THE CLERGY AND THE BURIALS' BILL.
[To THE EDITOR OF VIZ " SPECTATOR:1
Snt,—I beg permission to add a few final words on this question. The more I examine Clause 11 of the Bill which professes to relieve the tender consciences of the Clergy, the more I desire to see its rejection in Committee. This clause will give no real relief to the conscientious parson, as it will still leave the friends of the deceased at liberty to demand the Burials Office, under all circumstances except those referred to in the Rubric; and it will also leave the parson open to the bitter reproaches of the Non- conformists, for "burying all comers with the same words of hope and satisfaction." I could fill your pages with extracts from Nonconformist literature holding up the Church and the Clergy to popular obloquy, for this indis- criminate use of the service. I have collected not less than 100 bitter Dissenting opinions of this character. If I had not known the quarter whence this pretended relief proceeded, I should have been disposed to consider that Clause 11 had been inserted in the Bill by some vindictive opponent of the Church, for the deliberate purpose of increasing the difficulties, insult- ing, and undermining the ministry of the parochial clergy. I hope, therefore, that .even if they accept the Bill in its general principle—some, because it is inevitable, and many, I hope, because it relieves an injustice—they will reject with scorn the mockery of relief to themselves which is given in Clause 11. It is far better that the Clergy should continue to be held up to Dissenting scorn and contempt on the score of their superior charity, than that they should be placed in the invidious and unfair position in which, I am sure, Clause 11 will place them.
There seems to me but one sure road "to fair-play all round" in this matter. Let burial, in the altered circumstances of the case, be regarded as a civil right only, and leave the religious service entirely to the option of the friends of the deceased. I see no reason, while order and decency are maintained, why the service to be performed at the grave should be necessarily a "religious ser- vice," commonly so called ; nor do I see any reason why a parson should be compelled to bury all comers with the same form of words. Of course, if the mourners wish for the Church service, they would be now at liberty to use it amongst themselves. I do not see why they should force the parson to use it, especially now that the chief portion of his " rights " have been contemp- tuously taken from him.
With reference to Mr. Carvell Williams and his Noncon- formist clients, I did not merely refer to his letter. I have a very large Nonconformist acquaintance, and I repeat that, for the most part, while ridiculing all attempts on the part of the Clergy to get rid of the universal obligation of the Burial Office, they never cease to hold up the Clergy to ridicule and contempt for its indiscriminate use. I was not aware that so large and influential a minority of the Clergy had petitioned for relief in this matter. That they have done so is no proof that Church- men as a body do not look upon the Service as one of charity, intended more for the mourners than for the deceased person. That so little regard has been paid to the prayer of their peti- tion is, to my mind, creditable neither to Dissenters nor Church- men. But although I have not ceased to be a Liberal, I am only too well aware that the motto of too many Liberals is, "Liberty for everybody except the Church ;" and, "Treat every one's feelings, consciences, and prejudices with respect, except those of the Clergy of the Church of England."—I am, Sir, &c., A HosprrAL CHAPLLM.
Previous page
