HC Deb 12 March 1884 vol 285 cc1307-8

Order for Second Beading read.


, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, its object was to prevent buildings being erected on disused burial grounds. The Metropolitan Board of Works, he was informed, could not interfere until building operations actually commenced, and it was doubtful whether they could even then interfere successfully. The Bill prohibited building on a disused consecrated burial ground; and as to disused unconsecrated burial grounds it provided that the sanction of a Secretary of State should be necessary. He had been in communication with various Societies interested in this matter; and although he had encountered some difference of opinion with regard to details, he had found opinion unanimously in favour of the principle of his Bill. He hoped, considering the importance of reserving large open spaces in London and other large towns, the House would agree to the Bill being read a second time.

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


said, he believed that this Bill was specially aimed at the case of a gentleman who intended to build on some of his land which, 40 or 50 years ago, was used as a burial ground. It might, no doubt, be well for the purposes of keeping open spaces that unused burial grounds should be secured. But was not well that any Bill should be passed which did not contain a provision for the compensation, however small, of the legal interest which it was proposed to take away sub silentio if any of these disused burial grounds were private property.


said, he sympathized with the general purpose of the Bill, which was to secure open spaces in large towns. Some provision should, however, be taken to meet those cases in which faculties had been already granted for the erection of vicarage houses on disused burial grounds. He should not oppose the second reading of the Bill; but he should propose to amend it in some respects in Committee.


pointed out that the objections raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Elton) would be much better dealt with in Committee. It was, however, extremely doubtful whether there were any such rights as the hon. and learned Gentleman had referred to.


said, he did not think any hon. Member would object to the provisions of the Bill, because, on sanitary as well as upon other grounds, it ought to receive support. He would, however, suggest an alteration. In Section 5 of the Bill it was provided that one month's notice should be given of an application for a licence to erect any building on a disused burial ground. He thought it would be desirable that more than one month's notice should be given, in order that people might have a greater opportunity of knowing that such an application was made.


said, he hoped that some pledge would be given that a clause arranging for the compensation of persons whose rights were interfered with would be inserted in the Bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.