process than to aught else, as will appear from the words of the burial service-"Ashes to ashes, dust to dust." The dissipation of the whole body into the atmosphere in the ethereal form of gaseous matter is more suggestive than anything else of another and a brighter life. As to the cost of cremation, it has been proved by Brunnetti to be only 2s. 4d. in English money. When, therefore, it is said we are bound to pay the last tribute of respect to the dead, I ask you to consider the cost of this under the burial system to the widow and orphans, to say nothing of the dangers encountered by the living in the shape of colds from damp feet and bare heads at the grave side. If cremation be adopted our Church burial service would only require very slight alteration. Then, I would ask you to consider the economy of cremation so far as land is concerned, and would also remind this meeting that the then Bishop of Manchester is reported to have said at the consecration of a new cemetery-" Here are another hundred acres withdrawn from the food-producing area of the country for ever." Surely the earth was made not for the dead, but for the living; and yet under the existing system in populous communities like ours, the cemeteries taken up for the burial of the dead are becoming not only a difficulty but a danger. With regard to the state of the law in relation to cremation that is clear enough. Mr. Justice Stephen stated at Cardiff, in February, 1884, that cremation was practised by the Romans, while it is still resorted to by the Hindoos; and he went on to say that the burning of a body was never forbidden by the law, while anatomy was not an illegal way of disposing of the dead. In the case then before him, Mr. Justice Stephen held that to burn a dead body was no misdemeanour at common law. In point of fact Mr. Justice Stephen's decision amounted to this: that the cremation of a dead body, if effected without nuisance to others, is a legal proceeding. With regard to the objection made to the burning of the dead, that the evidences of crime might be destroyed, the Cremation Society, whose address is 11, Argyll Street, London, W., take ample precautions that no dead body shall be cremated in any case in which there is suspicion of foul play. I may add that Sir T. Brown finished his famous essay on Urn Burial," with this quotation from Lucan-Tabes ne cadavera solvat an rogus haud refert, eight Latin words, which being translated by eight English words, seem to me to sum up the whole matter-" Whether decay or fire destroys corpses matters not."

66

The Rev. J. R. GRAHAM, Vicar of St. Jude's, Bristol.

I HOLD that this question is one which specially appeals to those of the clergy who, like myself, minister to large town parishes. There are very grave sanitary reasons why the duty of dealing with this matter should be considered an essential part of parochial work, by those I mean, who work among the poor in large and over-crowded town parishes. It is not reverent and it is not wholesome that a dead body should lie, sometimes for six or seven days, in a room in which the living eat and sleep; and yet this is what we who work in the slums know to be a common practice. I would suggest that there should be, in every such parish as I am speaking of, a mortuary room in connection with the church. I say that it should be in connection with the church, and under the control of the incumbent of the parish. Of course, in many large parishes there are mortuaries which have been placed there by the municipal authorities, but they are only intended for cases which come under the jurisdiction of the coroner. I may say with regard to the sort of mortuary I propose, that it should be brightly and reverently furnished, and that it should be open to people of all creeds. I believe there exists, on the part of the poor people, a good deal of prejudice against letting their dead be taken out of their own houses or rooms, and as I had reason lately to make enquiry-having been presented with a mortuary in my own parish-from a well-worked London parish, that of St. Alban's, Holborn, I found that a deep-rooted prejudice did exist at the beginning, but that it has worn away, and that the people of the parish are now most desirous of making use of the mortuary chapel. As regards the question of funeral reform, I would urge that the ministrations of the cemetery chaplains should be much more reverent than they commonly are. The oft-times dirty surplice and hastily gabbled over service are not conducive to those feelings of reverence which ought to fill the minds of the people at so solemn a time. There is also great room for improvement in the arrangements of the chapels which are placed in cemeteries. I am afraid I am about to touch a difficult and delicate subject when I propose to allude to the clergy's fees; but I dare say it is the experience of many of you that this question of fees arises in a very unpleasant manner at the burial of every poor parishioner. A man goes to an undertaker to ascertain what will be the expense of a funeral, and he finds he will have to pay a fee if he has the ministration of a

clergyman of the Church in consecrated ground. The result is that the unconsecrated portion of the cemetery is frequently chosen solely on the ground of the diminished expense. ("No, no.") Some one says "No," but I have certainly found this to be the case in my own parish.

The Rev. WILLIAM RANDALL, D.D., Rector of Handsworth, and Rural Dean.

I VENTURE to offer a few remarks on this subject, because I have had an experience of forty-five years, during which I have frequently had occasion to bury as many as twenty-four bodies in a single day. In reference to a statement made by the last speaker I may say that in our diocese of Lichfield an enquiry was made as to the expense of burial, and it was ascertained that throughout the diocese the cost of a burial in the consecrated ground of the Church of England was less than in any cemetery in the diocese. I believe that that is the case throughout the length and breadth of the land. One of the speakers has mentioned the case of a poor working. man having had to pay £20 for the expenses of a funeral. All I can say is, that if he was such a fool as to do that, it was his own fault. A body may be buried in a Church of England cemetery, or in a churchyard, for 7s. 6d. at the very outside, if the friends choose to have the rites of the Church. I now wish to say a few words on the principal subject-funeral reform. I believe that a reform is necessary, and I cordially concur in Mr. Haden's proposal that some simple description of coffin should be adopted in order that the corpse may, as soon as possible, be resolved into earth. But at the same time, I disagree with him in saying that bodies do not soon decay, that they work injury to the inhabitants around, and that the coffins in which they are buried do not decay. My long experience is, that according to the nature of the ground in which a body is placed, so will the body remain in a more or less rapid state of decay. In a churchyard close to Birmingham a body will decay in a very few months, and I have known cases in which, after a very few years, not a vestige has remained, even of the coffin in which the body was enclosed-all was resolved into dust. In regard to what has been said as to the injury done by burying in churchyards there has been, it must be admitted, great neglect in the past; but I trust that that state of things has now passed away; if not, it is the fault of the parishioners themselves and not of the Legislature. There is already power to close any churchyard when it is shown that its further use for burial purposes will be injurious to the health of the inhabitants. So far, therefore, I think reform is progressing, and that there is no need to resort to extreme measures. There is one point in Mr. Haden's paper which I think is of importance. We have had a great deal put before us as to the unhealthy condition of churchyards, and the present mode of burial being the means of propagating disease among the people. My own experience has been that the longest lived people are the grave-diggers, and I have also noticed that in various parts of the country the people exhibit a desire to erect houses as close as they can either to the cemeteries or churchyards, the result being that I have never found they have had their lives shortened because of their proximity to those places. I now turn to the question of cremation, as to which I must say that I do most sincerely hope and trust the day will never come when the Christian people of England will submit to that abominable heathen practice.

The Rev. G. P. HAYDON, Vicar of Hatfield, Doncaster. I DESIRE to back up what Mr. Seymour Haden has said on one or two points. First -in reference to churchyards. I would remind this meeting that burials were not always in coffins. In my own large parish, where a Church has existed from a very early period, from the tenth to the eighteenth century a churchyard of about threequarters of an acre was sufficient for a population which, at the latter date, exceeded two thousand. During the present century two additions have been made to the churchyard, together equal to it in area. These have now been closed, because they were filled with vaults, brick graves, and grave spaces, in many of which coffins have been placed too near the surface. I would suggest that if bodies were interred merely in woollen or linen winding-sheets, as was formerly the custom, they would speedily be resolved into earth, and could do no harm to the living. It seems to me that if this method of burial sufficed for the generality of Christian people, there is no reason why it should not suffice at the present time. Those who have been travellers

in foreign countries know that usually in case of death the body has to be buried the same night, and oftentimes only in the clothes the deceased had worn when living. Why should we resort to a coffin made of hard wood which must take a long time to perish? If public opinion were only more fully drawn to this subject, I see no reason why we should not return to the early custom of burying our dead in plain winding-sheets. This would be what I should term "Burial reform," and not "Funeral reform." Secondly-with regard to funeral reform. I think the change from black to white, from crape to flowers, though it may be approved by many, presents quite as many evils as the old custom in the case of the poor. Cottagers will ape those who live in bigger houses, and they go to as great expense in providing flowers and refreshments for bearers and mourners, as formerly in scarves, hat-bands, cake and wine. The funeral feast is something repugnant to my feelings, and I would gladly see it abolished. One word more. We have heard a great deal of the doings of the Cremation Society, and of its rules relating to cremation. I hope that before long another rule will be added to its bye-laws, and that is, that no one who leaves in his will a direction that his body shall be cremated, shall be subjected to that process unless his executors produce a certificate signed by two competent medical men that he died in a sane mind.

H. W. HILL, Esq., Horselydown, London.

MUCH that I had intended to have said on this subject has been anticipated by previous speakers, but I think there is one point in connection with funeral reform that ought to be borne in mind. The state of things which once formed part of the bad old custom, by which we were subjected to the tyranny of the undertaker has, to a great extent, passed away, but there is one thing we have still to look into, and that is the disuse of funeral palls. This new custom is leading to ridiculous extravagance in regard to the provision of coffins. I apprehend that the instinct which led to the use of palls was a very proper one, and was prompted by the desire to cover up the dead. It seems, also, desirable that the coffin, if not of wicker, should be of some quickly perishable material; while anything which tends to the provision of coffins of the most expensive and hardest woods, adorned with all sorts of costly brass furniture, is greatly to be deprecated. In regard to what Canon Luckock has stated, I may say, as a member of one of the largest Guilds in the Anglican Church-the Guild of All Souls-which now numbers between 2,000 and 3,000 members, I feel that I ought to endorse what he has said in reference to the unsatisfactory character of our present burial office. The Guild of All Souls would go even further than he does. One of our principles is that the faithful departed should be perpetually commemorated, and in that, I think, we are true to Church principles, because, if the Church is God's appointed Society for meeting all the necessities of human nature, we are in this respect satisfying what is distinctly a craving of the natural religious man who has not been tainted with theological bitterness and controversy--that is, in praying for the departed.

The Rev. W. H. SEWELL, Vicar of Yaxley, Eye, Suffolk. WHEN a speaker has to make remarks which he hoped to be able to keep within the stated limits of ten minutes, and then finds that he has to confine what he says to the space of five minutes, he undoubtedly labours under considerable difficulty. I shal consequently only refer to one or two points which I should have been glad to have been able more carefully to elaborate. First of all, I would point out that while we live in a scientific age we need much more science in our own arrangement of matters connected with the burial of the dead. We should have more recourse than we are at present accustomed to have to medical men, asking them, e.g., to fix the interval between death and burial. We should especially have recourse to them in order that they may assure us of one important fact-a fact of which the law of England at present takes no notice-namely, that a body about to be buried is really and truly dead. Such is the inhumanity of poor human nature that we need to have, for the protection of our brothers and sisters, a certificate from some qualified man of science, given after personal observation of the body which is asserted to be dead, that death has indeed taken place; and the body ought not to be removed for burial until that certificate is forthcoming. That is the first reform I

venture to bring before this great Congress. The second reform I would suggest is no less than a reform of the entire cemetery system of England. It is a bad system. It is but fifty-six years old, and yet go it must. You have had a remedy prescribed this afternoon, and have all heard the revolution that has been proposed-that we should cast our dead into the fire and burn them. But what is the real remedy? It is four-fold. First of all, there must be no metal nor durable coffin buried. Secondly, -and there should be no doubt on this head-we should have uncoffined burial. The third point is that there should be a shallow grave; and, fourthly, except in exceptional cases, there ought to be no head nor foot-stones. For each of these suggestions, precedents, which the time at my disposal prevents my stating, are easily producible. I would, however, add but this, that the foes of Christian burial are not so much the cremationists, of whom there are some in this room; they are more truly those who recommend in their parishes metal coffins, and allow cast-iron tombstones. Brick graves or vaults and the indiscriminate use of head and foot-stones have, as we all know, driven our Christian funerals out of nearly every town churchyard in the land, into distant cemeteries; and metal or durable coffins, permanent enclosures, pretentious stone monuments, or cast-iron slabs (painted to look like stone), whether in cemeteries or country churchyards, will assuredly in a very little time, drive us to reform our burial system root and branch. For, in the presence of this Congress-and I rejoice that this important subject is now for the first time being brought before the Church Congress-I beg leave to say that England is not large enough to contain her wasteful cemetery system. Another point in regard to which reform is needed is in respect of mourning dress. If you ask me my remedy for the excess of mourning-which at present is far too costly and too general-I would say, as a Conservative English Churchman, return to the time-honoured institution of generally having a chief mourner, the practical working of which plan I should have been pleased to explain had time allowed. We are accustomed to hang the works of the great masters on our walls, and we admire them because they are from the hands of some great master. Behold the human body! What a piece of work is man! Shall we not value that dead body, in form so admirable, for the Master's sake? We are accustomed to honour flags or colours, even after they have become mere rags, because they have been brought back from the enemy with the price of our soldiers' blood. Behold this dead body, wreck as it is of humanity! It was redeemed from the hand of the enemy by the Captain of our salvation, even our own Brother, Jesus Christ, with His life-blood. Shall we not value that body for the Redeemer's sake? In one or other of the ancient residences of England we are now and then shown a room with antique hangings and furniture, and are told that it is kept still in the state it was when once occupied by one of the Sovereigns of England, in honour of its former occupant. But this dead body was the temple of the Holy Ghost. Shall we not value it for the sake of its former occupier? It is sacred, therefore, on account of its workmanship, its redemption, its occupancy. Shall we direct such a treasure to be taken and cast into the fire?

The Rev. REGINALD HAY HILL, Rector of Parham, Pulborough. I AM one of those who belong to the old-fashioned school. I love the old churchyard and the way in which our forefathers buried their dead. If our Government cannot provide cemeteries sufficient for the burial of the dead without resorting to the process of burning, then, I say, they are a disgrace to the country. What is really required is this: We ought to do away with the mummery and the flummery which so frequently characterise our present system of funerals. We want to see all our dead buried in the same way, making no distinction as between rich and poor. If, instead of employing the rich and costly trappings they now indulge in, the rich were to bury their dead in the simple way in which many of the poor are buried, it would be a great deal better for the country. But beyond this there is another reform required, and that is that after you have buried your dead, you ought not to think it necessary to sit down to a sumptuous luncheon. We ought to reverence our dead, bury them solemnly, return home and pray to God that we ourselves may be enabled to live honourable and good lives. With regard to cremation, my friend, Mr. Haweis, is welcome to be cremated, and all his friends. They may be cremated for all I care, or for all the Church of England cares; but I hope the Secretary of State will never allow cremation in this country, although it might be a very good thing for those desirous of having a cheap funeral, because only a very brief inscription would be necessary, and that would be "Peace to his ashes."

303

TOWN HALL,

WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON, OCTOBER 3RD, 1888.

The Rev. CANON DAVENPORT KELLY in the Chair.

TEMPERANCE:

DEMORALIZATION OF UNCIVILIZED AND HEATHEN RACES BY THE DRINK TRAFFIC.

The Rev. The CHAIRMAN.

WE may take it for granted that all who are present here this afternoon are persons who have not for the first time taken a deep interest in this great question of temperance-that they have many of them shown their interest in it in their various societies, knowing the value of it as a handmaid to the Christian religion. To-day we are met not for the purpose of considering the subject at large, but one special department of itthe native races and how they are affected by intoxicants; and it seems to me this is eminently suited as a question to be brought before a Church Congress. The Church Congress limits not its field of vision to one diocese or even to the realm of England. We are invited, and, especially, coming fresh, as some do, from the missionary debate of this morning, to cast our eyes over the world-north, west, east, and south-to see there how Christ's work is going on. And we find this—that especially among the native races, there is one giant power that raises its head in opposition, and I am convinced that no person who comes to a knowledge of the Saviour, and desires the advances of civilization and every good work, could say this subject was a matter of indifference. It would not be fitting for me to anticipate the papers and discussion. I would only venture to say that it seems to me that underlying all the varied methods that we may call into existence in order to combat this great and pernicious evil by legislation, or by work amongst the people, there must be a great uprousing of the conscience of thinking personswe must endeavour to see that the conscience of England be stirred to confront this question. The facts laid before you this afternoon by gentlemen who have studied, and some of them who have visited the regions where these native races are found, will tell you quite sufficient to prevent you sleeping in the face of this question. We desire it to be well known that whether men be shocked by the fact or not, they shall not be allowed to remain in ignorance of the work intemperance is doing, and of our share in producing this evil result. And then we must hope to go beyond England, and try and see that all the great leaders among the European nations shall be aware of the necessity of doing something to put a stop to this traffic, and of rousing the consciences of Germans, Dutch, French, and Italians, and all civilized people of Europe to join with us, and subordinating any special interest, to the attainment of the great object of saving these nations from extinction, and of preventing