LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.
PROPERTY IN RELIGIOUS RITES. [To THE EDITOR OF THE "SFECTITOR.-] nt.,—Because you always write about Church questions in a spirit of fairness, and because you refuse to approve tyranny even when it is invoked to sanction "Liberal" conclusions, Churchmen and others who do not agree with you are nevertheless anxious not to be misunderstood by you. Now, on this question of the Burials' Bill —craftily chosen by our opponents as one in which reason is partly silenced by sentiment—there is one side of the dispute between vs and the Nonconformists which is ignored in your article on '' Property in Religious Rites." It is that Mr. Osborne Morgan's Burials' Bill is, avowedly, not an isolated measure, but part of a policy. It has its place in the list of those measures which are to be supported by all friends of the Liberation Society ; and if you look at Mr. Miall's speech in support of it last year, you will see that he regards it as a rather insignificant item in a series of ,demands.. I know that Mr. Osborne Morgan himself refers to 41 the grievance" as the last vestige of injustice inflicted by the Establishment on Dissenters, but a significant repudiation of his own words is his support of Mr. Miall's motion for Disestablish- ment. To give you one more proof of the spirit in which this 'question is regarded by Nonconformist politicians, let me draw your attention to part of a series of resolutions unanimously agreed to on the 17th inst. by the Committee of the Surrey Con- -gregational Union. The general drift of the tesolutions is that the Burials' Bill ought to be abandoned, on the ground that farther -solicitation is,— ‘. (1.) Undignified, because that which has long existed in Scotland, -and has been conceded to Ireland. must be granted as a right, and should not be sued for by England and Wales. (2.) It is unnecessary. because until legal disabilities are removed by law it is in the power of Noncon- formists, by their own action, to secure legally all that is really essential in this respect, while, by so doing, they will enlighten public opinion as to the necessity of perfect religious equality. It is therefore earnestly recommended to Nonconformists of all denominations, in places unsup- plied with public cemeteries, that they should inter their deceased friends, as usual, in the national graveyards, but conduct, by their respective ministers, the religious services on the confines of the ground, care being taken that the feet of the officiating minister be not placed within the legalised area while the service proceeds. It is further recommended that no petitioning or other Parliamentary action be taken in this matter until a Liberal Government shall require the support of Noncon- -formists to carry a measure providing for religious equality. That with a view of drawing public attention to the cases of children dying unbaptised, and who may be ref used Christian burial by the national clergy, the ministers and members of Free Churches be earnestly recom- mended in such cases to tender consolation to bereaved parents."
I will hardly stop to notice that in Ireland the concession amounts to burial without service at the grave—which is offered in England —and that as regards unbaptised children, the Church clergyman has no option,—not because we believe the children to be damned, but simply because they have not been admitted to the initiatory -rite of Christianity. Let me pass at once to ask you whether Churchmen can regard the Burials' Bill except as part of a policy, and to be dealt with accordingly ? The Russians must not occupy Afghanistan, because we have reason to suspect their intentions with regard to India. The Nonconformists must not take oar .churchyards, because we have it on their own authority that they mean no "innocent "occupation. In such a case, our concession
would be "innocent" (as Mr. Davies calls it) only in the sense of being idiotic.
But you may say, "If it is just, grant it without regard to consequences." That is the heroic policy, and I will not discuss it at length, because Wednesday afternoon will give you all I can say, and in a better form than I can put it. But I will indicate some heads of objection to the Bill. It is desirable—sentimentally —that Dissenters should bury their dead with such rites as they may wish, but it is not therefore desirable that they should do so in pariah churchyards. The condition of Dissenting worship is the provision by Dissenters of places of worship for themselves, and the same is (and has ever been, for aught that can be shown to the contrary) the case with Churchmen. In default of a Church, we Churchmen cannot use a Dissenting Chapel ; nor, vice versa, can the Dissenter use the Church. The same applies to grave- yards and burial rites. We have provided and continue to provide our own churchyards. Let Dissenters, who have lately boasted that their voluntary system provides all the requisites of worship far better than ours, do the same. In Wales they have done so
pretty extensively, as I have lately pointed out from statistics collected by the Church Defence Institution, and the same is true of the country districts of England. In fact, returns from nearly half the parishes of England show that probably one chapel in five throughout the country has its own burying-ground, and that these are chiefly in the rural districts,—the town districts being mainly provided for by public cemeteries. If the organisation of Nonconformists is as efficient as they say it is, let them go on as they have begun.
But of course there are places not yet provided for, and in these the Dissenters claim more than equal rights in the churchyard as "national property." Why, Sir, it is not ten years since they got excused from Church-rates for the maintenance of church and churchyard, on the very ground that the Church, though nationa in name, was essentially sectarian. Public convenience retained for them the right of burial, but is it decent now to bring forward a "national" claim for licence in ritual such as Churchmen never yet enjoyed?
In the next place, Mr. Morgan's Bill is very loosely and very injuriously drawn, as you will see if you read it through. "Decency" is enjoined, but without a standard—and Walworth Shakerism is an existing religion—" prayers," "hymns," and "published ritual" are all vague terms, and there is no limit of length for the services. The danger of hostile manifestations is not so small as you think, teste the extracts I have quoted above, where the Dissenting leaders show themselves quite prepared to make every corpse a casus belli, until they get what they are pleased to mean by "religious equality."
Lastly, I defy any one to show that the "alleged grievance" is felt in the country. Three-fourths of the people get married at Church, and yet we are told that only one-third of the population are Church people. If ever a Dissenting child, dying unbaptised, is refused the Church Service, we hear loud complaints, but not one when the Church Service is used over a Dissenter ; I except, of course, perfunctory petitions from various chapel congregations.
To sum up, we object to the Bill, because it is part, and only I. art, of an avowedly hostile policy ; because it is founded on no proved ievance, because the natural and easy remedy for any alleged grievance is in the hands of Dissenters themselves—and they have largely availed themselves of it—and because the claim they bring is one which their own successful policy in years past has formally
abjured.—I am, Sir, &c., GILBERT VENABLES. [This is the kind of argument which justifies the statement that the best allies of Disestablishment are the spokesmen of the Church Defence Movement.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
