“Church versus Chapel” from “Fun” (1880)

Church versus Chapel: a Grave Question

John Gordon Thomson (1841-1911)

Fun 28 (9 June 1880): 231

One of severe consequences of having a state church — in this case the Church of England — was that people of other faiths, including other Christians, inevitably ended up as in a sense second-class citizens.[continued below]

Source: Hathi Digital Library Trust web version of a copy in the Princeton University library.

Click on image to enlarge it and mouse over text for links.

[You may use this image without prior permission for any scholarly or educational purpose as long as you (1) credit the Hathi Digital Library Trust and the Princeton University library and (2) link your document to this URL in a web document or cite the Victorian Web in a print one.]

A series of laws beginning with the Catholic Emancipation act of 1829 that restored full civil rights to Roman Catholics tried to solve this fundamental problem of what it meant to be a citizen of the United Kingdom. The Dissenters Burial Bill of 1880 legalized “the burial of Dissenters in parish churchyards without the necessity for reading the Church of England burial service” (Brisbane Courier). As the wording of this description of the bill makes clear, every such liberalization or widening of the bounds of privilege not only removed once-essential power from the state church it also markedly lessened the degree to which it functioned an official church. As one might expect, such attempts at amending laws in the interests of social justice immediately produced claims that England was abandoning the one true church: John Keble’s sermon “National Apostasy” (text) thus made this claim when Parliament decided that in the interests of earthly justice, it was unfair to tax Roman Catholics in Ireland in order to support the Protestant Church of Ireland, the local branch of the Anglican church. From Keble sprung the High Church Tractarian movement, and resistance of extension of rights originally reserved for the established church long continued.

The report of the debate of 12 August 1880 reported in Hansard provides some idea of the arguments urged by those in favor:

Mr. BRINTON said, that, as a Churchman, he could not yield to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Beresford Hope) in his desire to respect the true interests of the Church of England; but, at the same time, he could not share his apprehensions. He had long regarded this measure as an act of simple justice to a large and important body of his fellow-countrymen. He did not think that they, as Churchmen, gained any legitimate strength by preventing Dissenters from receiving at the solemn moments when their friends were interred the ministrations of the clergy and pastors of their own body. It was no answer to the question with which the Bill dealt to say that Dissenters wore at liberty to provide burial grounds for themselves. It was impossible, and indeed childish, to assert that, having regard to the scattered and thinly-populated places all over the country, the Dissenters could provide themselves with such accommodation as they were entitled to in the interment of members of their own Body. The provisions of the Bill, if carried out in a liberal spirit, would ultimately promote unity and good feeling between Dissenters and Churchmen. Theso two Bodies would, at any rate, unite in keeping our churchyards in a condition which would be satisfactory to all. [1029]

As this cartoon makes clear, resistance in the House of Lords had to be overcome before the law was passed. — George P. Landow

Bibliography

“Burials Bill Second Reading.” Hansard's Parliamentary Debates. Google Books. Web. 17 February 2016.

“Dissenters Burial Bill.” The Brisbane Courier (Tuesday, 7 September 1880): 2. Trove Digitized Newspapers (http://trove.nla.gov.au/). Web. 17 February 2016.

Last modified 17 February 2016