No Church Burial Service - C of E Rules (Simpson & Hood question?)

[BushInn1746]

In the light of my 4 X Gt. Grandfather being buried by the Quakers as a non-Quaker "Not in Membership", I have been looking at the reasons why a person was not afforded a C of E Church Burial Service in 1845.

It was set out in The Book of Common Prayer ...

Here is a 1760 copy ...
https://archive.org/stream/bookofcommonpray00chur_4#page/n393/mode/2up

Extracts attached.

First copy was 1662
http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/1662/baskerville.htm


In George Hood's case (Selby 1845) we can rule out suicide as his Death Certificate states he died of Heart Disease 18 Months Certified.

That leaves:-

Unbaptised, or
Excommunicate

Mark

[BushInn1746]

The Selby Presbyterians were claiming that they were equal to the Church of England. That wouldn't go down well! Sounds like someone was ruffling a few feathers at the Selby Abbey Church.

The Rev. Thomas Simpson was a Minister (do you recall the reference to the Simpson's bookcase in the Will of Jane Hood, widow of William Hood of Selby?)

The Rev. Thomas Simpson at Selby was followed by another, printed as the Rev. George Hoade a Unitarian. I wonder if he was related.

My Grandmother said Hood was pronounced - hoood / whood.

I wonder, if George Hood had pushed his luck too far and been refused a burial service.

If George Hood's family of Selby belonged to another faith, he wouldn't have a qualifying baptism for a funeral service in Selby Abbey Church.

Presbyterianism would fit with the Hoods once being Scottish.

Regards Mark


EDIT: Claire has got hold of the Pensylvanian copy of Jane Hood's (Jane Casson Hood) Will, who died at Brayton and Jane Hood, Widow of William Hood of Selby (Wm bapt. Selby 1816), said that Jane Simpson was her Cousin?

I wonder if any Rootschatters can work this out please?

Edit: See added information please at Reply #4.

[Anothershot]

Hello
 Just this morning I read in a Leeds parish register, looking for ancestors, and came a cross this poor fella .
 Aug 5 1585
John Thompson, dying at Hillous Bancks, was excommunicated,and was brought into the churche porche, and there left in his wynding shete, the fift day of August, and after, buried by some of hys friends in the nettles under the churching wall, out of the common place of buryale.
I was wondering why ever they would do that to the poor soul. V. interesting. Thank you.

[BushInn1746]

Hello
 Just this morning I read in a Leeds parish register, looking for ancestors, and came a cross this poor fella .
 Aug 5 1585
John Thompson, dying at Hillous Bancks, was excommunicated,and was brought into the churche porche, and there left in his wynding shete, the fift day of August, and after, buried by some of hys friends in the nettles under the churching wall, out of the common place of buryale.
I was wondering why ever they would do that to the poor soul. V. interesting. Thank you.

I've seen a later 19th Century burial reported in the newspaper of an unbaptised child being refused at her local Parish Church.

Another Parish Church outside the area agreed to allow the child to be buried, provided the coffin was laid in a grave by two men and as close to the boundary wall as possible and the parents watched from outside the Churchyard boundary wall, which caused public outrage and a change in the Law.

Mark

[BushInn1746]

The Selby Presbyterians were claiming that they were equal to the Church of England. That wouldn't go down well! Sounds like someone was ruffling a few feathers at the Selby Abbey Church.

The Rev. Thomas Simpson was a Minister (do you recall the reference to the Simpson's bookcase in the Will of Jane Hood, widow of William Hood of Selby?)

The Rev. Thomas Simpson at Selby was followed by another, printed as the Rev. George Hoade a Unitarian. I wonder if he was related.

My Grandmother said Hood was pronounced - hoood / whood.

I wonder, if George Hood had pushed his luck too far and been refused a burial service.

If George Hood's family of Selby belonged to another faith, he wouldn't have a qualifying baptism for a funeral service in Selby Abbey Church.

Presbyterianism would fit with the Hoods once being Scottish.

Regards Mark


EDIT: Claire has got hold of the Pensylvanian copy of Jane Hood's (Jane Casson Hood) Will, who died at Brayton and Jane Hood, Widow of William Hood of Selby (Wm bapt. Selby 1816), said that Jane Simpson was her Cousin?

I wonder if any Rootschatters can work this out please?

"To my daughter Beatrice I give and bequeath the portrait of my cousin Jane Simpson by Richmond."

Can anyone work out the links please?

EDIT:
The Rev. Thomas Simpson, Unitarian Minister of Selby, married Miss Mary Ann Clark, eldest daughter of Mr Joseph Charles Clark, of this city.
Yorkshire Gazette, 24 October 1835.


The Rev. G. Hoade had previously been a Minister at the Thorne, Unitarian Chapel.

Regards Mark

[BushInn1746]

It does seem that a person not baptised by the C of E, should have been entitled to be buried in the Parish Churchyard (under Common Law).

However, under Ecclesiastical Law, a Burial Service was likely to be refused.

If an ancestor was not baptised by a Parish Church, but wanted a Burial Service, this could explain why the Burial did not take place at a Parish Churchyard (if the churchyard was still open for burial).


House of Commons Debate 03 March 1876 vol 227 cc1296-398
[extract]

 ... The Guardian, says— It has been argued that the right of burials is the right of 'Christian burial,' and that therefore those persons who are disqualified from Christian burial have no right to burial in the churchyard. But the more correct opinion seems to be that these rights are separable, and that the right of interment may exist where there is no right to require the performance of the Church service. This proposition is laid down, though perhaps not judicially decided, in cases in the Court of Queen's Bench, and in the Court of Arches, and was on their authority admitted by Bishop Phillpotts in his charge of 1842, in a passage which well deserves perusal. Now the larger proposition, that every parishioner is entitled to burial in the parish churchyard, is not only laid down without qualification in almost every text-book on the subject, beginning with Bishop Gibson and ending with Sir Robert Phillimore, but it has been judicially affirmed in a case of R. v. Taylor, the report of which, from Serjeant Hill's MSS. is to be found in Lincoln's Inn Library. It is as follows:— Motion by Serjeant Glide &c. for information against one Taylor, Vicar of parish of Daventry, in Northamptonshire, for refusing to bury and hindering the burial of one Mary—. It appears on affidavit that the deceased being a parishioner, died in May, 1720, and that the relatives of the deceased applied soon after to the sexton to dig a place for burial of the corpse; but the parson Taylor ordered him not, and he has ever since obstructed the burial of the corpse in the churchyard, he giving for reason that she being a Protestant Dissenter (of the persuasion of the Baptists) was never baptized, being baptized only by a layman or minister of her own persuasion, so no Christian, and therefore ought not to be buried in churchyard, which was consecrated ground. By which the corpse laid above ground to that time. Per Fortescue, J. 'Every parishioner has a right to burial place in churchyard, otherwise they cannot be buried anywhere, if they have not land of their own,' for other persons are not obliged to permit their burial in their property. Per cur.; 'shew cause' quare informat non. The last day of the term the Defendant came to shew cause, but because it would take a long time per cur., adjourned till next term, and the Court in the meantime advised the parson to bury the corpse in the churchyard; if he did not the Court should be informed of it next term, then would grant information, 'for every parishioner has a right of sepulture.' The Defendant's Counsel moved to discharge the former rule when the Court was certified by affidavit that the Defendant, knowing the mind of the Court, had complied with it, and told the relatives of the deceased they might bury the corpse in what part of the churchyard they pleased; upon which the Court discharged the 1303 former rule, but said if he had still continued obstinate they would have granted information. As to refusing to read the burial service on account of her not being baptized according to the rites of the Church of England, the Court said, 'that was a spiritual matter not belonging to them.' "—[Serjeant Hill's MSS., 7 D. 278.] Now, that case is valuable for two reasons. First, it shows the distinction for which I have contended, and, secondly, it establishes the Common Law right, and places it on the true ground—namely, that of necessity. And not only has that case been frequently approved of, but it has been acted upon for a century and a-half; for since that time no clergyman, as far as I know, has ever ventured to refuse burial in the churchyard to unbaptized persons, though he has, of course, often refused—and by law is perfectly justified in refusing—to read the service over such persons.

Well then, having, I trust, established the truth of my preamble, let me go a step further. It is said that this right is subject to conditions. Of course the observation does not apply to unbaptized persons, in whose case the reading of the Church service, so far from being enforced, is not even permitted. But let us see in what sense it applies in other cases.

https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1876/mar/03/burial-services-in-parish-churchyards

[dobfarm]

In the light of my 4 X Gt. Grandfather being buried by the Quakers as a non-Quaker "Not in Membership", I have been looking at the reasons why a person was not afforded a C of E Church Burial Service in 1845.

It was set out in The Book of Common Prayer ...

Here is a 1760 copy ...
https://archive.org/stream/bookofcommonpray00chur_4#page/n393/mode/2up

Extracts attached.

First copy was 1662
http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/1662/baskerville.htm


In George Hood's case (Selby 1845) we can rule out suicide as his Death Certificate states he died of Heart Disease 18 Months Certified.

That leaves:-

Unbaptised, or
Excommunicate

Mark

Could be a simple reason why George Hood origins are not traceable
---------------------------------
Book of Common Prayer 1760 middle image ' Burial of the Dead '

Extract ~ " Here is to be noted, That the Office ensuing is not to be used for any that die unbaptised "

That could be the reason George Hood baptism cannot be found and reason he was buried in the Quaker burial ground as a none member Quaker not of the their faith.

Question ; - did the same rule of needing to be baptised apply to his marriage 1815 to Sarah Russel  in Selby abbey of Anglican faith being C of E (or George lied then about being baptised at marriage 1815 but his family realizing he was going to meeting is maker at death - the truth came out that he was not baptized)

[arthurk]

Question ; - did the same rule of needing to be baptised apply to his marriage 1815 to Sarah Russel  in Selby abbey of Anglican faith being C of E (or George lied then about being baptised at marriage 1815 but his family realizing he was going to meeting is maker at death - the truth came out that he was not baptized)

At times some Anglican clergy have tried to insist that those wanting to be married in church should have been baptised, but as I understand it, getting married in your parish church is akin to a common-law right, and not at all dependent on baptism.

For a marriage in 1815 it should be borne in mind that from 1754 to 1837 the only legal places to marry in England and Wales were the places of worship of the Church of England, Jews and Quakers, so it can't have been particularly unusual for unbaptised people to be married in a parish church.

Many of those who insisted on the parties being baptised would have been influenced by the sacramental teaching of the Oxford Movement, which arose in the 1830s, and it may be that the introduction of new venues for marriage in 1837 gave them an opportunity to argue for a more exclusive approach to marriage in the Church of England.

[dobfarm]

Question ; - did the same rule of needing to be baptised apply to his marriage 1815 to Sarah Russel  in Selby abbey of Anglican faith being C of E (or George lied then about being baptised at marriage 1815 but his family realizing he was going to meeting is maker at death - the truth came out that he was not baptized)

At times some Anglican clergy have tried to insist that those wanting to be married in church should have been baptised, but as I understand it, getting married in your parish church is akin to a common-law right, and not at all dependent on baptism.

For a marriage in 1815 it should be borne in mind that from 1754 to 1837 the only legal places to marry in England and Wales were the places of worship of the Church of England, Jews and Quakers, so it can't have been particularly unusual for unbaptised people to be married in a parish church.

Many of those who insisted on the parties being baptised would have been influenced by the sacramental teaching of the Oxford Movement, which arose in the 1830s, and it may be that the introduction of new venues for marriage in 1837 gave them an opportunity to argue for a more exclusive approach to marriage in the Church of England.

So its highly likely George was not baptized, being the reason he was not buried in Anglican Selby Abbey graveyard or his Quaker burial as a non Quaker in their Gowthorpe Selby burial ground was influence by one or both of George's 2 'daughter in laws' who were of the Quaker faith.