tended to carry out executions privately, and not admit the general public, and to that the hon. Member opposite took exception. Clause agreed to. Remaining clauses agreed to. THE LORD ADVOCATE proposed a clause extending the Act to Scotland, with the necessary modifications of language. Clause agreed to. MR. NEATE said, that the punishment of hanging, as practised in great Britain, was derived from barbarous countries, and was singularly unequal in its operation. He would suggest that the Government should have recourse to modern science with the view of discovering a less painful mode of execution. It was a mistake to suppose that dislocation of the neck produced instantaneous death. Sometimes it did so; at other times, the criminal was convulsed for some seconds. The garotte was a more merciful punishment; or life might be taken by means of carbonic acid gas-a process which would prevent the painful necessity of having the hands of the hang man about the culprit's neck. He wished to limit manual interference by one fellowcreature with another in such cases as much as possible, and would even go so far as to allow the prisoner to put an end to himself. He thought the suggestion was worth consideration when they were altering the old mode of execution. He would move as a new clause, but would not press it to a division that— "Her Majesty or her successors may, by the advice of their Privy Council, prescribe any other mode of execution in lieu of hanging." Clause negatived. House resumed. the Bill at present stood, had been altogether overlooked. The interest of the reversioner might be confiscated if the lessee neglected his duty. MR. GOLDNEY suggested to the hon. Baronet to withdraw his Amendment until the clause framed by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Powell) to meet his objec tion was considered. SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMID said, he would withdraw his Motion to report Progress. MR. POWELL then proposed a clause providing that "Application may be made to justices where more than one owner of premises included in order under Act, and any one owner neglects to comply with such order." SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMID denied that this clause would meet the difficulty. There might be half-a-dozen lessees, and finally the freeholder, and all those delicate interests required very careful consideration. He therefore hoped that the Chairman would be allowed to report Progress, in order that an opportunity should be afforded for the preparation of a new clause that would effectually protect the interests of reversioners. MR. POWELL said, he thought that in the clause he had proposed he had saved the interest of the reversioner. MR. GOLDNEY said, he was of opinion that the clause under consideration had been carefully drawn, and would meet the object of the hon. and learned Member for Reading (Sir Francis Goldsmid). Every class of interest in property was protected. SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMID said, the description given did not tally with the printed words of the clause. MR. M'CULLAGH TORRENS said, there were no other powers in this Bill to Bill reported; as amended, to be consi- take land than were contained in the Lands dered upon Thursday. Clauses Consolidation Bill. SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMID said, the effect of the Bill, even though including the proposed clause, would be to cause a forfeiture of the interests of reversioners, without their having any opportunity to prevent it. MR. AYRTON thought that some one should be responsible for the clause. The hon. and learned Member for Reading (Sir Francis Goldsmid), who was a good authority, told them the clause did not meet the wants of the case. It seemed to him it was necessary to have a well-considered clause. MR. HARVEY LEWIS thought that the discussion showed the necessity of not dealing with the rights of property in the off-hand manner proposed. LORD JOHN MANNERS said, he thought it would be a very great pity if the Committee were to lose this chance of getting through with the clauses of the Bill. There would be ample opportunity at its next stage to discuss the important subject which had been raised by the hon. Baronet. SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMID said, they would not have an opportunity of discussing the matter fully when the Bill was reported, because at that stage hon. Members had only the privilege of addressing the House once. However, he would not further press the point. Clause agreed to. SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMID moved the following new clause, which he said was designed to obviate one of the many disadvantages which he believed would attend the working of the Bill if passed in its present form: : "This Act shall not apply to any premises as to which the owner of the freehold has instituted proceedings under the covenants contained in the lease under which the premises are held, in order to compel due performance of such covenants, as to repair or for forfeiture of such lease by reason of breach of any such covenants, provided such proceedings are bonâ fide and duly prosecuted, and provided that such owner shall succeed in obtaining judgment therein, and provided also that within three calendar months after such judgment obtained, such owner shall properly repair such premises so as to render them fit for healthy occupation, or pull down and demolish the same, at his option." MR. AYRTON suggested that this clause should not be pressed; but that the matter should be allowed to remain in the hands of the Government. LORD JOHN MANNERS thought it would be only right for the Government to undertake some responsibility in connection with the Bill, and by the next stage attention would be paid to this "In any case where any lessee shall refuse or neglect to execute the works required by the order of the local authority made under this Act, and the owner of the freehold shall elect to execute shall operate as a forfeiture of his interest in such the same, such refusal or neglect of the lessee premises, and if within one calendar month after such refusal or neglect the owner of the freehold shall commence such works, and he shall entitled to hold the said premises free from the execute the same without delay, he shall be interest of such lessee but subject to the payment by the freeholder to the lessee of the value of the interest of such lessce, according to the mode of valuation provided in the nineteenth Clause of this Act." MR. POWELL said, he did not see any objection to the clause. Clause agreed to. First Schedule. MR. AYRTON said, he observed that the corporation of London had made its influence felt in reference to the Bill, for by a note appended to the Schedule it was declared that the metropolis should not include the City of London; so that the result would be that the most wealthy portion of the metropolis would escape contributing towards the improvement of the dwellings of the poorest classes within the metropolis. Such an arrangement was most inequitable. He should move the omission in the Schedule of all words relating to the City of London, so as to make the metropolis at large, as defined by the Metropolis Local Management Act, liable to the charges for carrying this Act into operation. the words "The City of London,” in line 7, Amendment proposed, to leave out from c. 91," in line 12, inclusive."—(Mr. to " Ayrton.) MR. GOSCHEN opposed the Motion. There was a great deal of work to be done SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMID moved in the City of London of the nature contemanother clause plated by the Bill, and the City did not wish to escape from its fair share of public burden, but it desired to pay for that which was to be done within its own area. MR. HARVEY LEWIS thought that the City had no claim for the exemption which was claimed. The metropolis should be regarded as one area for the purpose of carrying out all sanitary arrangements. Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule." The Committee divided: - Ayes 26; Noes 19 Majority 7. House resumed. Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 88.] BROUGHTY FERRY PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. On Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under The General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Act, 1862," relating to Broughty Ferry, ordered to be brought in by The LORD ADVOCATE, Mr. Secretary GATHORNE HARDY, and Sir JAMES FERGUSSON. Eleven o'clock. to be redressed. At the present time the clergy of the Established Church in Ireland, though representing only about oneninth of the population of that country, had power to prevent any religious service but that of their own Church from being performed in the parish burial-grounds. This matter was seriously complained of, not only by Roman Catholics but also by Presbyterians and by the members of other religious bodies. He was sure that no one would desire that Ireland should continue to be, as she was now, the only Christian country in which the great majority of the people were committed to the grave without any religious service. He understood that the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield) intended to move that the present Bill should extend to England; he (Mr. Monsell) feared that additional difficulties would be placed in his way if the English were mixed up with the Irish grievance. The present law of burials in Ireland was founded upon a Bill passed under the auspices of Lord Plunket in 1824, which Bill provided that every person, whatever his religion, should have a right House adjourned at half-after to interment in the churchyard of the parish where he died; but that no religious service should be performed at the grave without the permission of the Protestant incumbent. If the incumbent refused his sanction he was required to state in writing his reasons for so refusing, and to forward a copy of that statement to his Bishop, who was to transmit it to the Lord Lieutenant. Lord Plunket's intention as to the effect of the law was not doubtful; he stated that it would be mandatory upon incumbents to grant the permission asked for; and his intention, and also that of the Legislature, was that the application should be merely formal, and that it should be always assented to by the incumbent. Indeed, Lord Plunket gave as his reason for supporting the measure, that it could not be borne that Protestant clergymen should permit human bodies to be thrown into the ground like so many dogs. The question then arose," Has the intention of Lord Plunket and the Legislature been carried out or not?" This question could be answered only in the negative. There was the highest authority-that of Archdeacon Stopford-for saying that "The Irish custom does not usually bring the Roman and Dr. Catholic priest to the grave,' Doyle supplied the reason when he said that "Priests and prelates would rather be condemned to labour at a treadmill than HOUSE OF COMMONS, Wednesday, April 22, 1868. MINUTES.-NEW WRITS ISSUED-For Bristol, Considered as amended-Religious, &c. Buildings BURIALS (IRELAND) BILL—[BILL 5.] (Mr. Monsell, Mr. Sullivan.) SECOND READING. Order for Second Reading read. MR. MONSELL, in rising to move the second reading of this Bill, said he thought he could show that the grievances to which it referred were so serious that even in the present Session they ought ask for licences for interments." But when, by an overstrained humility, Roman Catholic priests had made application, they had frequently been refused. He would quote a remarkable instance which occurred at Enniskillen, the living of which was in the gift of Trinity College, and its incumbents were, generally, men of some eminence. There is a cemetery in the parish called Pubble-there has been no church there for eighty years; it is almost exclusively used by Roman Catholics. In twenty-five years there had been only five Protestant burials there. Within the last few years there had been three rectors of the parish-Mr. Maude, Mr. Magee, the present Dean of Cork, a man of the highest mark, and Mr. Greer; but though the burial-ground was far removed from the parish church, all three rectors had, in every instance, refused applications asking permission to read the burial service of the Roman Catholic Church. He might be permitted to say, with reference to the statement that Roman Catholic priests were unwilling to make an application to a Protestant incumbent, that the Protestant clergymen were accustomed, as might be seen by the placards now about Dublin in connection with the May meetings, to speak in a very gross way with regard to the Roman Catholic Church. But, the necessity of asking the incumbent's consent, however, was not only hard upon Roman Catholics, but also upon members of other religious bodies. Though the House had lately heard of the identity of feeling which existed between the Presbyterians and Protestant Episcopalians in Ireland, applications on the part of Presbyterian ministers had been refused. Lately an application to be allowed to perform a burial service was made by the Rev. E. Lyttle, a Presbyterian minister, at Donnybrook; it was refused, and the matter was brought before the Presbytery of Dublin, where Mr. Lyttle stated that would give one case. In November, 1863, the Rev. Edward Best, a Wesleyan minister at Armagh, asked permission of the incumbent to perform the funeral service over a Mrs. Miller, and received this answer "Sir, I cannot grant the request made in your name; but I will be ready to perform the funeral service of the Church if called on by the friends of the late Mrs. Miller.” An appeal was made to the Archbishop, and he said— "The Act of Parliament leaves it entirely at the discretion of the incumbent to grant or refuse the permission, and gives the Bishop no right to interfere. You will observe that I have done all that the law requires or permits me to do in this case. The House would recollect Lord Plunket's explanation of the law. He said that the words enabling permission to be given were mandatory; yet in this case neither incumbent or Bishop so treated it. An appeal to the Bishop was made, and the grievance was not redressed. In February, 1866, the Rev. Mr. Quarry, Wesleyan minister in the county of Kerry, received a peremptory refusal. When he attempted to perform the service outside the graveyard, it was very near being attended by serious consequences. But a more extraordinary case was one which occurred in the county of Galway. George Mitchell died, having previously specially requested that his minister, the Rev. W. B. Le Bat, should conduct his funeral service. The rector, however, would not consent, and (he quoted Mr. Le Bats words) "assisted by a mob of missionaries and other persons, stopped the procession to the grave, and there was a great deal of disturbance." A memorial upon the matter was addressed to the Lord Lieutenant, who referred it to the Bishop, who sent it to the rector, and the latter returned it to the Lord Lieutenant; so that, as Mr. Butt said, the parties, instead of getting redress or satisfaction of any kind, were baffled, disappointed, and annoyed. He thought that he had said enough to show that there was a serious grievance, and that the intention of Lord Plunket and the Legislature in passing the Act of 1824 had been defeated. It had been supposed that Lord Lieutenants and Bishops would secure the carrying out of the intentions of the Legislature. It appeared that Lord Lieutenants and Bishops The Wesleyans met with similar treatment. were unwilling or unable to control unHe had large quantities of correspondence, charitable or crotchety incumbents. The showing that contumelious refusals fol- remedy which this Bill proposed was lowed the most humble applications. He a simple one that in the case of "For some unknown cause many of the clergy of the Church of England about Dublin and through the South have, during the last three or four years, considered it necessary to assert their dignity and rights in this miserable and odious way. In all directions our clergy are being excluded from the parish graveyards. It is impossible to bear any longer with a state of things which is becoming worse, for such refusals are becoming the usage and the rule." burials of persons not belonging to the Established Church in the parish burialgrounds, the priests or ministers of the denomination to which the deceased belonged should have the right to perform the burial service of that denomination. The Bill did not in any way interfere with the rights of the parochial clergy to the freehold of the churchyards; all it provided was that the national burial-grounds should be freely used by the nation. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."-(Mr. Monsell.) MR. LEFROY said, he regretted that he felt it his duty to oppose the Motion of his right hon. Friend the Member for Limerick (Mr. Monsell). He should, however, regret still more if his motives for doing so were misunderstood. He was therefore anxious to state in the briefest and most temperate language the objections which he entertained to the measure. His right hon. Friend had made a most ingenious speech in support of his Bill, and had drawn off the attention of the House from its objectionable features. The right hon. Gentleman alleged that the objects which Lord Plunket had in view when he introduced his measure upon this subject had been frustrated by the clergy, but he (Mr. Lefroy) could not admit this to be the case. He deemed it necessary to call the attention of the House to the advances which had been made in this matter of late years by the enactment of measures in favour of the Roman Catholics-measures at which he rejoiced. In the reign of William III. the Roman Catholics were deprived of the right of burial even in the monasteries or grounds adjacent, and a penalty of £10 was enacted against any violation of that law. In the reign of George IV. a Bill was introduced by Lord Plunket, the object of which was to do away with that prohibition, and throw open all those burialplaces to Roman Catholics. The Act of Will. III. forbade the performance of burial service by Catholic priests. Lord Plunket's Act removed this difficulty also, and gave power to the Protestant incumbents, on the application of a Roman Catholic priest, or Nonconformist minister, to grant to the priest or minister permission to perform the burial ceremony in churchyards over individuals of his communion. The application for leave, as well as the reply of the incumbent, was to be made in writing; the object being to protect the He rights of the Church, to secure as far as possible the proper and uninterrupted performance of the burial service, and also that if a refusal were given, it should not be upon unreasonable or trivial grounds. But that was not all; the Bill also provided that in case of leave being refused by the incumbent copies of the application and the reply should be forwarded to the Bishop of the diocese, and transmitted by him to the Lord Lieutenant. It would, therefore, be seen that every security had been given to secure to the Roman Ca tholics tho privilege intended to be given to them by Lord Plunket's Act. In a few cases, clergymen might have withheld permission, but the fault, if any had been the priest's, in neglecting to avail himself of the remedy prescribed by the Act. was not in possession of information with respect to all the cases referred to by his right hon. Friend; but with regard to Enniskillen, he held in his hand the correspondence which had taken place with the Rev. Mr. Greer, the incumbent, who had but a short time before entered upon his office. The first letter of Mr. Greer was in answer to an application that the Roman Catholic priest should be allowed to come in his robes, and was to the effect that he would make inquiries, and if it could be arranged without inconvenience, he would gladly give permission. On inquiry, however, Mr. Greer was obliged to refuse leave for the proposed burial, as he found that the graveyard was overcrowded, and that it could not take place without disturbing the remains of persons already interred, and thereby causing much pain to their relations. The rev. gentleman expressed his regret at this circumstance, and suggested that a subscription should be immediately commenced for the purchase of additional ground; and he said he should himself be most happy to contribute. The rev. gentleman not only was justified in what he did, but must be considered to have acted with great kindness and prudence. He (Mr. Lefroy) regretted that difficulties existed in any case. He should rejoice to see all differences of opinion forgotten at the grave, and that all those who mourned over their deceased relatives and friends should be allowed to assist at that religious service which was most agreeable to their feelings. But at the same time, he did not think that the Established clergy could consistently give up their rights in this matter. In the first place, the churchyard was in the nature of |