HC Deb 11 April 1910 vol 16 cc1007-23

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."


I understand there is considerable opposition to this Bill, and I trust the House will allow me to make an explanation of its objects, and also of the somewhat urgent necessity for the measure that arises out of the present situation. The Bill, as at present drafted, does not define the position of the proposed mission hall, and it does not prohibit the rest and by far the greater portion of the open space concerned from being built upon. Consequently, an impression has gone abroad that some sort of powers are being asked to turn the existing open space into building land, and, possibly, at some future time, to cover it with buildings. I have also heard it suggested that there is some sort of arrière-pensée on the part of the Westminster City Council to obtain control of this open space. I should like to point out that new clauses have been drafted, which I undertake will be moved by the promoters, if the Bill is committed, in the first place strictly defining the position of the proposed mission hall in the churchyard, and limiting its size and area. These clauses the Committee upstairs can further limit or alter as they think fit. In the second place, there is a clause drafted, which will be moved, prohibiting the City Council from erecting any building outside the area of the present Vestry Hall.

The object of the Bill is to enable two public bodies, or at least one definitely public body—the City Council of Westminster—and another body which has to do from the parochial and religious point of view with a section of the public, to get out of a deadlock in which they have been for nearly ten years. Although this is what is called a Private Bill, there are absolutely no private interests properly so-called concerned in the matter. What I have called a deadlock has arisen in this way. There is in the north-west corner of St. James's Churchyard a Vestry Hall, in which in the old days of vestry government the civil affairs of the ratepayers were carried on. That was built in 1813 and paid for by the ratepayers, and it was rebuilt in 1861, also at their expense. When the old form of vestry government was absorbed in the single local government of the City Council, this Vestry Hall, in common with several similar buildings in other parishes, was transferred to the City Council, and the Council paid to the civil parish of St. James a sum of £15,000. Unfortunately, in making that transaction an arrangement was made with the rector of the church under which he retained the right to use the Vestry Hall for church purposes on four days in every year. That renders it impossible for the City Council to make any effective use of the vestry hall in the interests of the ratepayers. In order to get rid of that easement or condition Parliamentary sanction is necessary. So much for the vestry hall and the City Council.

I now turn to the question of the mission hall. There is at the present time a church house, which stands right up against the west front of St. James's Church, which is a fine monument of Wren's work and which is disfigured by it. This church house is used for the choir and for devotional purposes. It is not large enough for the purposes of a mission hall. May I, for one single moment, speak about the mission services which are held by the rector of St. James's Church in the summer months in the open churchyard. They are a great source of benefit, I have no doubt. They are certainly a great source of attraction from a religious point of view to the poor of the neighbourhood, and from far outside the neighbourhood. I venture to point out, without making any comment, that there is always a great number of people, very often poor people, who will not go to regular service in a church, but who are glad to attend what is called a mission service held, perhaps, outside the church and by the ministers of the church. These services go on in summer and attract large numbers of people. But the moment the bad weather comes they are cut off; they have to stop. The ministers of religion lose their hold on these congregations, who are deprived of what, as long as it is possible for them to obtain it, they have shown by their attendance is A useful and acceptable ministration. I want to call the attention of the House to a very peculiar point. While the purposes for which the present church house is used are called "devotional purposes," they are protected from the Disused Burials Act, and if the rector of the church desires to enlarge the church house for those purposes only, he can do so to any extent that is agreed to without coming to Parliament for sanction, and he could erect the proposed building; but he cannot do so if it is to be used for what, in my humble opinion, is a most important form of devotional purposes—the mission service—without coming to the House of Commons. That is a very curious anomaly, but it is the law; it is the decision which has been laid down by the Court of Arches. If he abandoned this admirable part of his religious services and enlarged the building, he could do so by getting a faculty and without coming to this House. But because he wants to use the new building for mission services, and also for the accommodation of his curates, and, I believe, other purposes, but mainly for mission purposes, he has to come to this House for Parliamentary sanction.

The House will see, from what I have said, that the secular body, the Westminster City Council, cannot perform its proper functions in the interests of the ratepayers with regard to the Vestry Hall. They cannot let it permanently, and they cannot make any effective use of it as long as this condition of four days' user in the year by the rector exists. On the other hand, the rector cannot continue this very useful, and, I think, sympathetic part of his work, namely, the mission services, unless he obtain Parliamentary sanction. That is the case, as briefly as I can put it, for the Bill, and I earnestly hope that the House will see its way to give relief to these two bodies from this state of things, and will send the Bill to a Committee upstairs in order that objections of detail may be examined. The objections to the Bill are of three kinds. The first has reference to the Disused Burial Grounds Act, the second relates to aesthetic grounds, and the third to open spaces. I have some complaint to make of the Paper of objections to the Bill, because in discussing the matter from the point of view of the Disused Burials Act those responsible for the Paper conclude their argument with the following paragraph:— If Parliament were to accept the arrangement as provided by the Bill as a reason for exempting the particular ground from the operation of the existing law, a very dangerous precedent would be created, which would pave the way for similar applications in the future. I ask whether anyone reading that paragraph would imagine that there have been twelve Acts that have given exemption from the Disused Burials Act since it was passed? The first was the Liverpool Cathedral Act, passed in 1885, immediately after the Disused Burials Act—and when the whole arguments were fresh in the minds of the House—and the last was passed last year, the Dewsbury and Batley Congregational Chapel scheme, for the purpose of a Nonconformist body. Between those two there were ten Acts—twelve altogether—giving exemptions, and therefore I do not see how this can possibly be a precedent. All mention of those Acts has been left out of the Paper. Another paragraph in this statement is as follows:— The question of principle was debated in the House of Commons in 1903, in connection with the Old Bridewell Burial Bill, when the House resolved it would not sanction a Private Bill, in contravention of general public Statutes concerning open spaces, for the express purpose of enhancing the value of a private estate. I ask the House, when it is remembered that that Bill was solely for the benefit of a private individual, for his own personal gain, what analogy is there between that and this Bill in which a very considerable portion of the public are really interested? I turn to the aesthetic argument, which has been very much used, at least in conversation, and I would point out that the alteration from that point of view would be in the main an improvement. With the mission hall erected at a distance from the Church and connected with it by only a very low corridor, the West front of the Church would be revealed more than at present, and at the other end there would be forty feet of the green and the trees left to be seen from Jermyn Street. From Piccadilly the aspect of the ground would not be altered. As to open spaces the area of the existing open ground is 19,000 square feet, and the area proposed to be used for this mission house is 2,400 feet or 2,800 feet, that is to say, one-eighth or one-seventh of the whole of the existing open space. I cannot imagine that the argument of those interested in open spaces will be very strong after stating those facts. All the public or quasi-public bodies, and persons who are responsible to the public, who are concerned in this matter—the Westminster City Council, the Church and Parish authorities, the Bishop and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners—are agreed in the proposal as put forward. I ask the House at least to enable the Bill to go to a Committee in order that the Westminster City Council and the Church authorities may have some prospect of proceeding in the performance of their respective duties.


moved, as an Amendmen, to leave out all the words after "That," and to insert instead thereof the words, "this House, having regard to the policy of Parliament as declared by The Disused Burial Grounds Act, 1884, and The Open Spaces Act, 1906, is not prepared to entertain a Bill authorising the erection of buildings upon a disused burial ground in contravention of such Acts."

I think the case against this Bill is a very clear one. It is an attempt to override the general law by a private Bill, and the House is always suspicious of anything of that kind. The Bill contains two proposals. The first is that the Westminster City Council should buy for £2,000 the present right of the rector to use the Vestry Hall on four days in the year. That, to my mind, is a rather extravagant bargain, because, taking the whole of the working days of the year at the same rate, it works out at £156,000, and the building was bought some years ago for £15,000. I think the hon. Member made a slip when he said that the City of Westminster does not use this building. I understand that they use it to a certain extent as offices for the rate collectors, and that they let off a portion to a firm of accountants. The City Council are not very enthusiastic about the Bill, for I am given to understand that upon one occasion there was a majority of only one in favour of going on with it.

Further, the Bill gives power to the rector to sell, and to the City Council to buy, another part of the churchyard for the purpose of giving air and light to the Vestry Hall. From this part the bodies at present there are to be moved. It is not proposed to build on that portion of the churchyard. The price to be paid for this part is not fixed, but is to be a matter of bargain between the rector and the City Council. The second proposal is that with the £2,000 named in the Bill and the further sum not named, a Church House should be built upon the churchyard, containing bath-rooms, choir and mission rooms, and living rooms for curates. Parliament has laid it down that disused burial grounds shall not be used for building purposes, unless it is to extend existing places of worship. I think the hon. Member is right in saying that this building is not legally a place of worship, and, therefore, the City Council have to come to Parliament for power. The statement which has been in the hands of Members for some days, states that since 1884 power has been given in a dozen instances to build upon disused burial grounds. I would have more faith in these cases if even one of them had been given so that I could look them up. These so-called precedents do not convince me one iota. I must be given time to look them up, to see whether they are really precedents for this case. The hon. Member opposite has now given two cases—the Liverpool Cathedral Act and the Dewsbury and Batley Congregational Chapel.


I will send the hon. Member the list, which is here, and which he could easily have got from the statute book.


I do not see how one can be expected to go through all the private Acts of Parliament since 1885; it is a rather large order. The open space between Piccadilly and Jermyn Street is proposed to be closed on the Jermyn Street side, and it will be practically shut out from view upon that side. Part of the churchyard will remain as an open space, undoubtedly, but though it will be open to the public, it will be hidden by a large building, and the value of the open space upon that side will be largely lost. I conclude my speech by quoting a few words which will be familiar to everyone who takes an interest in these matters, "It is highly inexpedient that by means of a private Bill public legislation should be set at naught."


I can assure the hon. Member for Westminster that I do not base my opposition to this proposal on any aesthetic grounds. I am perfectly content to leave the aesthetic question on one side. The building is a very good one, and this will be an improvement. That does not seem to me to be the point. Nor do I very much object to the proposal included in the Bill, that the City Council of Westminster should buy out, for £2,000, the right of the rector to use for four days in the year this Vestry Hall. I admit I do marvel somewhat at the price which should be paid for this particular privilege. My main objection to the proposal brought forward is that it is contrary to public policy as declared in an Act of Parliament. The Act of 1884 lays this down:—"After the passing of this Act, it shall not be lawful to erect any building upon any disused burial ground, except for the purpose of enlarging a church, chapel, meeting-house or other place of worship." That is completed by the Open Spaces Act, 1907, in which it is laid down that it shall be lawful to dedicate to public use as gardens any space which has been used as a disused burial ground, and at present in London there are 120 of these disused spaces which are thus dedicated to the public use. There is an exception, and it is stated in the Act, but that exception does not exist here. If it existed in this case there would be no reason for applying to Parliament as the promoters of this Bill are doing.

The hon. Member has complained of certain statements made in the statement issued to Members. I think I have some fight to complain of the statement of the case issued on the other side. It is there stated by the promoters that the Disused Burial Grounds Act of 1884 prohibits the erection of any building upon any disused burial ground, except for the purpose of enlarging a church, chapel, meeting house, or other place of worship. So far so good. "Section 5 provides that the Act shall not apply to any burial ground sold or disposed of under the Act of Parliament." Anybody reading that would imagine that the section of the Act to which reference is made contemplated the future, and, therefore, contemplated a perpetual series of exceptions to the Act. I refer to the Act, and this is what it says: "Nothing in this Act contained shall apply to any burial ground which has been sold or disposed of under the authority of any Act of Parliament." It was something that had been done in the past and not some thing which was to be done in the future. The hon. Member for Westminster has referred me to twelve Acts, and gave me the name of two. I should like to examine all of the twelve separately, and I am quite convinced there may be in each some act of public policy upon which exception is made. The hon. Member said it was impossible to attract to a building very often the class of persons you attract to an outside mission service—


I did not say that; I said it was very often difficult to attract into a church, with its regular form of service, a class of people who would come to a mission service.


Why not attract them during the winter months at a time when regular services do not take place? It seems to me it is as easy to attract them into a church as to a mission service. Here we have a Bill for the convenience of the rector and curates, and those who take an interest in a particular class of mission work. The portion of the ground it is proposed to take is not the insignificant portion suggested, if I may judge from the plan. Nobody looking at this plan would imagine for a moment that there would be left eight times the open space it is proposed to cover with the buildings. It looks to me much more like one-fifth, and you have to take into consideration the extra portion to be left to the vestry. For all these reasons, I am glad to be able to second the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend.


It is not customary for Ministers to take part in the discussion of private Bills, unless they involve a serious public principle, as does, I think, this particular Bill. Having inspected on two occasions the site' of the particular object which this Bill wishes to carry out, it is my duty to lay before the House the view we take upon this particular subject; and it is perhaps as well we should confront the House with the physical facts of this burial ground. There is between Piccadilly and Jermyn Street a church with half an acre of graveyard attached to it. It is proposed on this half acre of ground to add a new building about as long as this House of Commons—73 feet—and only 8 feet less than its width. That building is to be 73 feet long, 44 feet deep, and 48 feet high. Nobody can contend, looking at it from the purely aesthetic point of view referred to by the hon. Member, that a building of such length, breadth and height will not seriously interfere with the view of Sir Christopher Wren's church, from whatever point of view it is looked at. Beyond that there are eight or nine large and beautiful plane trees, which, if this hall is erected in that particular place, will either have to come down or be lopped to such an extent that they will be unsightly, and if they continue to live—which is very doubtful in the diminished space—it will be very unsatisfactory from every point of view. We do not think that it is a fair bargain for the church, neither is it satisfactory from the point of view of an amenity which for centuries has existed there. It is not fair to the neighbours that this land should be built upon with such a building as that which I have described. Beyond the 424 square yards that are abstracted, the remaining land will cease to be a garden or shrubbery, and will be converted into a yard. The 73 feet is really more, because on the west side of the building to be erected there will be ten additional feet abstracted for a passage way and exit to and from the hall, and on the north or Piccadilly side an easement will be given to the ultimate owner of the Vestry Hall, which you the House may rely upon it will be disposed of by sale outright and the owner will have the advantage of an easement on the eastern side.

I want to put briefly the history of this ground. Prince's Hall and Restaurant was originally part of the glebe land that adorned the church. That has been extracted from what was an ecclesiastical domain connected with the church. Beyond that, the Vestry Hall in 1813 was abstracted from the then existing churchyard, and in 1861 it was still further extended and enlarged. I think the rector has been badly treated by the old Vestry and the present Westminster Borough Council. In that Vestry Hall the rector had a limited right of user four times in the year for certain parish purposes, and it is to extinguish that limited user of the rector that he is offered the sum of £2,000 as a contribution towards this enlarged mission hall, and he is offered that sum on the condition that he is a party to an enormous part of the churchyard being used for these secular and also partly clerical purposes. It seems to me that this bargain ought not to be carried out. It is one that is contrary to public principle; it does not give the rector the advantage he ought to get, and the only reason advanced for this proposal is that the rector wants to accommodate two curates in lodgings in the mission hall and rooms to be erected. In my judgment, the Westminster Borough Council would be better advised if they were to hand over almost the whole of St. James's Vestry Hall, the site of which was absorbed from the old churchyard, to the rector, or the top portion for the lodgment of the curates, on whose behalf it is urged this enormous space is required.

My other point is that in this matter Westminster has got quite enough town halls and offices. They have got St. George's Hall, Caxton Hall, St. Martin's Hall, St. James's Vestry Hall, and until recently they had another hall. They do not want this hall. They are drawing the handsome rent of £500 even for this limited user of St. James's Vestry Hall; and, if this limited user be extinguished, anybody knows that £500 can be raised to £1,000 or £1,200.


It is the ratepayers' money.


If this large amount of money is to be drawn by the expropriation and by the absorption from the churchyard of such a large piece of land for this particular building, then it should be used for providing accommodation for the curates, or, better still, the St. James's Vestry Hall might be handed- over to the rector for that purpose. My view is that this is contrary to public policy. The church is not getting out of it the advantage represented, and the suggestion of the hon. Member for Westminster that it is for aesthetic reasons—to give a better view of Wren's church—is disposed of by the fact that the buildings on the Jermyn Street side will be 108 feet in total length and 48 feet high; and the connecting corridor to which the hon. Member refers will be just as objectionable from the point of view of seeing the church. The only thing to be removed is the gable end that now stands there. It is the general belief that, if this Bill is passed, the Westminster Corporation will have a cash advantage they are not entitled to secure, at the expense of the open places in this par- ticular neighbourhood. In the last few years the owners of sixty-seven London squares—owners who had the absolute and exclusive right if they cared to exercise it, to build on the whole of these sixty-seven London squares—have, out of regard for the æsthetic amenity of London as a whole, voluntarily undertaken in a Bill, without compensation, and have guaranteed that these sixty-seven London squares shall never be built upon for all time. We are not going to allow the Westminster Borough Council to do an unneighbourly thing like this in the face of such an excellent precedent as that in the right direction. I trust the House will follow the example of the owners of those sixty-seven London squares, and deny to the Westminster Borough Council the right to impose upon the clergyman of that parish a very bad cash bargain, and incidentally to deprive London of an open space already invaded by past vestries, but that it will see that these trees are maintained and, if possible, will secure to the young children and the old folk of this neighbourhood a recreation ground and an open space as has been done in 120 cases throughout the metropolis. I therefore hope the House will not give this Bill a Second Reading.


I only desire to say a word or two on this question, because I have the honour of representing one of the boroughs comprised in the City of Westminster. This is one of those interesting occasions which justify the view which some Members of the House have held ever since I have been a Member—a view I share myself—that in those cases where the facts are in dispute the procedure provided by the House of Commons for taking evidence before a Committee of the House upstairs should be followed. The facts of the case as stated by the promoters of the Bill have been put with absolute fairness by my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Westminster. His statements are contested by the President of the Local Government Board. When the right hon. Gentleman talks about Corporations getting advantageous bargains, I think he forgets that he means in reality it is the ratepayers who are dealing with property which their predecessors acquired. When he talks about these great open spaces being denied to the public, and when he tells us that with his usual industry he has visited the spot and satisfied himself, then I can only observe that he must know what is the character of the open space to which he refers. The hon. Member for the Market Harborough Division, who seconded this Amendment, took a different ground. He objected to the Bill on the ground of public policy.

I quite understand it is useless to make any further representations in view of the fact that the Government have brought their majority to the aid of the opponents of this Bill, and therefore we stand but a poor chance, seeing that a Minister of the Crown has spoken and beseeched the House of Commons to reject the Bill. It is very little use for us to make an appeal. But may I point out that the procedure of this House, which is provided for the consideration of these private Bills, is deliberately intended to inquire into the facts, but the policy thus provided for dealing with these Bills is in this case being upset. A general law was passed with regard to open spaces, but it is quite evident that legislation of the kind sought under this Bill—contrary to that general law—has been adopted in this House on twelve former occasions. What have hon. Gentlemen who opposed this Bill to say on that point? They complain that they know nothing of those cases. Could there be stronger evidence in support of the contention we advance that this Bill should go to a Committee upstairs than the fact that hon. Gentlemen have confessed that they have not made themselves acquainted with what everybody would have regarded as a most elementary fact, namely, that there is an Act which provides the necessary machinery, and that it has been availed of on no less than twelve different occasions.


In what way?


The Act provides that there are certain exemptions, and if they are not covered by existing cases then it is necessary to come to Parliament for a Special Act. It is no use for the hon. Gentleman to shake his head. Twelve Acts of Parliament have been passed for the same purpose since the original Act of Parliament. Surely those twelve cases are a sufficient answer.


The parent Act did not provide the machinery.


I may be mistaken as to that, but what I mean is, that this Act, instead of laying down a practice never to be departed from, does nothing of the sort, because since that twelve Acts of Parliament have been passed doing otherwise. From information which has reached me, many of the suggestions made by those opposing the Bill are not based upon fact. I believe there is no intention to do injustice to the public, nor is it a bargain which can in any way be found fault with, either because it does injustice to the public or confers an unfair advantage on the promoters. The evidence from the whole of the parish itself and from the great city in which the parish is to be found is to the effect that there is perfect unanimity. No opposition comes from the City of Westminster. The whole of the opposition comes from outside that city and from the President of the Local Government Board. We have heard to-day of the claims of the democratic people and the claims of those who represent the people to be heard on behalf of the people, and it is a curious commentary upon these arguments to tell those representing the City of Westminster that their opinions are to be overridden by the House of Commons. We do not ask by carrying this Motion to carry the Bill into law. All we ask on behalf of those we represent is that they shall be heard before a Committee of this House and shall be called upon to prove their case. If they cannot substantiate it or dispose of the case made in opposition, then they will lose their Bill, but if they can establish their own case and upset that of those opposed to them, or if some compromise is suggested that they might fairly meet the matter should go through in that way. You are denying to them, however, the right to present their case to a competent tribunal under this procedure, which from time immemorial has been the invariable method by which questions of this kind have been decided.


I wish to confine myself to mentioning one or two matters which I think are material. The Act of Mr. Pell, who was the real author of it—the well known Poor Law reformer— was one with which I had a good deal to do The matter was also in the mind of the present Leader of the Opposition in the course of the negotiations which led to the appointment of the Royal Commission on the Housing of the Working Classes, and was one in which Lord Salisbury took much interest. At that time, in addition to what is called the Commons Preservation part—the open spaces part of the question which, of course, affected London—there was, affecting all parts of the country, what can hardly fail to be in the minds of many hon. Members, a feeling that it is not a proceeding which this House desires to sanction that we should dig up the bodies of people who have been buried in graveyards, especially inter-mural graveyards, except upon proof of great public necessity. I have reason to think that some well known and esteemed citizens of Westminster are buried in this graveyard.


I do not deny that, but I have not heard of any. Their distinction would not to my mind make any difference.


There is power, in addition to building the house, to enlarge the area for the lighting of the basement of the Vestry Hall, and to whatever purpose these rooms may ultimately be put.


The ground is simply to be sloped. I do not think there are graves there.


I think there are. Supposing this building is let, which considering the character of the neighbourhood is probable, for a place of public entertainment, is the House going to consent to take up the graves of persons who have been buried there within the last century and a half, not in order that a public improvement should be made, but in order that a financial arrangement should be made? That is a question which the House would have decided, when the original Bill was passed by Mr. Pell, on grounds of public policy which have nothing to do with the Private Bill Committee, and I think a case has been shown when it was the duty of the President of the Local Government Board —as far as his influence goes in such questions, which is not very far, because Government Whips are not put on, and Members will vote as they think fit on the merits of the case—to point out reasons of public policy affecting the second reading of Bills.

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

The House divided: Ayes, 64; Noes, 183.

Division No. 25.] AYES. [12.2 a.m.
Baird, John Lawrence Dunn, Sir W. H. (Southwark, W.) Perkins, Walter Frank
Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.) Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. Peto, Basil Edward
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Faber, George D. (Clapham) Pollock, Ernest Murray
Barnston, Henry Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey Rawson, Col. Richard H.
Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc. E.) Gastrell, Major W. Houghton Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan
Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich) Gibbs, George Abraham Ridley, Samuel Forde
Boyton, James Gilmour, Captain John Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)
Brackenbury, Henry Langton Goldsmith, Frank Ronaldshay, Earl of
Brassey, H. L. C. (Northants, N.) Gooch, Henry Cubitt Salter, Arthur Clavell
Bridgeman, William Clive Gordon, John Scott, Sir S. (Warylebone, W.)
Brotherton, Edward Allen Grant, J. A. Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)
Calley, Col. Thomas C. P. Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight) Stewart, Gershom (Ches. Wirral)
Carlile, Edward Hildred Hamersley, Alfred St. George Stewart, Sir M'T. (Kirkc'dbr'tsh.)
Cawley, H. T. (Lanes., Haywood) Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry) Talbot, Lord Edmund
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Hills, John Walter (Durham) Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.) Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford) White, Major G. D. (Lanes. Southport)
Clay, Captain H. H. Spender Horner, Andrew Long Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)
Coates, Major Edward F. Keswick, William Younger, George (Ayr Burghs)
Courthope, George Loyd Llewelyn, Venables
Dalrymple, Viscount Long, Rt. Hon. Walter
Dalziel, Davidson (Brixton) Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo. Han. S.) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.
Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S. (Glasgow, E.) Mackinder, Halford J. Burdett-Coutts and Captain Jessel,
Douglas, Rt. Hon A. Akers- Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas
Abraham, William Gulland, John William Muspratt, Max
Addison, Dr. Christopher Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne) Nannetti, Joseph P.
Ainsworth, John Stirling Hackett, John Nellson, Francis
Allen, Charles Peter Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)
Anderson, Andrew Macbeth Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton) Nuttall, Harry
Armitage, Robert Hancock, John George O'Doherty, Philip
Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) Harris, F. L. (Tower Hamlets, Stepney) O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)
Balcarres, Lord Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) O'Grady, James
Balfour, Robert (Lanark) Harwood, George O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)
Barnes, George N. Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)
Barry, Edward (Cork, S.) Haworth, Arthur A. O'Sullivan, Eugene
Barton, William Helmsley, Viscount Parker, James (Halifax)
Beale, William Phipson Henry, Charles Solomon Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.
Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.) Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.) Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)
Bentham, George Jackson Higham, John Sharp Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Hodge, John Pirle, Duncan V.
Bowerman, Charles W. Hogan, Michael Pointer, Joseph
Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) Power, Patrick Joseph
Brace, William Horne, Captain Silvester (Ipswich) Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Hudson, Walter Pringle, William M. R.
Chapple, Or. William Allen Hughes, Spencer Leigh Radford, George Heynes
Clough, William Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan) Raffan, Peter Wilson
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Illingworth, Percy H. Rea, Walter Russell
Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.) Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil) Reddy, Michael
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Redmond, William (Clare, E.)
Cowan, William Henry Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) Rees, John David
Crosfield, Arthur H. Joyce, Michael Rendall, Athelstan
Cullinan, John Keating, Matthew Richards, Thomas
Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy) Kennedy, Vincent Paul Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Davies, David (Montgomery Co.) Kilbride, Denis Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) King, Joseph (Somerset, North) Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)
Dawes, James Arthur Lardner, James Carrige Rushe Roche, John (Galway, East)
Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis Roe, Sir Thomas
Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-shire) Leach, Charles Rothschild, Lionel de
Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.) Levy, Sir Maurice Rowntree, Arnold
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Lewis, John Herbert Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Doris, William Lincoln, Ignatius Timothy T. Seddon, James A.
Duffy, William J. Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas Seely, Col. Right Hon. J. E. B.
Duncan, C. (Barrow-In-Furness) Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich) Shackleton, David James
Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley) Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) Sheehy, David
Elibank, Master of Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Smyth, Thomas F. (Leltrim, S.)
Falconer, James MacVeagh, Jeremiah Spicer, Sir Albert
Fenwick, Charles Mallet, Charles Edward Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Ferens, Thomas Robinson Markham, Arthur Basil Summers, James Woolley
Fletcher, John Samuel Marks, George Croydon Sutherland, John E.
Fuller, John Michael F. Meagher, Michael Sutton, John E.
Gibbins, F. W. Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.) Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Gill, Alfred Henry Millar, James Duncan Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Glanville, Harold James Mond, Alfred Moritz Tennant, Harold John
Glover, Thomas Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) Thomas, James Henry (Derby)
Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford Morpeth, Viscount Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Greenwood, Granville George Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander
Grenfell, Cecil Alfred Munro, Robert Verney, Frederick William
Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C. Wadsworth, John
Walsh, Stephen Wiles, Thomas Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)
Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) Williams Aneurin (Plymouth) Wilson, W T. (Westhoughton)
Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. Williams, John (Glamorgan) Wing, Thomas
Waterlow, David Sydney Williams, W. L. (Carmarthen) Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)
White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)
White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.) Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.) TELLERS FOS THE NOES.—Mr.
Whitehouse, John Howard Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) Brunner and Mr. Lehmann.

Words added.

Main, as amended, put, and agreed to.

Resolved, "That this House, having regard to the policy of Parliament as declared by The Disused Burial Grounds Act, 1884, and the Open Spaces Act, 1906, is not prepared to entertain a Bill authorising the erection of buildings upon a disused burial ground in contravention of such Acts."

Forward to