Lords Sitting of 6 April 1824

BURIALS IN IRELAND BILL.
Lord Holland, before the order of the day was read, for this bill being sent to a committee, rose to present a petition on the subject which had been put into his hands. At present he wished to give no opinion on the bill, or to say any thing of the contents of the petition; for he knew nothing about the provisions of the bill which had been brought up from the other House; he knew nothing of the law of the case or of the facts on which the petition was founded. He understood the measure to be conciliatory, but to him it seemed strange, that a bill intended to sooth angry feelings should be hurried through the House before there was an opportunity for those most concerned to state their objections to it. The petition complained, that while the bill in its preamble recognized the right of toleration most fully, there was a clause in it encroaching upon that right, inasmuch as it gave to the clergyman of the Protestant church the power of refusing sepulchre to a Catholic. This was sowing the spirit of disunion and discontent, and particularly affected the city of Dublin by sanctioning those proceedings on the part of the

175
present archbishop which had been censured by every liberal mind.
The Earl of Liverpoolmerely wished to state the course pursued with regard to the bill. Their lordships must be aware, by the votes of the other House, that this matter had early, in the present session, been brought before its notice. There were evils which this bill was introduced to remedy, and it was introduced after the subject had been well Considered by the law officers for Ireland. The bill was brought up to their lordships on Friday, and had been printed; and he was not aware of any unusual haste in passing it through the House. None of the standing orders had been dispensed with, nor had any hasty proceedings taken place.
The Earl of Darnleybelieved that this measure was intended solely to produce beneficial effects to Ireland; but there was one point which he thought worthy of their lordships consideration. No person need be informed of the violence of party spirit in Ireland; and he thought if a constant appeal must be made by the Catholics to the Protestant clergy for permission to: bury, this could only be productive of vexation and animosity. He would suggest whether it might not be possible to enact that the Catholics should be entitled to bury their dead in the church-yards, on giving notice of their intention. He would allow the Protestant clergyman a veto stating his reasons but he wished the right of burial, without asking his leave, to be granted to the Catholics. He merely threw this out as a suggestion which, perhaps, the noble earl opposte might be disposed to adopt.
The Earl of Carnarvondid not think it was a good reason why their lordships should not discuss a measure, that it had been maturely considered in the other House. There were some measures which could be better examined by their lordships, than by the other House of Parliament. He did not wish to say much on the bill, not being particularly acquainted with that part of the country to which it applied. But it would appear as an objection to the measure, that in many parishes there was no church, and in still more, no resident minister. There was no place to affix a notice, unless it was posted on the ruins of a church. In some cases, the minister who would have to give this permission resided in England. As to the church-yards belonging to monasteries, he thought it might be possible
176
to give the people the right of sepulture in them; and if any litigation arose, some regulation might be adopted for obtaining the consent of the proprietors.
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid, that to the latter suggestion of the noble earl he had no objection, and should introduce a verbal amendment into the clause referred to. As to the suggestion relative to the absent ministers, and the want of Churches, there were numerous difficulties in the way which no legislative enactments could meet, without a mutual disposition on the part of the people; and if that disposition existed, the regulations of this bill would be as effectual as any which could be proposed. As to the suggestion of the other noble earl, it did not appear to him that it could be acted on. No doubt, as the law at present stood, the church-yard was a place over which the Rector or Vicar of the parish had full and complete authority It was his. But this applied to Protestants as well as Catholics; and protestant dissenters who wished to have a funeral service read over their dead were obliged to ask the permission of the rector. As the law stood, the rector was bound to perform the funeral service in his own church-yard; but this was altered by the present bill. The Catholics, as he understood, in general, performed the whole of the funeral service in their houses, and then removed the body to the church-yard. By the present bill, the Catholic clergy were permitted to proceed to the churchyard, and there perforin the service, if they pleased. And here he must be permitted to say one word of the most reverend archbishop, alluded to in the petition. Certain reflections were there thrown on that respectable primate which he by no means deserved. At the very lime when he was accused of interfering with the burial of the Catholics, he was at Leamington, for the benefit of his health, and had called on him (lord L.) and had shewn him the letters he had received on the subject. It was his wish, that no more distinctions should be preserved among the different classes of persons in Ireland than could possibly be avoided, and therefore he did not wish, by a legislative enactment, to give them different burial places. Either their lordships must legislate for every circumstance connected with funerals, or they must leave a discretion somewhere; and, after the fullest consideration, it had been thought most advisable to leave this discretion in

177
the hands of the clergyman. His lordship then read a portion of the preamble of the bill, stating, that its object was, to declare, that all classes of his majesty's subjects had the same right of sepulture. It was not possible, he continued, to use words more expressive, and the power given to the clergyman to refuse this right was to be taken in conjunction with this preamble. In refusing it, also, he was bound to inform his diocesan; which clearly shewed, that he was only to refuse it on special grounds, which grounds he was to state. He could not say what a wrong-headed man might do, but he thought the present security as good a one as could be devised. There was a difficulty in framing the measure so as to meet all the circumstances of the case; but he thought those most adverse to it would, when it was adopted, be most desirous of its continuance.
The Earl of Limericksaid, that the Catholics of Ireland had a strong desire to have burial places in the suppressed convents; and, if the existing law was altered, he had no doubt that arrangements would be made for that purpose with the proprietors.
Lord Holland, after the explanation of the noble earl, expressed his hearty concurrence with the objects of the bill, which, he was convinced, were entirely conciliatory; but he still thought it was hurried rather too fast through the House.
Lord Kingunderstood, he said, from the noble earl, that the clergyman was bound to accede to the request of the Catholics. He would suggest, therefore, whether it would not be proper to add a clause compelling him to grant it? By this act it was made lawful for the Catholics to be buried in the church-yards; but many things which in Ireland were lawful were not done. Much rancour and ill-will had already sprung from the right claimed by a foolish Protestant clergyman over a church-yard. He would remind the House of what was said by a learned divine, that if the Protestants wished to preserve the churches, they should leave the church-yards to the Catholics.
The Earl of Harrowbystated, the objects of the bill were not only to relieve Catholics, but to give the whole body of dissenters the right of sepulture, by their own clergymen. As the clause stood relative to the clergyman's refusing the right, as he was bound to state his reasons
178
for doing so, this must be considered aa nearly synonymous with his being compelled to grant it.
The bill was then committed.