The Sun.
London, England, 1824-04-07 00:00:00

PA

11.0 USE C>F LonDs, .A Nur. 6.
Sir JAS. GRAHAM brought up from the Commtins the Irish
4 per cents. bill; an Getieral t..4iscoY E brought up the cruet
treatment of Cattiebill.—Thesebills were red gist tiMe:

The Earl of opsymp presented,a petition' from' the town
of Tandeyagee agsinst -negro SlWiery. ' .
IRISH BURIAL''BILL.
• Lord HOLLAND -stated,-tirat a-petition .h ad -been- put' into
his hands,, with a request to lay it before ,their Lordships., It
related to a bill onthe'stibjeef_ of .Ca.titolie• burials, -which had
toine from the otheiqlouse, bilt which he had not yet had the
particular opportunity of readin,g. With'the 'proirsitiris of
the bill lie was unacquainted, and the persons who had sign-
ed the petition were.equally. unknown to him. -Under these
circumstances, he should, have•wished to postpone presenting
this petitivn, in • order that he might previously. have ;lime to
inquire into the facts; but as he understood that it was the

iPtntionTof the Noble Lord at:the, head Of the Treastiry to
move the commitment of the bill that-evening, he was under
the necessity of now calling their LoLdships' attention to the
subject. As he had said, he had no knowledge of the orrect,•
ness of the facts stated by.the petitioners, or of the provisions
of-the bill. Be unilerstOod the, obiect of the .0-. fa
cilitate the burial of CatholicS in Ireland, whith had in some

. .
cases experienced interruption ; but •it was rather strange, as
the object of the bill was to allay angry - feelings, 'that it
should ;be. thought necessary to hurry it • so rapidly through
the House. The petitioners.stated, that.they had read the bill,
and thanhough in its preamble the principle of toleration• was
recognieed, yet its provisions were in a contrary spirit. Here
the Noble Lord read the petition, which we understood to be
signed by a few persons. The petitioners stated, among other
things, thatthe tendency of the provisions would be to produce
the collision of different parties and disunion in Ireland, and to
increase the animosities which the bill proposed to allay a• and
that there had been no interruption to the • burial of Catholics
previously to the appointment of Dr. Magee to the see of Dub- -
lin. The Noble Lord had observed, that lie had taken this un-
ustial mode of reading the petition, because, while he wislied.to
lay it on the table, he had, on his own part, no Opinion to.give
on the subject of the bill.-
The Earl of LIVERPOOL' would- not oppose the motion
for laying•the petition on the table. .With regard to the bill,
their Lordships must be aware that it had received much of the
attention of the other House of Parliament, into which it had
been introduced in • consequence of some transactions of a dis-
agreeable nature which had occurred in certain parts of Ireland.
T-the bill was brought up from the Commons on Thuriday last,
•and had been ordered to be printed. There had, thereforeebeen
no undue haste in forwarding the measure. lie certainly had
yesterday stated that he was -desirous of having the bill torn-
initted this night, but lie at the same time intimated that he
would postpone the third reading ' to Friday next, when any
amendment which might be thought necessary could equally
well be proposed. A great many of the objections which had
been matte
beemacie to the bill were • founded •on - a misunderstanding of
- the subject, which would be easily • removed when due consi-
deration was given to the measure.
The Earl or DARNLEY was as anxious as ahy body. could
be that ellis'llill should have a good effect in Ireland ; but he
wished their. Lordships to attend .to diet part th: the petition -
which stated the Provisions to be incompetent te allay the vio-
lence of parties. According to the Bill, the Roinan Catholic
Priest must apply to the rector or vicar of the parish for pets-Ms-
slots to perform the Roman Catholic service in the.church-yard.
'Now he wished the Noble Earl opposite to consider whether it
would not be as well, saving all the rights of the 'Protestant
establishment, to provide that the . Catholic Priest should give
notice of his intention to bury in the parish church-yard, and
that if not prevented. ithin a certain time, gibe interment should
be allowed to take place. Thus the Protestant Clergyman
would have the power of a veto if he•chose to exercise it.
The-Earl of CA.RNA it VON , thought that the clause rela-
tive to the permission to bury might experience some difficulty
in the execution. How was theepplicatio» to be made in cases
where there was no resident Minister ? and-where the residence
of the Minister might be at the distance of 30 or 40 miles, great
inconvenience would be experienced by the parties. lie also
objected to the exception against burying•in suppressed mona-
steries and ahheyS, which had not been employed for interment
within the last - ten years, and thought that an agreement for
burying might be allowed to be made with the proprietors in
such places.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL intimated his re;diness • to con-
sent to amendments calculated to remove the objections' stated
by the Noble Earl. If there existed among parties a dispo-
sition to conciliate, they would soon fall uptin the means.—
With regard to the power which the Protestant clergyman had
exercised, it was perfectly legal. There -Was no doubt that
the jurisdiction of the church-yard belonged to the reefer or
or vicar of the parish, and that jurisdiction applied •equally
to Protestants of the Church •of• Ireland • and -to Catholics;
because, if it were the wish of any party that a Protestant
clergyman from :moister parish should perform the burial ser-
vice, such other Protestant, clergymen must first obtain the
Consent of the rector or vicar. ' The Bill Would remove' every
difficulty both with respect to Dissenters and eatholies.-". its to
the burial service, the common practice among Roman. Catho-
lics, he understood, was to have it .performeein a room' where
-a small portion it earth was consecrated. They. would-now,
upon application, have the opportunity of performing their fu-
Tierd service in the parish church-yard.- With regard its the
inform petition, he could their Lordships that the reflection
it cast on a Right Rev, Prelate was most-unfounded. That Rt.
Rev. Prelate was residing at Learoingtori in Warwickshirerwhen
the transactions:took- place to which the petition alluded;- and
knew nothing of them. 'As to the provision for askihg -permis-
sion of the parish minister, he considered it necessary.- Their
Lordship's must either legislate so as tp meet all-cases and cir-
cumstances,
.or they mast 'have 'a 'discretion somewhere. It
certainly was not likely that that 'discretion could be altused,
when the. object of the Bill which contained it was so 'clearly
defined in the 'pr.earnble. of the -very clause -by which it was
given.- Aftchstating that the Ministers of the Church Of Ire-
loafri
the
e iA cannotegis t
aa
tt
I' 1
rper ensleannt
be permitted to have the easel-tient 'of burialhaccordirtg to the
'permit any other. to be substituted, it• proceeds' thus sa-4` To
the end. thereof, that all classes of his Majesty's subject's may
rites of the Several religiOns profcted by them—be it enacted,"
&c. No -preemble could More strongly express the intention
thdiellteinnesehewhiteh.d' rtehee.d.chuTrciliiis 5,
e rhowever,ie
was not all. It was Provided by other clause, that if •'Prmis-
iiori be Withheld; the officiating _Minister ef the ChurdlacrE Ire-
land must declare the clause of liis refus-al'iii wiling.' A copy
Of this 'docume.rif must be forthwith. laid before his diocesan,
by Whdm it 'Must be- immediately trahsraitted to the:Lord
Lieutenant. It was not for. him to Say what some obstinate
.elergyinan Might notile ; but after such an .admonition as that
-in the Preamble he • lidiead, followed up by such' a prchyision
'as he hail described, it *as not likely that any capricious objec-
tion would be made. . .
The Earl of LIMERICK observed, that the Catholics of
Ireland-had a strong 'desire to have burial-places in suppressed
convents ; • and if the existing law was altered, he had no doubt
that 'Arrangements would be made for the purpose with the pro-
prietors. .
Lord HOLLAND was convincedly what the .Nohlel Earl
had stated, that the object of the Bill was conciliatory ;
but still he tho'ight it ought not to be-hurried forward with so
much haste. - •
Lood KING understood that a request for.permissionetp per-
form the Roman Catholic service was to be male to the clergy_
gyman of the parish. Why not insert
ese,oonsleei ityhoofioirshtliciise Irgliit heand.
the words '"avhiethheis
hereby required to- grant ?" The obligation ought tissiti dis-
arisen
tinctlyThose
Ithail been-said, that the Constitution of this cesisntryiwas hi expressed,con eq u e nlcte
es-
sentially Protestant, and it appeared • that the clergy hall only
thought that the churchyard ought to be essentially •Pr
s(e)eirritieledctoha.mtititchteonf
eittistant
ticoforthd-e.
obstinate.clergymen, •
.aa Inst. .
with The
threit lal
d,
vadvice however,
whwhich
c wh
ha savaebsreyelno wiselyglielaenv
eft, atom
thee:,dootml
ti
snei
toi eel.. ,
Church to the Catholics, if they wished'to keep the inside of it
to themselves. . .
The Earl of DARNLEY said a few words in explanation,
and in favour of the principle of the measure. .
The' Earl of HA RROWBY spoke at considerable length in
support of the Bill, the benefits of' which, he observed; were
not 'confined to Cotholics, but extended -to all descriptions of
ptesehters. ' There had been • instances of 'permission -to at-
teed a 'funeral in • a parish church-yard - having been refesed
to PresbYterian Clergymen. Such refusal - would be linwcnted
•by this Bill ; ' for, -as the intention of parliament was-so clearly
expressed; the given in the clause which had been
'referred-to was synonymous-with obligation. He -thought it
improper to delay proceeding with the Bill, • because its post-