W-' ^ M!" "*?^ L I B RA RY OF THE U N I V t R51TY or 1 LLl NOIS /6 THE BURIAL QUESTION BY ALFRED GEOEGE MARTEN ESQUIRE, Q.C., M.P. FOR CAMBRIDGE. Read at the Ely Bioeesan Conference held at Ely on Tuesday, the 5th of Jtme, 1877. Catnlirilrge : PRINTED BY J. PALMER, JESUS LANE. THE BUEIAL QUESTIOISr, My Lord and Gentlemen, At the Church Conference held at Cambridge on the 19th of October, 1875, I, bj- invitation, read a paper on the present law of burials in churchyards, in connection with recent efforts t<> legislate thereon. On that occasion I shewed that the grievance alleged does not exist in the metropolis, or in the cities, large towns, or other places where the burial of the dead is provided for in cemeteries apart from the churchyards. It is admitted by Churchmen and Dissenters alike, that the system of cemeteries containing ground which is consecrated and ground which is. not con- secrated, as now generally adopted in urban districts, is adequate for the requirements of everybody, what- ever his creed or opinions respecting religion, and can be, and is maintained in practice, without the risk of offending the susceptibilities of anyone. The question is, Can a similar system be applied in the case of the rural districts ? Now, in the first place, I would observe that, viewed in the abstract, there is no reason whatever why the cemetery system should not work as well in villages as in towns. We are of the same flesh 4 THE BUEIAL QUESTION. and blood, and have the same wants and feelings, whether we live in a metropolis or amongst the pastures, corn fields, and woods, which are now preparing to assume their summer glory. Doubtless in many cases the tenderest reminiscences of affec- tion invest the country churchyards with peculiar sacredness, but no proposals for the establishment of cemeteries would disturb the past. On the con- trary, the churchyards closed against future inter- ments would still retain the memorials and remains already placed there, and would, under the influence of piety and taste, become church gardens, equally solemn and beautiful. God forbid that I should disparage the strength or holiness of the sentiment which attaches us to accustomed places of sepulture I If we had no experience to refer to, if the idea of cemeteries was entirely novel, if no churchyards had ever been closed or added to, if no grounds had ever been used for Christian burial but those within the shadow of the Church, I might well shrink from entertaining, and much more from recommend- ing, a recourse to such a change at the present day. But the scheme is not new. It has been tried and tried extensively. It has succeeded. It has caused no shock to feeling, no rude breaking of hallowed associations, no violations of the sanctity of memory, no injury to religion. The unimpeachable testimony of experience is in its favour. What are the facts ? In the twenty-three years from 1853 to 1875, 208 consecrated grounds and 92 unconsecrated grounds used for burial in London were totally or partially Z uiuc ?! THE BURIAL QUESTION. O closed bj- orders in Council. By similar orders 1705 consecrated grounds and 1143 unconsecrated grounds were in the twenty- two years from 1854 to 1875 closed or partially closed against interment in the country. I'hus in the brief space of twenty-three years 1913 consecrated and 1235 unconsecrated — making a total of 3,148 — burial grounds have been dealt with by orders in Council. These burial grounds are practically closed, for as explained by Mr. Secre- tary Cross in his admirable speech last year, the meaning of the term partially closed is, as a rule, that the closing is complete, subject to a reservation in favour of certain vaults. On the other hand, nearly 700 cemeteries have been opened, available for no less than 14,000,000 out of a population of 22,000;000 in England and Wales. It will be seen, therefore, that the change in question has already been made so far as concerns upwards of two-thirds of the population, and it has been made, I believe, without giving rise to any complaint. Will the minority of 8,000,000 be more sensitive and more difficult to satisfy in this question of burials than the majority of 14,000,000 ? Surely not. Grant that the 8,000,000 form a rural popula- tion; grant that the 14,000,000 include the Metro- politan and urban population, the result will be that a large portion — upwards of a third — of the rural population are already provided for under the ceme- tery system. For about 13,000,000 persons in Eng- and Wales live outside of the Metropolitan district and of the municipal boroughs, and may be de- O THE BURIAL QUESTION. scribed as constituting the rural population. Conse- quently, of these about 5,000,000 may be taken to be already supplied on the cemetery system. As- suming this to be so, it may be taken as established beyond question that the extension of the system to the remaining 8,000,000 may be carried into opera- tion without inconvenience. Here I may point out that in the primitive times of Christianity the cemeteries were remote from the churches. Dr. Hook, in his Church Dictionary, under the word '' Churchj-ard," says: "As to the original of burial places, many writers have observed that at the first erection of churches no part of the adjacent ground was allotted for the interment of the dead, but some place for this purpose was appointed at a further distance. This practice continued until the time of Gregory the Great (who was Pope from A.D. 590 to 604), when the Monks and Priests pro- cured leave, for their great ease and profit, that a liberty of sepulture might be in churches or places adjoining to them." I pass on now to the consideration of the question of expense. It is said that to provide cemeteries in lieu of churchyards would cost a large sum of money. Now in cases of this description one ex- ample is better than many estimates. I have been furnished with particulars as to what happened in a parish in Norfolk. The population of the parish was small, being about 712. The churchyard was closed in the year 1870, owing to its crowded state, and a cemetery was provided by a burial board for THE BURTAL QFESTIOX. 7 the parish. The total expense of the land, drainage, fencing, &c., was £150. The extent of the ceme- tery was Ijroods, two-thirds of which were con- secrated, and the remaining one-third unconsecrated, with separate entrances. In this case there were no buildings. I may observe that the size of this cemeterj^ was in excess of the ground required for the population according to the usual estimate of one quarter of an acre for one thousand of popu- lation. With regard to buildings, I do not suggest any hard and fast rule. Each case would be regu- lated according to circumstances as made out to the satisfaction of the Local Government Board. I believe that in many cases the requisite land would be given, and the expense would be provided for by voluntary subscription; and in other cases the undertaking of the cemetery might be entrusted to a company. At Cambridge, which I have the honour to represent, both these courses are illus- trated. More than thirty years ago by voluntary subscription a fund was raised for the purchase of land which was consecrated and serves as a burial ground, and besides this there is a cemetery of unconsecrated ground in the hands of a company. It is to be borne in mind that the expense would be once for all and for a permanent advantage, and that the burden of it might be spread over a series of years. As to the time within which the change is to be made, I have suggested the end of the year 1880, as allowing a convenient interval of time 8 THE BURIAL QUESTION. for the purpose; but the work would be subject to the control of the Local Government Board, who would be able in proper cases to extend the time. My suggestions having already appeared in my letter to the Times (which is appended to this paper) and in other newspapers, it will be un- necessary for me to repeat them here. The prin- ciple on which they are based is that it is expedient that the cemetery system already in operation, and found satisfactory as regards a large majority of the population, should be extended so as to be applicable to the whole population of England and "Wales. I proceed, lastly, to consider the question why any action at all should be taken. Early in this session of Parliament, the Government introduced in the House of Lords the Burial Acts Consolidation Bill, which proposed important changes in the law of burial. The Bill, if enacted, would create an obligation throughout England and "Wales to pro- vide consecrated and unconsecrated ground sufficient and suitable for the burial of the inhabitants, and for that purpose would constitute everywhere a burial authority. Under the existing law there is no obligation to appoint a burial board, and where there is no such board there is no obligation on any authority to provide new ground. The proposal by the Bill to create this new obligation necessarily raises the inquiry, "Will the Bill provide in its pre- sent shape an acceptable termination of the matter ? THE BURIAL QUESTION. 9 The House of Lords has answered this enquiry in a remarkable manner. Lord Granville's amendment on the second reading of the Bill on the 26th of April was negatived by 141 to 102, being a majority of 39. Lord Harro why's amendment for allowing Chris- tian and orderly services other than the service of the Church of England was on the 17th of May negatived by a tie, there being 102 for and the same number against the amendment. This division shows the existence in the House of Lords of a strong wish for a conclusion of the controversy. Those who are opposed to the amendment may well consider that the time has arrived for adopting and pressing on the attention of the Government suggestions which proceed on the lines of the Government Bill, and only carry it sufficiently far to make a complete and lasting settlement. Having been asked to ex- press my views as to the proper course to be pursued under existing circumstances, I have done so. I trust that the suggestions which I have made will commend themselves to the favourable consideration of the Conference, as involving no sacrifice of prin- ciple or right, and indicating a path which is honour- able to the Church and which will be a continuation and completion of that which, so far as it has gone, is proved to be efficient and satisfactory. 10 THE BURIAL QUESTION. APPENDIX. The following letter appeared in the Times of Thurs- day, May 31, 1877: The Bueial Question. To the Editor of the Times. Sir, In the present crisis respecting the Burials Acts Consolidation Bill, I beg leave to offer the following suggestions for the settlement of the question. The difficulty as to burials is solved already in urban districts by the closing of church- yards and burial grounds adjoining chapels, and by the establishment of cemeteries : — 1. The same course should be pursued in rural districts. 2. Forbid any burial in any churchyard or burial ground adjoining any chapel in any rural district after the year 1880, except by permission of the Local Government Board. 3. Require every rural sanitary authority before the end of 1880 to provide a burial ground or burial grounds convenient for the use of the district, or part of the district, to the satisfaction of the Local Government Board, part^to be consecrated and part unconsecrated, with proper chapel or chapels. 4. Empower the rural sanitary authority to take land, and to accept donations of land or money for the purpose. APPENDIX. 1 1 5. Apply the *' Cemeteries Clauses Consolidation Act" to the grounds to be provided. When I was at Cambridge last week, I, by re- quest, put the above suggestions into writing, and they have been so far favourably received by some who take an active interest in a practical solution of the question, that I venture to ask you to give them publicity in your columns, with a view to their more general consideration. In the Diocese of Ely there will be an opportunity for ascertaining the views of the Clergy, and to some extent of the laity, at the Diocesan Conference to be held at Ely on Tuesday next, June 5. Other opportunities for discussing the subject will doubtless shortly occur. On the present occasion I will not intrude upon your space by entering into the reasons in favour of reverting, throughout the country, to the primi- tive system, under which the grounds set apart for the burial of the dead were situate at a distance from the edifices appropriated for the stated per- formance of public religious worship — a system which prevailed during the first six or seven cen- turies after Christ, and which was superseded by the use of churchyards for burials. The expense of the change would, I believe, be in many parishes met wholly or partially by donations of land or money, and in any case might be spread over a series of years, and would be small compared with the advantages promoted in point of goodwill, health, and permanency, and of sentiment as well on the part of those who are, as on the part of those who 12 THE BUKIAL QUESTION. are not, members of the Churcli of England. The general provision of the new cemeteries would merely anticipate, by a brief period, that which the gradual filling of the existing rural churchyards renders ultimately inevitable. I am, Sir, your obedient servant, A. G. MARTEN. House of Commons, May 30, 1877. A similar letter appeared in the Standard and Daily Expre8s of May 31, and in the Laxly News of June 1, 1877.