THE EARL OF MEATH, in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government, What steps they had taken, as promised by the Home Secretary on the 10th of September of last year, to abate the scandal and danger to the public—as shown by the recent evidence given in the Regent's Park murder case—arising from the presence of a crowd, composed in large part of disorderly persons of both sexes, who were in the habit of attending a fair held nightly on the disused burial ground adjoining Whitfield's Tabernacle in Tottenham Court Road; and also, if the existing law were found to be inadequate for the purpose of putting a stop to the nuisance, whether Her Majesty's Government would introduce a Bill with this object? said, that those of their Lordships who were youthful and enterprizing enough to explore the comparatively unknown regions of Tottenham Court Road might have seen a chapel surrounded by a churchyard enclosed by a hoarding on which were exposed those pictorical representations which enter-prizing tradesmen put up for the instruction and edification of the public. If they were to go there at a later hour of the night they would find that this churchyard was a scene of unmitigated immorality and riot. The police said that they had no power to interfere unless they were called upon to do so. As they had seen, by the evidence given 1215 with regard to the Regent's Park murder, gangs organized themselves under recognized leaders, and the actual murder had been concocted in this place. These meetings were held nightly by bands of predatory youths who were the terror of the neighbourhood. How was it that this had come to be permitted? The story was a somewhat long one, but briefly it was as follows:—In 1756 the land had been bought by the Rev. George Whitfield for the purpose of erecting this chapel. All went well till 1828, when the lease ran out. In 1831 the trustees purchased the copyhold, and the chapel having been burnt down it was found necessary to mortgage the land. Only a part of the money having been paid off the mortgagee had foreclosed, and ever since that date litigation had been going on. In 1857 an injunction was obtained against the owner of the land, who attempted to remove gravestones, and later on he attempted to build on the land, but was prevented. In 1879 the Vestry of St. Pancras had endeavoured to improve this piece of ground by planting it, but were restrained by the owner. The owner again attempted to build, but was again prevented, and finding it was impossible to make money out of the land in this way he had hit upon the ingenious device of inviting all the perambulating fairs in the country to come there. Though an injunction had been obtained to restrain this use of the ground during Divine Service, and though this injunction was afterwards extended, the nuisance still went on. A Bill had been brought in in the other House for the purpose of preventing such places being used for these purposes, but had, unfortunately, been blocked by the Government. He would not detain their Lordships longer, but would ask the Government the Question which stood in his name.
§ THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (Earl BROWNLOW)said, that this ground had been closed for burials in 1853, and ever since that time it had been a source of a great deal of trouble, and legal proceedings of one sort or other had been going on with regard to it. Although something had been done in abatement, the place was still a great nuisance, and, being the resort of bad characters, greatly tended to increase crime in the neighbourhood. The Acts of Parlia- 1216 ment relating to the matter seemed somewhat obscure and vague, and, therefore, the Secretary of State had instructed the Treasury Solicitor to take proceedings with the object of ascertaining, by a judicial decision, the position of the matter, and whether the existing law was not sufficient to abate the nuisance referred to. Active steps were now being taken by the Solicitor to the Treasury. The Secretary of State thought that the law as it stood at present was sufficient to deal with the matter; but if it was not, Her Majesty's Government, being fully alive to the importance of the matter, would not shrink from taking such steps as would secure an alteration in the law.