The Sun.
London, England, 1851-05-20 00:00:00

THE WALKER TESTIMONIAL-THE
GRAVEYARD ABOMINATION.

TO THE EDITOR OF TEE SUN.
SIR,-1G has often fallen in my way, as a member
of the pree, to notice the valuable services rendered to
society by At.. George .11.1frcd Walker in the case of
intramural interments. The learned gentleman had the
courage to gr, pple with one of the chief—one of the
most revolting of our physical evils, and the magnanimity
to persevere in the tAsk he hal chosen for himself, not-
witbstandirg a powerful opposition from the parties
interest,d in the abuse, and perhaps at times but in-
adequate suppo:t from the public. If he has not suc-
ceeded to the full extent of his design, ho has been the
means of abating a foul and deadly nuisance, and of
directing the public understanding and will towards its
final suppression. Mr. Walker's powerful reclamation
may be held as properly the origin of the cemetery
system, which has relieved our large towns of a vast
amount of death-dealing miasma; and which would pro-
duce much more good were it not for the ignorance,
greed, or negligence, which permits the old and over-
charged burying.grounds to be still used for the inter-
ment of the dead. In Edinburgh we have several
beautiful and admirably managed cemeteries ; but the
Greyfriars and Canongato churchyards are still used,
although hideously overcharged with the remains of
mortality.

A short time back it was proposed to present Mr.
Walker with a testimonial of public gratitude for his
fifteen years' advocacy of the interests of the public in
his peculiar walk of sanitary reform. I regarged the
movement with much interest as the first step in doing
justice to a valuable and public-spirited citizen, and also
as suggestive of encouragement to others to act a similar
part—an encouragement always necessary. Now nothing
is heard of the project. This is greatly to be deplored,
and the gentlemen who originally took action in the
case of Mr. Walker should certainly bestir themselves
to complete their original aim. It strikes me that it is
generally matter of consequence that in such cases the
subscription should be made at once, while the claims
and merits of the party it is meant to honour are fresh
in the public mind. Delay may otherwise become de-
feat. I am, Sir, &c.,
Edinburgh, May 15. LITERATUS.

COURSE OF EXCHJ
Amsteruam .• 11 16
Ditto. three months 11 17N
u.otterdana .... ••.• • • 11 17%
Antwerp •••••••• •• •• •• 25 25
Brussels .• • • 25 25
litunburgh .... • • M. 3. 13 7N
Pnrls, d days'aglit 25 2%
Ditto, 3 roontlui 25 22
Marselllef• 25 25
Bourc.4eaux ••.••• •• • •
Frankfort on Maine 119
11er1in.....• •• ••
Vienna, ein e. do l2 55
rrieste, daLo.... • •
I'z.tersburgh, Sll. Ride %
fdadllcl •• • • •••• • • •• •• 50
Cads •• •• •• •. •• •• •• 50%
BDIXVi' ono • • •• •• • • •• ••

LNGE.--(THIS DAY.)
Gibra1tar..............
Leghorn •••••••• • • •• •• 30 50
Genoa •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• 25 45
Milan .• •• •• .• •• •• •• ••
Venice.• ••••••• • • • • • •.
yariles .......... •• • • 41%
Palr,rrno, per0z........ 124 k
Meyratia •• •• •• •• •• •• •• 124%
Ltsbon.. .• .• 63%
Oporto .• •• •• .• •• 53%
Rio Jcnoiro •• .• .• .• ••

iluenos Ayres .. ••.. ••
New York, 60 daysisight
Philadelphia .... • • .... --
PRICED OF BULLION, Mt Of.
Foreign Gold in bars.. .0 17 9
Portugal Gold Coin .. 0 0 0
Spanish Doubloons .. 0 0 0
New Dollars .... 0 4 11%
Silver in bars ...... •• 0 5 1%

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS. May 19.
ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES BILL.
(Continued from our Third Feht.on of last night.)
Mr. GLADSTONE regretted equally the motion and
the necessity for its beteg med', but it was evident that
a great change had besn made, not only in the Bill
itself, but in the spirit of the Bill also, causing it
to become altogether a different thing to that
which it forni. rly eras. Within the whole
course of his Perflamentery experience, he had
never met with anything equal to this, and he did there-
fore feel that they bed no vest whatever to enter upon
legislation on this euhject until they had had advice from
the first law CffiCf'lB of the Crown. Any gentleman
might get up and introduce words which would
altoe,ether alter the tenor and the force of the
Bill. How then could they proceed ? This
Bill contained three operative clauses; of these
three two setae rendered void. What would they do
if his Hunourable and Learned Friend the Member for
Midhurst had attacked the Pope's brief itself. He said
that that brief was in itself invalid, and quite illegal,
in this country. This proposition the Ministry had
adopted, and it was therefore plain that nothing could
be done soundly at least without that legal advice of
which they now stood so much in need. Was it not also
known to the House that there was another rescript from
the Papal authority for the division of the Roman Ca-
tholic diocese of Ross, which was now separated from
the diocese of Cloyne. According to this measure that
rescript would be also void. He, therefore, hoped that
the Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) or the Secretary of
State for the Home Department (sir G. Grey) would in-
form the House as to the legal character and bearings of
the present Bill; and he also wished to know whether
the excluJed clause would be brought back to the Bill,
and whether, if so, it would have the retrospective force
of aeaulling the past rescript of the Pope, and also of de-
feating the late episcopal jurisdiction in Ireland, to which
he had already adverted?
Lord J. RUSSELL said the Committee had two ques-
tions to consider which ought to be kept separate. The
first was the question of the Hon. Member for Dublin,
who had moved that the Chairman should report pro-
gress and ask leave to sit again; and whatever the Noble
Lord the Member for Arundel might say, he could not
agree to that course, because he had no security, when
they came on Friday next to consider the Bill, that the
Noble Lord might not, without any factious motive, pro-
pose that the Chairman should leave the chair; and thus
they would be in no better position than they were at the
present moment. The Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr.
Gladstone) took another course, and said that in going
into a Bill of so much importance as this, especially
when the first clause was not originally in the Bill, but
had been lately introduced, some member of the Govern-
ment ought to explain the general score of the clauses
and what would he their practical effect; and he (Lord
J. Russell) would not deny, if the other questions were
disposed os", that it would be fair, when they came to read
the clause, that the Attorney• General should explain to
the Committee the view which he took of that clause
and what would be its legal effect.
The Earl of ARUNDEL and SURREY understood
that the agreement came to on last Friday night was,
that there should be no division on the motion of the
Speaker leaving the chair, but that there was no farther
pledge given on their part; tied he should add that, when
the Noble Lerd stated that there was no security for a
legitimate discussion, there existed a right for every Hon.
Gentleman to avail himself of all the forms of the House
against so obnoxious a measure.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. ROEBUCK contended that the present was a new
Bill altogether, and that it was nothing bat just and fair
that its principles soould be considered.
Sir R. H. INGLIS admitted that the law officers of
the Crown should explain the nature of the new clause,
particularly as that clause was aia improvement in the
Bill.

Mr. P. HOWARD raid that if the Government ac-
ceded to the suggeition of Mr. Gladstone, then Mr.
Reynolds might with great prorriety withdraw his mo-
tion. It they obtained from the law officers of the
Crown a fell and distinct exp!rthation of all the bearings
of the measure, they could reserve their opposition till
it had reached a future stage.
Mr. HORSM AN said that if the Hon. Member for
Dublin would withdraw his motion so as to enable the
s!ateineat to be made by the Attorney-General, in ac 7
cordence with the suggestion of the Right Hon. Gentle-
man oppoaite (Mr. Gladstone), to which the Noble Lord
bed acceded, tile Hon. Member would not be in a worse
position than he was at present. As some misunder-
standing seemed to exist as to what happened on Friday
last, and as he was present on the occasion ho wished to
observe that the statement of hie Noble Friend behind
him (Lord Arundel and Surrey) as to the arrangement
entered into on that occasion was correct. The lion.
Gentlemen who were concerned in the arrangement
stated, on that occasion, that they agreed to the Noble
Lord's suggestion, on condition that on Monday they
would not be bound by it, beyond the question that the
Speaker do leave the chair, and to that condition the
Noble Lord assented.
Lord J. RUSSELL observed that what he had stated
was, that when they came to the first clause the At-
torney-General would make a statement with respect to
the bearing and legal effects of that clause. That did I
not touch the question of the preamble.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE thought that if the motion of
the Hon. Member for Dublin was within the strict let-
ter, it was not within the spirit of the arrangement.
That arrangement was that no opposition should be
made to the Speaker leaving the chair; but having
agreed to the Speaker leaving the chair, what possible
use was there in demanding that he should be put into it
again immediately, for that was the object of the motion
of the Hon, Member for Dublin? Ho thought the Hon.
Gentleman ought to allow the first reading of the Bill,
and on the question that it be read a second time the
Attorney-General should make his statement. He
thought the Noble Lord had hardly kept faith with the
House. For having before Easter called on all Hon
Gentlemen who had amendments to propose in the Bill
to place them on the paper, and that after the Easter re-
cess he would state which of them he would accept and
which reject, the Noble Lord, on the House assembling
after the recess, stated that he would not accept the
amendment of the Hon. Member for Midhurst. Yet the
Noble Lord bad sent the Attorney-General to the Hon.
Member for Itidburst in order to " cook up" a new Bill
with him; but it appeared they could not agree upon it.
However, as the House did not know at the present mo-
ment wherein the Bill the Hon. Member for Midhurst
meant to place his amendments, that of itself consti-
tuted a ground for asking a few days' delay. He sug-
gested that the Hon. Member withdraw his motion, and
that they should at once have the statement of the Attor-
ney-General.

Mr. 13. ROCHE took the same view of the arrange-
ment of Friday night As the Noble Lord (Arundel and
Surrey).

Mr. KEOGH said that the arrangement had been
made between bim and the Noble Lord, and if ho con-
ceived ho were violating the spirit of that :arrangement
in supporting the motion of the lion. Member for
Dublin, he would not vote for it. But he was convinced
that that motion violated neither the spirit nor the letter
of that understanding; ntithar hed the Noble Lord ac-
cused them of such a &log, het the Right Honourable
Gentleman (Sir George GI ey) hinted it. What happened
was this. Lie asked the Noble Lord to consent to the
re-printing of the Bill; the Noble Lord at first refused,
and the Howe now saw that he (Mr. Keogh) had just
and reasonable grounds for that request. The Noble
Lord afterwards comccutEd, on condition that on Monday
he should he placed in the same position with respect to
the Bill as he was then; ho (Mr. Keogh) agreed, pro-
rifled th.J. he, and it friends should also be put in
the sstuts p,,,,ttiun—rr.lL!el„ .! that on the Spt'nker
leav:.ng uld met te evsry
oppo.iiion to tee Bill V-at..‘,. they deemed expedient. That
was the arrangement agreed to, and he insisted ithrae.
had
not been violated in spirit or letter by thto3, As