QUESTION. (Hansard, 27 July 1863)

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the 1470 Home Department, Under what circumstances the opening of the Roman Catholic Burying Ground at Sydenham met with his approval and sanction? He put the question at the instance of the relatives of a person who had been very recently buried there, and also of the owner of some adjoining property: he therefore hoped the House would allow him to state the facts upon which it was founded. A Mr. Wells had been buried in this ground, and just recently a relative of Mr. Smee, the well-known accountant of the Bank of England, had also been buried there. On the 16th of this month Mr. Smee made the following statement to the Secretary of the Home Department—He said that he had attended the burial-ground of this relative, and found, that although he was informed that the burial-ground had been sanctioned by the Home Secretary, it had no boundary wall or place of public access. The burial ground belonged to the Oratory at Brompton, to which his relative bad left £30,000. He also stated that he found that the Christian name of Mr. Wells was incorrectly inscribed on a tombstone, the effect of which was to destroy all clue to the deceased. In this particular case, of Mr. Smee's deceased relative, £30,000, all the property of the deceased, went to the superior of the monastery, Father Fafer.

§ MR. MONSELL
Order, order!

§ MR. SPEAKER
said, he must remind the hon. Member that in asking a Question he was not at liberty to make a speech.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
said, to put himself in order, he would move the adjournment of the House; and he thought, that inasmuch as this was a matter concerning the relatives of a person deceased who was buried in this ground, and the owner of adjacent property, he was only doing his duty in bringing the matter before the House. On the 23rd of July Mr. Smee again applied to the Home Secretary, complaining that no notice bad been taken of his former application. He (Mr. Newdegate) was informed by the owner of the adjoining property that he had two years ago suspected that this ground was used for the purposes of burial, but that neither the incumbent nor the collector of rates nor his neighbours were at all aware of the existence of this burial-ground until the last burial took place. It appeared that three burials had been performed, one of a person unknown; no entry in the register bad been made of any of these burials. Father Knox, one of the priests 1471 to the Oratory, had stated on inquiry being made that the order for the burial-ground was obtained by the influence of the Duke of Norfolk; but on searching the London Gazette no notice of any order from the Secretary of State could be found. A gentleman in the neighbourhood had informed him that the burial-ground was an open field in 1851. He inquired of the Roman Catholic Bishop when this ground was consecrated by him: the Bishop replied that he remembered consecrating the ground, but not the date. He (Mr. Newdegate) did not wish to express any opinion upon the facts he had brought before the House, but he must say that he thought the persons interested ought to have an answer to their inquiries.

§ MR. SPEAKER
said, the hon. Member had concluded without making any Motion. He must inform the hon. Member that a subject requiring so much explanation would be more appropriate for a Motion than a Question.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
then moved the adjournment of the House.

MR. H. A. BRUCE
said, in October, 1856, an application was made to the Home Secretary in the usual way to authorize a burial-ground at Sydenham for the priests and lay brothers of the Oratory at Brompton. The Home Secretary directed the usual examination to be made by the Inspector of Burial-grounds, and upon his report the ground was authorized in the ordinary manner. Since that period three burials had taken place in the ground. In consequence of complaints made by the gentleman mentioned by the hon. Member to the Home Secretary that the ground was not properly enclosed, a further investigation was made, and in his report the Inspector said, that the ground being strictly private, no public approach was necessary. In respect to the second question there was an oak paling sufficient to exclude animals, and therefore it might be said to be properly enclosed for the purpose. He bad no knowledge of the other matters referred to, but all he could say was that there was nothing unusual or out of order in the manner in which the ground had been appropriated.

§ MR. MONSELL
said, he had interrupted the hon. Member because he had made imputations of the gravest possible character against Gentlemen to whom no notice had been given, and who were entitled to 1472 respect at the hands of the House. He knew what the hon. Member's feelings on these points were, but he thought that he was not justified in the course he was pursuing. In the case of the late Mr. Turnbull, the hon. Gentleman, and he (Mr. Monsell) spoke advisedly, had hounded him to death. ["No, no!"] He had stated that he spoke advisedly; he had made special inquiries on this subject of the medical men who attended him, and he was fully justified in stating that it was owing to the anxiety and misery of mind in consequense of the unjust imputations thrown out against him that Mr. Turnbull was now in his grave. He thought that the hon. Gentleman, though he might war with the living, ought to spare the dead.

§ SIR GEORGE BOWYER
said, he knew, from friends who had been with Mr. Turnbull in his last illness, that that Gentleman had died broken hearted through the unjust imputations cast upon his honour. Before making the accusations which he had brought forward that day, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire ought in fairness to have given notice to the persons concerned. The gentlemen of the Oratory, which by the bye was not a monastic institution, possessed so high a character, were so well known to many Members of that House, and so thoroughly respected, that the imputations which the hon. Member had cast upon them would have no effect whatever.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
said, he would withdraw his Motion.