66

Such Committee are, by a subsequent clause, authorised t lay a rate on the public, to purchase land for Cemeteries, an to lay out and plant the same in such manner as they sha think proper." One part of the Cemetery is to be consecrate for the burial of the dead according to the rites of the Estal lished Church; and such distinctive marks of separation are t be set up between the two portions of the Cemetery as t Bishop may require.

It is further proposed, that a piece both of the consecrat and of the unconsecrated ground shall be set apart for t burial of the poor; and it is to be held "lawful for the Co mittees of Health to make such arrangements for the conve ance to the Cemetery, and for the burial of the remains of a such poor, and to defray any expense incidental thereto, out the money to be received by virtue of this Act, as such Co mittees may think proper."

The Committees are further empowered to fix and settl Table of Fees to be paid on interments, and also the purcha money to be paid for the exclusive right of burial, as well for the right of constructing any vault or place of burial, erecting, or placing any monument or grave-stone in the Cen tery.

When any Cemetery shall have been opened, it is to be at t option of the Rector, Vicar, or Incumbent of the parish 1 which it has been constructed, to continue the performance the duties and the receipt of the same fees as he enjoyed in t parochial ground; and, if he decline, he shall receive compe sation. The same provision extends to the Clerk and Sexto both of whom may also continue their offices; and, if they a eline, the Committee may compensate them. The services all these p s are limited to the consecrated ground. Whe the Clerg eclines, the Committee, with the consent of tl Bishop appoint a Chaplain; and, when the Clerk mittee are to appoint successors.

Bill. Its omissions are fa s. The Bill, although loos Its selfish origin and secta sible concealed by the drapery

health, and veneration for the

ashes of the dead. Its real career am

discovered only by a careful scruting of the video which
it is professedly founded.

Now, waiving for the present the principle of the Will, which
we shall afterwards fully discuss, the first thing that ma
attention is, the constitution of the proposed Bull,
which is, in all points, the very worst that could be in
The proposal, however, is not an involuntary blade, but
thing of cool deliberation and deep design. It is in fact t
diction to the plan recommended by the Select Committer in
their Report, which asserts the necessity of "some central and
superintending authority to be established for the purpose
something analogous to the Poor-Law Commission. Apin, in
the Resolutions of the Select Committee, appended to their
Report, which Resolutions comprise the main principles of the
Bill, it is declared that the working of the entire scheme
"should be entrusted either to some department of the Go
vernment, or to a Board of Superintendence, to be constituted
by the Act of Parliament." Such were the views of Mr.
Mackinnon's Committee on the 15th day of June; but, on the
5th of August, Mr. Mackinnon himself presents to the He
a Bill which repudiates at once both Government interference
and the creation of a Central Bound!

These facts sufficiently show, as we have aid, that the p
posal is a deliberate one; but additional profi maly famil

7 but little of the feeland also to be a stranger igious freedom. There little more than a Parsort of cat's-paw to the

proposed to lay a rate upo

for the purchase of the ground f

the "while," says he, "de

t in the Town Council; if Commissioners; if there we agirates of the division. I asks: "Why should it not be ranet is man and the churchwardens Mr.

put the freehold in neither party, neither

Dissent, you accomplish two objects: youtube fe

the power of cavil, and you would sell the graves back again so as to pay, in three years, the rate which was levied." Mr. Redhead Yorke, a member of the Committee, thus addressed Mr. Baker:-"You said it was desirable to keep such a ground ast that you have spoken of free from party distinction. Does it not strike you, that, in giving the ground to the Town Council, you would essentially be making party property of it, since the Town Council will, of course, be composed of persons of every kind of religious persuasion?" The answer to this singular objection was obvious. "That," said Mr. Baker, "was the very reason I thought it would not be party property, because they are completely mixed, and they seem to be the best sort of guardians.'

Mr. Mackinnon's course is quite unaccountable, except on the supposition, that he is bidding for ecclesiastical popularity against Sir Robert Inglis. He goes not only in the teeth of the recommendation of his own Committee, but even of his principal witnesses. G. A. Walker, Esq., his main prop, gave it as his "opinion, that all funerals indiscriminately, from the highest to the lowest, should be taken under the authority of Government;" and declared that he "would not allow the parish authorities to have any thing to do with it." Nay, even the Right Reverend the Lord Bishop of London himself blushed at the idea, and felt or feigned, for once, more of the patriot than of the prelate. His keen eye clearly saw that wise men of all classes would indignantly resent a proposal so full of arrogance, and so foreign to the spirit of just legislation. His words are memorable. "I must add my conviction," says he, "that, in the case of the metropolis, the most important of all cases, it would be extremely desirable that Government should take it into its own hands; that Government should provide a Cemetery, and make such regulations as may be necessary." The mystery of this liberal declaration of the most politic prelate that has occupied the metropolitan see for ages, will be cleared up in our next Letter. In spite of all, Mr. Mackinnon obstinately adheres to his preposterous project of throwing the entire matter into the hands of the Church. We cannot divine with what eyes he has read history, but he has read it to little purpose. He has obviously still to learn even the first principles of

political prudence. He appears to know but little of the feelings and constitution of English society, and also to be a stranger to the subject of civil equality and religious freedom. There is reason, however, to believe that he is little more than a Parliamentary agent in the business-a sort of cat's-paw to the clergy.

September 3, 1842.

LETTER III.

SELFISH CONSIDERATIONS IN WHICH THE BILL ORIGINATED.

You have already witnessed the invincible determination of Mr. Mackinnon, if possible, to throw the entire management of the sepulture of the great towns of England into the hands of the clergy. This fact explains the otherwise inexplicable declaration of the Bishop of London, set forth in the foregoing Letter. The wily Churchman well understood his position; he felt that, with such a coadjutor, he might safely for once merge the prelate in the patriot, and give good counsel. His Lordship confessedly knew all that had been spoken by the majority of the previous witnesses. He was fully apprised of what had been said upon the subject of parochial authority during the examination of the Rev. Dr. Russell, H. H. Milman, J. T. Robinson, W. W. Champneys, and others. The place among the witnesses assigned to this consummate master of worldly wisdom, was worthy of his acceptance, and well fitted to serve his object. He came last, and performed his part with great ability and dexterity, in correcting, confirming, and supplementing former evidence. Throughout, his candour, as usual, ministers to his cunning. It is instructive to observe with what tact and prudence he advances, step by step, soft and slow, like the fox upon the hen-roost, till he reaches the main point whence he springs upon his object. And what is that object? It is to place the working of this great measure in the hands of the Church-building Commissioners! Hear

as to

the power of cavil, and you would sell the graves back again so pay, in three years, the rate which was levied." Mr. Redhead Yorke, a member of the Committee, thus addressed Mr. Baker:-"You said it was desirable to keep such a ground as that you have spoken of free from party distinction. Does it not strike you, that, in giving the ground to the Town Council, you would essentially be making party property of it, since the Town Council will, of course, be composed of persons of every kind of religious persuasion ?" The answer to this singular objection was obvious. "That," said Mr. Baker, "was the very reason I thought it would not be party property, because they are completely mixed, and they seem to be the best sort of guardians."

Mr. Mackinnon's course is quite unaccountable, except on the supposition, that he is bidding for ecclesiastical popularity against Sir Robert Inglis. He goes not only in the teeth of the recommendation of his own Committee, but even of his principal witnesses. G. A. Walker, Esq., his main prop, gave it as his "opinion, that all funerals indiscriminately, from the highest to the lowest, should be taken under the authority of Government ;" and declared that he "would not allow the parish authorities to have any thing to do with it." Nay, even the Right Reverend the Lord Bishop of London himself blushed at the idea, and felt or feigned, for once, more of the patriot than of the prelate. His keen eye clearly saw that wise men of all classes would indignantly resent a proposal so full of arrogance, and so foreign to the spirit of just legislation. His words are memorable. "I must add my conviction," says he, "that, in the case of the metropolis, the most important of all cases, it would be extremely desirable that Government should take it into its own hands; that Government should provide a Cemetery, and make such regulations as may be necessary." The mystery of this liberal declaration of the most politic prelate that has occupied the metropolitan see for ages, will be cleared up in our next Letter. In spite of all, Mr. Mackinnon obstinately adheres to his preposterous project of throwing the entire matter into the hands of the Church. We cannot divine with what eyes he has read history, but he has read it to little purpose. He has obviously still to learn even the first principles of