I object. As this Bill, being a private Bill, has not been circulated, I had better mention what it is all about. The owners of the Mount Jerome Cemetery are applying in this Bill for a licence to buy up a piece of land adjacent to their present position and to use it as a cemetery. The amount of land to be purchased is 19 acres. This Bill does not concern the present area at all and it has nothing to do with politics or religion or anything so interesting.
Private Business. - The Dublin General Cemetery Company's Bill, 1933—Fifth Stage.
Question put: "That the Bill do now pass."
On a point of order, is it in order to discuss a Fifth Stage of a Private Bill?
Cathaoirleach
Quite in order.
It is no personal concern of mine. I opposed this Bill because I believe, and I have very good reason for believing, that it involved very serious danger to the health of the community—and I will produce evidence to show that is the case—and, secondly, because the position at present occupied is on the borders of a suburb which is being extended every month and every year and will, in a short time, encircle even the present cemetery. The owners of the present cemetery declare that, on the basis of the present death rate, there will be no further room in it after 20 years. If we allow for an increased death rate, we may say, 15 years, so that there will be no necessity for this for 15 years. For these reasons, of health and housing, I oppose this Bill. I believe that suitable land should not be appropriated by the dead in crowded places. It will very likely be asked why I did not oppose the Bill on its First or Second Reading. The reason was that it was not circulated and no one took any interest in it. I, at least, took no interest in it and, presumably, no one else did because, when it appeared in the Dáil and in the Seanad, not a word, good or bad, for or against, was said about it. It just passed through and nobody knew anything about it. I happened to be in the country and, on coming back, I found myself nominated as a member of a Joint Committee to consider this Bill, with a sort of threat that, if I did not attend, disagreeable circumstances would ensue. I attended and, for the first time, I saw a map showing the land which was to be appropriated and also the present position. I had, a good many years ago, read up something on the matter of health in relation to cemeteries, but it was a long time ago. I simply asked the chief witness if he considered that it was dangerous or not to the health of a dense population to have a cemetery in its midst. He replied that the matter was too difficult for him to discuss, so I asked the Deputy who sat next to me what he thought about it and he said that he had not thought about it. That was the position of myself and every other member of the Committee. The Chairman asked me if I would be satisfied with the statement that I objected to the passing of the Bill and to leave it at that and, as I was not able to discuss the Bill on such short notice, I agreed. I do not know why that was left out of the report but, anyway, it does not matter very much. Subsequently, the Bill came up here on Report Stage and I was not allowed, by the rules of the House, to say more than "I object." That happened on two occasions and my objections did not carry very far. This is the first time it has been possible to discuss the Bill at all except on the early stages when no one knew anything about it.
The first thing I propose to deal with is the question of health and, in doing so, I do not propose to talk from my own opinions. It is a much too difficult matter but I will quote a number of statements by people who ought to know and the House can judge the position from them. So far as I know, nothing has been said against my view except by interested parties. The promoters of this Bill sent a circular around to Senators of which one passage was:—
"Senator Moore has said that, in his opinion, a cemetery so close to the city is a danger to public health but, so far as can be ascertained, no medical or other confirmatory evidence can be produced by him in respect of this contention."
That is a rather strange thing to say in view of the fact that the promoters wrote to me and asked me to give them references in proof of what I said. I did so although I was not obliged to supply the references, and the promoters could have learned all about it as well as I did but, instead, they sent out a circular stating that I had no proof whatever. I shall read some of the proof and the House can judge whether I am right or whether the promoters are right. The first reference I will take is the Encyclopædia Britannica. Senators know that that encyclopædia is not written for any party purpose. It simply states facts as they are and, if there are two sides to a question, it generally puts them both and leaves one to form one's own opinion. This is the statement in the Encyclopædia Britannica:—
"Undoubtedly, in populous communities and in crowded districts the burial of dead bodies is liable to be a source of danger to the living. As as early as 1840, in England, a Commission had been appointed including some of the earliest authorities on sanitary science, namely, Doctors Southwood, Smith, Chadwick, Milroy, Sutherland, Waller, Lewis and others who conducted a searching inquiry into the state of burial grounds of London and large provincial towns. By the report, which is included in Statutory Rules and Orders, 1903, No. 286, Eyre and Spotiswoode, the existence of such a danger was strikingly demonstrated and intramural interments were, in consequence, made illegal. Putrefying elements begin to be developed the moment death takes place and rapidly become dangerous to the living and still more so in the case of deaths from contagious disease. It has been said that light, dry soils and elevated spots are most suitable for graveyards, but these are precisely those best adapted for human occupation, to say nothing of food production. In densely populated districts, the struggle between the claims of the dead and of the living to occupy the choicest sites becomes a serious matter. All decaying animal remains give off effluvia, gases, etc."
There is a note in the Encyclopædia Britannica with a reference as to where full information on the subject can be found and this is the note:—
"‘A special inquiry into the practice of interment in towns' by Edwin Chadwick (London, 1843), is replete with evidence and should be read by those who pursue the inquiry further."
The promoters of this Bill might have read that just as well as I did and, in fact, they ought to have read it because I gave them the reference to it. Instead of that, they say that I can produce no evidence.
Sir Henry Thompson, in a paper read before the International Congress of Hygiene held in London in 1891, referred "to the danger of burials of persons who died from infectious diseases—smallpox, scarlet fever, diphtheria, consumption, malignantcholera, enteric, relapsing and puerperal fevers, of which there were 80,000 a year in the United Kingdom." A resolution was unanimously carried at a large meeting of experts and medical officers of health that graveyards "are dangerous in densely populated districts." It is compulsory "to disinfect the rooms, clothes and furniture of such cases, but the body, which is the source and origin of the evil and is in itself loaded with the germs of a specific poison, is left to the chances which attach to its preservation in that condition when buried, whether in a fit or unfit soil or situation."
There is another article in the Encyclopædia Britannica under the heading of “Cemetery.” It is stated in this article: “There were a number of cemeteries around Paris of which the best known is Pére la Chaise, 200 acres; there were others, but in consequence of all these cemeteries being more or less crowded, a great cemetery was laid out in 1874, sixteen miles to the north east of Paris with which it was connected by a railway line; it included 2 square miles of ground. The French cemetery system differs from the English. Every city and town is required by law to provide a burial ground beyond its barriers, properly laid out and planted; each interment must take place in a separate grave.”
The next thing that I will read for the House is an extract from a debate that took place in the House of Commons. There was a Bill introduced there on the 30th April, 1884, called "Disposal of the Dead Regulation Bill." Dr. Cameron, who was an expert, in proposing the Bill said:—"Thirty years ago, in 1850, the board of health in two reports, literally bristling with illustrations of the abominations of the system of burial in graveyards, proposed the State should compensate existing cemeteries and take them over by the State compulsorily. It has been proved that microbes naturally multiply in the earth under suitable conditions of moisture and temperature. The germs buried in the earth retain vitality for many years, and can mingle with the air we breathe and the water we drink and renew the cycle of their pestilential existence. Scores of instances of outbreaks of cholera were directly traceable to proximity of graveyards; numbers of people who died of cholera disease had been buried in neighbouring graveyards. Pasteur has demonstrated how districts in France have been poisoned by the interment of animals which had died of splenic fever. A pit in which an animal was buried is a hotbed for the spread of infection. Dr. Mapother, a well-known Irish sanitarian, only a few years ago visited the churchyards of many Irish towns and found that watercourses into which the drainage from graveyards sank caused disease."
Dr. Farquaharson, seconding the motion for the Bill, made this statement:—"It was, perhaps, hardly necessary to point out the supreme importance of the subject in all large and growing communities in England and Wales. Prejudice and vested interest alone tied us down to the present methods. Bodies may lie undestroyed for 30 or even 50 years. Air around crowded graveyards becomes laden with morbid matter; as a natural consequence the health of the surrounding inhabitants becomes weakened and deteriorated, and they are notoriously more liable than others to become the victims of epidemics; and we know water becomes tainted. All these are bad enough in country districts but they become concentrated and accentuated with those commercial undertakings known as cemeteries where bodies are crowded as thick as decency and the law will permit on the principle that the more dead the better dividends."
I am not making any accusation against the Mount Jerome people. I am only quoting from these books. I believe Mount Jerome is carried on in a reasonable way, and I am making no attack on it. I now turn to the North America Review in which an article appeared in July, 1898, in which we find these words: “graveyards are a menace to the Commonwealth.” In another article in the Review we find this: “The custom of burying bodies in close proximity to each other at insufficient distance from human habitation is reprehensible in the highest degree. During the continuation of their natural decay, extending over an interval of 5 or even 20 years, they contaminate the air, pollute the earth and defile the springs, threatening disease. Mortality by yellow fever was twice as large in portions of New York where large cemeteries are located.” There is another “report on the sanitary condition of the labouring population of Great Britain.” I will only say a few words about that. First of all, there is “a supplementary report on the practice of interment in towns by Edwin Chadwick.” This was presented to both Houses of Parliament in 1843. Dr. Henry Bennett stated:—
"When I was House Surgeon at St. Louis, I several times remarked that whenever the wind was from the direction of Montfaucon (where there was a cemetery) the wounds and sores under my care assumed a foul aspect."
I think I have now answered the persons connected with this cemetery who wrote to say that I could produce no evidence. I may say that if anybody takes the trouble to go into the National Library he can get volumes and volumes of books dealing with this. There is plenty of evidence. Now I pass away from the question of health. The next point that I must deal with is the relation between the living and the dead.
Cathaoirleach
Is this the psychological part of your argument, Senator? I can hardly allow discussion on this Bill as to the relation between the living and the dead. Is that pertinent to the Bill?
The dead are in the cemetery and the living are beside it. The relationship is clearly evident because I have shown that where you have these cemeteries disease spreads from them to the neighbouring inhabitants so that the relationship is very close. With regard to the cemetery at Mount Jerome, there are probably some members of the House who do not know much about the geography of the district. The people in control of Mount Jerome got their first licence to buy land to lay out a cemetery there in the year 1834, just 100 years ago. At that time the people were wise enough to choose a site which was far removed from Dublin as it then stood. If they had laid it out as close to Dublin as the present cemetery is to Kimmage, well it would have been about Leeson Street, but the people at the time were wise enough in their generation to put it a considerable distance away from the city. The present Mount Jerome cemetery is about 100 yards from the Kimmage Road. Kimmage Road faces it on the south and runs alongside it. On the north side, it is about 600 yards from the South Circular Road and the canal. On the other side there is Mount Argus. It is the piece of land that separates Mount Argus from the present Mount Jerome cemetery that the authorities in charge of Mount Jerome propose to buy out under this Bill. I believe there is a proposal, too, to have a national park somewhere around the district. Kimmage Road, Mount Jerome cemetery and Mount Argus nearly touch each other, so that if the ground between them is taken up there will be no space for building over an area of about half a mile. That is a very important consideration as the population of that district is increasing very rapidly. Everybody who drives through the suburbs of Dublin is aware that there is a great deal of building going on. In this particular area there is a very big population, and therefore we must look forward to a considerable building development taking place there.
Are they not there already?
Does the Senator mean on all sides?
Yes, practically.
I do not know.
Well, the Senator can take it from me that they are.
Well, I think that we should do nothing that would stop further building development to meet the demands of the increasing population in that area. I think that we ought not to behave worse than our ancestors did a hundred years ago. They took care to have this cemetery laid out a long distance from what was then the City of Dublin. They did that even though they had not the scientific knowledge that we have to-day. I think we ought to follow their example, and it can be easily done, because all that the people in charge of Mount Jerome have to do is to buy land in another area, say two or three miles away from the present cemetery. There is nothing to stop them doing that. At the end of 15 years, when the present cemetery is full, they will have the new cemetery ready at a convenient distance away from the present one. Crumlin, for instance, is only about a mile or so away, and I suggest that they might be able to get a suitable site there.
There is a cemetery in Crumlin also.
I think it is only a small one.
But there is a great deal of building going on in the Crumlin area. They are even building in close proximity to the cemetery that is there.
Anyway, I only mentioned Crumlin by chance. My suggestion is that the Mount Jerome authorities should be obliged to buy land for their new cemetery a considerable distance from the city. I see no difficulty about that. They could very easily buy land further out in the country. I have a letter here from the Minister for Local Government and Public Health in which he says:
"Medical opinion is divided as regards the question of serious, injurious effects resulting from the existence in crowded districts of burial grounds."
He refers to "divided opinion". That phrase in itself proves my contention. My own researches have seemed to show a pretty unanimous medical opinion against proximity but supposing that division to exist—a supposition which involves the existence of a strong body of medical opinion—then, surely, the risk ought not to be taken when an alternative exists. The danger can be nullified by the purchase of land at a distance from Dublin. With this admission before us, I say Senators are bound to safeguard the people from a danger of disease and death certified by a large body of medical and scientific opinion. We ought not to permit such arguments as extra expense of burial charges or the expense to the promoters of this Bill to weigh against the health of the people. A heavy responsibility rests on the Seanad, particularly as this matter was not discussed by the Dáil or the Seanad previously.
Cathaoirleach
Senator Moore suggested that this Bill had not been circulated to members of the House. I think that it is right I should point out that the custom is that copies of all Private Bills are made available at the Private Bill Office. This Bill was made available there in the usual way. It has never been the custom to circulate copies of a Private Bill. The treatment which this Bill received was not different from the treatment accorded any other Private Bill.
That is exactly what I said—that it was not circulated. I am not making any complaint that this was unusual. I am merely stating, as a fact, that the Bill was not circulated.
Cathaoirleach
By innuendo, the Senator conveyed that this Bill was treated differently from others.
I wish the Chairman would not think that there is any innuendo.
Senator Colonel Moore has adduced the best argument in favour of the passing of this Bill. In a few words I think I shall be able to satisfy the Senator that, according to his own theory, the additional ground proposed to be taken under this Bill is the ideal spot for the purpose. The Senator is not aware of the exact location and does not know the circumstances in connection with Mount Jerome Cemetery. I happen to be living within a stone-throw of Mount Jerome Cemetery. When I get up in the morning I can see the cemetery from my bedroom window. The pure, healthy air that comes down from the Dublin mountains carries no germs into my house. There is a space between Mount Jerome Cemetery and the novitiate of the Passionist Order at Mount Argus. On the right-hand side of this space, immediately you enter Mount Argus, you come across a private cemetery belonging to the Passionist Fathers. If the Senator's idea of reserving this space for housing purposes were carried out it would be altogether against his own argument, because the people in the houses would be placed between two cemeteries. If he is so anxious that people should not be so close to cemeteries, his argument is thereby exploded. If it is necessary for the cemetery authorities to get additional ground, this is an ideal spot for the purpose. It is all very well to hold these theories of not having burial grounds in populous areas, but I suggest that the Senator is starting at the wrong end. He should take steps to prevent burial grounds being opened in populous areas, but the burial grounds are already there.
Half of them are closed up.
Mount Jerome is already there. Interments are taking place in it every day. If additional ground is required, there is no reason why they should open another burial place in another area, thus causing the infection of which the Senator speaks. The Senator spoke of having these burial places 15 or 20 miles from the centres of population. I am afraid he does not understand the mentality of the ordinary people of this city when he speaks like that. Anybody who goes to Mount Jerome Cemetery on Saturday or Sunday will see crowds of people out there paying their respects to their dead.
I did not suggest that burial grounds should be 15 or 20 miles away. I said that in Paris—a huge city—they were that distance away.
Cathaoirleach
Senator Colonel Moore made a very interesting speech, and I think he should now allow Senator Farren to make his speech.
Senator Colonel Moore says we must remove these cemeteries from the populous areas. How far would you have to go from Dublin to find an area which is not populated? I suggest to the Senator that he should withdraw his opposition to this Bill. The people responsible for the carrying on of the cemetery are taking advantage of the fact that there is a certain amount of land available there at the moment which may be required for the extension of the cemetery. To my mind, they are taking the most suitable piece of ground, from Senator Colonel Moore's point of view, that could be got in the city. Down by Kimmage there are more building operations proceeding than in any area on the South side of the city. Crumlin is also being extensively built on, and there is already a cemetery there. I ask the Senator, from a commonsense standpoint, not to persist in his opposition to the Bill. The principal piece of ground to be acquired under this Bill is situate between two cemeteries.
So much the worse.
So much the better from the point of view of the Senator. Surely the Senator, whose whole idea is to get people to move away from the proximity of cemeteries, is not going to dump them down between two cemeteries. It is bad enough to have them on the outskirts of one cemetery, but if you are going to put them between two cemeteries, where they are to suffer all this infection that he speaks about, it is unnatural. I do not believe at all in the theories he has expounded or the authorities he has quoted with regard to the danger of infection from these cemeteries. As I said, I can see Mount Jerome Cemetery from my bedroom window, and I can assure the Senator that the people living in that locality regard it as the healthiest part of Dublin. There are fewer burials from that locality in proportion to population than there are from any other area in the City of Dublin. As one living within the atmosphere of Mount Jerome, I ask the Senator to withdraw his opposition to this Bill, because we are not the slightest bit afraid that the dead are going to cause us any infection or that the graveyard is going to do us any injury.
It is proposed that an area about twice the size of Merrion Square should be included in an existing cemetery. There seems to be no limitation on cemeteries. I am speaking without any bias against Mount Jerome. Glasnevin Cemetery is an enormous thing. It is creeping down on the city like lava and the interments there are paying better than the Government's wheat crop. If the cemeteries are to be extended to such a degree, there ought to be some control. We were speaking yesterday of control in another direction, but these cemetery committees, which are practically private companies, charge inordinately for graves.
I think this would be really a matter for a central town-planning authority, if there were one, because this city suffers very badly from its inability to extend. Take the north side of Dublin. About the healthiest part of the city is that around by Ballymun Road. But if you have a complete pageant of funerals, with Dutch horses and black grooms, starting off for Glasnevin at 9 o'clock, continuing up to 11 o'clock and returning in the afternoon, people will fight shy of that part of the city. The squares along that route have gone into flats and tenements as a result. The plot, I understand, was given, through the generosity of some Protestant Bishop, for a Catholic cemetery. Most cities in Europe extend westwards, but Dublin cannot do so on account of the railway and Phoenix Park. The tendency is, therefore, to extend by Sandymount, which is the least healthy side on account of its low level. There should be some hold-up of this Bill until a central authority would settle about suitable sites. Already the rents for houses surrounding cemeteries are so temptingly low that they are a cause of congestion.
I can assure the Senator that they are not.
That may be because of the Senator's residence there, but in Glasnevin you will get houses cheaply because of the proximity of the cemetery. I do not suggest that there is any extraordinary danger of infection from a cemetery, but one part of Mount Jerome is about nine feet over the street level. It is not a sensible thing in the city to allow a space twice the size of Merrion Square to be taken into an existing cemetery.
I was a member of the Committee which considered this Private Bill. All the members, with the exception of Senator Colonel Moore, approved of it. We heard evidence from an eminent engineer, and everybody knows that the management of Mount Jerome is as perfect as possible. Not a single person in the area seemed to have the slightest objection to the extension. The Passionist Fathers, of Mount Argus, were closest to the cemetery and they were perfectly satisfied that this addition of nineteen acres should be given. The cemetery authorities agreed to build a wall but that was for privacy only. The promoters of this Bill have gone to great trouble and it will be a hardship if the Bill is not passed. I hope the Seanad will agree to pass it. The extracts from journals and medical authorities read by Senator Colonel Moore I consider to be quite irrelevant. There was only one dissentient from the decision of the Committee and that was Senator Colonel Moore. We considered the matter from every aspect and we saw the maps. I think that the Seanad ought to agree to pass the Bill.
I cannot agree with Senator Colonel Moore on this question. I know of no standard work in which it is stated that a graveyard is a danger to the public health. There are a number of standard works dealing with the question, but in not one of them is it stated that there is any danger to health from a properly conducted graveyard. Public Health Acts and Burial Acts have been passed, the first of the Burial Acts in 1847, but there was nothing in them regarding the limit within which houses might be built near graveyards. The Public Health Act of 1875 dealt with burial grounds, and limited the area, more from a sentimental point of view than from the public health point of view, so that burial grounds could not be established within 100 yards of a dwelling house. Conversely it did not prevent dwellinghouses being built near graveyards. That has happened frequently, and we have no example that it is a danger to the public health. Several Acts have been passed dealing with the disposal of dead bodies in cases of infectious diseases, but there has been no limit placed on burial grounds. The local authorities are cognisant of the proposed extension here and have taken no action. The central authority, the Department of Local Government and Public Health, are also cognisant of it, and they have taken no action. It would be invidious for the House, with the limited information in its possession, and in opposition to the two bodies who are responsible for public health, to oppose the Bill. The Public Health Acts give ample power to deal with any burial ground which is not kept in a sanitary condition. If it is injurious to public health they have power to close it. For these reasons I see no reason why the Seanad should object to the passing of the Bill at this stage.
The Bill has been discussed on the merits, and the House has shown its mind on the matter. Speaking as Chairman of the Joint Committee on Standing Orders which deals with Private Bills I would like to refer to a few matters. Reference was made by Senator Colonel Moore to the circulation of Private Bills. The decision of the Committee which went into this matter was that Private Bills were not to be circulated, but that intimation was to be sent round at periods of the year, stating that certain Private Bills were available and that copies could be procured by calling at the Private Bill Office. As that was the decision of the Private Bill Committee, the House should be aware of it. There is no use discussing this matter on the merits any further. Senator Colonel Moore was in a minority of one when the Joint Committee came to a decision. This Private Bill had already been before the House, and had passed the Second Reading. It then received the equivalent of a Second Reading in the Dáil, and by reason of that equivalent, surely the promoters were justified in feeling, no matter how the Bill was amended, that it was not going to be thrown out. Surely, they were justified, the Bill having received a Second Reading, in incurring all the expense that was necessary, and in employing counsel to appear before the Joint Committee before proceeding any further. They were justified because the Joint Committee decided, by six to one, to approve of the Bill. Surely the promoters were then justified in proceeding with the remaining stages. That security is the very essence of Private Bill legislation. If the House throws out the Bill, it will be doing violence to one of the institutions which it set up.
The Senator cannot plead ignorance in this matter. The name of the Bill is the Dublin General Cemetery Company's Bill. The Title would indicate that there might be something obnoxious in the Bill, and would leave it open to anyone who had any considerable objection to investigate and make a case against it, even before it was sent to the Joint Committee. Standing Order No. 10, dealing with Private Bill legislation states that the promoters of any scheme of this kind shall give due notice in writing to the occupiers, lessees or owners of any property which is situated within 300 yards of the proposed extension. The Bill conformed with the Standing Orders in every respect. Hundreds of notices were sent to those who are most vitally concerned in this matter, people who live in houses within 300 yards of the cemetery, and not a single complaint was sent in in respect of any danger that there might be to the public health from the extension of the cemetery, or to the amenities of the district or depreciation in the value of property. I am certain that the House, under these circumstances, will not hesitate, even on technical grounds, before it refuses to pass this Stage of the Bill. If the House did do otherwise it would be doing violence to an institution which it set up. The promoters have complied in every way with the regulations in the Standing Orders and they are justified in asking the House to pass the Fifth Stage.
I want to support the Bill because I think the case against it has not been proved. The statement made by Senator O'Hanlon has raised a point of some importance with respect to Private Bill procedure. I have no doubt the Senator is perfectly right in what he said with regard to procedure, but it has been argued here that, in the case of Private Bills, it is only reasonable that they should automatically get a Second Reading, so as to allow the promoters to prove their case, inasmuch as they might not have a qualified exponent in the House. It appears to be necessary that Senators should take particular notice of the merits of Private Bills before they are granted a Second Reading by having a full discussion in the House on the Second Reading Stage. If that is not done we shall be met in future with the proposition that, having got a Second Reading, we are bound to let them pass on the Committee Stage.
No.
That is the inference in Senator O'Hanlon's statement.
No.
Question put and declared carried, Senator Colonel Moore dissenting.