We have felt it our duty ...
The Times, 1824-04-19T00:00:00

WVe have felt it our duty to insert the letter of Dr. MAGEE, Archbishop of Dublin, to the Bishop of LIMmE- iticr, which was read a few days ago in the House of Lords, touching an interruption given to the proceedings of a Romain Catholico Clergyman, who performed some part of the ceremonies of the Church of Rome over the grave of a (leceased Catholic in the churchyard of St. Kevin's, Dublin. The interruption alludedl to had been ascribeil by the Catholics, as is well knowin, to positive orders issuing directly from the Archbishop himself. This imputation, the letter before us, overturns in the most positive manner. WVe omit, as beside our present purpose, such aniimadver- sions as the case would justify on the lofty and mock- heroic tone in which this prelate-a practised writer oi pamphlets, as we have heard-presumes to speak of the public press; that press which made him a Bishop! We return to his letter, whichl informs the country that His Grace was at the time, and for some days previous, at an Englislh watering-place, for the health of one of his family. He further declares, that the assertioni of any order, parti- cular or general, having been issued by him upon that question, was wholly destitute of aU foundation in truth; and that he (the Archbishop) had, prior to the transaction in St. Ke-in's churchyard, no communicatior with any person whatever on the subject. These averments, from such a quarter, may surely be considered as settling the matter of fact, and as exonerating the Archlbishop from every part of the blame imputed to him, relative to an interference with Catholic burials. Yet have some of his Grace's adversaries, with a pertinacity more characteristic, we must say, of factious virulence than of integrity or candour, gone on assuming as a thing of course, that the ordeis hadl been really given, and that the Archbishop himself wvas virtually the insulter of their dead. With regard to his Grace's construction of the law, as it stood before the introduction of the new act of Parliament which has just now received the Royal assent, the Arclbishop says that the attempt by a Popish Priest to gfflciate in any churchyard of his diocess, was unknown until the affair of St. Kevin's, and in this it appears that his Grace is borne out by a declaration of the parochial clergy of Dublin; this novelty, therefore, wve presume It was, which proluced the other novelty of an interruption by the Protestant clergyman, which the Catholics exclaim against as an offence no less alarming and monstrous, than the Protestant actors in the unfortunate business conceive the transgression which provoked it. Now it seems that all this conflict anti confusion arose out of the law itself; for that the establisbed minister was empowered by law to perform the funeral service of his church over every corpse deposited within his parochial churchyard, yet that there was no legal obstacle of any kind to the Catholic priest, or other Dissenter, officiating according to hi: modle of worship, whether the parish minister chose to ex- ercise his lawful privilege or to wvave it. WVas ever a sys. tem of legislation like this heard of any where but in Ire- land ? That two spiritual combatants could appeal to tht same authority-the one as being empowere(d bv it to act a, he thought fit-the other, as not being disabledI The neii hill recentlybrouglht in by Mr. Pl.UNKiETT displays be- yond all question a conciliatorv and pacifyingispirit, thougt grounds are already afforded for suspecting, that the peace- muakers have not been so dextrous in their choice of mcami to enforce this law, as the lovers of discord are likely to prov( in defeating its salutary purposes. Because the Protestani clergyman is bound to give a formal assent to the burial ol any deceased person, of whatever communion, whether thn Establhsheed, the Presbyterian, or the Catholic, before tih corpse can be interred, Counsellor O'CoxNrtLL thinks fil to tell the Irish multitude, that the act is an absurdity, ar " insult," and an c" outrage." This wild and turbulent agi. tator; of a credulous people takes no notice of the preamble ol the act, which declares its intent to be, that Dissenters (in- cluding Catholics) shall have the privilege of burial ac- cording to their own rites, and which therefore stufficiently points out to the clergyman his duty. He passes over the clear priniciple of law which Mr. PLUNKETT explains in the present case as actually enjoining, wherp, for fonr's sake, it professes to empowocr the Established Clergy- man to grant liberty of burial according to the Catholic ritual. He would push every thing to an extreine right-would take for granted a gratuitous abuse of prerogative, and eagerness for disgrace in a Pro- testant parson, by supposing him to rebel directly against the spirit of the law-for nothing! and, rather than per- mit this peaceful medicine to operate according to the hopes and predictions of its authors, he is not afraidl to tell us that he would prefer the old, not law, but absence of all law, upon the subject ; wlhere every Catholic burial wvould vxhibit a spectade of adverse functionaries, and con- flicting pretensions, ending in (what no doubt Mr, O'CoN- N E. must deprecate) a triumph to mere physical force, on whichever sidle it could be most effectually mustered. The Burial Bill we look upon to be an improvement in the law, or rather, as we have said, a substitution of law for no law; and such it has appeared to statesmen in this country, as jealous for freedom, as alive to justice, and as true to right as the Catholic barrister has ever proved himself at any period of his noisy and feverish existence. This act may possibly be abused by the Protestant incumbent, if he be mad-by the Priest, if he be encroaching and ambitious; but, legislating for human affections and motives in the mass, we are persuaded that the Burial Bill is in its nature an ameliorating instrument.