The Nelson Evening Mail. TUESDAY, MARCH 16, 1875.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume X, Issue 64, 16 March 1875, Page 2

The Nelson Evening Mail. TUESDAY, MARCH 16, 1875.

Anyone who has the opportunity of perusing the newspapers published in the various centres of population throughout the Australasian colonies cannot have failed to observe that there is is a growing feeling in favor of what is commonly called " funeral reform," or, in other words, a movement to do away with the heavy expenses that society now demands shall be incurred by the survivors when a death occurs in a family. As is the case with all associations red hot upon " reform," very extravagant ideas have been broached by some of these newly formed bodies, or their special advocates, who seem to think that by sheer force of loud talking, and a style of writing which by the Americans would be characterised as "tall," they can compel people to adopt their notions. Now to this, although on the main question we are entirely at one with those who are endeavoring to bring about the desired change, we must demur altogether. One side can no more claim to be entirely in the right than the other can be accused of being altogether in the wrong. The question is rather one of sentiment than of abstract right or wrong, and must therefore be treated tenderly and with regard to private and personal feeling. The custom of yeare, wo may almost say of centuries, has sanctioned the parade and show, which, in a greater or lesser degree, are attendant upon funerals in a civilised community, and the idea that reepect for the dead renders them a necessity is one that is not to be overcome in a year, or perhfips in a decade. It cannot be crushed by a single blow, but must rather be worn away as is the hard boulder stone by the constant dropping of water. United action is impossible, because, although two or three hundred, or perhaps a thousand, persons may band themselves together for the special purpose they have in view, they must, when the time arrives for them to act, do so individually, and not collectively. One by one they will have to mourn the loss of a relative, and one by one they must carry out the principles they advocate. Ihe first that is placed in the position of a mourner has to bear the brunt of the remarks of a public who will probably think that because he does not adopt the custom of the day, place the corpse of the one he has loved in an ornamented coffin, convey it to the grave in a showy hearse, provide hatbands and gloves and so on for those who are to take the chief part in the ceremony, &c, therefore he cannot have entertained a genuine affection for the dead, for whose remains he displays what appears to be so shocking a vvunt of respect. So strong a hold has a sentiment of this description taken upon the public mind, that it is not merely the first, or the second, or the fiftieth, or the hundredth who shall endeavor to break through the established custom who will sutject himself to invidious remarks, but they may be expected for years to come, although in each caße they will become weaker and weaker. And, in addition to the comments of the outside public, those who, in their zepl for the new system they are endeavoring to iutroduce, shall adopt a line of action so entirely foreign to the ideas and habits in which they have been nurtured will have to contend against their own personal feelings. Strongly as we may feel on the subject, convinced as we may be that we are only doing that which is right in attempting by the influence of our example to put down what we believe to be an u&just demand made by society on the means of those who can ill afford to spare from their slender store a score or two of pounds for burying their dead, which of us would care — we might almost say dare — to be the first to place his wife or child in a plain, unornamented coffin, and in a common vehicle to convey to the cemetery the remains which in his eyes are so hallowed and so sacred ? In the first place then, this sentiment, which is so deeply implanted in all our breasts, has to be overcome. We have, all and each of us whatever may be our station in life, to learn that funeral trappings, black gloves, and silk hatbands, are not to be regarded as outward and visible signs, in the absence of which there can be no true respect for the dead. The next obstacle that has to be overcome in the matter of funeral reform—and by no means a despicable one— is cowardice; the fear of being thought too poor to comply with the ordinary custom. How many are there, even in our small community, who have devoted the shillings and pence that they could so little spare to giving to the remains of their relatiqns what is mistakenly called a " decent funeral," because they would not have it said that they could not afford it. To meet (his difficulty the rich must be pressed into the service. If the man who is in possession of his thousand or two a year will make up his mind not to spend above three or four pounds upon the funeral of bis wife or child, or if he will provide in his will that no larger Bum shall be oypended over committing his own remains to the grave he will be conferring a real benefit upon his poorer brethren, who dare not take the initiative in such

matters, for fear of being charged with that worst of all crimes — poverty. The question of wearing mourning is a far more delicate one to handle. Within our* immediate rapge of acquaintances there are some whom no amotantof persuasion could induce to dispense with their mourning garments, even should they outlive those whom they have lost by many years. On no account whatever would we say one word to hurt their feelings, but as society cannot demand from them that they should resume the dress they were accustomed to wear before the occurrence of the event they mourn, so would we desire to see that society should not absolutely require those who have recently lost near relations to display their sorrow by the wearing of black clothes. The bread-winner of a family is taken away, and the custom that now prevails steps in and says to the widow, " You must draw upon your little Btore of savings to the extent of providing yourself and your fatherless little children with entirely new suits. Those you have may be perfectly decant and presentable, but in respect to the usages of society you must purchase others which are of the color that is deemed proper to be worn upon such mournful occasions." The reform that has been so much talked of and written about of late cannot be accomplished without much sacrifice of feeling, nor can it be attained in a short time. It must be the work of years, but when finally brought about, it will prove a blessing to the middle and poorer classes especially, and people will in future years wonder how their predecessors could have been so foolish as to adhere to so unreasonable a custom for so long a time. In conclusion we will quote an extract which appeared in , the last number of the Auckland Church Gazette from a letter upon this suhject published by the Rev J. D. Collis, D.D., Vicar of Stratford- uponAvon :— "Are not ordinary funerals plain, medium, or splendid, all of one dark, dismal, hopeless, dull, unchristian uniformity of utter ugliness and unmeaningness ? Did any person ever see in such a procession one particle of beauty, of hope, of cheering anticipation of a bright and glorious and unending future ? Can anyoue tell us who invented this awfu', and desponding, and heart-depressing ritual ? What is the authority for it ? Who keeps it up ? Will any one give us a single good reason for keeping it up, except that it costs untold sums of money to pay for this hideous ugliness ? Will any well-meaning exenutor or undertnker, will any man of common sense explain it all to us ? . . . Is it not time to change this ? Would not a change be a relief to men's eyop, to men's hearts, and to men's pockets?" " Cannot we here in Auckland " (asks the writer in the Gazette) " make a reforming movement in this direction ? Who does nof. know that often the first drain upon the slender resources of the widow left behind is the undertaker's bll (in most cases not a light one) for that which is only retniued by our lurking relish for pagan customs and the cowardice which will not suffer us to set ourselves ns it were in opposition to meaningless conventional cußtotns ?" To this we would add the question — Cannot we bring about such a reform in Nelson ?