way from here to Babylon' (as he says), could induce him to spend one day among the hard lying and sober fare of a country life; and the only enemy whom he refuses to forgive at his last hour is the Bishop of Orleans, who fed him so scurvily a whole summer long upon cold water and dry bread, 'not even manchets,' says he piteously. If he cannot come at his desire in the possession of the dainties for which his soul longs, there is still some sad pleasure for him in caressing in imagination the sacrosanct denominations of that 'bienheureux harnois de gueule' which hovers for him, afar off, in the rosy mists of an apotheosis. In this respect, as in no few others, he forcibly reminds one of another strange and noteworthy figure converted by genius into an eternal type, that 'Neveu de Rameau,' in whom the reductio ad absurdum of the whole sensualist philosophy of the eighteenth century was crystallised by Diderot into so poignant and curious a personality. Like Jean Rameau, the whole mystery of life seems to Villon to have resolved itself into the cabalistic science 'de mettre sous la dent,' that noble and abstract art of providing for 'the reparation of the region below the nose,' of whose alkahest and hermetic essence he so deplorably fell short; and as we make this unavoidable comparison, it is impossible not to be surprised into regret for the absence of some Diderot who might have rescued for us the singular individuality of the Bohemian poet of the fifteenth century. Looking at the whole course of Villon's life, and the portrait he himself paints for us in such crude and unsparing colours, we can hardly doubt that, under different circumstances, had his life been consecrated by successful love and the hope of those higher things to whose nobility he was so keenly though unpractically sensitive, he might have filled a worthier place in the history of his time and have furnished a more honourable career than that of the careless Bohemian driven into crime, disgrace and ruin, by the double influence of his own unchecked desires and the maddening wistfulness of an unrequited love. However, to quote the words of the great estcritic of the nineteenth century: 3 We might perhaps have lost the poet whilst gaining the honest man; and good poets are still rarer than honest folk, although the latter can hardly be said. to be too common.' JOHN PAYNE. Théophile Gautier. THE BURIALS BILL AND DISESTABLISHMENT. On this subject I desire to contend that the Burials Bill, even if, going beyond what is at present contemplated, it should grant unrestricted liberty of funeral rites, subject only to considerations of decency and order, has in principle no proper bearing whatever on the question of the Disestablishment of the Church. In advancing this opinion I know that I contravene statements boldly and authoritatively made by both the extreme parties in this controversy-by the Liberation Society on the one hand, and by the party of Opposition, as recently represented in the House of Peers by the Bishop of Lincoln and Lord Cranbrook, on the other. But I believe that on a careful consideration of the history and the proposed settlement of the Burials question, and under anything like a clear idea of what is meant, or ought to be meant, by the Establishment' of the Church, the thesis which I thus venture to advance will at least show itself worthy of a not unfavourable consideration. I do not inquire whether, in relation to the practical strength of the Church, as affected by public opinion and public sentiment, it is not infinitely better to settle the controversy on this vexed question, than, by leaving it open, to preserve a continual irritation, and to make the Church, rightly or wrongly, appear to be the representative of intolerance. On this I have indeed a very strong opinion. Experience has proved that, even in such a case as the abolition of Church rates-which appears to me to approach much more nearly to the principle of Disestablishment--the Church has been on the whole greatly strengthened by the removal of a painful and invidious controversy. The prophecies, both of friends and foes, have been curiously falsified at many repetitions of the cry The Church in danger.' So I believe it will be here. But the scope of my argument goes beyond this, and ventures to assert that in principle as well as in practice it is an error to suppose that an approach to Disestablishment is made by the Government Burials Bill. Nor, again, does it fall within the scope of this paper to examine I simply take it for granted that it will be passed, at any rate in its main provisions. The lay opinion of the whole country, even of the Churchmen of the country, has, I believe, definitely pronounced upon it ever since the carrying of Lord Harrowby's resolution two sessions ago in the House of Lords. Nor is it difficult to see what considerations have guided that opinion. Just because the grievance felt is a sentimental grievance,' it has been held impossible to meet it by hard force of reason and of legal consistency. Just because there is plainly a battle of principle, which must be fought out between the Church and the Nonconformists, it has been felt unseemly to fight it out over a grave. Therefore it always appeared to me singularly unfortunate that so large a body of the clergy set themselves against all concession under the late Government, prevented that Government (which would, I believe, gladly have settled the controversy) from making any attempt to do so, and so left the question to become a party question, and its settlement to be reckoned as an instalment of the price to be paid to the Nonconformists for their resolute support of the Liberal party at the late election. It is, I believe, from this unfortunate policy, rather than from the essential character of the Bill itself, that the assumption has arisen which I desire to combat. What has been thus made an achievement of the party which clamours for Disestablishment has been naturally hailed by them as a step towards that longed-for consummation; and the Churchmen who represent the defeated party of sturdy resistance have-as it seems to me, hastily and unwisely-taken their opponents at their word. Nothing (I suppose) is more certain than that the measure was carried, in both Houses of Parliament, mainly by the votes of men who absolutely declined to consider it as having any bearing on Disestablishment. What I desire to inquire is, 'Which contention is right?'the contention in which the extreme Right and the extreme Left agree, or the contention of the great party of the Centre, which both extremes are apt to despise? It is impossible to examine the question without venturing on a well-worn track, by examining what is the exact position of the Burial question. Yet the inquiry may be excused by prevalent misrepresentations of the subject; and it will only be necessary to touch upon a few salient points of the subject, and those, moreover, points almost beyond controversy. I. The fundamental consideration, which ought to govern the whole question, is this, that the burial of the dead is the bounden duty of the secular community, and not of the Church. There must be public graveyards; this is a matter of necessity. They must be properly cared for, and the dead laid reverently in them; this is a matter of public decency. The one question is, Where shall these graveyards be found? The ancient practice of England answered that question by pointing to the churchyards. These churchyards have never been (so far as I know) held to be the property of the State. They are historically the lineal descendants of the ancient Christian cemeteries, in which, before the conversion of the world to Christianity, the bodies of the saints who slept were committed to what was held to be sacred ground, free from all contamination, whether of heathen ritual or heathen carelessness of the remains, at any rate, of the poor. In those cemeteries Christians alone were laid, and Christians were naturally committed to the grave with the words of prayer, of thanksgiving, and of sure and certain hope. It should, however, always be remembered that the connection even of Christian cemeteries with the churches is purely accidental. It did not exist in the beginning; in our own country it is commonly said to date only from the eighth century; and the modern dissociation of the cemetery from the Church is in itself, although not in its reasons, a return to ancient practice. Now when the country became Christianised, and it was taken for granted that every Englishman would be a baptised member of the Church of England, the Christian cemeteries (now by practice churchyards) became the public graveyards. The property and control of these churchyards remained with the Church, and were vested still in the representatives of the Church in each parish. But it was distinctly recognised that this property was qualified by a civil right in all who belonged to, or even died in, a parish, to have burial in the churchyard. It is notable and illustrative of the accidental character of the connection between the church and the churchyard that there was no such right of burial in the church itself, without the free consent of the rector or vicar; but in the churchyard it was impossible for him without legal penalty to refuse burial to any who had the parochial right, even in the cases in which the Rubric forbade that the funeral service should be read. The property, therefore, of the Church in her churches differed from her property in 3 1 The old Roman Law ordered extramural interment. The burial within the precincts of the church (for the benefit of the prayers of those who came to worship) is recognised by Gregory the Great. The establishment of churchyards in England is ordinarily traced to about A.D. 750. See Phillimore's Ecclesiastical Law, part iii. c. x. (p. 842 of edition of 1873). 2 Burial in the parish churchyard is a common-law right inherent in the parishioners. The clergyman cannot refuse to bury anybody dying in the parish in the churchyard, which is, of right, the proper cemetery for their reception.' It would appear that for the burial of those not dying in the parish the consent both of the minister and the churchwardens is required. See Phillimore, vol. i. pp. 844, 845, 857. In some foreign canons it is said "without consent of Bishop and Incumbent "or "Bishop or Incumbent." But our common law has given this privilege to the parson only. . . . Neither the ordinary nor the churchwardens can grant license.' See Phillimore, vol. i. p. 840. For the case of the unbaptised, see Phillimore, vol. i. p. 843. The burial of suicides under the Coroner's order dates from 4 Geo. IV. c. 52 (1823); see p. 860. her churchyards. I am no lawyer, 'and speak with diffidence on any legal subject. But the latter case seems to me not unlike that of a property qualified by some public rights-such as a right of way -which is strictly the property of the holder, but not so absolutely his that he can contravene the public rights over it. But this is not the whole case. It was, as I have said, taken for granted that Englishmen, being baptised, would be members of the Church of England, as I suppose in many points they still are in the eye of the law. Accordingly this right of burial was associated with an ecclesiastical condition, which was at the same time an additional right. A funeral service was provided, evidently presupposing in the dead a Christian profession, and, in outward appearance at any rate, a Christian life; and accordingly presupposing in the Church a power of discipline, capable in the last resort of expelling from her communion those who were flagrantly unworthy of the name of Christian. It was ordered that no person, unless he were unbaptised, excommunicated, or virtually excommunicated by self-murder, should be buried without this service, ministered, of course, by the clergy. So far this was an ecclesiastical condition, qualifying again the civil right of burial, and recognised by the law of the land. But it was also an additional right, for (except in the cases above provided for) the clergy had no power to refuse to read the service, and were liable to summary suspension if they ventured so to do." As Church discipline died out, and open dissent from the Church came to be frequent in practice and recognised in law, this obligation constantly became a scandal, both to the consciences of the clergy and to the conscience of the community. Still no remedy could be provided which was not worse than the disease; and the clergy had no choice, except, as a rule, to pay obedience to the law, and in exceptionally flagrant cases of the impropriety to venture on the higher and more dangerous duty of disobedience to the law, accompanied, of course, by quiet submission to the legal penalty. So the course of affairs has gone on for centuries. In the meanwhile individuals or sects have often provided burial-places for themselves, free of course, and rightly free, from all public rights and ecclesiastical conditions. By degrees, in all large towns, and not unfrequently elsewhere, churchyards were filled up to or beyond their capacity, and intramural interment was rightly discouraged on sanitary grounds. Then followed the formation of new cemeteries under the authority of Parliament by municipal bodies or private companies. The property in these was vested in those to whom the various Acts gave authority to form the cemeteries. But it became the almost universal practice at once to endeavour to reproduce the old churchyard as far as possible, and at the same time to recognise the change which, since the old days of identification of See Canon 68 of 1603. |