RootsChat.Com
England (Counties as in 1851-1901) => England => Yorkshire (West Riding) => Topic started by: BushInn1746 on Tuesday 18 April 17 21:16 BST (UK)
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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)
Hello
Thank you for the replies.
Excepting Quakers and Jews, under Hardwicke's Marriage Act (to prevent Clandestine Marriage), if George Hood wished to marry, George would have to marry in the Parish Church or Chapel of the Church of England [whether he was baptised or not] under Hardwicke's Act.
"Although Jews and Quakers were exempted from the 1753 Act, it required religious non-conformists and Catholics to be married in Anglican churches." Many of these would not be baptised in the C of E.
George Hood & Sarah Russell were not marying in haste, there was a two month gap between the Marriage Allegation and Bond date (16th May) for a Licence and the Marriage date (18th July 1815). They had plenty of time to use the Banns process, but married by Licence instead.
Although Selby Church called him George Hood of Selby on the Marriage Bond, if no Parish Church had a formal baptism record in their Parish Register, then this might also explain the necessity for a Marriage Allegation and Bond and to marry by Licence.
George & Sarah Hood, did have their 8 children baptised (last child baptised 1835).
However, it could well be the case that George Hood himself was unbaptised by the Parish Church.
----------
George Hood did not apply to the Quakers for Membership until 1836, but was refused membership of the Quakers (York Monthly Meeting Minutes - at Leeds, Brotherton Lib.)
Regarding his Sons William & James Hood who later became Quakers, they did not marry until after George Hood's 1845 death and so I don't think they had a bearing on George Hood's Quaker burial.
-----------
The 1760 rule was according to the 1876 House of Commons debate still applicable.
1) The Parish Church were required to bury the dead.
2) However, their Office (or official process) under Ecclesiastical Law meant they could likely refuse to conduct a Service (nobody officiating from the church at burial).
I have read that nobody of the Church would officiate, that the coffin would be taken direct to the grave, lowered in and filled and some of these were originally buried during the hours of darkness, at night.
------------
Also interesting to note, that around the year George Hood was born, John Hood of Selby, Mariner was living in the house belonging to Jno TURNER who was also linked to the Presbyterian Chapel (as both Turner entries disappear in the Selby Land Tax together in 1790), when Turner's house was sold to John Spencer and also the Chapel changes hands too, in the same year.
Perhaps the Turner Nonconformist attitude, swayed John Hood of Selby Mariner, not to baptise George Hood in the Parish Church. Unfortunately, the Selby Presbyterian Chapel records are missing from 1690 until 1797.
Mark
-
I don't know if this is of interest.In 1979 my baby son died aged 5 months,we hadn't got round to having him baptized so,as a catholic we couldn't have a church ceremony only a graveside one.At least he was buried in a cemetery and not outside the walls which happened for many years.
-
Marriage is not a sacrament in the Church of Scotland & marriages were generally conducted in the manse or at home, not the kirk. Episcopalians were the non-conformists in Scotland & the penal laws against them were not relaxed until 1788.
Skoosh.
-
Hello sandyjose
Thank you.
I am very sorry to hear about the loss of your Son.
My Son, died he was 23.
I am interested in the Funeral Service arrangement, as my George Hood of Selby was given a burial in the Selby Quaker burial ground, despite not being a Quaker and apparently having no Quaker birthright, suggesting he may not have been baptised C of E to qualify for a C of E funeral service.
So it looks like the Catholics did something similar, no baptism - no funeral service in church.
Interesting though this stance of no funeral service in church for an unbaptised child, as I am sure the Catholics believe in the resurrection of those lost in death. It is this resurrection assurance that keeps me going regarding my Son.
If the Catholics believe God will resurrect the dead including your Son, then why not allow an unbaptised child's funeral in their church.
Take care, Mark
-
Thank you for your kind words,losing a son at 23 must be so hard to bear.It used to be the case in Ireland,and other places that if a baby(or an adult) died having not been baptized they weren't allowed to be buried in a cemetery,they had to be buried outside it.To my mind,these are all rules created by the church and are unacceptabe.
-
Marriage is not a sacrament in the Church of Scotland & marriages were generally conducted in the manse or at home, not the kirk. Episcopalians were the non-conformists in Scotland & the penal laws against them were not relaxed until 1788.
Skoosh.
Hello Skoosh
Thank you.
Your comment has raised quite important questions, relating specifically to my own family history research ...
Regarding Episcopalian and the Laws not being relaxed until 1788, are you saying that there may be no record of a Marriage, or some Marriages before 1788?
Or are you saying basically that all Marriages ought to have come under Church of Scotland arrangements before 1788?
Because this might be the reason why we can't find a Marriage for John Hood of Selby, Mariner, who was reputed to be married to Jane Hood (buried Selby, Yorkshire, August 1803, aged 65).
I presume all the Marriages at the Minister's Home, or Manse, or at Home were all recorded in their Church of Scotland Register?
Mark
-
Mark, the Piskies (Episcopalians) were tainted by Jacobitism hence the closure of their chapels & their adherents persecuted & worship limited to five persons. The building of St Andrew's in the Green in Glasgow for example was largely for the use of English soldiers posted to the city.
Most if the marriages did not take place in the kirk but should still be recorded in the parish registers with details of the Banns. ScotlandsPeople can help with these. Google, the Episcopal Church of Scotland, for their records.
Skoosh.
-
Regarding church burials the unbaptised were not always afforded the same services at burial.
Brecknock Beacon, 6th February 1891
BURIAL OF THE UNBAPTISED.
A correspondent writes that the Vicar of Hailsham, Sussex, on being asked to officiate at the recent burial of an old parishioner, who had for years been a teacher in the Church Sunday-school, replied that he could not conscientiously do so, as the deceased had not been baptised according to the rites of the Church of England. ...
The family obtained the services of a Congregational Minister at Eastbourne, the Wesleyans lending their chapel for the service.
The article went on to refer to the Burial Act of 1880, ...