CONSIDERATION.

HC Deb 01 May 1883 vol 278 cc1545-69

Order for Consideration, as amended, read.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be now considered."

MR. J. HOLLOND

rose to move— That the Bill be re-committed to the former Committee, and that it be an Instruction to the Committee to strike out the provisions which authorise the appropriation by the Railway Company of a considerable portion of the disused burial ground situate in the Parish of St. Pancras, and belonging to the Parish of St James's, Westminster, in order that this open space be not encroached upon or diminished. The hon. Member said, he would make a statement to the House, as briefly as possible, of the reasons which induced him to take the course he was now taking. The question at issue really lay in a nutshell. It was simply this— whether the House would adopt the policy of preserving, as far as possible, for the public all the open spaces which remained to them in London, or whether they would allow those open spaces to be gradually filched away from the people under one pretext or another? In 1881 that House passed an Act called the "Open Spaces Act," the object of which was to facilitate the acquisition of open spaces by the public authority of the Metropolis; and it would be a deplorable thing if the policy which the House came to in passing that Act was to be reversed in detail by Private Bill legislation. Now, the burial ground involved in the present Bill—a disused burial ground—was situate in the parish of St. Pancras, but it belonged to the Trustees of St. James's, Piccadilly. It was situated to the west of Cardington Street, which street skirted the western boundary of the Euston Square Station. The burial ground had been disused for about 30 years. No interments had taken place in it since 1852; but, before that time, it was calculated that about 50,000 bodies were buried there. The London and North - Western Railway Company, wishing to enlarge their Station at Euston, proposed, in the first place, to absorb the street which lay on the west of the Station — Cardington Street—and a small portion of this disused burial ground; but, in order to do this, they would have been obliged to make a new street in the place of the one they absorbed. In point of fact, they proposed to run a new street through the disused burial ground; but, in order to carry out that plan, it was necessary that they should deal with the Trustees of St. James's, Piccadilly. Now, those trustees were in a peculiar position. They had no power to sell except by Act of Parliament; but, without making it a matter of reproach to them, he thought he might say that it was a godsend when the Railway Company came to them proposing to take a portion of this land. In the end, they re- quired the Railway Company to take a very much larger portion than they had asked for originally. The proposal, which came before a Select Committee of the House, was this—that two-thirds of this disused churchyard should be sacrificed, the Trustees obtaining a sum of £15,000 in consideration of the sale. That was the proposal which came before the Committee. the Committee, however, modified it to some extent, and, instead of taking two-thirds of the land, they proposed that only one-half should be taken at the price of £13,000; and they had obliged the Trustees, at the demand of the Metropolitan Board of Works, during the next six months to hand over the other half of the burial ground to be used for recreation and other public purposes, without any further consideration. Now, he was bound to say that, although the conclusion of the Committee had so far some public advantage, yet, on the whole, it appeared to him to be eminently unsatisfactory. He thought the public had a right to a very much larger portion of this open space than was given to it by the Bill as it left the hands of the Committee. The property was a great deal too small, in his opinion, to be treated in this manner. It was only about three acres in extent; and if the whole of it were laid out as a recreation ground, it would be of extreme value to the public; but if only one-half of it was to be laid out in that way, and that half was surrounded by high buildings, the public advantage would be reduced to very email dimensions indeed. The reason why the public were asked to make this sacrifice was that the enlargement of Euston Square Station imperatively required it. But, in the first instance, the London and North-Western Railway Company did not require all the land given to them by the action of the Committee; they only required a email portion—about one-twentieth of it—and it was the Trustees of St. James's, Piccadilly, who put the Railway Company into a position to demand so much larger a portion. It was said that there was no other way of enlarging the Station; but it was a remarkable fact, according to the Minutes of the Committee which he had before him, that it was stated, but not proved in any way whatever before the Committee, although the General Manager and the Engineer of the Railway Company were called—it was simply stated that it was impossible to appropriate the street on the eastern side of the Station. There was no proof whatever in support of that statement. The fact was that land on the eastern side was much more thickly covered with houses than the land on the western side. That was the reason why the Company determined to get hold of the western portion. It was just as easy to divert one street as another, and the street on the eastern portion might just as readily have been diverted as the street on the western portion; and, in that case, no open space would have been sacrificed. The Railway Company, however, would have had to pay more, because they would have boon required to take land that was covered with houses instead of land that was not. the purpose for which the land which lay in the west—that part which the Trustees had compelled the Railway Company to take in excess of their original demand — was not connected with the enlargement of the Station at all. The Engineer was asked before the Committee what this land would be used for, and he said— I think it would be used very likely for general purposes; for the storage of omnibuses and other vehicles, that the Company have for their outside traffic; and for the parcels traffic, which we consider "will be a very large one very soon. Later on in his evidence the General Manager, Mr. Findlay, said the land westward of the now street was wanted in connection with the general purposes of the Company in reference to the new Parcels Post arrangements, and in order to carry out an agreement entered into between the Railway Company and the Government, and for providing sufficient stable accommodation for something like 200 horses the Company had at Euston. Now, the provision of storage for omnibuses and accommodation for 200 horses, he ventured to think, was not a purpose for which a large open space in the Metropolis ought to be taken. But he did not feel, in bringing the matter before the House, that it was his business, or even the business of the Committee, to make plans for the enlargement of the Company's Station. It was quite sufficient for his purpose to show that there was land available on all sides, and that the only reason that it was not taken was that it would be more expensive, because it was covered with houses. On the south of the site of this burial ground the Railway Company proposed to take, there was a plot of extremely bad and poor houses, which it would be a great object to the neighbourhood to get rid of altogether, and which would afford ample accommodation both for the storage of omnibuses and the stabling of horses. The position which he and those who were acting with him in the interests of open spaces took in the matter, was, that if the policy of the House, that open space should not be interfered with, was firmly maintained, every private Company, in framing their schemes, would frame them so as to avoid these open spaces. "With regard to the public, there would be, according to the conclusion of the Committee, an option given to the Metropolitan Board of Works to take one-half of this land; but the real fact was that the chance of obtaining the whole of it, some time or other, was very considerable. There was no question which had made more progress in that House of late years than the question of open spaces. It had been forced into prominence by the rapid growth of London, and the crowded condition of some of the centres of population in it. The feeling in the district of St. Pancras was very strong indeed upon the matter. The Vestry of St. Pancras opposed the Bill in Committee, as also did the Metropolitan Board of Works, in the interest mainly of the preservation of open spaces. The action of the St. Pancras Vestry was shown by the way in which they had proceeded in other matters of a similar character. They had spent about £7,000 in laying out as a recreation ground the disused burial ground of St. Pancras and St. Giles. Their action had been imitated in other parts of London. He saw that only last week a deputation went up to the Corporation of London to request them to rescind the resolution they had passed, by which a building was to be erected on a disused burial ground in Little Britain. The Corporation, yielding to the feeling of the inhabitants, rescinded their resolution, and had agreed to lay out this land as an open space. He saw, also, that the Metropolitan Board of Works were negotiating with the Vicar of St. Pancras with respect to the disused burial ground adjoining Holy Trinity Church in Gray's Inn Road. He thought it might, therefore, be said that, sooner or later, in the next few years, this land would be used for purposes that were really required, and laid out as a recreation ground for the inhabitants of the district. It was said that in this particular district there was no great need of open spaces, because they had several squares, like Euston Square, Torrington Square, and others; but the House would recollect that those squares, valuable as they were as reservoirs of air, were of no use for purposes of recreation, because they were closed to the public; and, considering the way in which London was being built upon, he thought they would be wise to secure every available open space which remained to them. The Committee, in the Report which they had made to the House, alluded to a Report from Dr. Hoffman, the Inspector under the Burial Acts, and the promoters of the Bill, in the reasons they had circulated, made use of the evidence of Dr. Hoffman in this way. The removal of bodies sanctioned by the Bill applied to some 25,000 in number, and Dr. Hoffman said that this might be done with safety under certain conditions, which conditions the Company accepted. But as regarded the general question, Dr. Hoffman said— The importance of preserving existing open spaces in the midst of a large City cannot, I think, he over-rated, and—except for the sake of undoubted public improvement—disused burial grounds should not be disturbed, but should be turfed, and planted with flowers and shrubs, and permanently kept in good order. In an Act entitled 'The Metropolitan Open Spaces Act, 1881,' the Metropolitan Board of Works (Section 5) have power to deal with disused burial grounds in this very way. In this instance the comparatively large size of the ground renders it still more important that the necessity for the Company's scheme should he carefully considered before any encroachment is permitted. That Report of Dr. Hoffman was decidedly in the direction of preserving this open space for the benefit of the public. He wished now to say a word as to the position of the Trustees in this matter. The House would bear in mind that this land was absolutely valueless, because the Trustees of St. James's, Piccadilly, had no right to get a single penny for it. Their right to get any money at all simply depended on the power which Parliament gave them. Had it not been for the action of the Railway Company he believed the Trustees would have considered favourably any proposal to hand over this ground to the local authorities for the purpose of preserving it as an open space under the "Open Spaces Act." Without using the word in any offensive way, he might say that the bribe of £13,000 was too much for them; and if the House sanctioned this Bill it was deliberately putting £13,000 into the hands of those Trustees, every penny of which would come to them directly in consequence of the action of the House. He did not think that it was necessary to detain the House much longer, although there were many other points in his case which ho might lay before them. Ho would only say that hon. Members would be struck with the importance of the question when they examined the Returns of the Census which had just been taken. Ho found there one striking fact, which he would mention to the House, which showed the increase of the town population as compared with the rural. For every 100 persons resident in the country there were in 1861, 165 resident in towns; in 1871, 184; and in 1881, 199. Therefore, the urban population of this country was very nearly double the rural population. There was another fact brought out in striking prominence, as far as the growth of London was concerned. That was that in the beginning of the century, one in ten of the population lived in London; now one in seven lived in London. These facts showed the importance of making the life of the great masses of the people who lived in London as tolerable as possible, and as full of those advantages which they would otherwise get by living in the country. One of the great problems —almost the greatest problem of the age —was how to keep the population resident in London in a decent state as far as their houses were concerned, and how to give them as many of the advantages of fresh air and places for open recreation as possible. That appeared to him to be really one of the problems of the age; but he thought the House would go the wrong way to solve it if it allowed the few remaining open spaces which existed in London to be gradually eaten into and destroyed by Private Bill legislation. He felt that if the House were to sanction the present Bill they would be sanctioning a bargain in which the interests of the public were very much sacrificed for the private interest of a Railway. He, therefore, hoped the House would re-commit the Bill with the Instruction he proposed to move, and which stood in his name upon the Paper.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "now considered," in order to add the words" re-committed to the former Committee,"—(Mr. J. Hollond,)— instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

MR. R. H. PAGET

desired to say a word in support of the decision of the Committee, having acted as Chairman of the Committee. He had a profound sympathy with those who desired to preserve open spaces for the benefit and health of the people in this Metropolis, no would even go further, and say that he had a profound sympathy with these who were endeavouring to turn to effect and to lay out these disused burial grounds, which were eyesores in many parts of the Metropolis. He thought the House ought to recognize with gratitude the valuable example set by the Incumbent of the Church of St. George's-in-the-East, by which that burial ground had been turned into an ornamental ground, and was now available for the people generally. But although he laid that down as a general proposition, in which ho fully and completely believed, ho thought it would be difficult to show, in the special case now under discussion, that the reasonable rights of what he might call the "Open space people" had been imperilled, or that anybody, unless he was suffering from open spaces on the brain, would have a right seriously to oppose the decision arrived at by the Committee. If this were the case of a very thickly populated part of London, without any open spaces whatever, or if it were a case whore it was proposed that the land should be sold to a speculative builder to be entirely covered with houses, it would be a very different matter indeed. But what were the circumstances of the case? He held in his hand a map of the district, and a very slight glance at it would show that the locality was by no means deficient in open spaces. He would not enumerate the large number of open spaces that were immediately adjacent to this piece of land. But he would ask any hon. Member to look at the map, and ho would at once admit that, quâ open spaces, this particular district was not by any means one of which it could be said that it was in want of such spaces. Ho would call the attention of the House to the grounds which induced the Committee to pass the Bill. The Committee had to deal with the case of an unknown plot of ground, practically inaccessible, in regard to which they were told that the people residing in the neighbourhood might walk or ride down every street and be unaware of its existence, for this reason—that it was only approachable by a foot-path blocked by a gate. The land was of no good to anybody. It was utterly useless. What was the result of the decision of the Committee? It was that an inaccessible spot had, with regard to a greater portion of it, been secured for the benefit of the people as an open space—secured without consideration, and secured in a double way by ample access to it; whereas before it had none. It was proposed to construct a road-way 20 feet wide, and set it aside for access in one direction; and there were also to be two foot-paths on the other side to the church, which were specially provided by the Committee, in order to give access on the other side. When the case came before the Committee first, it was presented to them in quite a different aspect. the first proposition placed before them was that two-thirds, at least, of this ground should be given up to the Railway Company, and only a small portion, amounting to about one-third of it, retained as an open space; and there was no provision whatever in the Bill to secure that even this small portion would be retained as an open space. How was the matter now left by the decision of the Committee? The rights of the public wore protected, and this space was given over to them without any consideration. It was all very well to say that perhaps some day or other it might have fallen in; but there was no evidence before the Committee to establish the fact. What the Committee had done by their action was this—to secure for the benefit of the public a larger portion of this burial ground than they would otherwise have had. There were three parties to this transaction—the Railway Company, the public, and the Vestry of St. James; neither of them had got all they wanted. The Railway Company had not got what they wanted, but much less than they asked for. Those persons who were interested in the preservation of open spaces had not got all that they wanted, nor had the Vestry. The Committee, after hearing all the evidence, and being in full possession of all the information upon the subject, deliberately came to the conclusion that the method adopted was the best way of settling the question. The hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Hollond) called attention to the fact that it was stated, but not proved, that this land was required by the Railway Company. But when the fact was stated, and it was not denied, when it was deliberately stated, and, although the Bill was actively opposed, none of the opponents attempted to cross-examine upon that statement, it might fairly be assumed that it formed unimpeachable evidence to which the Committee were bound to attach importance. What was the case in this question? It was admitted that there was a necessity for the Railway Company to enlarge their Station, and it was stated, but not challenged, that they could not enlarge it in any other way.

MR. J. HOLLOND

remarked that what he had said was that it was not stated, and was not proved, that the Railway Station could not be enlarged in any other way.

MR. R. H. PAGET

said, that was a point to which the evidence was directed. The Company said—"We cannot en-largo our Station by going the other way," and they gave their reasons; and when the Committee had the matter so stated, and no question whatever was asked by the opponents of the Bill, they had a right to form a conclusion, from the absence of cross-examination, that it was the fact. Assuming that the Committee were right in that matter— and he ventured to assert that they were —if the Railway Company proved the necessity for enlarging the Station; that they could only go in this direction; that they must take a portion of this land; and that also, for the making of their new street, they must take a larger portion than was actually required for the enlargement of the Station; then, so far as the question of principle wont, ho contended that the Committee had ample evidence to satisfy them that they did right in sanctioning these arrangements. He hoped the House would not be induced to impugn the decision of the Committee, unless it could be shown that the Committee had passed over a question that was of importance in a light and insufficient manner. No doubt, the House had the power of reviewing any decision of a Committee; but where a Committee had had before them ample evidence, and had had that evidence thoroughly sifted, and every question fairly brought before them, and when, after giving to it ample consideration, the Committee had made up their minds as to the right way of dealing with the matter at issue, he ventured to say that the House ought to be very jealous indeed before it consented to reverse their decision. He hoped the House would see the necessity of standing by the decision of the Committee.

MR. CROPPER

said, he should like to say one or two words on the subject before the House. As a general principle he most thoroughly agreed with the views expressed by the hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Hollond) as to the preservation of open spaces in the Metropolis. At the same time, he was of opinion that several forcible arguments might be adduced on the other side, before the House came to a decision to reverse the action of the Committee. In the first place, it was not to be supposed that a Committee of Gentlemen, chosen by the House, had gone through all the evidence, and arrived at a decision, without having some grounds for doing so, and without having considered in some degree the questions brought before it. The hon. and learned Member for Brighton had stated, in the first place, that the Railway Company could easily get land in the other direction, in Seymour Street, and that they had only taken this land because they wanted a bargain. Then, again, it was stated that the Trustees of the property had been parties to a job in connection with it. It was further assorted that the place was needed as a breathing place in that part of the town, on account of the crowded nature of the streets. In regard to the first assertion, he would merely say that it was next to impossible to widen the Euston Square Station on the Seymour Street side, while Cardington Street, on the other side of the Station, was comparatively little used, and by the plan now proposed the street would be carried in a straight line, instead of running in a crooked direction. In regard to the action of the Trustees, they would gain nothing by the transaction for themselves; because, if this land were sold to the Railway Company, the money they received for it was to be laid out in Westminster for some public improvements there. With regard to the breathing place which this old churchyard afforded to the people, such breathing places, while valuable in densly-crowded parts of London, were not essential to the health and happiness of the people in the neighbourhood. As a general rule, the houses around Euston Square, as the House would know from experience, were not of the smallest or poorest description. About GO houses were to be pulled down along the side of Cardington Street, but most of them wore three-storey houses, worth £30 or £40 a-year, and they were not to be compared with the rookeries which existed in the East End and some other parts of the Metropolis. Nor would any property of that character be affected by the proposed alteration or the removal of this disused churchyard. Even in regard to the churchyard itself, it seemed to have been for many years— at least 30 years—a place which was simply without use to anybody. The yards and back windows of a line of a number of second-rate houses looked into it, and the only persons who seemed to have got much advantage from the aspect were the inmates of the Temperance Hospital, which the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Law-son) opened some years ago. If the proposed alterations were effected these persons would be able to look out upon a pleasant recreation ground, instead of a disused graveyard, so that instead of being injured they would be positively better off. As far as the general public were concerned, a play-ground of an acre and a-half would be of much more advantage to them than the present condition of this piece of land; and he believed it was intended to devote this disused burial ground to purposes that would be for the advantage of the people residing in the neighbourhood. One word as to the question of public advantage. His hon. Friend had quoted a Report of Dr. Hoffman, the Medical Inspector connected with the Burial Acts Office, in which that Gentleman stated that schemes of this nature should never be carried out unless some public advantage was to be secured. Surely it was a public advantage to widen the access to the Metropolis, and to give to those who passed up and down—principally the travelling public who went to Euston Square Station—a better means of getting to the trains, and in other ways of conferring upon them additional advantages. He did not suppose that the Railway Company were very keen about incurring the large outlay that was involved in the enlargement of their Station, and they entirely objected to be put to any further expense. Certainly, they would not incur the expense that would be necessary if they were obliged to go to the other side of the Station; and, therefore, he believed the public would be the gainers by having the Station enlarged in this direction, while the immediate neighbourhood, as far as he saw, would lose very little. Therefore, feeling, as he did, that there was really not as much to be said in favour of this disused burial ground as there might be in favour of retaining similar open spaces in other parts of the Metropolis, and feeling, as ho always did, that great respect should be paid by the House to the decisions of its Select Committees after thoroughly investigating the subjects submitted to them, he was bound to say that he should go into the Lobby against the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Brighton.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

said, he could not agree with the views expressed by either of the two last speakers. He had on several occasions in the last few years found it necessary to remind the House that if they pursued the policy they were now asked to adopt, the question of preserving open spaces in the Metropolis would make very little progress, and he had more than once asked the House to reject the decision of their Select Committees. For his own part, he thought that good was done sometimes by the House taking a matter into their own hands, and laying down principles for the guidance of Select Committees; and he certainly thought that this was a case in which they might take that course with advantage. The difficulty in this ease was that the disused burial ground did not belong to the parish in which it was situated—namely, St. Pancras. If it had belonged to St. Pancras, this transaction would never have taken place; because that parish would have done what it had already done with regard to its own disused burial ground—namely, have laid it out as a recreation ground for the purposes of the public. But this disused burial ground belonged to the Trustees of the remote parish of St. James's, Westminster, which was not interested in keeping this ground open as a recreation ground for its own residents, but was far more interested in obtaining a large sum of money by way of compensation from the Railway Company. Quite apart from the question of recreation grounds, there were good reasons why this appropriation should not be made. It was proposed, in this instance, that the Railway Company should acquire the property not entirely for a Railway Station, but for other purposes. They took a largo portion of the burial ground, and would have to remove thousands of corpses to other parts of the country. He fully admitted that there were cases in which it was desirable to interfere with burial grounds for mundane purposes. If there were no other possible means of enabling the Railway to come into a district it might be desirable; but, as a general rule, it was not desirable that a transaction of this nature should be carried out. There was something shocking to humanity, and almost offensive to decency, in carting these dead bodies from a burial ground and interring them in some other place. Moreover, it was an offence to the Common Law to take up the bodies of dead people and mix their bones together; and it could not be carried out without rendering the person who did it liable to prosecution by Common Law.

MR. R. H. PAGET

said, with regard to that point, the Committee had satisfied themselves that the regulations of the Home Office would be fully complied with.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

said, he was of opinion that it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to carry out the regulations of the Home Office. When they undertook to cart away several thousand corpses they could not do it in a proper manner, so as to observe the regulations of the Home Office, or to observe the law. He therefore said that, even apart from the question of open spaces, it was not desirable that these appropriations of burial grounds should be carried out, except in cases of urgent public necessity. In reference to the observations which had been made by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. R. H. Paget), he admitted that a good case had been made out by the Railway Company for acquiring a small corner of the burial ground. He thought it was desirable that they should have a small portion for the purposes of their Station. He thought his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Brighton (Mr. Hollond) would be willing to concede that much; but with regard to the greater portion of the ground which they proposed to take, the Rail way Company had made out no case whatever. He was of opinion that it ought to be left as an open space, and as an open space he had no doubt that before long it would be thrown open to the public for purposes of recreation. Therefore, on those grounds, he should support the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Brighton.

MR. PLUNKET

trusted the House would allow him to say a few words, after what he might call the extraordinary speech which had been made by the right hon. Gentlemen the First Commissioner of Works. The right hon. Gentleman, in the last part of his speech, said he was in favour of giving up a small portion of this ground to the Railway Company for the purposes of their Station; but as the right hon. Gentleman had also declared his intention of supporting the Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Hollond), it would be impossible to do so if that Amendment were carried, because the hon. Member proposed to refer back the Bill to the Committee, with Instructions to them to strike out the provisions which authorized the appropriation by the Railway Company of a considerable portion of this disused burial ground. Before the First Commissioner of Works consented to vote in favour of this Amendment, he ought at least to have taken the pains to consider what effect the Amendment would have.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, the question before the House was the recommittal of the Bill.

MR. PLUNKET

said, he had understood the hon. and learned Member for Brighton to move the Amendment which stood in his name on the Paper.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Sir ARTHUR OTWAY)

The question before the House is that the Bill be now considered. The hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Hollond) moves that Motion in order to insert the words— That it be an Instruction to the Committee to strike out the provisions which authorise the appropriation by the Railway Company of a considerable portion of the disused burial ground situate in the parish of St. Pancras, and belonging to the parish of St. James's, Westminster, in order that this open space be not encroached upon or diminished.

MR. PLUNKET

said, he certainly had understood the Mover of the Amendment to propose the Instruction which stood on the Paper; but, if he was wrong as to that, ho apologized to the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works for having fallen into an error. He would now say a word or two upon the arguments which the right hon. Gentleman had brought forward. In the first place, the right hon. Gentleman said that it would be a very good thing in certain cases, when any kind of special reason could be given, to refer Bills back to the Committee which originally decided upon them. Now, he (Mr. Plunket) contended that no more dangerous advice could be given to the House, especially in a case where a good deal of sentiment and a good deal of public feeling was easily excited. Such questions could not be adequately or properly discussed in that House in the short space of time devoted to the debating of a Private Bill, particularly where the public feeling might be worked up in order to create a prejudice. It was only before a Select Committee that such questions could be advantageously considered and thoroughly thrashed out. The First Commissioner of Works had not relied very much, in opposing the Bill, upon the argument that the burial ground was required as an open space for the public. That argument the right hon. Gentleman scarcely mentioned; but he fell back, as the main part of his contention, upon the general sentiment of removing the bodies of persons who had been interred in an old graveyard. Surely the First Commissioner of Works ought to have remembered that it would have been impossible to carry out any of the improvements in old graveyards which had been dedicated to the service of the public, unless such things as he now condemned had been done. If the rules of the Home Office, which had been framed for the special purpose of dealing with the matter, could not be carried out, surely it was not for one Member of the Government to put himself in direct antagonism with another, and attempt to influence the House with such arguments as those which had been put forward. He (Mr. Plunket) would not trespass further on the House on that part of the question, because it was plain that when the law had laid down certain regulations under which the removal of bodies from these old graveyards might be carried out, when a Railway Company, as in this instance, undertook to comply with the requirements of the law to the entire satisfaction of the authorities of the Home Office, it was not fair to press the House to decide the question in the arbitrary manner now proposed. He had one word to say in behalf of the action of the Railway Company, of which he had the honour to be a Director. What was the charge made against the Company by the hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Hollond)? The hon. and learned Member said the Company insisted on taking this graveyard simply because they did not want to pay for property in a more expensive part of the locality. He (Mr. Plunket) said that that was a perfectly gratuitous, unfounded, and unjustifiable charge to make. As had been stated by the Chairman of the Committee which fully investigated all these matters, the Bill was hotly opposed throughout by various persons who were interested in the matter. It was opposed by the Vestry of St. Pancras, by those who represented the Society for the Preservation of Open Spaces, and there was a full and long investigation into all this question; but not one word was said upon this particular subject. The statement put forward on the part of the Railway Company was not challenged, and it was unfair to come to the House now and charge the Company with designing to take this burial ground because they would not incur more expense else- where. The simple reason the Railway Company desired to take this land was that on the east side of the Station there was a long, and straight, and important thoroughfare, which it would be absurd for any Committee of the House to interfere with, especially when they could obtain property which did not involve such an interference with the public rights on the other side of the Station. He would explain to the House how the matter would stand if the present Bill were carried, and if it were not carried. If the Bill were not carried, this old graveyard would remain as it was now—a dingy, useless, and unsightly place, which the public had no access to at present, and which they could not use. The Vestry of St. Pancras was not prepared to buy it from the Trustees, whose property it was; and the Trustees were not prepared to part with it unless they were paid for it; and there it would remain, as far as the philanthropists of St. Pancras were concerned, for ever an unsightly place, utterly useless to the public, because from it every member of the public was absolutely excluded. But if this Bill were carried, and this terrible Railway Company were allowed to have its way, one part of this old burial ground would be handed over to the Metropolitan Board of Works, in order that they might beautify it, or deal with it in any way they pleased. It would be made accessible to the public, and the Metropolitan Board of Works would lay it out and provide the means by which the public could approach it, and every bit of the work would be done, not at the expense of the philanthropists, or of the Vestry of St. Pancras, but with the £13,000 which the London and North-Western Railway Company would have to pay for the whole of the property, one-half of which they would be required to hand over to the Metropolitan Board of Works for the purpose of having it converted into a place of recreation for the public. He had only one word more to say. He contended that it was impossible to sustain the arguments against the Bill, either on the ground of the desecration of this graveyard, or on the ground that it was necessary to maintain it as a recreation ground. There was no recreation ground there at present, or any approach to it, which could enable the public to use it as a recreation ground. It was said that they would be diminishing the breathing places in that neighbourhood. Now he asserted most positively that if he believed the proposals contained in the Bill would really be injurious to the health of the neighbourhood, and that they would seriously reduce the breathing places in a crowded locality—where there were at present no other breathing places—ho would not be there that day to support the measure. But it was proved before the Committee, as plainly as anything could be proved, that this particular district was one of the best ventilated localities in the whole of London. It was surrounded on every side by squares and open spaces, and it was within half-a-mile of Regent's Park. It was, therefore, quite absurd to speak of this locality as a great crowded neighbourhood, unhealthy and densely populated, such as could be found in the East End, and elsewhere in the Metropolis. It was nothing of the kind. On the contrary, it was one of the best situated localities in the whole of London, as regarded breathing places, and as regarded recreation grounds. He had already shown that the imputation contained in the sentiment that the Bill involved an interference with, and a desecration of, the sanctity of the dead could not be maintained; and for these reasons he hoped the House would reject the Amendment.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, he would not detain the House for more than a few minutes; but two or three observations had fallen from his right hon. and learned Friend opposite (Mr. Plunket) which required that ho should say a word in reply. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had spoken on behalf of the Bail way Company of which he frankly admitted he was a Director. He made no charge against the right hon. and learned Gentleman on that account; but he had been under the impression, in the first instance, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was speaking as a Member of the Committee. He understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman to accuse the First Commissioner of Works of having gone against the opinion of Dr. Hoffman. He assured his right hon. and learned Friend that that was not the case. With regard to the latter part of the remarks of his right hon. and learned Friend, in which he said that if the Bill was not passed the graveyard would remain disused, and would continue to be an unsightly, disagreeable, and unpleasant spot, and that it could not be used for the purposes of public recreation, ho would only point out that if the suggestion of the First Commissioner of Works were adopted, or that of the Metropolitan Board of Works, which was nearly the samo—namely, to give the Railway Company the small portion of the land which they really required, by far the most considerable portion of the ground could then be utilized for public purposes. As to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said in regard to the action of the Home Office in the matter, ho would call attention to the Report made by the Medical Inspector iii reference to this very Bill. In that Report, Dr. Hoffman stated that the Metropolitan Board of Works had made certain suggestions, and ho denied that there was a public necessity for the powers sought by the Railway Company. The Report went on to say— The importance of preserving existing open spaces in the midst of a large City, cannot, I think, ho over-rated, and—except for the sake of undoubted public improvement—disused burial grounds should not be disturbed, but should be turfed, and planted with flowers and shrubs, and permanently kept in good order. In an Act entitled 'The Metropolitan Open Spaces Act, 1881,' the Metropolitan Board of Works (Section 5) have power to deal with disused burial grounds in this very way. In this instance, the comparatively large size of the ground renders it still more important that the necessity for the Company's scheme should be carefully considered before any extensive encroachment is permitted. He made use of the word "extensive" after the proposal of the Metropolitan Board of Works that only a small portion of the burial ground should be taken. The Report went on to say— How far the proposed extension of the Eastern Station will be for the public benefit, I do not feel competent to offer an opinion.

MR. R. H. PAGET

asked the right hon. Gentleman to forgive him for stating that that Report related to the original scheme put before the Committee, by which it was proposed that only a small portion of the burial ground should be preserved as an open space. The decision of the Committee had entirely altered the conditions of the cost.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, the argument applied exactly to the question before the House. The medical officer said that he could not offer an opinion as to the necessity of the proposed extension, and then he went on to say— As far as the actual work of removal is concerned, I see no reason why—proper precautions being taken under skilled supervision—the work should not he carried out, as in many other similar cases, without danger to public health or outrage to public decency. This Report was presented in the interests of the public health, pure and simple. The Committee applied to the Home Office for a copy of this Report, and when a copy was sent by the Home Office it was accompanied by a statement of the Secretary of State that ho was not to be understood to offer any approval of the Bill, because he was of opinion that the removal of these bodies might be accompanied by public danger. There was, therefore, no conflict between the Chief Commissioner of Works and the Home Office.

MR. PLUNKET

remarked, that the Home Office gave no contradiction to the statement of facts upon which the Report was based.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, the Home Office had done nothing to contravene the argument of the Chief Commissioner of Works, that a grevious injury might be occasioned by the removal of these dead bodies. The argument of his right hon. Friend the Chief Commissioner was that the removal of the remains of the 20,000 or 25,000 persons who had been buried there prior to the year 1853 might be a source of public danger and injury.

MR. W. H. JAMES

said, that although the House might accept the assurance of the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket) that the Railway Company had no wish to interfere with the health of the people of the Metropolis, they would probably, to some extent, discount that observation when they bore in mind that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was himself a Director of the London and North-Western Railway Company. He (Mr. James) knew that the House regarded with considerable jealousy any proposal to reverse a decision already arrived at by one of their Committees. He was quite sure that the Committee had devoted careful consideration to the matter according to their lights, and that they were anxious to do their duty; but he regretted that the Members of the Committee had not visited the spot themselves. They might easily have gone down; it would not have taken them more than an hour or an hour and a-half. He must say that the Committees of that House ought to be closely watched, because the questions submitted to them were not altogether in the hands of the Committee, but in the bands of certain eminent counsel, who, by able and clever speeches, were able to put forward questions as matters of sentiment which were not really matters of sentiment, but rather questions of money. That was the case in this instance. If the Railway Company chose to go elsewhere and pay for it, there was ample land available for them for the purpose of enlarging their Station. In this case the Trustees had given to the Company not only all they wanted for themselves, but had required them to come to terms in regard to the whole of the property, because the Trustees were anxious to get rid of the property, and, instead of devoting the money to the benefit of the parish of St. Pancras, they intended to devote it to purposes of their own. He thought the House ought to be careful in these matters bow they introduced the thin end of the wedge, and he was satisfied that this was the thin end of the wedge. Open spaces in the Metropolis were extremely few and far between; and he himself, and those who acted with him in the matter, intended to propose, as soon as possible, that some Standing Order of the House should be passed to prevent Railway Companies and other bodies from encroaching on the public rights. At present, by means of Private Bill legislation, Railway and other Companies were acquiring property which was believed to be absolutely essential to the health and welfare of the people of the Metropolis, without paying for it, and without giving a sufficient quid pro quo to the public.

MR. W. LOWTHER

said, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board recommended that this ground should be converted into a recreation ground for the use of the public. The right hon. Gentleman further said that the ground had been used for burial purposes down to the year 1853.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

remarked that it had not been used for such purposes since the year 1853.

MR. W. LOWTHER

said, the right ton. Gentleman supported the view of the Chief Commissioner of Works, that the feelings of a great many persons would be outraged by having the bodies of their friends removed from this burial: ground to any other burial ground, al- j though the duty would be discharged in proper form, and conducted with due regard to public decency and health. He should like to know what would be the feeling of those persons who had interred their relatives and friends in this ground, if they found that the graveyard was to be thrown into a recreation ground, and foot-ball and cricket, and every other kind of game, played upon it? He presumed that if it was con-converted into a recreation ground, it might be used for those and various other purposes.

MR. STANTON

, as a Member of the Committee, asked the House to support the decision which the Committee unanimously came to on this matter. There was a very full and careful inquiry, and he thought the House would adopt a very bad precedent if it now consented to reverse the decision of the Committee. His hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Mr. W. H. James) said the Committee had not visited the spot. Now, he (Mr. Stanton) had himself visited the spot.

MR. W. H. JAMES

asked if his hon. Friend had visited the spot before the Committee came to their decision?

MR. STANTON

said he had not, but he had visited it since; and if he wanted anything to justify the decision arrived at by the Committee it was that visit. He thought the hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Hollond) was altogether wrong in asking the House to reject the decision of the Committee. He (Mr. Stanton) was not a Director of a Railway Company; but ho was prepared to say that this was not a question of doing harm to anybody. It was not a question as to whether the lungs of London required expansion; because it was well known that there wore a considerable number of open spaces within a quarter or half-a-mile of this burial ground, while within half-a-mile of it was Regent's Park. Therefore, as far as open areas were concerned, there were more in this particular locality than in any other part of London, and upon that score no case had been made out for the reversal of the decision of the Committee. It was absolutely essential for the conduct of the business of the London and North-Western Railway, that the Company should have power to enlarge their Euston Square Station. It was not possible to enlarge the Station in any other direction; and, whatever hon. Members might say as to the property on the east side of the Station, it was impossible for the Company to en-largo their Station, either on the east or south. the west was the only direction in which could be enlarged; and considering the great good the Railway Company had done in providing for the necessities of the Metropolis, he thought they ought to receive some consideration at the hands of the House. They were bound to enlarge their Station, and this was the only direction in which it could be done. He therefore hoped the House would confirm the decision come to by the Committee, after great attention, after careful inquiry, and after taking great pains in the matter, their decision being that the proposals of the Railway Company would do no harm to anybody, but would benefit the whole of the Metropolis.

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

said, that his hon. Friend the Member for Mid Somerset (Mr. R. H. Paget) seemed to imagine that a recreation ground could only be a place for playing foot-ball on. It might be a garden like that which had lately been made round St. Paul's.

MR. D. GRANT

said, the Bill related to the immediate neighbourhood of St. Pancras. He might say that they had come to a unanimous decision not only to oppose the Bill as they had done, but to oppose it in the House of Lords, if it went there. They knew the condition in which the locality was placed, and they knew the necessity of opposing the Bill, and of taking the care they had taken, and were prepared to take in future, to preserve this churchyard as an open space. He would only say, in reply to a remark which had been made once or twice in the course of the debate, as to the character of the property in the neighbourhood, and the large and wealthy description of the houses erected there, that the neighbourhood was inhabited by a working class population, and occupied by very small houses, and it was of the utmost importance to provide recreation ground for them in the immediate locality. He thought the suggestion made by the First Commissioner of Works would meet the necessities of the case; because it would not only secure what was required for the needs of the population, but it would give the Railway Company what they originally asked for.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 178; Noes 167: Majority 11.—(Div. List No. 77.)

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Bill considered; Clause added; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.