Parliutnentary History, Vol. 15, p t . 2 (1 996), p p . 173- 189

The Burial Act of 1880, The Liberation Society and George Osborne Morgan

DEBORAH W I G G I N S South Plains College, Lubbock, Texas

At the begmning of Queen Victoria’s reign, the Church of England found itself in the midst of ferment, turmoil and disquiet. The numerous political and social changes of the preceding years, including Catholic emancipation and the Great Reform Bill, unsettled the Church and clergy, while the ensuing years saw the waters roiled by the Tractarians and the Oxford Movement, the renewal of Convocation, continuing manifestations of evangelicalism, and the growing power of the Nonconformist (or Dissenting) population. The bishops, clergy, and laymen of the established Church perceived their beliefs and traditions to be under siege, both from without and within. Their concerns were not groundless. The dis- establishment of the Irish Church was camed in 1869, but fears of the same fate for the Church of England had begun decades earlier with Catholic emancipation in 1829. These fears were partly concerned with loss of privilege, status, and fees. But, much more basic, the established Church and clergy knew that ‘their reason for existence was integrated into the political history of the Enghsh people’.’ With such change occumng in the English constitution, could the Church hold its own?

The movement for disestablishment of the Church of England reached its height in the decade of the 1870s. In a macabre turn, the graveyards of England and Wales became the battleground for the final struggle between the Church and the dsestablishmentarians. This was the last of the classic gnevances of the Nonconformists - the issue of who could be buried in the parish churchyards and what services could be performed. This gnevance was described by the opposition as ‘the smallest ever brought before the House of Commons’.* But it was an issue arising 6om the circumstances of English history, beginning as a society united in one religion, but now fiagmented into many denominations. The Church still controlled the churchyard and the incumbent held it as his freehold, but the law no longer reflected the realities of society.

Eventually, the Church of England was forced to give way on this point, as

I 0. Chadwick. 7he Knatiatr Church (2 vols.. New York, 1%6-70). I, 570-1. There are numerous studies of Victorian religion, includmg Chadwick’s work. Others of great value on the general issues include G. Parsons. RdiRion in Vicforion Briroitr (1988); G.I.T. Machin, Polifiu atrd fhc Churches irr G W ~ I Bn’rarn, 1832-1868 (1977); E.R. Nornian. Church atrd Socicry it! Etr,q/atrd. 1770-1970, A Hisfonid Study (1Y76).

Hansard, Pad. Deb., 3rd ser.. CCVI. 1653 (7 June 1871).

174 Deborah IV&@

the Burial Act of 1880 allowed burial in churchyards without the Church of England burial service, but with a service performed by a minister of another denomination. The Church was loath to accede on this issue, as it feared that etltry iiito the churchyards would inevitably bring other denominations into its church buildings. Churchmen and Conservatives strained to prevent any Burial Bill that would allow Nonconformists into the churchyard. At the passage of the bill in 1880, the opposition was still determined, if fatigued. But while churchmen and Conservatives were embittered and melancholy at their defeat. they were oblivious to their victory. They had been wrong in their fears, for with the passage of the Burial Act, vigorous opposition to the established Church was defused. Never a p i n would the disestablishnientarians be able to mount a campaign with the necessary fire and emotion to break the silken bonds of Church and State. By conceding the issue of control ofthe churchyard, the Church ofEngland may well have saved itself.

I t is no surprise that the debate surrounding the burial laws brought forth strong passions fioni all involved. This single issue divided itself not only into the relipous d~fferences and jealousies between the established Church and other denoniinations, but also struck a t the legal and philosophical relationship between Church and State. Tradition and civil law clashed with the desires ofthe increasing numbers of Nonconformists in the population. The issues were a t the same time complex and simple. Also, they were of great interest to the general populace. Burial is one of the great constants in life, and any religious issue always produced emotional debate.3

In 1880 the Bishop of Carlisle commented during discussion over the Burial Bill that, 'they all knew that burial had two sides - one religious, and the other sanitary'.'' The series of Burial Acts from 1852 to 18575 had solved the physical problems of Britain's graveyards, as new cemeteries under local control were opened. and the old, overcrowded. noxious graveyards were closed to further burials. But with the external difficulties alleviated, there remained the more central question of who would control entry into the churchyard. The established Church and the Nonconformists were the opposing factions, and consecrated and unconsecrated grourid was the issue. Who could be buried where, who would perform the religious service, and what hnds of religious services would be legal?

' J.P. Parry, Dernotroly ond Kel!qion (Cambndge, 1986). p. 53. ' Ilamard Pad. l*b.. 3rd ser.. CCLIII. 2 (15 June 1x80). Neither the unitary nor the religious

tidr of the bunal qurctioii hus been the subject of much historical research. However. the basic works on public health touch briefly on the wbject of burial, especially ,I S. Curl, nie Victorian Celrbrarion ojDeolh (1972): F.B. Smith, 7hc Peoplr'r Hrdlrh, 1830-1910 (1979); AS. Wohl, Etidottgerpd Lves, Puhlir Hcalrh it1 Virforiati Bnroin (1983); arid J. Morley, D e d r h , H e m m and the Vicronans ( 1 Y 7 1 ) . It should be noted there were several types of r\tablished burial places. A churchyard was under thc control of relipour authorities. a cenierery c-ould hc managed by eithrr a local authority or private. company, I I burial ground was the province of ~n elected burial board, wliile a graveyard is a more descnptive and genenc term. I have used thew terms interchangeably in the interests of readability.

' With the Short l'itles Acc of 1896. 12 Uunal Acts were construed as the Burial Acts 1857 to 1906. Many of the provisions of these Acts remain unrrpealed and in force a t this time. Holrbitry's Lows q/ England (4th edn., 56 vols., 197s). X. 480-1. A history of the Burial Acts is contained in rriy work, 'The Burial Act\: Cemetery Reform in G r a t Britain. 1815-191 4' ('It-xas Tech University, Ph.l>.. 1 W t ) .

Burial Act of 1880 175

The Church of England and the Nonconformists were old enemies, and each side seemed incapable of understanding the other’s point of view.

T o describe those involved in this debate as merely for and against is simplistic. The final vote on the issue would be yes or no, but how politicians amved at their votes was far fiom identical. There have been several studles devoted to explaining why the politicians of the late 1800s voted as they did. Religious ideology was a driving force in politics. Often it made for transient coalitions, as in the case of the disestablishment of the Church of Ireland, with the Liberals, Nonconformists, members of the Liberation Society, and Irish Members voting together on that measure.6 The issue of control of burial grounds also produced division along denominational lines, with Church of England supporters lined up on one side and everyone else on the other. But while religious sentiments were of uppermost importance, party loyalty was also a p o w e h l consideration in voting. As Conservative Member of Parliament, Gathorne Hardy noted in his diary after a debate on the subject in 1873, ‘Disraeli spoke well & with much humour but I have always doubted the wisdom of giving the division so purely a party ~haracter.’~

From a modem perspective, with these issues long settled, this quarrel may seem curious. T o Members of Parliament in the 1860s and 187Os, it was a matter of deep concern and continual debate. Almost every year legislators introduced measures designed to alleviate the grievance. Their efforts met with no success until 1880 when George Osbome Morgan’s Burial Bill became law. But, in the years precedlng 1880, this topic was the focus of an immense amount of discussion and political energy. Parliament debated the question endlessly, for it was an emotional issue, a religious issue, and a national issue.

The idea of a national church had long been part of British history. But these were conceptual and historical ideas, while Parliament dealt with the practical and legal problems of the established Church, which had been endowed with wealth and property,in a time that tolerated no dssent. By the 1800s Non- conformity was continuing to grow in power and prestige, and the established Church was forced to acknowledge both the numbers and political power of Nonconformists.8

The issue of consecrated and unconsecrated ground was an old argument between the Church of England and the Nonconformists. Ancient custom created the idea of consecrated ground, that is, ground ritually dedicated for burial in perpetuity by an official of the Church of England (and before that the Roman Catholic Church), and this idea entered common law. The private leplative acts establishing joint stock company cemeteries and the Burial Acts of the 1850s further defined it. After 1850 new graveyards were obliged by law to provide both consecrated and unconsecrated ground. Customarily, a physical division

’ P.M.H. Bell, Disettablithmmf in Ireland a d Wales (1969). pp. 42-44, 106-8. ’ Parry, Dmmq and Religion, pp. 14-39. See also E.R. Norman. Church and Sodery in England,

1770-1970: A Hittorical Study (Oxford, 1976). pp. 187-201. The Diary of Garhome Hardy, later Lord Cranbrook, 18661892: Political Selections, ed. N.E. Johnson (Oxford, 1981). p. 177.

Norman. Church and Son’ety in England, pp. 100-1.

176 Deborah WiBins

existed between the two. This dividing line could be a stone or brick wall, or as discussed in the House of Lords, 'a fence or railing, or any real b o t l a j d e separation .

Even in ancient churchyards, which usually contained only consecrated ground, other subtle differentiations existed. Traditionally, parishioners considered the southern aspect of the churchyard more comfortable and fashionable for burials, the north side less desirable, with the area directly behind the church reserved for unbaptized or stillborn infants, who, according to the rubric of the established Church, could not be buried in consecrated ground and could not have the burial service read over them.'"

Under the civil laws of Great Britain, every citizen had the legal right of burial in the parish churchyard. However, ecclesiastical law allowed the use of only the Church of England burial service in that same parish churchyard. Thus, civil law and ecclesiastical law conflicted to the detriment of Nonconformists, for if one desired burial in the consecrated ground of the parish church, one had to accept an Anglican burial service. In larger towns and cities, the law created few problems. There were new burial grounds with unconsecrated areas available, and there were pnvate cemeteries with both types of ground. However, in the rural districts there had been and continued to be difficulties. Usually the old churchyards contained only consecrated ground, and often the churchyard was the only place for burial within several miles. Also, some Nonconfornllsts really wanted to be buried in the churchyard (where under 'secular' law they had legal right of interment) so that they could lie alongside their forefathers until Judgement Day. However, these same Nonconfornusts detested the idea of being forced to have the Anglican burial service read over them.

Under ecclesiastical law, there were only three classes of people who could not have the Anglican burial service. The first group was the unbaptized. This category contained the Baptists, who refused baptism until the age of conscience; the Quakers, who refused baptism altogether; and infants who died before they could be baptized. (It should be remembered that the Church of England rec- ognized lay baptisms as legal.) Stillborns were in a grey area - they could not be baptized because they were not living, but they seemed to require some burial ritual. The second group prohibited from the burial service was suicide (/do de se) victims. However, those who were judged not mentally competent a t the time of the suicide were still entitled to a proper burial. The third group contained those who had been excommunicated froni the Church.'

Sometimes clergymen looked the other way and allowed the burial service for an unbaptized infant. Often they were lenient regarding suicides. By law, if an unknown body were found washed up on the sea shore, that person was assumed

. Y

I Hansard, Pod Deb , 3rd wr , CXLII. 2066 (27 June IX56) "' Thlc it contradictory. but the bunal practices themselves were contradctory and inuch depended

on thc pansh incumbent " R Fletcher, 7 h e Akenhm Bund Care (1974). p 88. The question ofwhat to do with thllbornc

had not been solved. Accordmg to tesnmony in this tnal, they were often 'buned' o n a hlllside or pcrhdps placed in a ditch

Burial Act of 1880 177

to be baptized and therefore had to be buried in consecrated ground.12 Again, under ecclesiastical law, the clergy were bound to bury everyone else, even a person who had led an unsavory and troubled life, as long as he had been baptized into the community of the Church. There were instances in which a vicar, constrained by conscience, refused to read the burial service over a hardened sinner. O n one occasion, a ‘reprobate’ was ejected fiom a public house in Cambridge and died in the street. His clergyman could not bring himself to read the burial service, with its ‘words of assurance of salvation’. For his refusal, the minister was fined and suspended for six months. Thus, some of the clergy found themselves caught between the rubric of the established Church and the realities of their congregations. l 3

However, some clergymen proved themselves not merely innocent bystanders in the burial ground controversy. Stubborn, pompous, and often resentfll, some incumbents performed their duties in a manner that was calculated to antagonize the Nonconformists. Their Christian attitudes did not extend to the Noncon- formists, and on occasion Church of England vicars went out of their way to insult the family of the deceased, by such actions as refusing to bury a person who had been baptized into the Church, but was known to be a Nonconformist. A notorious example of a similar kind of intransigence on the part of a clergyman occurred in 1860 in Hinderwell where a woman gave birth to twins. One infant died within a few minutes of birth, unbaptized. The doctor baptized the other infant before it also died. When the vicar dlscovered the specifics of the situation, he insisted that there had to be two coffins, and that the infants must be buried apart, consistent with their now eternally separate condltions - one baptized and received into the community of the Church, the other destined for theological limbo. ’

These are but a few examples of the conflicts between Nonconformists and the members of the established Church. In his study of these frictions, Bernard, Lord Manning commented that only studying the Minute Books of the Protestant Dissenting Deputies would ‘suffice to shew the vast extent, the meanness, the venom, the relentlessness of the persecution that went on’ (of the Nonconformists). He attributes the tendency of Nonconformists to take offense easily and maintain their antagonism to the Church of England to these kinds of actions of the representatives of the Church. In describing the attitudes of churchmen, he noted that their actions showed that ‘no matter was too paltry, no grief too poignant. no place too sacred, no rite too solemn, no violence too scandalous, no unchivalry too despicable’.’

These instances of clerical harshness increased criticism of the Church and promoted the work of the Society for the Liberation of Religion from State-

’ ? Chadwick, finorion Chutrh. 11, 202. I’ P.T. Marsh. 7he Vinoriot~ Church itr Declitre (Pittsburgh, 1969), p. 253. I‘ Hanwrd. Pad. Deb.. 3rd ser., CC, 517 (23 March 1870). ‘ j Lord Manning, 7 h e Protestant Dsrenting Deputies (Cambridge, 1952). p. 101. See also L. E.

Elliott-Binns, Relkioti iti the Victorian Era (Greenwich, CT.. 1953). pp. 69-75 for comments on the ‘ill-feeling between the Church and Nonconformity’.

178 Deborah Wigqins

Patronage and Control, or as it was commonly known, the Liberation Society.16 The Liberation Society was an amalgam of various Nonconformist groups. I t began its life as the British Anti-State Church Society in 1844 under the leadership of Edward Miall, and by 1870 it had become a powerful and well-organized political group. Miall served in Parliament as the Liberal Member for Bradford." He had publicly announced his intention to introduce in every session ofparliament a resolution calling for the disestablishment of the Church of England.

At the same time as the Liberation Society was increasing its power, the Church of England found itself losing membership. A voluntary religious census taken on 30 March 1851 revealed some extremely disturbing finlngs for the established Church. Anticipating the results, Bishop Wilberforce had announced in the House of Lords that the only result of the census would be wrotzg information, and he had urged the clergy not to co-operate with the survey. When the report of the poll was published in 1854, everyone found something to disagree with in the results. The figures seemed less than precise, and the reasoning was often convoluted, but two overwhelming statistics most distressed the established Church and clergy. It was apparent that nearly one-half the church-going population of England attended Nonconformist chapels; in Wales, 87 per cent. The second lsturbing statistic was the large number of the non- church-going population, estimated a t perhaps five and a half million. l8 Clearly, the strength of the Church, and religion itself, was waning. Before the census, few would have believed that Nonconformists comprised so large a proportion of the nation. Understandably, this was the first and last religous census in English history." T h e Time3 forecast that the Church would be disestablished before the tun1 of the century.2"

Miall was a fierce proponent of disestablishment and certainly more radical than inany of his followers in the Liberation Society. The move to disestablish struck at the traditional aristocratic order of British society. Mail1 thought that disestablishment would open the ofices of the Church to a wider variety of clergy in contrast to the current method of patronage, which rewarded well-connected religious and political conservatives with ofice. He believed that the continuing intimate connection between Church and State harmed the efforts of the estab- lished Church, as the very existence of this bond lver ted attention fiom the considerable religious work that Bntain needed."

I n <:onspicuoiisly absent from the ranks of the Librtatioii Society were the Methodsrc. Even though they werr the largot group of Nonconformists, they were not iiiterotcd in &sestablirhn~ent. and thus played little part in the Liberation Society. RrIip t i in L'irroriati Hri/aitr. ed. G . Parsons (4 vols.. Manchestcr. 19HX). 1. X2.

I ' Mall had trained a\ a Nonconformist clergynian and worked a\ a minister before beconling the editor of the Noticonformi5r in 1x41 A supporter of the Anti-Corn I.aw Lrapic and a friend of many Chartist leaders, he was elected to Parliament in 1852, serving until 1857. He returned to the House in 1869 whew he coiitiriucd to work for Qsesublishnient uiitil tiis wtirrment in 1874. He died 111 18x1. I > N . B . XIII. 324-6.

'* Panonc. C'irrorian Britain. I . 68, 70. 86. "' C:hadwirk. Virrorian Churrh. I. 36S9.

Marsh, Virron'an Churrh, p. 138. 'I &Id.. pp. 137-40.

Burial Act of 1880 179

Another powerfll, but rather more dlscreet group which interested itself in the burial issue was the Protestant Dissenting Deputies. This venerable organization had been created in 1732 as a general assembly with two representatives (or Deputies) fiom each congregation of ‘Protestant Dissenters, Presbyterians, Inde- pendents and Baptists in and within ten mdes of London’.** The initial goal of the Deputies had been the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts which limited all governmental positions to members of the Church of England. Beginning in 1732, they had worked tirelessly for the repeal of this offensive legislation. only to be continually rebuffed and rejected. Afier making several attempts to secure repeal in the years afier 1732, the Deputies met once again with Prime Minister Sir Robert Walpole in 1739 to appeal for his assistance. Walpole gave his standard reply, ‘The time has not yet amved.’ When the head of the group, Dr Chandler, asked when that time might be, Walpole replied, ‘Ifyou require a specific answer, I will give it to you in one word - never.’23

Notwithstanding Walpole’s reaction, the Deputies continued their work; always conducting their business with great civility and diffidence. As a group they were willing to petition, to wait, and to hope. They also provided advice and assistance to Nonconformists who had legal problems related to their religious status. Afier 1828, with the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, the number of cases they took an interest in greatly dlminished, except in two areas - burial rites and trust property.24

In the decades afier the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, two more of the grievances of Nonconformists were finally redressed by Parliament. One of these was accomplished by the abolition of university religious tests for the B.A. in 1854 and 1856, and for the M.A. in 1871, which opened Oxford and Cambridge, and most of their degrees and teaching positions, to non-Anglicans. Another was secured by the abolition of the church rates in 1868, which meant that Nonconformists were no longer financially responsible for the upkeep of Anglican churches and churchyards. The last festering grievance of the Non- conformists was entry into the churchyard, and their weapon was the Burial Bill, legslation designed to allow Nonconformists to be buried anywhere in the churchyard, with Nonconformist ministers reading their burial services.

Of course, to pass a bill of this nature, the Liberation Society needed the backing of either the Liberals or Conservatives. Benjamin Ilisraeli and the Con- servatives were out of the question as allies, for their members viewed the Society’s aims with ‘homfied hostility’. While many Liberals were sympathetic to, or participants in, the Liberation Society, William Ewart Gladstone was an unknown factor in the political calculation. Even though his government had favoured and passed legislation for dlsestablishrnent of the Irish Church in 1869, his position on restriction of privileges of the Church of England was not clear. However,

22 Manning, Proresranf Dismit inx Dqur ie s , p. 19. The Liberation Society and the Protestant Dissenting Deputies had a fnendly relationship. but worked independently: G.I.T. Machin, Pdirics and rhe Churches in Great Brirain,4832-1868 (Oxford, 1977). pp. 257-8.

23 As quoted in Manning, Profesfanf Dissenting Dqur ie s . p. 3. also, pp. 2’+30. 2‘ Ibid., p. 97.

by 1873, Gladstone decided that the national majority had no desire for dis- establishment. Indeed. in Gladstone’s words, the action2’

would leave nothing behind but a bleeding and lacerated mass. Take the Church of England out of the history of England. and the history of England becomes A chms, without order, without life and without meaning.

Even though Gladstone had set his face against severing the connexion of Church and State, the Liberation Society and others of a like-mind continued their work. During the decade of the 1860s, numerous bills were introduced in Parliament to allow the Nonconfomiists entry into the churchyard. Leading this effort was Sir Morton Peto, a wealthy and proniinent Baptist and twice chairman of the Protestant Dissenting Deputies, who carefully disavowed any connection with the Liberation Society, even though his legslation met with the Society’s approval.” I n opening remarks on his bill in 1861, he described the Nonconfornists’ case carefully and eloquently. According to his research, England was the only place in the world to have such difficulties over consecrated ground. Throughout the empire. the burial grounds were used by all denom- ination, and ‘110 evil resulted from the practice’. His bill would have allowed a Nonconformist minister to conduct a burial service over a grave in the churchvard, with ‘the reading of the Holy Scripture, a prayer and the singing of a hymn’. But Conservative Members found this idea repellent. It was, of course, not just the simple service that offended, but the wholc idea of opening up England’s churchyards to any ceremony that was not the burial service of the established Church. The invasion of the churchyard was seen by many Anglicans as the first step, with the churches themselves the next target. Churchmen spoke against the bill with every bit of ammunition they could muster, but their basic argument was founded in fear of the unknown. If the churchvard were opened to all then who could say what would happen, for there were many ‘quaint practices of some of the sects that were most offensive to a Christian people’. They prophesied bloodshed and disorder; they foretold dire results. But, John Bright asked, was the Church of England so weak that a Baptist could not be buried in consecrated ground with a Baptist service without causing the entire foundation of the Church to O n e would have to assume that the Church WAS indeed tha t weak and frightened. because, as Bright observed with sarcastic overstatement, the foundatioris seemed to

l5 /h id , pp. 1-40. 114. Gladstone’\ cpcc-ch was dch\-ercd in Parlianient on 10 May 1873, in reply to Maill: Hansard, P d . Drb., 3rd cer., C<:XVI. 47-8. (16 May 1873)

.‘I I’eto was an extremely tuccesshl coritrdcfor. His conipanirt were responsible for building many English railway lines and railroadc in Rusm. Norway, Auctnlia. Canada. arid France. I Iis conipany (Gnssell & Peto) also conctructcd Neleon’s Colunin. He wat a liberal in politics and reliaon. For exdniple. he paid for restoration of the pdrith church on his estate. He tcrved as chairman of the Protestant Disscnnng Deputies from 1853 to 1855 and again from 1863 to 1867. He suffered tinaiicial revmalt in 1x66 and resigned his seat for I3ristol in 1868: D.S .B . . XV. 072-4; Manning. Prorrsrmrr Discnifitig Dcpitti~~. p 481

’- thisard, /’d. Deb.. 3rd ser.. CLXII. 1024. 1040. 1043 (24 Apnl 1x61).

Burial .4ct of 1880 181

shake at just the suggestion of ‘permitting no one knew what alien ceremonies to be performed in the churchyard’.’’

After Peto’s withdrawal fiom Parliament in 1868, George Osborne Morgan stepped forward in 1870 to continue the fight. Unlike Peto, Morgan was a member of the established Church and the son of a Welsh clergyman, who had witnessed the Church’s neglect of Wales and the corresponding rise in Non- conformity among the parishioners.2” Morgan wanted burial reform and eventual disestablishment, and his advocacy of these radical ideas was all the more persuasive because he was a churchman himself. While not a member of the Liberation Society, he was a close friend of Maill’s and obviously sympathetic to the goals and desires of the Society. His Burial Bills, which were private bills and not sanctioned by either party, achieved a second reading in the House every year from 1870 to 1873, but they were always stopped at that point.

Morgan’s argument for his legislation’s second reading in 1870 was carefully and logically presented, interlaced with anecdotal evidence of this grievance that continued to agitate Nonconformists. He was uncommonly forthright in describing his bilk3’

He did not say that it was a perfect Bill. He did not say that it was not a Bill which might not be usefully amended in Committee, but he did say that it was an honest attempt to settle a vexed question upon a just basis.

What he did not want for his bill was a select committee, which in many instances really was a fate worse than death. Sir Morton Peto’s bill had had the unhappy destiny of being sent to a select committee in 1862 and, according to Morgan, when it reappeared ‘its best fnends hardly knew it again’. He wanted his bill to be the subject of debate in the House in the hope that its difficulties might be ironed out by the House in committee, instead of sending the bill ‘upstairs to be slaughtered in the dark’.3’ The most controversial provision of the bill was that it allowed services other than Anglican in the churchyard.

Richard Cross, who would be Home Secretary in Benjamin Disraeli’s cabinet in 1874, firmly opposed the bill, but the force of his objections paled before the comments of some other Members. W. Tipping, Member for Stockport, con- tributed several highly inflammatory statements, challenging the Nonconformists to come out in the open and declare their true intention, which was ‘to undermine

Ibid.. CLXX, 150 (15 April 1863). Gathorne Hardy. a staunch churchman. pointed out 111

debate that if one looked at the ‘hymns of some of the extreme sects in this country, he would there see such things as would make hls hair stand on end and must horrify any parish’. Ibid.. p. 156.

r, A prize-winning student at BaUiol College, Morgan was called to the bar at Lincoln’s Inn in 1853. He was elected for Denbighshire In 1868 and spent his years in the House championing a number of crucial measures. He managed the Married Women’s Property Bill through the House in 1882 and in 1881 carried the bill which abolished flogging in the army. He was appointed under-secretary for the Colonies in 1886 in Gladstone’s government and served later in Parliament as chairman of the standing committees on law and trade. He was a scholar and poet and after his death on 25 Aug. 1897. he was buried In the churchyard at Llantysilto near Llangollen. Morgan IS

a man easy to admire. D.N.B., XXII. 1064-7. ’’ Hansard, Pad, Deb., 3rd ser., CC. 531 (23 March 1870). ” Ibid.. pp. 521-2.

182 Dcborah Wiaim

the Church of England through the graveyards’. He claimed to criticize them not so much for desiring the disestablishment of the Church, but for their covert activities. Why did they not attack the Church directly, he asked, and ‘meet the bull face to face, and not bring fireworks round its neck merely to goad and imitate it’. Others participating in the debate were less colorful and impassioned. As one Member pointed out, the question under dscussion was simple justice. A gnevance existed and required legislation to correct it. The Burial Bill was not a contrived attack on the established Church, and the Church should not im- mediately ‘consider every demand for mere justice on the part of others to be an attack’.32 Eventually, and over Morgan’s objections, the bill was referred to a select committee, but no satisfactory compromises could be found. Morgan still championed his bill; other Members detested it. Colonel W.B. Barttelot was an outspoken opponent, and his words seemed to sum up the feelings of the opposition:33

He particularly disliked the Bill. All his constituents also disliked the Bill. The Bill touched them in a tender point. It was running a needle into his eye. He was not prepared to allow people to run the needle into his eye.

Morgan withdrew the bill on 29 July 1870. In the House of Lordc Conservative churchman Lord Beauchamp introduced

a bill in 1871 that allowed a silent service in the churchyard, ifthe family preferred that to the Anglican burial service. However. Nonconformists considered this grudging concession unacceptable. Morgan’s efforts in 1871 also met intense resistance. His arguments were the same. His opponents’ arguments were the same. One particularly surly Member declared that he did not like the bill, and he supposed that no one in the House liked the bill. with the possible exception of Morgan and his followers, but ‘although the Bill was bad, it might have been worse’. There were suggestions that the bill required further Iscussion, but Morgan replied that surely they had discussed this issue completely, as ‘there had never been a subject so thrashed out as the measure before the House’. But the opposition continued to use debate as its delaying tactic. In the arguments over the measure, there were 44 speeches and four divisions. Morgan complained of these tactics, for ‘if there had not been discussion enough on the Bill, he was a t a loss to know how much more was ne~cssary’.~’ Morgdn withdrew the bill on 4 August 1871.

Another year, another bill, and the debate continued. Judging by his oratory, Morgan became more and more determined that he would prevail. In this year’s comments, Morgan was careful to emphasize that the ‘right of burial was a civil right, no t an ecclesiastical right’. Even though his motion was not successful in the 1872 session, he promised ‘it would be introduced again and again, until i t ~ u c c e e d e d ’ . ~ ~ By 1873 his introductory remarks were well rehearsed, but that

I.’ aid.. pp. 526. 531-2, 546 “ Bid, CCIII, 193-5 (13 July 1870) ” aid, CCIV, 1142 (1 March 1871); CCVI, 1645 (7 June 1871); CCVII, 717 (28 June 1871). ‘’ aid.. CCIX, 349-50 (14 February 1872). CCXII. 221 (26 June 1872).

Burial Act of 1880 183

session’s debates were enlivened by the appearance of Benjamin Disraeli, whose presence both delighted and imtated Morgan. Disraeli’s attendance at the debate in March was unusual, as Morgan intimated that Disraeli had never attended a debate on this bill or taken part in a &vision, but perhaps, Morgan said, ‘[Disraeli] has dlscovered that this is one of those “great and burning” questions which demand the interposition of a Parliamentary Divinity’. Or it could be, Morgan continued, that the right honorable Gentleman planned to ‘pick up political capital out of the tombs, or to form a rallying ground for his party round the last resting places of the dead’?6 The divinity I d intervene, with a forcehl and witty speech - ridiculing Morgan and his followers, defendmg the established Church and its clergy, concealing the issues before the House with other questions, sidestepping the obvious to climb to the obscure. Disraeli maintained that since the Non- conformists had managed to secure the repeal of the church rates, they now had to live with the results. He thought that with the abolition of these rates, the Nonconformists had no legal basis to demand entry into the churchyard. His arguments were less than effective with some Members. Mr Hughes retorted that if he were a member of the Liberation Society, he would ‘feel inclined to propose a vote of thanks to the right hon. Gentleman’, for he had never heard a speech more damaging to the established Church.37 In his note to the Queen, Gladstone described Disraeli’s speech as having ‘avoided enerally all extreme statements and consequently took rather narrow ground.

Morgan’s blll provided that services other than the Church of England’s be allowed in the churchyard, and these services could include only prayer, hymns and scripture passages. Again, his opponents claimed that the Nonconformists had no real grievance, but that the blll was a device to cripple and eventually destroy the Church. Morgan was carehl to reassure the House that his bill decreased no revenues or property of the Church. The debate bounced back and forth fiom Member to Member. Sir Stafford Northcote concluded:39

* 3 f

This is not a question ofintolerance. or ofthe grievance ofparticular indwiduals, or ofwhether a clergyman has acted in an unfeeling and unkind manner; but of whether we are to maintain the position in which we stand with regard to the National Church, and to the privileges and rights of Churchmen.

Notwithstanding Disraeli’s and Northcote’s remarks, the House approved the second reaIng, 280 to 217. Even The Times lambasted Disraeli’s performance. characterizing his argument as ‘a paradox’ and based on ‘rhetorical retort’. The leading edltorial saw the issue not as ‘a question of Ecclesiastical politics, or of philosophical statesmanship, but of the common feelings of human nature’, a stance closely aligned with Morgan’s.40 But it was July before Morgan’s bill could

Ibid., CCXV, 171-84 (26 March 1873). Actually. Disraeli had panicipated in a division on a Burial BJI in 1871: ibid., CCIV, 1153 (1 March 1871). ’’ Ibid., pp. 184-7. xi 7 h c litters of Queen Vironcr: 2 n d Series ed. G.E. Buckle (3 vols.. 19264). 11, 250. 9 Hanurd. Pad. D e b . , 3rd ser., CCXV. 159, 208 (26 March 1873). *I 7 h c Times. 27 March 1873, 9b.

be brought to the House in committee, an indication of the difficulty that he had brinpjng i I i such a bill as a private Member. MorgaIl also insinuated that the opposition had some pan in his difficulties. The debate on his bill in March had culminated, according to Morgan, in a 'House of upwards of 500 members - the fullest that had ever divided on private Member's Bill'. The Members of Parliament had agreed on a second reading even after listening to an impassioned speech against the measure by the leader of the opposition! Yet, by this point in the session the opposition was so powerful and organized that after a long debate, the Speaker adjourned the House without putting the question of going into committee. Morgan withdrew the nieasure on 23 July 1873.4'

The election victory by Disraeli and the Conservatives in 1874 heightened interest in the Burial Bill. With Gladstone's temporary retirement from politics, the Liherals were left thrashing about in opposition, searching for a political issue they could use to batter the Conscrvatives. The two issues they seized upon were extension of sufiage and disestablishment. Increasingly, disestablishment became

central part of politics, with the Liberation Society cranking up its organizational machinery. Between 1875 and 1876 the Society held 2,600 public meetings and handed o u t from five to six niillion pamphlets. Even Gladstone seemed interested in the subject again.

In 1876. Disraeli. Gladstone, and the Dulgarian atrocities captured the attention oi both partirs. but a decision had already been made by the Conservatives to try to solve the burial problem. I n 187.S, the Commons had defeated Morgan's bill by only 14 votes. After that vote, Home Secretary Richard Cross informed the Archbishop of Canterbury, A.C. Tait. that the Cabinet felt that continued resistance against the bill was unwise.." Disraeli had also told the archbishop that the subject was really no longer an issue, but that 'the question ought to bc settled'.43 Archbishop Tait was sympathetic to Nonconformists. His critics had dubbed him the 'Presbyterian archbishop', and his conciliatory tactics in office had infuriated high churchmen. But while Tait was anxious to accommodate the Nonconformists on a prablmatic basis. the clergymen of his Church were not.

In 1877 in the House of Lords, the Duke of Richmond, acting for the Conservative government, proposed a measure to consolidate the Burial Acts. Included in the legdation was a clause offering silent burial as an alternative ceremony. Again. this proposal was unacceptable to Morgan and the Non- conformists. The bill moved through the second reading, but here the Conservatives backed off, as Disraeli had to acconlniodate his Cabinet members, Lord Salisbury and Gathorne Hardy. who were firmly against the legislation. In conirxiittee. vanous amendments were offered t o reconcile the issue of the burial service. but to n o avail. While most of Disraeli's Cabinet were ready for com-

" Hansard. Par1 Dch , 3rd wr . C'C 'LXXII I , 123 (9 July 1873) ' ' I R T Davidson and W Ihihaiii. fJ/c of Arrlirbold Cat~iphcll 7oir, Arrlthrslrq~ of Catrrerbitry (2

\oh , I X ' j I ) . 11. 388 Tair recorded in his diary this meeting with Ihraeli, noting that 'He looked quite i l l . nght arni in a tling froin gout ' Tait was niadc Bishop of London in 1856 and Archbishop o f <'dntCrhiir) in 1869 He was noted for hic tolerance and political ckillt D A' H . XIX, 292-9

Marsh. Iitronotr (7l i i trr l i . p 245

Burial Act uf 1880 185

promise, Hardy again proved most stubborn, and threatened to resign if the bill were continued. The bill was withdrawn on 25 June 1877. After this debate, 15,000 Anglican clergymen signed petitions to protest the archbishop’s action of supportin a Burial Bill, with some 30,000 laymen adding their signatures to the petition4’ The clergy deluged the archbishop with angry and fearful letters, exhorting Tait to ‘pluck up courage and strangle this young viper of heresy and schism’. One vicar went so far as to declare his intention to resign and live on bread and water rather than ‘submit to such an unjust measure’.‘’

I t was certainly true that for many churchmen the Burial Bdl was a bitter draught, and it seemed that at some point in the hture they would have to swallow it. Lord Sahbury and Gathorne Hardy surely winced at the idea of the Church being reduced in any way - either in power or prestige, and some of the Lords, both spiritual and temporal, may have had a glimpse of their own future decline in power. 7 h e Burial Bill, A Fragment ofan U$nished Tragedy, spoke to these concerns. The point of this (anonymous) pamphlet was that the Church of England was malung itself ridiculous over the Burial Bill. The author was right, for the clergy did make fools of themselves by their stubborn attitudes on this issue. But a part of the pamphlet mirrored what prescient members of the House of Lords may have felt:46

Maybe they’ll pluck the strawbemes from our crown, And leave us but with the withered leaves for food! All thing are common when the common rule.

In 1878, Morgan had to content himself with offering a resolution, which the House declined, permitting interments in churchyards either without a burial service or with a burial service as desired. His 1879 bill was dropped before the second readmg, however; in an exercise of duplicity and cunning, a bill was passed that year which the Conservatives hoped would remove any remaining enthusiasm for Morgan’s next effort. This was the Public Health (Interments) Act, 1879, or as it was more commonly known, Marten’s Act. This law, containing only three clauses, allowed a local governmental authority (but not a Burial Board) to open new cemeteries, but did not require that the cemeteries contain consecrated ground. Therefore, a local government could get around the Burial Acts (which required both consecrated and unconsecrated ground) by proceeding under this Public Health Act. Also, they did not have to pay the consecration fees and burial fees reserved to the established clergy for a new cemetery. Proposed by a back- bencher, A.G. Marten, and supported by the Conservative Party, its brief clauses managed to tack together the 345 clauses of the Public Health Act of 1875 and the Cemetery Clauses Act of 1847, and made both measures applicable to cemeteries and ublic authorities. I t was described later as a ‘very cumbrous and ill-drawn Act’!’ Morgan characterized the bill as much worse. I t was a bill with an attractive title, which had apparently helped the measure as it had made its

I‘ Marsh, Viaonatl Church, p 255 ‘’ Davidson and Benham, Talr, pp. 399-4(H), 408. * Anonymous, 7he Brtrial 8111, A Fragrnetrr 4 a t i Utfitrtshed Tragedy (1877). pp 3-4 ” Hanwrd, Pad Deb.. 4th ser , XXXI. 179 (6 March 1895)

186 Deborah Wigqins

way through the House in the early hours of the morning, having got around the ‘half-past 12 o’clock Rule’. Its history, commented Morgan, ‘should be a warning to those who believe in this 2 o’clock in the morning legislation’. The bill was a forced mamage of widely varying and contrasting provisions of law which ‘produced something very like nonsense‘.‘’ These provisions, along with those of the Burial Acts of the previous years, made for a system so complex that few local authorities would try to operate under Marten’s Act.

But 1880 would be Morgan’s year. In a sudden move in March 1880, Disraeli called for a general election. His expectations that the election would be a great Conservative success were shattered by the results, with the Liberals returning to power with a majority of 54 and Gladstone as Prime Minister. Moreover, the Liberals were sympathetic to Morgan’s bill.” Morgan joined the government as Judge Advocate General, and his Burial Bill became a government measure, orignating in the House of Lords under the direction of the Lord Chancellor, Lord Selborne, an unwavering supporter of the established Church. At this point probably the whole of Great Britain realized that the Burial B d would be carried that session. Punch wrote in rhyme that ”’

We hope to bury the Burials row, by gving Dissenters permission To be buried anywhere with the fornis for which they make provision.

A perfunctory defence was mounted by some of the extreme Conservatives, especially the Bishop ofLincoln and Lord Cranbrook (formerly Gathorne Hardy).5’ They made the usual dire predictions of disorder and riot, and thought that the entire religous system would ultimately be destroyed, when ‘the Church, tom limb from limb, would be handed over, a defenceless trunk, to the Liberation Society’.52 But there was no fire in the opposition speeches. The years of debate

‘’ Ibid., 3rd ser.. CCLV, 996 (12 A u g w 1880). “’ It is interesnng to speculate on what eifect the death of his sister. Helen Jane, had on Gladstone’s

view5 of the bunal controversy. Helen died on 1 6 Jan. 1880 in Cologne. Gladstone and his brother. Sir Thomas Gladstone, arranged for her body to be brought back to England and buried in the family vault at Fasque. Kincardineshire. with Anglican rites. Hrlen had turned to the Roman Catholic Church in 1842, niuch t u the distress of her brother. She had eventually broken with R o m e and by 1874 had infornied Gladstone she had thought of rejoining the Anglican fold. However, the decision of the brothers to have her buned with an Anglican ceremony did raise questions. In a Icttrr of explananon for his action5 to Lord Actoii. on 2h Jan. 1880. Gladstone wrote that ‘evidence is abundant which shows that it would have been treason to her memory and wishes to allow of her being buried by a pnest of the actual Konian Church’: IV. E . Gladstotre, Aitrobiopphical Memo,rclttdd 1868-1894, nie Prime M i t i i s v r s ’ Papers Serirs, eds. J . Brooke and M Sorensen (1981). pp. 37. 38-9, 44.

’’ ‘Punch’s Essence of Parliament’, Putich (29 May 1880). p. 249, ’’ Cranbrook confidcd to his diary on 30 May 1880, after a discussion on the Burial Bill with

Lord Beaconsfield and othen. that ‘It is evident that with most, the game is considered up.’ Cranbrook’s &ary reveals that he waq a most dedicated opponent of the many Bunal Bills, ohcn staying late in the House when he thought the issue might be brought up. In his diary entry on 4 Mar. 1876, he observed ‘there is a want of strength o n o u r side and the time will come when we shall be beaten’. However. this realization did not stop his continued opposition: Dlary 4 Garhonre Hardy, pp. 264, 450.

j2 Harirard. Pad Deb , 3rd ser.. CCLII, 1042 (3 June 1880).

Burial Act qf 1880 187

preceding 1880 had seen dlscussion of every possible aspect of the measure. The bill was sent down to the Commons. 77ie Times urged the passage of the bill, noting the conciliatory spirit of Archbishop Tait and criticizing those whose ‘rigid logic or bitter zeal’ continued to antagonize the N o n c ~ n f o r m i s t s . ~ ~

In moving the second reading, Morgan said of the bill that it was ‘destined to close one of the most prolonged and painhl controversies which has ever harassed and divided this House’. I t was past time, Morgan continued, that all the con- frontation and argument be silenced and this bill pass. It was a simple measure, designed to remove an old grievance. And once it became law and was put into operation,”

all these dismal forebodings will vanish like the phantoms ofa diseased imagina- tion, and men will reflect with amazement that so small a concession would have awakened such grave and groundless apprehensions.

Beresford Hope, who had been a staunch opponent of Morgan’s measures in the past, once again answered in debate, but according to others in the House, his speech was strictly proforma. John Bright commented on the ‘positive vein of humour’ in the speech. One Member did exhort his comrades to buckle on their armor and fall a t the threshold of the Church fighting off the barbarians, but he enlisted no volunteers. The debate over the bill’s second reading lasted from noon until ten at night on 12 August, but there was still a bit more to say on 31 August. The Members moved through each clause, discussing each point, but as a staunch churchman had pointed ou t in the previous debate, the established Church and clergy were about ‘to receive a lesson in humility’. Beresford Hope, who represented Cambridge University, had the last word. He sat down, as he described himself, still opposing the measure, ‘unconvinced and impenitent’. The bill passed the third readmg and received the royal assent on 7 September 1 880.55 Archbishop Tait recorded in his diary a sigh of relief?‘

Thank God, the matter is settled, and I hope the excitement it has engendered will die away. The clergy have been much excited, and I think quite unnecessarily.

77ie Times also seemed tired from the debate. ‘It has been before the country and the Legislature quite long e n o ~ g h . ’ ~ ’ The arguments had worn themselves out over the years.

The measure that had finally passed was a simple and straightforward piece of legslation. According to the new law, notice could be gwen to the rector or his agent 48 hours in advance that a burial would take place in a churchyard or graveyard without the rites of the Church of England. There were regulations as to the time of burials (usually to be between ten in the morning and six in

’’ The Times, 4 June 1880, 10a. I‘ Hansard. Pad. Deb.. 3rd ser., CCLV. 989, 1008 (12 August 1880). ” Ibid.. pp. 1053, 1035. 1065 (12 August 1880); CCLVI. 945 (31 August 1880) y* Davidson and Benham. ?bit, p. 534. ’’ nie Times. 13 Aug. 1880, 8b.

thc evening) with no burials on Sunday, Good Friday or Christmas Day. Burial fees were reserved for the clergy, and clause seven ordered that burials were to be conducted in a decent and orderly manner with any persons acting with 'notous. violent, or indecent behaviour', being deemed guilty of a misdemeanor. There was to be regstration of burials perfomled under the act, and the law also provided that Church of England clergy could officiate and recite the Anglican burial service in unconsecrated ground without penalty. The clergy could read a modified burial service from the Book of Common Prayer and scriptures, rather than thc regular rite of burial, if they or the family desired. without penalty.5x The law sccmed to solve the problems, all around.

At least one layman was moved to virulent protest in an anonymous pamphlet, 77rc Birrid Qitcsriori Ftirther Exmiitred from a Layrnari's Poitit ( ~ f IGw, Is T h e d

Crievorzw! He was able to recognize the Liberation Society as the devil behind the whole business. From his perspcctive, there was no real grievance on the part of the Nonconformists; just agitation of the Liberation Society and its grasping members. After many pages of criticism of Morgan and his followers, the author concluded with the petulant observation that all of this burial controversy was going o n in an atmosphere in which 'one o f o u r large English boroughs has been found capable of returning as its representative in Parliament the avowed champion of Atheism'. O n e can almost hear the author's cry - what next?"'

The final passage of the Burial Bill must have been a tremendous moment for Morgan. After ten years of struggle. with unending hours of debate, his nieasure was finally law. The sense of satishction for Morgan, the Protestant Dissenting Deputies, and the Liberation Society was surely profound. I t was, however, the high point for those desinng disestablishment. With the most pressing of their grievances removed, the Liberation Society and Nonconformists n o longer had an issue with real emotion behind it. Only the radicals would still cry for disestablishment; most Liberals were tired of continued strife with a seemingly toothless Establishment. I t was no coincidence that donations to the Liberation Society fell after 1880 to an average of L9.700 per year, down approximately 25 percent from the previous decade. I n an odd twist, about half of the Society's funds (L4,OOO) each year came from bequests, so that, appropriately enough, thc dead were the mainstay of the organization.""

By gv ing way on thc Burial Bill, the Anglican Church may well have saved itself. I t certainly silenced its most powerful and vociferous enemies. The established Church and clergy had received their lesson in humility, and the Burial Act of 1880 ended the religious controversy surrounding the churchyards. Understand- ably, there were problems in dealing with these new rules. The 15,000 Church of England vicars w h o had signed the petition against the bill did not inimediatcly hand over their heritage and privilege to the Nonconformists. There were sceiies

4.3 fk 44 Vict . c . 41. The law Wds known i n Walo as the Osborne Morgan Act: I).M. Cregier, hirtidrrfrom LVder. (1976). p 30

"' Atiorivmous. 77ie Burial Qicesriotijirnhtv rxaniitrd froni 0 hyniutr's poitir ~ $ u I r w , I s thew rf Cricturrcr! (1880). p. 15 'The atheist in quertioii was Charles Hradlaugh. elected for Nonhanipton in 1880, but refused hi\ seat amid tremendous controversy until 1x86: D.N.B., XXII, 248-9.

* ' I).W. Bebhingon, 77lc .Votrcot!/htli<r (7ofrscietm (l982), p. 25.

Burial Art (~ f 1880 184,

of hostility and petulance. lawsuits, and even violence over the new law."' It would be 20 years later, with the passage of another Burial Act, when problenis with graveyards finally disappeared. That legislation, which ended burial fees for the clergy, while still controversial, moved through Parliament smoothly and sedately compared to the years of debate over Morgan's bill. By 1900, both the times and sensibilities had changed, and the settlement of the burial question was achieved in both its aspects - the sanitary and the religious. The graveyards returned to their ancient calm, devoid of controversy and bereft of drama.

I ' In an ironic twist , thi, hunal lam was rtlponsible for brinpng David Lloyd George to the notice of the public and propelling him to Parliament In what wac known as the Llanfrothen caw. i n 1888. Robert Robens, a qudrrynian, died He had wanted to he buned beside his daughter in the churchyard, but in a tangle of legalitiec and with a n obdurate rector, this was denied The relationc decided to storm the churchyard and proceed with the bunal The rector sued the family While the J U V ruled for the Kobens family. the County Court judge ruled against them and on appeal to the Lord ChiefJustice, Lloyd George and his clients. the Ilobertc family. won thejudgeinrnt, including !ull costs This caw made Lloyd George a hero in Wales P Ilowland, Lloyd Grorgt, (1075), pp 61-1. J Gngg. 71ir k o i q Uoyd ( k q r . (1973). pp 52-1