of the members of separate denominations, 
 the use of the ground and Chapel, and the celebration or not 
 of a Service, should be free to all persons of whatever opinions, 
 only under such restrictions as are found to be practically 
 necessary, and have been authorised by the President of the 
 Council. This would probably necessitate the constitution 
 of Burial Boards, which would be analogous to School 
 Boards. 
 
 The minor details of this plan may be left to future dis- 
 cussion. The chief advantages are plainly as follows : — 
 
 1. The general lines of this plan of settlement are those 
 which have been drawn, after many years' controversy, and on 
 the whole with general satisfaction to the Church and nation, 
 in the analogous instance of Primary Schools. Hence the 
 relations between the State and the Church and the other
 
 18 
 
 Religious Bodies would be preserved in the form in which 
 they have already been worked out. 
 
 2. Relief would be brought to the Nonconformist. For 
 the facilities which would be furnished for providing Burial- 
 grounds of their own would eventually, if not at once, out- 
 weigh any grievance which may be felt in rural districts. 
 
 3. At the same time, no injustice would be done to the 
 Church. Churchmen have already shown their willingness to 
 concede a conscience clause. And the grievance would thus 
 be removed, which is felt to be intolerable, of losing virtually 
 the fee simple of grounds, which many donors have increased 
 during the present century in reliance upon their being per- 
 petually the Church's possession. 
 
 4. The State would at the same time be placed in the 
 performance of her plain duty, in seeing that all people in 
 the land have proper opportunities for burying their dead. 
 And, at the same time, the State would not override the 
 Church or the Denominations. 1 mention the Denominations 
 also, because they may be sure that any measure of oppression 
 for the Church would be of evil omen for their own liberty of 
 action in after times. For the duty of the State is to take 
 care that ail the legitimate organisms within her borders 
 have free play. True statesmanship would be evinced, not 
 in extinguishing the life, or in shackling or paralysing the 
 limbs, but rather in removing the impediments to freedom 
 of action that may bind the Church or the several Denomi- 
 nations. The right remedy for those whose wants are not 
 supplied by the voluntary efforts of religious bodies is to be 
 found in direct provisions of the State in her distinctive 
 character, which must be open without favour or limit to all 
 citizens. If these prove not to be palatable, there is still 
 room for that voluntary association of efforts which is the 
 groundwork of religious action. Tyranny, in these days at 
 least, is plainly forbidden. 
 
 The chief objections to such a proposal will be found to 
 arise from an open or virtual attempt to ignore one of the 
 contracting parties. We find the State, the Church, and 
 the various Denominations, with several claims of their own.
 
 19 
 
 Time was when the existence of the Denominations was not 
 acknowledged in political arrangements. That time has 
 passed, and no one thinks of recalling it. On the other hand, 
 no change has been made in the Church's laws since the time 
 when she was co-extensive with the State. The Denomina- 
 tions have drifted from the Church, not the Church from the 
 Denominations. We have also to regard the State as occupy- 
 ing a sphere which is both distinct from, and does not absorb, 
 other spheres. But, strangest of all, the gate has swung round 
 to the opposite extreme, and the Church, which used to be 
 regarded as all-powerful, is now treated in some quarters as 
 non-existent. Talk of toleration in these days ! What can be 
 a greater outrage upon what is dearest, and holiest, and most 
 venerable in the eyes and hearts of Churchmen, than to say 
 seriously, and with intent of spoliation, that the Church which 
 is fondly regarded as a Mother, has no being independent of 
 the State ? Yet such is the theory advanced by people who 
 have determinedly left her, and now want to establish a right 
 to the home which they have deliberately deserted. And 
 such is the theory necessary for a change in the tenure of 
 Churchyards. It has been rejected by the nation after careful 
 consideration in the analogous instance of primary education. 
 
 For it is not necessary to give up the Church's Burial 
 Grrounds to Nonconformists in order to convey relief to them. 
 Surely grounds of their own must in course of years be more 
 satisfactory to them than a part tenure in the property of 
 others. If my neighbour wanted a garden, it would hardly 
 satisfy his wants if I gave him certain rights in mine. 
 Whilst even if he and I were to be the best of friends in this 
 curious partnership, annoyance would be certainly caused to 
 some of the members of my family, and danger would be 
 laid up in store for my successors. 
 
 Such, my Lord, in the main features, is the plan of 
 settlement which I venture to think will appear the more 
 sound the longer and the more carefully it is examined. It 
 meets the difficulties of Nonconformists, as far as I believe 
 the State can meet them, without the adoption of measures 
 really or virtually spoliatory, — unless it be thought fit for
 
 20 
 
 one-half of the outlay to be advanced, instead of one- third. 
 Practical statesmen will probably adhere to the original 
 proposal. 
 
 For, above all, the plan avoids the theoretical absurdity 
 and the practical confusion which would be caused by the 
 virtual introduction of a dual title. It is not surprising that 
 such an idea should be entertained by theorists, whether of a 
 political or religious cast ; or by those Churchmen who, in 
 the kindness of their heart, are anxious to make any com- 
 promise with their neighbours, without scanning too closely 
 its ultimate effects ; or by such Nonconformists as are glad 
 to obtain any concession, and are not concerned to examine 
 into the amount of sacrifice with which it is made ; or, 
 lastly, by those who wish to make the entrance into the 
 Churchyard the road into the Church. But how practical, 
 clear-headed men of business can imagine that peace and 
 simplicity of administration can be produced by the virtual 
 substitution of a dual title for the fee simple, outreaches, I 
 am constrained to say, the bounds of my conception. 
 
 I have the honour to be. 
 
 My dear Lord Beauchamp, 
 
 Yours very sincerely, 
 
 EDWARD MILLER. 
 
 Butler's Marston Vicarage: 
 May 6, 1878. 
 
 I.OXDOX : PRINTED BY 
 
 SPOTTiswonnK and co., new-strket square 
 
 AXI> PAULIAMKXT STllKET
 
 ^•■.-'^
 
 
 
 J:.M 
 
 
 i^m 
 
 J^^.-i'^^ 
 
 -j^p 
 
 1^ 
 
 .J»Vv:.Jl 
 
 
 ^-f^l 
 
 i^^^t« 
 
 
 <^,