Catholic problems with burial in Protestant graveyards - for a price.

**Chapter I. **

The ivy-mantled walls of the ruined churches of Ireland, which form familiar and picturesque objects throughout the country, serve to fix the period when the old Catholic burial-grounds passed into Protestant hands. From the time of the Reformation, Roman Catholics possessed no cemeteries for their dead, and burials could alone take place in Protestant churchyards - this largely increasing the revenue of the parson, already rich in tithes, from a flock for whom he did not minister.

Daniel O’Connell, when examined on the state of Ireland, in 1825, mentioned that, to evade a rule which prohibited the Catholic burial service in cemeteries under Protestant control, it was not unusual to place a piece of clay in the coffin ere it left the house of mourning and there recite the prayers prescribed to be said at the grave. The churchyard most used by the Dublin Catholics in penal times was that of St. James’s, and it is recorder by the Rev. James Whitelaw [“Essay on the Population of Dublin,” by Rev. J. Whitelaw, MRIA, Vicar of St. Catherine’s; Dublin 1805.] that the Pope on St. James’s Day, offered up a Pontifical Mass in Rome for the repose of the Catholic dead buried in the graveyard just named.

And for 200 years “Papists,” rich and poor, priest and peasant, continued to swell the hill on the side of which the church of the minority raised its high head. [O’Keefe, the dramatist, mentions in his ”Recollections” (I. : 22 : ‘47) that on St James’s Day the friends of those buried in this churchyard dressed the graves with flowers, chaplets, cut-paper ornaments, and pious sentiments in writing.]

Another ancient churchyard to which deceased members of the proscribed faith were frequently conveyed was that of St. Kevin. Here Archbishop Dermot O’Hurley, after having been tortured to death by order of the Privy Council (A.D. 1584), was consigned to rest, and throughout succeeding generations hundreds of his co-religionists ambitioned to mingle their clay with a martyr’s dust.

Among the tombs in St. Kevin’s is a handsome monument dedicated to the Rev. Father John Austin, the distinguished Jesuit; another was erected by the family of Thomas Moore, “the Bard of Erin,” and a stone of tabular shape, dated 1817, records that John Keogh, the leader of the Irish Catholics previous to O’Connell, sleeps, “after life’s fitful fever,” beneath.

In 1823, a series of slights which had latterly been offered to the Catholics reached its height when Archdeacon Blake, in St. Kevin’s churchyard, was rudely interrupted while offering a prayer over the grave of Mr. Arthur D’Arcy, a prominent citizen of Dublin, and brother of Mr. John D’Arcy, D.L., afterwards Lord Mayor. He had been a very charitable and popular man, and his sudden death, by a fall from his horse excited much sympathy. The muster at his funeral was naturally large. Priests, wearing scarfs and hat-bands, walked in solemn procession up the lane by which the churchyard is reached from Kevin Street. On approaching the grave they gradually encircled it, so as to recite the “De Profundis” and other prayers usual on such occasions. All persons in attendance stood uncovered, and the Rev. Michael Blake, Vicar General, was about to speak when - but he must be allowed to tell his own tale.

I did nothing,” writes Dr. Blake, afterwards Bishop of Dromore; “nothing which any layman might not lawfully do nothing which has not been done by Catholic clergymen and Catholic laymen under the administration of the most bigoted prelates, and during the most persecuting periods of former times.

Yielding to the request of a near and venerable relative of the deceased, I took off my hat to assuage by a short condoling prayer the sorrows of the living - to implore perpetual rest and peace for the departed soul; and at this moment, and without any other provocation, an order of Dr. Magee, the Protestant Archbishop, was rung in my ear, that I must not offer any prayer over that grave! Gracious heavens! is there a country in the universe so degrraded as Ireland?”

Dr. Blake goes on to say that, to avoid any unseemly disturbance which might arise out of indignation likely to be excited by this interference, he mentioned in a low voice to the few afflicted friends who were immediately at his side or before him, that he had been warned, on the authority of the Protestant Archbishop, not to say any prayers there; he recommended, at the same time, that, as the Catholics present could not conform to their usual custom without appearing to resist authority, each one would offer his prayer for the deceased silently; and he expressed a hope that their resignation under the unexpected additional trial would render their prayers more acceptable before God.

Dr. Blake’s immediate companions at the grave were tranquillised by these words; and his prudent line of conduct prevented the large concourse who attended the funeral from knowing of the transaction until all danger resulting from excited feelings had passed away. The priests led the way, in the same order that they had entered, and in a few moments the sexton stood in solitary possession.

A Protestant who was present addressed to the *Freeman’s Journal, *of September 10th, 1824, a letter of warm protest and sympathy.

Thanks to Dr. Blake and his sympathisers, a deep impression was produced. It had long been believed that an Act of Parliament stood in the way of any reform of the grievance; but O’Connell declared that lie would “drive a coach-and-six” through it. His first move was to galvanise into vitality the Catholic Association, which, under the name of the Catholic Committee, had been suppressed some years before by Lord Whitworth, when Viceroy. The resuscitated body met in a room over the book shop of Mr. Coyne, of Capel Street a - well-known Catholic publisher - and the difficulty of obtaining a “quorum” of ten was on one occasion overcome by the “Agitator” running down to the shop and forcing two priests, then engaged in buying some theological books, and who, as clerics, were ex-officio members, to accompany him to the meeting.

Some trouble had arisen in St. James’s churchyard as well as in St. Kevin’s, and O’Connell, on 1st November, 1823, made reference to the circumstance. He was told, he said, that the minister claimed it as his “freehold”; but he had yet to learn whether that gentleman could plough it up, and sow turnips and other vegetables in it. Yet he doubted whether such an occupation would be as productive as sowing Papists, for the “freehold” of St. James’s, he was informed, produced to the minister nearly £2,000 a year. He urged, in conclusion, that the only means by which Catholics could get rid of such annoyance would be “to form an association for the purchase of ground, to serve as an asylum where their bones could be deposited, with the forms of Christian burial, without feat of insult, and where the Irish Catholics might enjoy the exercise of a religious ceremony of which they only, of the whole Christian world, were deprived.” The Committee was formed, with O’Connell as chairman.

On 10th November, 1823, O’Connell dealt with the painful incident which had taken place during Mr. Darcy’s obsequies at St. Kevin’s:-

“He had looked into the law authorities, and he was happy to inform the meeting that neither by the commons, statute, nor ecclesiastical laws were there any obstacles opposed to their having a piece of ground where their remains might be deposited without the eternal recurrence of insult, to which they were at present subject. He did not wish to make is exclusively Catholic; for as the Catholics were desirous not to be separated in this life from their brethren of other persuasions, neither did they wish to be divided from them in their passage from this to the other world. It was intended to be open to the deceased of every sect, where perfect freedom of religious rites might console the living, and, according to his creed, assist the dead. The knowledge that those rites would be obtained might render death itself less terrible to those who knew that even at the grave tyhey are prevented by sectarian intolerance. The fact was very well known, and felt, that burial fees were excessively exorbitant. In the case of Mr., D’Arcy, his friends, paid ten pounds burial fees, for which, indeed, they had the privilege of seeing his remains insulted. The immense revenues arising from that source of emolument the Catholics might divert from the pockets of their opponents. Those revenues might be applied to the liquidation of the necessary expenses in the first instance, and the surplus go to the formation of a fund for the support of Catholic and other charities - a consideration which could not fail to be grateful to the benevolent mind, and soothe the agonies of a sick-bed. There was no legal obstacle to carrying their object into effect; there was nothing to prevent their having a burying-ground out of the precincts of a town. It was true, there was a statute preventing the opening of a new burying-ground within the city, but that had no relation to particular religious sects. For very obvious reasons, it applied to objects of health, and no clergyman could complain of that diminution of his revenues. In the reign of King James I., a clergyman, in a parish in London, brought an action against the friends of a person who died in his parish, but was buried in another, when it was decided by the Ecclesiastical Court that the suit should not go on, and the Court of King’s Bench granted a prohibition against the suit. He had reason to know that some very respectable people and influential persons interested themselves in the present project, in order to prevent, as much as lay in their power, that constant irritation which it was the object of their enemies to create. One gentleman had waited upon him (Mr. O’Connell), and had offered him the fee-simple of 22 acres of common near Clondalkin, and that there might be attached a chapel, where the dead in that burying-ground would be prayed for, and around the ground might be built a wall, and with the constant watching of a sufficient number of persons, the remains of mortality would be secured from being disturbed; and as the law gives the power they could find no difficulty in getting 60 or 70 persons to subscribe £50 each, at the highest interest, for the purpose of enclosing the ground, building the chapel, etc.; and that sum it will not be necessary to pay but by instalments, and as they may be wanted, and the revenue of the ground could be handed over as security. Even as a trading speculation, he conceived there would be no difficulty in obtaining a sufficient number of persons to undertake the speculation when, if it be true, that a single churchyard in Dublin produces £2,000 a year, and paid by nine-tenths of the inhabitants of Dublin, the establishment he conceived would have the effect of diminishing that revenue which was not at present employed as it ought to be, and a certaintly of directing it to meritorious purposes. The origin of churchyard fees was not a little curious, when it was sought to exclude the Catholics from those privileges established by their ancestors. In Catholic times, the Canon Law guarded against the payment of churchyard fees, and they were considered an imposition; but monasteries having churchyards attached to them, persons when dying, directed that they should be buried in them, and left money in order to have themselves prayed for. But at the “Reformation” the monasteries were abolished, and the fees were continued, and even Dr. Magee was content to receive those monastic dues, handed down by a so-called reformation which leaves the taxes, yet takes the value.” He concluded by moving the appointment of a committee of five to adopt measures for carrying into effect the establishment of a general burying-ground; and a committee was appointed accordingly.

In the course of the discussion a not uninteresting fact was mentioned, namely, the disapproval expressed by the Marquis Wellesley (then Lord Lieutenant) of Dr. Magee’s order, and of the Viceroy’s desire to alleviate Catholic grievances by a full and impartial administration of law and justice. These declarations, coupled with the fact that he had married a Catholic wife, made Lord Wellesley most unpopular with the Orangemen, who, for a long time, had had everything their own way in Dublin. He was publicly insulted, and received all but personal violence at their hands. Protracted law proceedings, consequent on the “Bottle-throwing Riot,” are very familiar to students of the time.

The impression created by the protest of the usually placid Dr. Blake soon extended to England. His letter was transferred to the columns of the *Courier, *an influential London print, and able leaders appeared in the *Globe, *the *Traveller; *and the *Morning Post, *urging that Roman Catholics and every denomination of worshipping Christians should be allowed to perform that mode of ceremony over the remains of their departed friends which accorded best with the dictates of their conscience.

The Viceroy’s views, and the expression of enlightened Protestant opinion, proved most consolatory to the ruffled spirit which illiberal action had aroused.

A case for the opinion of Daniel O’Connell, as Counsel, was finally laid before him: and his reply is a document too important not to receive due record here.

“There is no statute in law,” he writes, “preventing a Catholic priest from praying for a deceased Catholic in a churchyard. The mistake on this subject originates in a misapprehension (frequently a wilful one) of the statute of the 21st and 22nd of the late King, cap. 24, sec. 8. But that section contains no prohibition. It is not, in itself, any enactment of a positive or affirmative nature. It operates merely by way of exception, and it simply *deprives *such Catholic priest as may *officiate at a funeral in a church or churchyard *of the benefits conferred by that Act. Now, no Catholic priest does, at present, want the benefit of that Act at all. It is, in truth, now a dead letter, remaining, with much similar lumber, on the Statute Book, creating no rights, constituting no privations, useless in its enactments, nugatory in its exceptions.

The next question asked me is, whether the praying for the dead by a Catholic priest at a funeral or in a churchyard is prohibited by the common law? My answer is, that it is not. The Catholic religion had pre-existence in the common law; it was adopted into the common law as part and parcel of that law. So the law continued until what is called the Reformation, in the reign of Henry VIII. The Catholic religion being thus part and parcel of the common law, it follows necessarily that praying for the dead could not be prohibited, either at funerals, in churchyards, or elsewhere. On the contrary, it was at common law part of the duty of the priest, and he was bound to pray for the dead at funerals or in churchyards. And it was reciprocally one of the rights of the King’s subjects, at common law, to have prayers said for the dead by Catholic priests at funerals and in churchyards. Thus, such prayers not being prohibited, but, on the contrary, being enjoined at common law, and there being no statute to forbid such praying, it follows, as a matter of course, that no Catholic priest can be *legally *prevented from praying for a deceased Catholic at a funeral or in a churchyard.

“The next question turns upon the mode of redress, should a Catholic priest be prevented from thus officiating. As to that, I am of opinion, (but with some doubt), that an action would lie at the suit of the executors of the deceased against any person who prevented a Catholic priest from praying in the churchyard over the body of their testator. But, as I am unwilling to advise litigation where it may be avoided, I think the best remedy would be founded in the peaceful, but determined, assertion of the right. Let the friends of the deceased peaceably surround the priest and the body during the service; let any violence which may arise come from the preventing parties, and then the individuals to whom that violence may be used will have a distinct right of action, or may proceed by indictment against the persons who use force. In many counties there may be the natural and usual apprehension that the magistrates, tinged (to speak moderately) with orange, may not do strict justice to the Catholics on an occasion of this sort; in every such case the indictment, as soon as found, should be removed by certiorari into the King’s Bench, where everybody is sure of meeting impartial justice. If grand juries, acting on a similar bad feeling, throw out the bills of indictment, the Court of King’s Bench, upon making out, by affidavit, a proper case for that purpose, will grant a criminal information.

Thus it will be found that there are abundant means for the Catholics to maintain this, their undoubted right. I am decidedly of opinion that it ought to be asserted. The Catholics may as well at once abandon the tombs of their fathers and relatives, as submit to the petty and tyrannical bigotry which now seeks, unjustly and illegally, to deprive them, at moments of the greatest and most bitter sorrow, of the awful but melancholy consolations of their religion.

I therefore repeat my decided opinion, that the Catholics have a right to these prayers, and that such right should be exerted with determination, but peaceably, and without any illegal violence whatever.

“Daniel O’Connell.”

On November 17, 1823, the Committee of the Catholic Association, which had undertaken to prepare a report, duly presented that document.

It so happened, and was incidentally mentioned, that on that day the funeral of a highly-distinguished priest, the Very Rev. Dr. Hamill, V.G., Dean of Dublin, had wended its way to the Protestant graveyard of St. James’s, and that the priests who followed his remains, from a desire to avoid creating discontent amongst the vast multitude present, had not attempted to read the prayers in the churchyard, but did so while in the street.

The report meanwhile went on to say:-

“Your committee have diligently attended to the duty committed to them. They have entered zealously into the views of the Association. They have felt it a pleasing duty to assist in calming the public mind, agitated by a species of persecution, novel in its nature, and afflicting in its application. They have been desirous to take away this new subject of irritation, which has been unhappily introduced in our times, as if the Catholics were not already sufficiently afflicted, and as if it were not deemed sufficient to oppress and degrade the living, without offering insult and outrage to the dead.

“We have been deeply anxious to obviate this new source of animosity and resentment. Our first wish has ever been to reconcile our countrymen of all denominations We wish to live on terms of amity and affection with our brother Protestant fellow-countrymen. We earnestly desire to be united with them in our lives, and not to be separated from them in death. But there is a spirit abroad. Men who call themselves ministers of the God of Charity, and who receive the good things of this world in abundance for making that profession, have clothed themselves in the garb of Discord, and have exercised ingenuity in order to discover a new method of outraging the feelings of a religious and faithful people. They have gone beyond the letter, or even the spirit of the Penal Code, and have found out another mode of persecution, which the laws of man cannot sanction, and the laws of charity must condemn.

“Under these circumstances we have felt it our duty, as faithful subjects, anxious to maintain public peace and private tranquillity, to devise means of avoiding these occasions of irritation or insolence. The genius of bigotry has deprived us, in this our native land, of our fair and just share in the administration of municipal and public trusts. We have been, and are, unjustly deprived of our station as freemen, because of our adherence to the religion of our ancestors and now we are obliged to quit the tombs of these ancestors, and abandon the melancholy consolation of laying our bones with theirs, and relinquish all hope of ever resting in the same spot with them, because of our anxiety to preserve peace and avoid the occasions of ill-will, of hatred, and of strife.

Animated by these sentiments, your Committee has entered upon the performance of its duties. It is enabled, with confidence, to state:

1st. - That there are no legal obstacles to prevent the Catholics from acquiring two or more tracts of land in the vicinage of Dublin, for the purpose of converting them into burying-grounds.

2nd. - That there are no practical difficulties in the way of procuring sufficient quantities of land for this purpose.

“Your committee next beg leave to recommend to the Association, either to continue the present committee, with augmented members, or to appoint a new and enlarged committee, in order to carry into practical effect the present project.

“We take leave to suggest that the new committee should be directed to solicit, in the most respectful manner, the co-operation of His Grace the Archbishop, the Most Rev. Dr. Murray, and of the Catholic rectors of the several parishes in this city, and to arrange with those reverend personages the best mode of raising the necessary funds, and of appointing proper trustees, and of arranging all the details which will be found necessary to effectuate our purpose with expedition and security.

“As we have reason to be convinced that the necessary funds can be easily procured, we deem it right to suggest that the committee should be authorised immediately to advertise for quantities of land, in parcels of not less than two and not more than three acres; such parcels to be all situate within two miles in any direction of the Castle of DuHin. And this we respectfully submit as our report. Daniel O’Connell, Chairman, 15th November, 1823.

Archbishop Murray did not hesitate to act in accordance with O’Connell’s appeal. At a meeting of the Catholic clergy of Dublin, on 23rd April, 1824, he took the chair. After adverting to some passages in a letter signed “W. Dublin,” which had been recently read in the House of Lords, a resolution went on to declare that at Mr. D’Arcy’s funeral nothing whatever was attempted different from the practice which had been followed under the episcopate of Dr. Magee’s predecessor. “That, in every case in which we have been present at the interment of Catholics in Protestant churchyards, within the city of Dublin, the invariable practice, until the late unfortunate interruption in St. Kevin’s, was, that one of the clergy recited at the grave a form of prayer for the soul of the deceased; that the remaining clergy, if more than one were present, and sometimes the laity, joined in the responses to this prayer; and that during the recital of it, both the Catholic clergy and laity remained with their heads uncovered, in a way that would be likely to attract the notice of all present.”

These very moderate resolutions were thereupon signed by Dr. Murray, his Vicars-General, and 52 other clerics, supplemented by an expression of their readiness to attest the facts asserted in a court of justice, upon oath, if so required by any lawful authority.

Richard Lalor Shiel - afterwards British Minister at Florence - belonged, with Woulfe, to the more moderate section of orators who had supported the veto. He declared, in reference to the foregoing resolutions, that they gave expression to all that could be said on the subject with a potency and strength, and withal, in language so dignified and temperate, that they furnished, not only to the Catholic body, but to the whole community, an admirable example of Christian toleration and forbearance, and exhibited those essentials to the character of a Christian teacher recommended in Scripture, ”the wisdom the serpent with the meekness of the dove,” whilst those of their opponents were remarkable but for one of those qualifications. Neither the dove nor the serpent were compelled to supply one important essential. The organization for the reform of the burial law needed funds, and four men took the initiative by each subscribing £100. The hardship in question having been brought before Parliament, Mr. Peel sought, as it would seem, to beat the Agitator with his own weapons and with a levity hardly becoming in a man of his status, ridiculed the alleged grievance as “a *grave *subject. A Bill had been brought into Parliament dealing with burials but so weak and flabby that the bishops and clergy of the establishment set it at naught, and armed themselves with a disused statute which prescribed to “the parson” the duty of reading the Church service over the grave. The tone adopted by Peel - and the determination of the Irish parsons to cling to what they conceived to be their rights - disheartened not a few of those who had previously hoped for redress. The Rev. J. F. L’Estrange opened a correspondence with O’Connell, who lost no time in re-assuring him:-

“My Dearest Friend, - It is perfectly legal for any sect of Christians to have separate burial grounds. The Catholics have a kind of pre-eminent right to this privilege. At common law, when the Catholic religion was part and parcel of the Constitution, they had undoubtedly this right. It has not been taken away by any statute whatsoever. There is a vulgar error which attributes this right to merely unenclosed churchyards. They are equally legal, whether enclosed or not. It is advisable to have a chapel adjacent to each burial-ground, but it is not necessary. The legal right is not affected thereby; but the vicinage of a church affords a more legitimate opportunity of celebrating the burial service with suitable solemnity and religion. Thus you will find no legal obstacle whatever to the plan of Catholic burial-grounds. Believe me, &c.,

“Daniel O’Connell.”

There was no more energetic worker on behalf of Burial Reform than a young barrister named Bric. He drew up a petition to Parliament for the redress of the burial grievances and other hardships, and closed a promising career almost on the spot now covered by the graves of Glasnevin Cemetery. Challenged to a duel by a political opponent, both met in a field at Glasnevin, and Bric fell, mortally wounded, into the arms of Mr. (subsequently Sir John) Nugent, M.D., who, with others, had joined the combatants on the ground, in the grey dawn of a December morning.

Cemetery Index. Home.