HC Deb 21 February 1884 vol 284 cc1557-63

Order for Second Heading read.

MR. H. LEE,

in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, its main object was to enable the Corporation of Southampton to enlarge their existing Cemetery at Southampton Common by adding to it about 12 acres of the Common on the eastern side of the Cemetery, which was considered to be a most eligible site for the purpose. By the Southampton Cemetery Act of 1843, the Corporation was authorized to make and maintain the Cemetery, which had now been in use for nearly 40 years. The progressive increase of the population of the borough, which now contained upwards of 61,000 inhabitants, and the want of accommodation in the Cemetery, which was practically exhausted, were among the reasons why the enlargement was urgently required. By the Southampton Marsh and Markets Act of 1865, it was provided that the common and waste land of Southampton should be kept exclusively as open spaces for the general advantage of the inhabitants; but certain exceptions were made in that Act with reference to the user of this particular Common, a Common containing about 375 acres, of which the existing Cemetery occupied about 15 acres. The Corporation now wanted to appropriate 12 acres more for the same purpose; and as recently as 1865, when the whole question of dealing with the common lands of Southampton was before Parliament, the principle of appropriating a portion of the Common for the enlargement of the Cemetery was distinctly recognized. He knew that objections were strongly entertained against the appropriation of Common lands, and he sympathized with those who objected; and if this were an application now made for the first time to take a portion of the Common land of Southampton for a cemetery, he should be one of the first to oppose it. But the Cemetery already existed, and the remainder of the Common was used by the inhabitants for recreative purposes. It must also be borne in mind that, besides this Common, Southampton possessed unusual advantages, having about 70 acres of land in the heart of the town, which had been laid out as parks, pleasure and recreative grounds, at a great expense. He therefore thought the House would be of opinion that no material injury would be done to the inhabitants of Southampton if these 12 acres were appropriated for the purpose for which the Bill provided. [Cries of "Agreed!"] He hoped hon. Members would agree to the Motion he was about to make, and he hoped they would, since a Division was to be taken, go into the Lobby in favour of the Corporation of Southampton. He felt quite certain, from what he knew, that the public opinion of the town was entirely in favour of the course the Corporation proposed to take, and the Corporation themselves had been practically unanimous in the matter. Southampton had more Common land for the recreation of the inhabitants than most of the other towns of the Kingdom; and if they were required to obtain a cemetery elsewhere, the town would be put to considerable cost. Anyone who looked at the map, which had been circulated with a copy of the reasons for supporting the second reading, would see at once that the proposed conversion of this land would inflict no injury whatever upon the town of Southampton. He therefore begged to move the second reading of the Bill.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. H. Lee.)

MR. W. H. JAMES

said, he had no wish to detain the House for more than a few minutes; but, as he had given Notice of opposition to the Bill, without entering into detail or desiring to raise a lengthened discussion, he wished to point out in a few words the principle on which he thought the Bill ought to be opposed. There were only two points to which he desired to refer; one was the assertion of the hon. Member for Southampton that the feeling of the people of Southampton was entirely unanimous upon the question; and the other was the general principle that only where no other land was available should Common land be taken for the purposes contemplated by this Bill. In regard to the unanimity of feeling in Southampton, he had received that day a Petition against it, signed by nearly 200 inhabitants, collected in the course of a few hours, and containing the signatures of magistrates, clergymen, and others. He was of opinion that it was only in cases where no other land was available that Common land should be allowed to be taken for public purposes. He would not argue the case as affecting the town of Southampton, but as it affected, more or less, all large communities who had Common land. In the Act of 1865, no doubt, there was a clause inserted which sanctioned the appropriation of this Common land by the Corporation for the enlargement of the Cemetery at some future time; but within the last few years there had been a more developed public opinion upon these questions; and it was now not merely a matter of open spaces, but a question whether the Corporation had any right whatever to take away from the people what was considered to be an important public right, unless it was found wholly impossible to carry out arrangements for the public advantage by any other means. This important principle was embodied in the Metropolitan Commons Act of 1876; and why it was deemed to be a matter so urgent was, that they knew quite well, at the present moment, there were many persons discussing in popular audiences questions connected with laud, and putting forward projects which were extravagant and foolish, and which would accomplish no useful purpose. He therefore deemed it of importance to direct the attention of the House to every Private Bill which contained provisions of this nature. It was not necessary that he should detain the House further, and he would move the Amendment of which he had given Notice.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House is of opinion that it is undesirable to sanction a measure which would lead to the appropriation as a Cemetery of a considerable area of Common Land in close proximity to the centre of a populous town,"—[Mr. Walter H. James],

—instead thereof.

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

MR. GILES

said, that after the sentimental objection to the last Bill had been defeated, he hoped the House would not have been favoured with any opposition to the present Bill, but that the Corporation of Southampton would be allowed to enlarge their Cemetery. He said at once that he agreed in principle with the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. W. H. James) who had moved the Amendment; but there was such a thing as riding a hobby too hard, and he thought this was one of those cases. The facts were simply these. That Southampton was in the enjoyment of something like 440 acres of ornamental land, devoted exclusively to the amusement and pleasure of the people of Southampton. The land affected by the Bill was situated in a remote corner of Southampton Common. The Common itself consisted of 375 acres, and in the corner nearest the town 15 acres had been used for more than 40 years as a Cemetery. It was now proposed by the Corporation to add to the Cemetery another piece of ground, 12 acres in extent, adjoining the existing Cemetery and in the same corner. If any Member had inspected the map, he would at once see from the position of the corner in which the proposed increase was to be made, that there could not be any possible objection to this small appropriation. It was assumed by the hon. Member for Gateshead that his Amendment was in the interests of the public. Now, what were the interests of the public of Southampton? It was their interest to keep down the rates, and the effect of having to provide a Cemetery in some other place would be to impose upon the Corporation the necessity of purchasing 12 or 20 acres of land, at a cost of from £800 to £1,000 an acre, and thus to entail increased burdens upon the town, when the inhabitants were already paying something like 8s. 6d. in the pound in the shape of local taxation. He thought he had said enough to show that, while they had every desire to do what was right in the interests of the public, the Corporation and the inhabitants generally, who were favourable to the Bill in the proportion of something like two to one, were justified in asking Parliament to pass their Bill. He thought the people of the town might be safely trusted to look after their own interests.

MR. FAWCETT

trusted the House would allow him, not as a Member of the Government, but as an independent Member, who took a deep interest in this question, to say a few words, and he could assure the House that, knowing how valuable its time was, his words should be extremely few. The question was one which, in his opinion, raised a most important principle—namely, whether a large town, which had the good fortune to possess an open space, which was devoted to the use and enjoyment of the people, was to do as it liked with it? Was it not the duty of the House to protect the interests of the public by saying that, except as a matter of absolute necessity, such land should not be used for these purposes, and that no Corporation should be allowed to take it away from the enjoyment of the people simply in order to save the outlay of a further sum of money? He would put this very serious consideration to the House—if 12 or 15 acres were to be taken for a Cemetery on the plea that the ground was cheap, what security had they that 20 acres would not be taken for a reformatory from the same ground; or if a new gaol, or a new workhouse was required, what security would there be that this cheap land would not be the place selected for erecting them upon? He would go further, and show by a striking instance that the case he was putting was no imaginary one. He was prepared to say that if the House was not extremely careful in protecting these open spaces, there was no security, if a town required to carry out drainage works, that they would not select a Common in the immediate neighbourhood for a sewage farm. As he had said, this was no imaginary case, because such a proposal was actually made not many years ago in regard to one of the most beautiful Commons in the neighbourhood of London. It was absolutely proposed by a Local Board to establish a sewage farm upon Wimbledon Common, and the proposal was defeated with some difficulty. Some amusement was excited in the House when his hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Mr. W. H. James) said he had received a Petition, signed by some very influential people in Southampton, numbering 200. It was evidently the opinion of the House that this was an extremely small Petition; but then it must be borne in mind that the time in which the Petition had been got up was extremely short. What, however, would be thought of the public meeting to which both the hon. Members for Southampton had alluded, and at which it was said that the proposal contained in the Bill was approved? He understood the hon. Members to say that the proportion in favour of the Bill at the meeting was two to one; but how many persons did the House think were present at that meeting? Not 200, but exactly 74, because the voting was in the proportion of 42 to 32. Therefore, as far as the evidence before the House was concerned, it was rather against the Bill than in its favour. On many occasions applications had been made to the House not to allow railways to select Common land for their operations simply because it was cheap; and it seemed to him that the House had evinced great care in securing for the public the unquestionable advantage of large open spaces. He thought they ought to be equally solicitous that these open spaces should not be taken from the use and enjoyment of the people, by devoting them to cemeteries or any other purpose, simply on the ground that the land could be more cheaply obtained.

SIR ARTHUR OTWAY

said he thought it was necessary that he should say a few words upon the question before the House. He had listened to the remarks which had been made by his right hon. Friend who had just sat down; and he was happy to assure his right hon. Friend, in regard to several of the things he had held out as being likely to occur in future in regard to this Common land, that the arrangements of the Common were regulated by Act of Parliament; and it would be sufficient if he were to read to the House a few words from the Act itself, from which it would be seen that none of the dangers which were present in the imagination of his right hon. Friend could possibly occur to the remainder of this Common. It would also be clearly seen what the opinion of the House of Commons was with regard to the matter at the time that Act passed. The Corporation of Southampton was obliged to keep open for ever this Common land— Except where application is made to Parliament for authority that any part of those lands be taken or used for the defence of the realm, or that any part of the Common be taken or used for enlarging the Cemetery there, or for enlarging the Waterworks there. Beyond that, the Corporation of Southampton had no power to obtain any part of it; and with regard to any persons who might sustain injury in consequence of the enlargement of the Cemetery, he would remind his right hon. Friend that by one of the Standing Orders of the House, anyone possessing a house in the immediate vicinity of a cemetery would have a locus standi, and could be heard before a Committee of the House as to any injury he might suffer. He had looked carefully into the question; and he had also had the advantage of the assistance of others who had considered it with him, and he had been altogether unable to come to the conclusion that the second reading of the Bill should not be passed in the House. In his opinion, it was simply a question for examination by a Select Committee. He might add that the portion of the Common land it was proposed to take, in order to add it to the existing Cemetery, was not situated in the public part of Southampton at all, and the whole amount of it was only 12 acres; whereas the amount provided by the Act of Parliament, to which he had referred, to be taken for this purpose was 65 acres, so that the amount proposed to be taken was still within the limit laid down in the Act. It was a very small addition that was proposed to be made to the Cemetery; and it was certainly a question which a Select Committee could be safely intrusted to inquire into, and one of those details which a Select Committee, in his opinion, was the only fitting tribunal to investigate. Without entering further into the matter, he hoped the House would be inclined to read the Bill a second time.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 272; Noes 54: Majority 218.—(Div. List, No. 16.)

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a second time, and committed.

Forward to