EXTRAMURAL INTERMENTS; (Hansard, 26 February 1850)

§ MR. LACY
moved for leave to bring in a Bill for promoting extramural interments. As this title did not disclose the nature of his proposal, he had thought it right to communicate with the right hon. the President of the Board of Trade upon the subject, and would now explain to the House that what was to be proposed in this Bill was, that, under certain limitations, railway companies should be allowed to establish cemeteries; that having called their shareholders together, and got their sanction to it as a commercial speculation, they should be at liberty to buy waste land at a distance from London; and, if the Railway Commissioners, after hearing parties likely to be affected by it, gave leave, that they should open cemeteries there, not expending more than a certain sum upon the project. He could not see how it would be possible to take all the inhabitants of this metropolis to one national cemetery down the river; and if each of the London railway companies saw it to be a good speculation, it would be convenient to all parties that there should be five or six cemeteries. The railway companies would have the advantage of the remuneration from the conveyance of persons to the funerals. He hoped the House would not be alarmed at the violation of the abstract principle, that such companies should keep to their own business, but would allow the Bill to be brought in and considered.

§ SIR G. GREY
said, he did not very clearly see the principle of the proposed measure of the hon. Member. It appeared, however, as far as he could gather the purport of it, that railway companies were, under certain circumstances, to become also cemetery companies. As, however, the report of the Board of Health Commissioners had only just been printed, and was scarcely yet in the hands of hon. Members, he thought the hon. Gentleman would hardly venture to legislate on a question of so much difficulty and importance as that of extramural interments before the report in question should have been some time before them. The hon. Member would have the opportunity, at a future period, of submitting his views to the House on this question; but he (Sir G. Grey) thought they were not yet in a position to adopt any suggestion on the subject without first having had time to consider the recommendations of the Board of Health respecting it.

§ LORD ASHLEY
would remind the House that Parliament last year devolved upon the Board of Health the duty of preparing a scheme in relation to this subject. That scheme had now been prepared, and on the next day, or Thursday, a sufficient number of copies would be ready for Members. It was the result of much and anxious inquiry, and surely it would be very undesirable to proceed with any Bill upon the subject before Members had had an opportunity of considering that scheme.

§ MR. LACY
merely wished to bring in this Bill, in order that it might be seen and considered side by side with the report of the Board of Health. He believed that the House would find, upon consideration, that without such a measure as he proposed, they would never be able to carry out any compulsory Act for preventing interments in cities and towns.

§ MR. WYLD
said, the hon. Gentleman proposed by this Bill to make available railway communication, by which means cemeteries might be established ten or fifteen miles from London; and he was surprised that the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State should oppose the Bill. The report of the Board of Health could not interfere with it. In that report, they proposed to have a large public cemetery on the banks of the Thames, which was a revival of the project of Mr. Chadwick.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
said, it was always an ungracious task to oppose any hon. Member laying his plans before the House, particularly when that hon. Gentleman had devoted great trouble to it. He was aware that the hon. Gentleman had taken great trouble with this Bill, and he had done him the honour to inform him of the contents of it; but what he had informed him certainly led him (Mr. Labouchere) to think that the Bill ought not to be introduced. He believed that the House had laid down a useful rule, that where there was no chance of carrying a Bill, it was better to refuse to allow it to be brought in than to allow it to go to the second reading.

§ MR. AGLIONBY
had listened with some anxiety to know why the Bill should not be allowed to go to the second reading. If he understood the right hon. Gentleman, there was no provision for the compulsory taking of land; it was merely permissive. He did not see any use in waiting for the report of the Board of Health, as they knew perfectly well what the report said.

MR. M. J. O'CONNELL
suggested that a private Bill should be brought in for each railway, when the House could see what property was required to be taken. Another point to be considered was, that the Sanitary Commissioners had a plan in preparation which would shortly be laid before the House. Under these circumstances, he should recommend the withdrawal of the Motion.