§ Order for Third Reading read.
§ LORD NAASsaid, he wished to call attention to some points of the Bill. The Lord Lieutenant had power to prohibit burials in all towns in Ireland, but the Bill gave no power to provide new burial-grounds. Great injustice might, therefore, be committed, as it might be difficult in such case to provide proper places, unless powers were given to boards of guardians or town councils.
§ MR. HORSMANsaid, the suggestion was a very proper one. In the English Act there was a provision which it would certainly be desirable also to have in the Act relating to Ireland, giving powers, whenever one burial-ground was shut up, to open another, the rate payers themselves paying the expenses, and electing a representative board, with power to make all necessary arrangements. He would communicate with the authorities in Ireland, and if there was a feeling that the noble Lord's suggestion should be carried out, he should be glad to introduce a clause to that effect.
§ Bill read 3° On the Question "That the Bill do pass,"
§ MR. VANCEsaid, he wished to move a clause for the purpose of compensating clerks, sextons, and beadles, for the loss of fees and sums now received in respect of interments. He was afraid there would be some difficulty in giving the power of compensation to vestries in Ireland in these cases, as those bodies were for the most part Roman Catholics.
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, the first Burial Bill that was passed by Parliament gave compensation to the clergymen, the sextons, and others who might be sufferers by the closing of burial-grounds, and that compensation was to be charged on the poor rates; but in subsequent Sessions Parliament altered their views on the subject, and in the Bill which was brought 1016 in by the noble lord belonging to Lord Derby's Government all compensation was deliberately, and upon due consideration, omitted. The hon. Gentleman was mistaken in supposing that in England any compensation was given to clerks, and sextons, and others, who might lose fees in consequence of shutting up of burial-grounds. It was plain, in point of principle, that you could not maintain that anybody had a vested interest in that which was a public nuisance. The only reason for which a burial-ground was shut up was, that it was a public nuisance; that it was so full of decayed organic matter as to become dangerous to the health of the neighbourhood. Well, in that case it ought to be shut up, and out of regard for the public health it must be shut up. Then there could be no reason whatever why persons who had incidentally obtained profits from the use of that ground should be compensated for the loss of profits which, by the excessive use of the ground, must necessarily cease. In most cases the parish would provide a new burial-ground, and the same fees would attach to the new one that had been obtained from the old one, and, therefore, in ordinary cases, those persons would be no losers at all; but even if they were, there was no reason why the public should be called on to make compensation, or to pay for the loss of emoluments which had sunk under the magnitude of the nuisance it was sought to remove.
§ MR. VANCEsaid, if there was any certainty that those persons would get employment under the new Act, he would withdraw his amendment.
§ Clause brought up, and read 1°.
§ Motion made, and Question, "That the clause be now read 2°," put, and negatived.
§ Bill passed.