GEEAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND. 



341 



000 in the next year ; changes which were pro- 

 posed in the in alt-tax, causing a further loss of 

 1,100,000 in the present year, which could 

 be recovered by an addition of one penny to 

 the income-tax. On the other hand, a pro- 

 posed increase and adjustment of the license 

 duties for the sale of alcoholic liquors would 

 bring an increase of 305,000 in the present 

 and 350,000 in future years. The total amount 

 of the additions to the expenditure side would 

 be 1,533,000, and the additions to the revenue, 

 together with the surplus of 184,000 pro- 

 vided by Sir Stafford Northcote, would amount 

 to 1,914,000, leaving a re vised surplus of 381,- 

 000. 



A bill relating to the law of burials was in- 

 troduced in the House of Lords, May 27th, by 

 the Lord Chancellor, who remarked that the 

 existing law on the subject was unsatisfactory, 

 and that a speedy settlement of the questions 

 it raised was desirable. He held that burial was 

 a civil right of universal necessity and great 

 importance, but that it was fettered by ecclesias- 

 tical provisions which affected a large number 

 of her Majesty's subjects and were antagonistic 

 to the principles of religious liberty. At pres- 

 ent there could be no service whatever in the 

 churchyard over the unbaptized and persons 

 who died by their own hands, while persons 

 who dissented from the Church of England 

 could be buried in the churchyards with the 

 service of the Church of England only, if their 

 friends desired any service. The grievance to 

 dissenters was admitted, and it was neither a 

 small nor a diminishing one. The bill he in- 

 troduced proposed that the person in charge 

 of, or responsible for, a funeral should be at lib- 

 erty to give notice that the deceased was to be 

 buried without the service of the Church of 

 England ; that at any burial under the act all 

 persons should have access to the churchyard 

 or graveyard in which the same should be sol- 

 emnized, and any burial might be performed, 

 at the option of the person having charge 

 of, or being responsible for, the same, either 

 without any religious service or with such 

 Christian and orderly religious service at the 

 grave as such person should think fit. Disor- 

 der at the grave, and any attempt under the 

 guise of a religious service to bring into con- 

 tempt the Christian religion, or the religion of 

 any denomination of Christians, were declared 

 to be misdemeanors under the act. Clergymen 

 were authorized to perform the burial service 

 of the Church of England in unconsecrated 

 grounds, and to assist in parts of the service 

 in cases where the reading of the whole ser- 

 vice might be a cause of scruple to them, and 

 seem inappropriate. The bill was opposed on 

 its second reading by the Bishop of Lincoln, 

 who urged that as the nonconformists no lon- 

 ger founded churchyards, they could not claim 

 to have the control of the churchyards taken 

 away from the clergy of the Establishment. The 

 Archbishop of Canterbury argued in support 

 of the measure that the present were danger- 



ous times, when systems were advocated which 

 threatened social and family life ; and in such 

 times Christians who revered one common God 

 could not afford to aggravate their grievances. 

 The Archbishop was supported in the debate 

 by the Archbishop of York and the Bishops of 

 Bath and Wells and of London, and the bill 

 was passed to its second reading by a vote of 

 126 to 101. It was amended by the addition 

 of clauses excluding from its provisions church- 

 yards in parishes where burying-grounds are 

 provided, and enlarging the discretion of the 

 clergy as to the manner in which they should 

 perform the burial service, and was passed to 

 its third reading June 17th. On its second 

 reading in the House of Commons, August 12th, 

 the bill was supported by Mr. Osborne Mor- 

 gan, who said that by the common law of Eng- 

 land, which no one had attempted to alter, 

 every parishioner was entitled to be buried in 

 the parish churchyard. That right was a right 

 in no way depending upon the creed which he 

 professed or the religion of the church to which 

 he belonged. It was a civic and not a religious 

 right. Throughout the country, and especially 

 in Wales, a great grievance existed because 

 this right had not been recognized. The speak- 

 er believed that the amendments which the 

 House of Lords had added had a tendency to 

 defeat the purposes of the measure, and urged 

 that they be stricken out. The further discus- 

 sion turned upon the expediency of striking 

 out the clause requiring that the services should 

 be "Christian" which, it was urged, estab- 

 lished a distinction against the Jewish and 

 other non-Christian religions and the possi- 

 bility of scandals occurring in case any other 

 than the authorized services of the Church of 

 England were permitted. The second reading 

 was granted by a vote of 258 to 79. The amend- 

 ments added by the House of Lords were thrown 

 out in committee; this action was agreed to 

 by the House of Lords, and the bill was finally 

 passed September 6th. 



A bill for the protection of occupiers of land 

 against the ravages of " ground-game " (hares 

 and rabbits) was introduced by the Govern- 

 ment in the House of Commons, May 27th. 

 Sir W. Harcourt, who had charge of the meas- 

 ure, remarked that it was not intended to deal 

 with the general question of the game laws, 

 but only with their effect upon the relation 

 between landlord and tenant, so far as it bore 

 upon the rights with respect to ground-game. 

 The bill gave the occupier of the land the con- 

 current and inalienable right to kill all the 

 ground-game on his occupation, and made any 

 contract he might agree to for waiving that 

 right incapable of enforcement at law. It was 

 opposed in discussion by representatives of the 

 landed interest, chiefly with the argument that 

 its provisions infringed upon the freedom of 

 contract, but was passed August 27th. The 

 House of Lords added amendments establish- 

 ing a " close-time," and limiting the right to 

 shoot to one person on the farm. These amend- 



