Irish Burials.
The Times, 1824-04-19T00:00:00

The following is the letter of tiArchishop of Dublin, read in the Housc of Lerds on Thursday by the Bishop of Limerick:- " Dublin, April 7. "ly dear Lord,_I perceive that in a petition against the Burial Bill, signed by two Roman Catholics, which has been presentftj to the Rouse of Commnors, and which, of coarse, svill also be preent. ed to the House of Lords, there occurs the followilg passage:- That no inconvenience had resulted from the practice of free bu. nial, as it existed in that city (meaning Dublin) prior to the ap- potnttueNt of the most Rev. Dr. MIagee, as Archbishop of the diacms.' " The meaning of this is obvious. A charge is brought against the present Archbishop of Dublin, as having, by some means or ethey, introduced a change of practice respecting the interment of Roman Catholics in the churchyards of the city of Dublin since his appoirmtment to the Archiepiscopal See. "By the wvords 'free burial,' thougA not defined in their applica- tion, the petitioners must be supposed, in reference to those of their own communion, to intend to express the undisturbed privilege of the Roman Catholic priesthood to ofifciate in the churchyards of the clergy of the Established Church. Am innovation on this sup. posed privilege has been loudly and repeatedlly charged against the Archbishop, for some order alleged to have been given by him, in the ins-ance of the interment of a person of the name of D'Arcy, in St. Revin's churchyard, on the 9th of September, in the last year ; and although the most decisiye proofs of the total falsehood of the allegation have bee-s placed before the public, it still continues to be reiterated, as if its truth had been undeniablv established. " So long as this charge had been confined to hand-bills, nevs- papers, an(i pamphlets, ard employed merely as a topic of vulgar abuse, I did not teem it suitable to the station in which I am placed to offer azy public contradiction.-although I was fuilly aware of the personal danger to -which I was exposed by leaving it uncontra- diceted. I contentedl myself, at the time of its first announce- ment, withka written assurance to the head of the Government in Ireland, that it was, in alU its parts a7nd bearings, utterly untrue. I was at that tibm, and had been for several days before, residing at Leamington, in England, being obliged to visit that place by the indisposition ot a member of my family. From that p ace I addressred myself by letter to the distingaished personage already alluded to, stating, that ' respecting thie transactions of the intermnent which had rendered rae the subject of ?he existing violent outcry, anti which had been made the occasionofdenouncing me as an object of popalar vengeance, my only knowledge of thern had been derived fromn the public papers ;' and declaring most un- qualifiedly, that ' theaUegation that any order had been issued by me upon that subject, was not only untrue, but destitute of all fouri- dation in truth.' '- This declaration, which I felt myself called upon at that time to make in such a manner as could not derogate from my station, I feel myself called upon to repeat in a more public manner, noiv that the formal announcement of this charge, in the two Honses of Par- liamserat, not only affordis me a suitable opportunity for doing so, but at the same time imposes such a 'proceceling as a duty, founded upon the respect which I entertain for the opiiiion of the members of both houses, and for the judgment oftlhe reflecting andreasonable part of the community in both countries. rL This not being tiy year of parliamentary attendance, I am, oF course, Prevented tromn offering thii declaration in my own person in the use of Liords; I have, therefore, to request that your Lotdship will offer it for me: or ratler, tbat you will take the proper opportunity of bringing the entire contents of this lettec be- fore the house. Have the goodness, at the same time, to ald, that as to the transaction at St. Kevin's churchlyard, which hbas been pronounced as change in the practice of free burial as it existed in the .c,ty of Dublin before my appointment to, the Archiepiscopal See, A nsot only issued no order of any kind, general or particular, public or private, and had no previous commnunication vith any person whalacever upon the subject; but thAt slthough nearly forty years a residentoTl tWe Ziffo'ablif, an-ti not acaurinted with,1ioi occurrenocs of an ecclnjstticharacw?lwIthn tifiE-')! ha nevber-ard fi' a Roman Cathtf1ic!idit sft4il, oP htteWnptin*i6 ofllciate,-it anv ititf,1ene*it1 id WiTC4li-yxrW? of, anv of the wtrishetiOfthe mttblis,until J read thiizeportesiven ,ythe piib licTpape; of. tbe.procecdingatSt. dvinl.s:, . :' . . "It miy not be,aiss also to state,Athat.sl3eb5 subsequently, I- wps (op my return to DPibUn) consnlte d rbni%r tWO octa.sions by some of the parish ministers As to wh*t they' 6ght,to do-in this new' nozd alarming state of thingsc, should a Romaan. Catholic Priest in-' silt on exercising his funtions atan interment in theii church- yards, mv advice to thenm was, that the should'e rerid at'tbhir posts to officiate according to the rites of tti tie ab1is cd uhis - and t!iat, if not permitted, and that the Priest still persevered in his invasion of their rints, they sbould emnploy n6 force, and oppose no resistance, farthet thau to protest formally and solemnlW against the uinlawfulness ot the act, with a view to ulteriorproceedings before the proper tribunaO. " I hiave the honout to be, mvdeaar Lord, - " Your faithful friend and brother, To the Lord Bishop of Limerick." "IW. DUBLTN," Hiis Lordlship added, that he had reeeived another letter alsoTfrom the Archbishop, stating, that "the parochial dlergy ofDablin. have signed a. declaration, that, to their knowvcdge, no Roman Catholic iMrat has ever officiated, oc attemnpted to officaiae in their churcb- vards-respectivcly, with! the exception of tle St. 'Kevin'a busmesos, aina a sim ilar attemnpt since that in St. Mlary's." IRISH BURIALS.