HC Deb 06 June 1902 vol 109 cc61-7

As amended (by the Standing Committee), considered.

(5.0.) LORD HUGH CECIL (Greenwich)

moved the postponement of Clause 3, so that the House might know whether any Amendments were to be accepted extending the provisions of the Measure to Ireland.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 16, to postpone Clause 3.—(Lord Hugh Cecil.)

Question proposed, "That the consideration of Clause 3 be postponed."


remarked that if the noble Lord had referred to the debate of last year he would have seen that he made a distinct statement that under no circumstances would he accept any Amendment which extended this Bill to Ireland. He was not going to have anything to do with legislation which would be offensive to the majority of the Irish representatives.


said he could not see upon what grounds the extension of this Measure to Ireland was being opposed.


I do not think the extension of this Measure to Ireland can be discussed upon this question.


said he intended later on to move a clause extending the Bill to Ireland, and therefore he should support the postponement of Clause 3 for that purpose.

(5.3.) Question put.

The House divided:—Ays, 34; Noes, 221. (Division List No. 208.)

Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfriesshire) Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Stone, Sir Benjamin
Middlemore, John Throgmort'n Power, Patrick Joseph Strachey, Sir Edward
Mildmay, Francis Bingham Price, Robert John Sullivan, Donal
Mooney, John J. Purvis, Robert Tennant, Harold John
More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire) Randles, John S. Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen E.)
Morgan, Hn. Fred (Monm'thsh) Rankin, Sir James Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr
Morley, Charles (Breconshire) Rattigan, Sir William Henry Thomas, J. A (Glam'gan, Gower
Morrell, George Herbert Rea, Russell Thompson, Dr. E. C (M'n'gh'n, N)
Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. Reddy, M. Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)
Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute Redmond, John E. (Waterford) Thornton, Percy M.
Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath) Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries) Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray
Myers, William Henry Renshaw, Charles Bine Tritton, Charles Ernest
Nannetti, Joseph F. Renwick, George Ure, Alexander
Nicol, Donald Ninian Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas Thomson Wallace, Robert
Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.) Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield) Warr, Augustus Frederick
Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) Roe, Sir Thomas Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan
Norton, Capt. Cecil William Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) Ropner, Colonel Robert While, Luke (York, E. R.)
O'Brien, Kendal (Tippera'y Mid Round, James Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Russell, T. W. Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) Sadler, Col-Samuel Alex. Wilson, John (Glasgow)
O'Donnel, T. (Kerry, W.) Schwann, Charles E. Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)
O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.) Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln) Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
O'Malley, William Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew) Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay Sheehan, Daniel Daniel Wrightson, Sir Thomas
O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Spear, John Ward Young, Samuel
Partington, Oswald Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich) Younger, William
Pease, Herbert Pike (Darl'gt'n) Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset
Pemberton, John S. G. Stevenson, Francis S. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Sir Walter Foster and Dr. Farquharson.
Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard Stewart, Sir Mark J. M 'Taggart
Plummer, Walter R. Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

on be half of his hon. friend the Member for Horsham, moved the Amendment standing in his name on the paper.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 8, to leave out the word 'two' and insert the word 'five.'"—(Mr. Griffith Boscawen.)

Amendment agreed to.

(5.15.) MR. GODDARD (Ipswich)

moved an Amendment to omit from Clause 5 the provision that no crematorium shall be erected in the consecrated part of a burial-ground. He said his object was simply to carry out the principle laid down in the report of the Burial Grounds Committee in 1898—that all parts of a burial-ground should be treated alike.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 10, after the first 'the' to leave out the words 'consecrated part of the.'"—(Mr. Goddard.)

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


said that he should like some further explanation in regard to this Amendment. He should have thought that it was obvious to a great many people that there was an essential difference between the con secrated and the unconsecrated part of a burial-ground. Of course the object of the provision was to prevent consecrated land from being put to what was regarded by some as a desecrating use. It seemed to him a very serious change to make, and he thought the promoters should consider whether such an Amendment was consistent with the working of the Bill.


did not think this Amendment could be considered by itself, but ought to be considered in relation to the words "except with the consent of such authority" which appeared in the next Amendment on the Paper. Something was due to the consciences and susceptibilities of many church people, who took strong objection to cremation on consecrated ground.


thought if his hon. friend would withdraw his Amendment" and move the omission of all the words after "highway" that would meet the views of the noble Lord opposite. This Amendment had been put in out of tenderness to certain people who thought the erection of a crematorium in the consecrated part of a burial-ground might be offensive to some people. He thought the Amendment as it stood was not desirable, though he agreed with the object of his hon. friend. The Amendment as proposed would leave it to the burial authority to decide where a crematorium should be put, and they might decide to put it in the consecrated ground. He did not want to have that source of difficulty.


said that if the suggestion were accepted it would be possible to erect a crematorium in any part of the cemetery. A good many hon. Members objected to a crematorium being erected in the consecrated portion of the cemetery, and although personally he did not object to this, they had upon this question to consider the feelings of others.


said that if they wished to get this Bill through at all they would have to meet one another, and he urged his hon. friend to withdraw his Amendment.

MR. CREAN (Cork Co., S. E.)

pointed out that many people did not believe in the principle of this Bill at all, and they would be compelled to see this kind of thing going on under their very eyes. He thought it was a wise thing to insert his hon. friend's Amendment and he hoped he would not withdraw.

Question put and agreed to.

It being half-past Five of the clock, Further Proceeding on Consideration stood adjourned.

Bill, as amended, to be further considered upon Friday next.