Star.
London, England, 1824-03-30 00:00:00

reduction in the Port of Londoptwas to Ile effeced-
which would leave 6s. per chatdmn payalde on coal
imported by iiee,'while only Is. per ton was payable on
inland coal ; whereas the dntles heretofore had been
9s. 4d. per chaldron on the former, and 15..6,1„ per ton
on the latter. 'his preference given to the inland coal
over the sea coal was, he contended, misch;e7ous and
unjust; and he should therefore take an early opportunity
of troubling the House with 3 motion on the subject.
Mr. LITTLETON said the subject touched upon
by the Honourable Baronet was one that much affected
the interests of his constituents, and whenever it came
before the House fur discussion he should feel it his
duty to give his support to the Resolutions of the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer. Even if the whole of the duty
on inland coal were taken off; such was the expense of
tr import by canal navigation, that there would not be
tire remotest danger of its being brought in competition,'
with sea borne coal in the Port of London.
Mr. HUME thought the best way of settling the dis-
pute between the rival interests of the sea and irrland
coals, would be to repeal the duties on both altogether,
wl,ich, he contended, might be done by the Chancellor
of the Exchequer giving up his Sinking Fund of five
millions, which he only kept up for the purpose of bring-
ing in three per cent. Stock at 95, fur the support of the
monied interest, which had no need of such assistance.
Sir JOHN NEWPORT objected 0 the principle of
his Noble Friend's argument, which went to nothing
more than saying, that if a tax were once imposed, and
acqvieseed in by those on whom it fell, and it should
afterwards be found most clearlyto operate in a partial
and oppressive manner towards that particular branch
of the community, it ought not to be repealed, but that
the injustice must be suffered to remain until the whole
of the taxes that were paid in equal portions by the
whole community should have been first repealed.
Mr. MABERLY rose to defend the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, who, he said, was most unfairly treated by
Gentlemen who supported his, Resolutions in favour of
the Sinking Fund, when he proposed them, and after-
wards came down with Petitions, which they supported
with stronger language than was used on his side of the
House, attacking the very means by which he was ena.
bled to keep up that Fund.
The I.ILINCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said,
he should have no objection if the Honourable Baronet
(Sir M. W. Ridley) would fix Thursday next for the pur-
pose et the Resolutions on the subject of the Coal Duties
being reconsidered in a Committee of the whole House.
Mr. Alderman WOOD thought the reduction of the
Duties in the port of London no more than the inhabit-
ants of the metropolis were entitled to.
Sir M. W. RIDLEY disclaimed, on the part of the
coal-owners of the North, any wish:tdacquire any advan-
tage over the inland coal owners: all they desired was
to be kept on the same relative footing as formerly. He
then gave notice that he would on Thursday next move
for a Committee of the whole House on the subject of
these Duties.—The Petition was ordered to be printed.
BURIALS IN lIIRLANP BILL.'
On the Order of the day for' the second reading of
this Bill being read,
Mr. PLUNKETT rose to address the House. The
Right Honourable Gentleman said, that under the pre-
sent circumstances of the public business, and particu-
larly with reference to that part of it which related to
the supplies, he should not have thought it, his duty to
bring forward the measure to which he was about to
call their attention, if he had not flattered himself, from
all he had beard and all he had been able to learn, that
-no material objection would be made to the Bill, such
as would be likely to lead to a protracted discussion.—
The House was already aware of the nature of the Bill.
It went to provide for a defect in the law which de-
prived persons dissenting from the Established Religion
Of being interred in the Protestant church-yards, ac-
cording to the ceremonies of their respective persuasions.
While everybody must acknowledge the importance of
the subject as regarded the Dissenters, it could not at
the same time be denied, that it was one of great deli-
cacy, as far as the feelings and prejudices of those who
were attached to the Established Church were con-
cerned, He entered, however, upon the subject without
alarm, because he felt confident that the measure he had
to propose was of such a nature as would procure for
the Dissenters all the privileges which they claimed,
without affording to the friends of the Established
Church any reasonable ground for apprehension.—
Having said thu,s much, it was necessary he should ac-
count for the subject having been taken out of the
hands of his Right Honourable Friend (Sir John New-
port); with whom it had originated, and who would
have conducted it, as he did all measures having for
their object the good of Ireland, with so much good
sense and.ability. It was, however, thought proper by
the Noble Lord who was at the head of the Government
to nhich he (Mr. Plunkett) had the honour to belong,
that the measure should be brought forward by a 'per-
son, attached to that Government, in order to prove to
the people that Noble Person's anxious solicitude for the
success of the measure, as well as to ensure to jt a
greater probability of success, by making it a Govern-
ment measure, instead of being. brought forward by
any private individual. Many circumstances had oc-
curred that prevented
.an earlier discussion of the sub-
ject. He believed there would be an unanimous opinion
as to the repeal of the Act of William 111. Many bu-
rial-grounds had been attached to monasteries, and had
been resorted to as burial-grounds, both by Catholics and
Protestants, without any feelings of an acrimonious na-
ture. It was extraordinary, that -by the Act of the
9th of William, such burials should have been pro-
hibited. He belleied the object was to prevent any
claim to those places.' But the law had been, in a great
degree, a dead letter, and was a deformity on the Sta-
tute. The Noble Lord at the head of the Irish Go-
vernment (the Marquis Wellesley) had paid peculiar at-
tendon to the subject. The main object was to secure
the burial of Dissenters without any offence to the mem-
bers of the Established Church. The church-yard was
the freehold of the Rector, and by the law of the
country he was bound to superintend all the burials
in his church-yard. He was also bound to read the
service of the Church of Ireland, and it alone.—
Should the Act be rigidly enforced, it would amount
to an exclusion of a great body from interment; of the
Catholics certainly, and probably of a great part of the
Dissenters. He thought it was clear that'every one hid
a right to burial in his own church, and there was no
law to exclude the Catholic from interment in a Pro-
testant cemetery. By an Act of the late King, most of
the penalties imposed upon the Catholics had been re-
moved, and the Catholic Priest could not be indicted
for solemnizing a burial in a Protestant church-yard.
The Act of 1795 had removed all doubts on the subject,
and no penalty whatever could attach to. the Catholic
Priest, though he celebrated a burial in the most Hublic
manner. Notwithstanding the elements of discord, ft om

.;...AlMar