Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 3 Mar 1965

Vol. 58 No. 13

Private Business. - Huguenot Cemetery Dublin (Peter Street) Bill, 1965: Second Stage.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time.

I gave formal notice last week that I objected to the enactment of this Bill. Before I set out the various objections I have to the provisions of the Bill, I think I should say very briefly what, in fact, is proposed in the Bill.

This Bill relates to a small graveyard called the Huguenot Cemetery at Peter Street, which adjoins Jacobs factory. In this graveyard some 250 to 300 Huguenots are buried. The Huguenots were French Protestants who left France after 1685. Many of them came to Ireland and settled in Dublin. In 1711 they bought this graveyard to serve as a cemetery for themselves and their descendants. Interments continued, and the last one took place in 1879. Since then no further burials have taken place although the graveyard has never been officially closed.

The six trustees who administer the graveyard have now agreed to sell it to Jacobs for an extension of their factory. Jacobs propose to use it for the purposes of their factory and the money will go to the Huguenot Fund, with which I shall deal later. Under the provisions of the Bill, Jacobs are to remove the 250 to 300 bodies from the graveyard and re-inter them in a plot to be bought by them in Mount Jerome or in such other cemetery as the trustees may appoint.

That, in brief, is what is intended to be done under this Bill. There are certain other details with which I shall deal when we come to them later on. It seems to me that on a number of counts the procedure in the Bill is extremely objectionable. I imagine Senators will readily be able to foresee at least some of the objections which can be made against the provisions of the Bill. It, I think, offends a sort of innate belief that we all share in the sanctity of graves. We have always assumed, as a matter of course, when really thinking about it, that the bones of our ancestors should be allowed to lie in peace. It is one of these things that, without really thinking much about it, we have always assumed would happen.

I was speaking to a person today. I asked him if he had any views on graveyards and he said he had not so long as they are respected and left in peace. I think that is really the attitude we all take. We assume, as a matter of course, that the graveyard will be respected, that the bones interred in it will not be disturbed and, in particular, that no question could arise of commercial interests being able to take over a graveyard in order to advance their particular activities.

I think also we assume as a matter of course that when we all, in time, come to die our bones will be left in peace. This is not simply an attitude of mind peculiar to the Christian religion though, of course, Christians have always believed very strongly in the sanctity of graves in consecrated ground. The desecration of a graveyard has always been regarded as a very serious sin. I think all races and all religions have always had a particular reverence for the graves of their forefathers. Therefore, any proposal for uprooting a graveyard such as is mentioned here should be accepted only in cases of the greatest and most urgent public necessity. I hope to show, in due course, that no such urgent or great necessity exists in the case of this Bill.

It is obvious also that the Huguenots who originally bought this site for the graveyard for themselves and their descendants — and provided the money for its maintenance and provided a scheme of trustees so that after they were gone this graveyard would still be preserved as a haven of peace for themselves and their descendants — never for a moment thought a proposal such as this would ever be considered. They would have been appalled at the suggestion that their bones should be uprooted as is suggested in the Bill in order that commercial interests should be erected on the site. These are general considerations which would apply, I suppose, to any graveyard but I think we should consider also the particular circumstances of this old graveyard.

The first thing I should mention is that since 1924 the graves themselves have been unmarked. In 1924, the trustees of the day — to my mind, quite rightly — made an arrangement with Jacobs whereby they were appointed on a caretaker basis to look after the graveyard and use it as a recreation ground for their employees. Such stones as existed were removed from the graves and put along the walls. Flowers were planted and, since then, it has been rather a pleasant flower garden used by the workers in Jacobs factory. The result is that the graves are unmarked. Apart from that, this is an old graveyard and there can be no question of coffins: any coffins will have long since disintegrated.

In relation to graves where a number of people were buried, with the settlement of soil, and so on, the bones will long since have become mingled. This is a small site—64' ×110'. In that very small area, from 250 to 300 people are buried. Therefore, as between adjacent graves, even if they knew where the graves were it would be impossible to distinguish between one set of bones and another.

Lest there should be any misunderstanding, let me say that I accept completely the undertaking given in the Schedule to the Bill by Jacobs that they will remove with all due reverence the bodies that lie in the graveyard. I am quite certain they mean what they say and that they will do their best to carry out that removal. However, I am afraid the circumstances are such that it will be impossible for them to carry out the removal in any seemly way. The only way in which it can be done is by sifting through the soil of the entire area of this graveyard, down to a depth perhaps of 10 feet, carefully collecting all the bones together, ensuring so far as is possible that no fragment of bone is left unfound, and putting them into what amounts to a communal grave in this plot in Mount Jerome Cemetery. That is an extremely objectionable and unseemly procedure and should be tolerated only in the case of most urgent necessity, which does not arise under the Bill.

It may be said that section 3 (3), (4) and (5) provide a certain safeguard. These provide that a relative of any deceased person may apply to have the remains of that person removed separately. In subsection (5), Jacobs say they will provide up to £50 in case of any one removal. So far as this is a safeguard at all, it relates only to a very small minority of those who are buried in this graveyard. The great majority of them have no living relatives. In respect of a period of 40 years, from 1731 to 1771, there are no records at all of who is buried in this graveyard. It is quite clear that there are no relatives of the great majority of the remains in the graveyard. In so far as there are relatives who could apply for permission to have separate removal of the remains, it would be obviously quite impossible to carry out this, to find a particular grave, to find a particular remains, to segregate them from the others. There would be difficulties.

Apart from these considerations, which, to my mind, would be sufficient to make it extremely undesirable that we should pass this Bill, there are far more important and fundamental objections on the grounds of general public policy. This is not just a question of a small graveyard owned by a small religious group. It is a question of setting up a serious precedent which could affect all such graveyards. Before I go any further, I should make one thing clear, in fairness to the trustees. I accept without any question that the trustees have acted in good faith. I shall criticise them. I think they have been completely wrong, that they have completely misunderstood the duty that lay upon them to look after and preserve this graveyard; but I accept that even when most wrong, they honestly and sincerely believed themselves to be right. In fairness to them, I should like to make that clear.

This is not the first occasion on which negotiations have taken place for the acquisition of this graveyard. Jacobs themselves, for more than 50 years, have made known their anxiety to acquire the site and have made several offers to the trustees, all rejected. In 1948, the ESB for some reason of their own sought compulsorily to acquire portion of the graveyard. They served a compulsory acquisition order on the trustees to acquire this section of the graveyard. The trustees appealed to the High Court for protection against this attempt by the ESB to acquire portion of the graveyard. In this appeal they submitted an affidavit and in the course of the affidavit, signed by the four trustees, it is stated:

Each of the said Trustees is a member of the Church of Ireland and a person of Huguenot descent and as such is in his or her personal capacity strongly opposed to the proposed acquisition of the lands by the Board as constituting a desecration of a Christian Burial Ground and an improper and unjustifiable appropriation of the property, of the purposes of the lands in question, would be strongly resented and regretted by the majority of Huguenot descent in Ireland, many of whose forebears are buried in the said graveyard.

That was the attitude of the trustees in 1948. Fourteen years later, in 1962, they accepted this offer by Jacobs. Why did they accept this offer now when they set out so clearly in 1948 their reasons for not allowing the ESB to acquire part of the graveyard? One would have thought they would have opposed far more severely the 1962 proposal than the one in 1948 which proposed to acquire only part of the site and which did not propose the removal of any of the bodies.

In 1962 the offer was to acquire the whole site and to have the bodies removed. The four trustees who signed the affidavit in 1948 are all trustees today. Two further trustees were added in 1959 but four of the trustees who have accepted this offer by Jacobs believed in 1948 that the acquisition of the lands by the ESB at that time would constitute a desecration of a Christian burial ground.

The principles at stake seem to be exactly the same. Only 14 years have elapsed but the wonder is that the offer made in 1948 was for £200 and the offer by Jacobs is £20,000. That is a big difference and I am afraid that was the reason why the trustees were prevailed on to abandon the principle they clearly enunciated in their affidavit to the High Court. When they said in 1948 that the majority of Huguenots would resent the acquisition, they were perfectly correct because it has been strongly resented and opposed by such Huguenots as are left.

What I find difficult to understand is why the trustees did not ask for the views of the Huguenots before accepting this offer by Jacobs. If they had, there would have been an end to the matter, a lot of trouble would have been avoided and we would not have this Bill facing us today. In fact they accepted the offer and went to the High Court to seek relief to accept the offer. They advertised in the newspapers for the views of the Huguenots. A number of letters came in from Huguenots whose ancestors were buried in the graveyard. I should like to read extracts from these letters. Some of them are too long to read in full but the extracts I shall read are in general conformity with the respective letters and are not taken out of context.

The first letter states:

This is to say that I do not consider that the Trustees of the Cemetery in Peter Street are at liberty to accept the offer made by Messrs. W.R. Jacob and Co. to purchase the cemetery.

Letter No. 2 states:

...I beg to enter a protest against the proposed desecration of the Huguenot Cemetery...

Letter No. 3 states:

I cannot consider the Trustees of the cemetery in Peter Street at liberty to sell it to Jacobs... On my own behalf and on that of my son... and my grandson... I wish to object most emphatically to the proposed sale, and to the disturbance of the remains of our family that it would entail.

Letter No. 4 reads:

Four members of our family are recorded as being interred in the Cemetery and we feel that they, with the other persons buried there, should be allowed to lie in peace. We are entirely opposed to Messrs. Jacobs' proposal and feel that the Trustees should not be authorised to accept the offer.

Letter No. 5 reads:

We do not consider the Trustees at liberty to accept the offer. The Trustees are presumably acting for the descendants of those who are buried in Peter Street.

In spite of Messrs. Jacobs' assurance as to the removal and re-burial of the human remains and in spite of the sum they have offered to the French Huguenot Fund, we as descendants of the Merciers who came to Ireland as Huguenot refugees, are entirely opposed to the proposal.

Letter No. 6 is in much the same terms as No. 5.

Letter No. 7 reads:

If the Trustees feel their duty is to act in accordance with the wishes of the descendants of those buried in this cemetery they will reject Messrs. Jacobs' offer.

The suggestion that the remains of my forebears be removed for the furtherance of commercial interest is quite abhorrent. I am entirely opposed to the acceptance of Messrs. Jacobs' offer.

Letter No. 8 reads:

In response to the Legal Notice in the public press we wish to object very strongly to the proposal made by Messrs. Jacob, and consider that it would be a breach of trust on the part of the Trustees to sell the burial ground.

Peters was as it were the cradle of our family; we consider that it is the Trustees' responsibility to protect it on behalf of all those whose forebears are buried there.

May I ask the Senator a question? Would he give us the number of letters in favour of the removal as well as against?

There was none. The only letter in favour was one from someone who had no relatives buried there. His point was they should be removed but they should be buried in a Huguenot cemetery. It would be more seemly that they should be buried in a Huguenot cemetery such as St. Peter's but no letters came in favour of this proposal. I can assure the House the letters I have read out are the letters immediately concerned and the extracts are in conformity with the general tenor of the letters.

Letter No, 8 continues:

It was not through materialism that these Huguenots found themselves refugees from France, and materialistic motives seem insufficient to justify desecrating their last resting place now.

The Legal Notice in the press does not mention the very real financial gain that would accrue to the French Huguenot Fund, and perhaps it is unnecessary for us to refer to it; but less questionable ways of raising funds for charity can certainly be found. An appeal for funds to relieve genuine distress among Huguenot descendants could well be addressed to all those whose forebears settled in Ireland as religious refugees. We fully appreciate the scrupulous procedure proposed by Messrs Jacob for transferring the human remains to a new place of burial, but their proposal entails an act of desecration for commercial reasons, and we consider that the Trustees would be quite wrong to agree to it.

So far as I know these letters, signed by a total of 20 people, represent all those who can be traced to have ancestors buried in this graveyard. I should explain, perhaps, that the trustees themselves have no interest in the graveyard, or the other one in Merrion Row. The trustees have no ancestors buried in St. Peter's graveyard. These letters represent the sum total of the opinions of the Huguenots' ancestors immediately concerned with the graveyard.

Two main justifications have been advanced in favour of the Bill. Firstly, it would be a great convenience to Jacobs and, secondly, the £20,000 to be provided by Jacobs would be of great assistance to the Huguenot fund. In regard to Jacobs, I should make it clear that, to my mind at any rate, even the most vital necessity to an undertaking would not, of itself, justify a procedure of this kind. I cannot see that a commercial concern, finding it vital for expansion to take over an adjoining graveyard, would justify the desecration of the graveyard, as proposed in the Bill.

I think the facts show that it is not by any means vital for Jacobs that they should take over the graveyard. Jacobs have themselves said that no decrease in employment would result. We should get some facts clear about this. The size of the graveyard is 64 feet by 110 feet — a very small graveyard occupying, combined with the factory, the entire area between Bishop Street, Bride Street and Peter Street. The factory occupies an area of approximately 4 acres. Of this entire site about 4 per cent is occupied by the graveyard and the remaining 96 per cent is occupied by the factory. In so far as the expansion of the factory is concerned, the limit has been reached whether they get the graveyard or not. If they do not acquire the graveyard, it will make little difference as far as future expansion is concerned. In the proceedings in the High Court last year Jacobs stated the reasons they wanted to take over the graveyard:

To obtain economy in operation, ovens have got longer and longer and the most modern type of oven which we would wish to instal is so long that it would not fit where the present ovens are situate without projecting into or over the space occupied by the Huguenot Cemetery and no other as suitable space is available. If the graveyard can be acquired some of the existing ovens could be lengthened.

It seems to me that the words "no other as suitable space is available" are the important words. It would obviously be convenient for Jacobs to acquire this site and instal the ovens without changing the position of the bakehouse at all. They have said in the affidavit that if they do not get the graveyard they can still instal the ovens but will have to shift them. They also stated in the next paragraph of the affidavit:

A major reconstruction of the factory is in hands and the Company's plans would be advantageously revised and modified if the Cemetery could be incorporated.

Reconstruction of the factory is going ahead in any event. If they can acquire the cemetery the company's alterations will be modified. I do not think there is any suggestion there that the incorporation of the cemetery is all important to Jacobs. It is a small cemetery, surrounded on three sides by Jacobs, and it would be convenient for them to acquire it. It is worth spending £20,000 on it but that is the limit.

The second argument in favour of the Bill is that £20,000 would be very useful to the Huguenot Fund. I cannot concede, and I do not think Senators could agree, that the mere fact that the money is being used for charity could necessarily justify the acquisition of a graveyard. In fact, the position would appear to be that the needs of the fund are not so very urgent and vital as might, at first sight, be thought. The present fund is rather far from the original intentions of the Huguenots who, in the early 18th century, provided this money which still forms part of a Charity. In the early 18th century this money was provided by the Huguenots who bought this site and erected a church on it. It was, in fact, for the support of the poor of the said churches in Lucy Lane and Peter Street that the fund was operated. As time went on the Huguenots became assimilated with the population at large. The church was demolished in 1840, the last trustees died in the 18th century and the money remained in court for twenty years. Finally, at the end of the century the court framed a new scheme for the administration of the fund. There was nobody to support it and the court revised the scheme under which the persons who should be nominated as objects of the Charity should be poor and deserving persons who should produce satisfactory proof that they were Protestants of Huguenot descent.

Weekly allowances are provided and grants or loans for funeral expenses and matters of that kind are given. I can see the work which has been done under this fund by the trustees. I can see also that £20,000 would enable still more work to be done. I suppose it would, having regard to the amount of money involved, be possible to send descendants of those Huguenots to universities and so on.

The facts suggest there is no degree of urgency which would justify the proposals in the Bill. The income from the present fund is rather small. It is only £130 per year. The trustees at present are spending only £80 12s. 0d. per year. If the matter was so urgent and there were so many people relying on this fund, I should have thought the £130 would be spent. In fact, at the moment, they are spending only £80 out of £130. One answer is that the annuities have not increased. They are only something like 7/- per week since 1902. That is a small amount of money.

Furthermore, no appeal has ever been made by the trustees of the fund. The Huguenots are people of standing. Many of them are very well off and if they had been asked many of them would be only too willing to consider contributing to a fund of this kind. The trustees have never appealed for funds and have never asked the Huguenots for funds. Therefore, I suggest there is no degree of urgency to justify the proposals in the Bill. At the same time, it has been suggested that the trustees made a point that it was not part of their duty to make such an appeal. If it was not, it certainly was not part of their duty to make money in this way by selling an entire graveyard.

There are other things which are far more important than the objections I have mentioned with regard to the Bill. If we pass the measure we shall be setting an extremely dangerous precedent. If we pass the Bill, how can we in conscience refuse others? The law provides that no graveyard may, in any circumstances, be built on except in the case of a church. That is the law as it stands. If we pass this Bill it will set a headline to anyone else who is concerned with a graveyard of this kind. There is another Huguenot graveyard at Merrion Row. It is an extremely valuable site and it is unused at present. If we pass this Bill the trustees of any other Huguenot graveyard could accept even a greater sum than £20,000 for the building of some supermarket. They would feel they were right in accepting an offer of that kind and we would be bound to bring in a Bill to enable them to accept the offer.

Apart from the Huguenot graveyard, there are a number of small disused graveyards in Dublin and throughout the country. The passing of this Bill would be setting a headline and commercial development undertakings everywhere would be looking out for disused graveyards. They would be considered valuable as building sites. The people buying those graveyards could say to the trustees concerned that they would pay the money to any charity named by them. If we pass this Bill we would be bound to pass any other Bill brought in by the trustees of any other graveyard.

Some of the bigger general graveyards in the country have unused parts. Parts of Deans Grange, Mount Jerome and Glasnevin graveyards are no longer in use as graveyards. If it were suggested that the management of any of these graveyards should sell the unused parts, I am perfectly certain there would be an appalling outcry. The point is, by passing a Bill of this kind we are opening the way for the management of any general graveyard in future years to come to us and seek to have a portion of it sold for development purposes. Somebody would see what could be done with them. The decent thing to do is to do what is already being done with others, that is, to have open parks there and flowers planted. That has been done in the case of one graveyard in London about a quarter of a mile from Marble Arch. It is obviously of great commercial value. It is an open space and nobody has suggested so far that it should be built on. That is the proper way to deal with graveyards of this kind.

I object to the Bill and I hope the Seanad will do likewise because I consider as completely inadequate the reasons advanced as to why an old and historic graveyard, which is part of the history of this city and country, should be destroyed. I object to it because the bones of these Huguenots, who sought shelter in Dublin and bought the graveyard, should not have to be removed and placed in a communal grave. I also object to the Bill because it is strongly opposed by the descendants of these Huguenots who are still alive. I believe, with the trustees themselves in 1948, that the proposed acquisition of the land would be a desecration of a Christian burial ground and an improper, unjustifiable appropriation of the property of the Charity.

We must make up our minds on this. This is not simply a matter of one small graveyard. If we pass the Bill we will be changing the law in this respect and we will be giving notice to all concerned with graveyards everywhere that we are prepared to change the law if commercial interests want to develop there. We would disturb the present sense of security with regard to grave-yards—that once a graveyard is there it is not going to be disturbed in this way for commercial development. We should be very slow to pass the proposals in the Bill.

May I say a word not on the merits of the Bill but on the question of whether we should take the attitude adopted by Senator Yeats on any Private Bill? Senator Yeats has a perfect right to make a case on the Second Reading of the Bill. There is a judicial investigation made into a Bill of this sort before a Joint Committee of the two Houses. Senator Yeats wants us to provide that that will not happen.

I do not want to discuss the merits of the Bill. This is not a Private Member's Bill. It is not recommended by a particular party or a particular group of members or even by one Senator. It is not even recommended by the Leas-Chathaoirleach. He moves the motion because of his official capacity and is precluded from casting a vote, I think, on the proceedings later on. There were numerous Private Bills at one time but they are very few now. There are various reasons for that which I need not go into.

The trustees of this graveyard have asked leave to bring in this Bill. Advertisements have to be issued. Officials of the Oireachtas have to be satisfied with regard to certain views, interested parties have to be notified and, when the Bill goes to a Joint Committee of the two Houses, the case for and against it may be presented. When the Joint Committee have made their recommendations to the two Houses any member of either House who desires can then take the line Senator Yeats has taken here.

I was advised that the only way I could object to the Bill was in the way I have done.

We are being asked to prevent the Bill being discussed by a Joint Committee in the particular fashion which Joint Committees have always followed — that is to say, not by way of argument, but by way of investigation and weighing up the evidence.

I think that while the Senator was within his rights in doing what he has done, it would be very inadvisable for this House to take the line on this Bill that they do not want the proposal to be investigated. I have the greatest possible regard for any old cemeteries or old monuments in Dublin. There must be very few people in this House as well acquainted with that particular area as I am. There may be one, but I do not think there are more. I have the greatest possible reverence for the dead and for graveyards, but there are circumstances which may arise in which a certain procedure may be desirable. That is what is being asked here. It is being asked that there should be an investigation. It has nothing whatever to do with the fact that this is the graveyard of a small religious minority now, I think, almost extinct. It seems to me that we would be very ill-advised to discuss the merits of the Bill here before it has been investigated in a Joint Committee, and that what Senator Yeats asks us to do should not be done. We should allow the Bill to go to a Joint Committee and take whatever action we think fit subsequently.

I am in agreement with Senator Hayes on the point that a full discussion of the Bill should not take place at this stage, but as Senator Yeats has put an extremely full and moving case as to why we should not give the Bill a Second Reading, I think it is only fair at this stage to put some of the other points which occur to some of us, because at the end of the debate we will decide whether or not to give the Bill a Second Reading and let it go to a Joint Committee of the two Houses.

This is an extremely difficult matter. Senator Yeats has argued most cogently, and with great feeling, that we should not give the Bill a Second Reading. He bases his argument on three main grounds which I should like to consider because I think there is another side to the question. Certainly there are sufficient reasons for us to give the Bill a Second Reading and refer it to a Joint Committee.

In his summing up Senator Yeats objected most strongly to the bones of these Huguenots being placed in a communal grave. We must try to get this whole picture into perspective. As Senator Yeats told us, in 1924 this graveyard was let to Jacobs on, I think, a caretaker's agreement. At that time the graveyard was a wilderness. I have seen photographs which were taken of the graveyard at that time: the grass was growing high everywhere and there was a small mortuary chapel with a broken roof and very nearly in ruins. It was practically impossible to see any of the gravestones: branches of trees and rubbish of one kind and another were lying around. Obviously no one had tended the graveyard for many years.

I think the gist of Senator Yeats' argument was that as a result of what Jacobs did to the graveyard in 1924 the graves were no longer marked and could not be traced. In fact, the position was that at that time Jacobs made a survey of the graveyard and marked on it all the headstones they could find. They marked on a plan all the headstones or other stones that could be identified. They took the greatest care with this. When they took up the headstones and moved them to the walls at the side of the graveyard they made the garden of which the Senator spoke. Each stone that could be identified was marked on the plan which they made at the time. So it was not as a result of anything Jacobs did that the graves were unmarked. It would be quite unfair — and I am sure Senator Yeats did not mean to give this impression — if any impression were given that a large industrial undertaking had merely made the graveyard into a sort of recreation garden without giving every consideration to the identification of the graves.

I said I approved completely of that arrangement. I said I thought the trustees were right to make that arrangement.

I understood Senator Yeats to say that the graves were unmarked as a result of what Jacobs did. The point I want to make is that it was not as a result of what Jacobs did, but as a result of years of lack of attention, that they were in this state. As a result of what Jacobs did under their caretaker agreement there are some headstones around the walls of the area. Of course, the bones are still there and where the graves could then be identified they are still identifiable, but today those bones are in almost what amounts to a communal grave since so few of them can be identified. I feel it is over-emphasising and over-stating the case to talk of taking up those bones and putting them in a communal grave as if they were all easily identifiable, because a communal grave is really what they are in at the present time, except for a very few which can be identified.

Senator Yeats' second point was that the carrying out of this scheme was strongly opposed by the descendants of the Huguenots. He read to us a number of letters of protest and told us that they had been signed by some 20 people. I accept that, but, again, I feel we must get this into perspective.

I understand that, while the graveyard was undoubtedly in a completely unkept state in 1924 and was put into the condition in which it now is by Jacobs, no inquiries from any person representing any Huguenot about any grave were made either to the trustees or I think to Jacobs over at least the past 20 years until the High Court action. In other words, these people who are now protesting never thought to do anything about any grave in that cemetery for 20 years prior to this time and this must mean that no one has cared sufficiently about the graves to try to find an ancestor, or to try to tend a grave or to re-letter a stone or even to place flowers on a grave. The interest which is now so strong does not appear to have been very strong in the past when one might perhaps expect that a real interest, if it had been real, would have been there.

There is another point which was touched on by Senator Yeats and to which I should like to refer. It concerns the amount of money available to the trustees to look after this graveyard and to look after Huguenot annuitants. It is virtually negligible. They had a fund of £8,000 or £9,000 at one time but, about the turn of the century, this was most unhappily depleted by their stockbroker becoming a bankrupt and a great deal of the money in the fund was lost. The present annual income of the fund is about £110 to £130 and after payment of the annuities there is no money for the upkeep of this graveyard in the fund.

As Senator Yeats told us, the amount that goes to the annuitants is so fractional as to be insignificant— 5/- to 7/- per week, enough to buy a pound of tea, I suppose, but, in today's values, negligible. If this Bill goes through and if the trustees are then enabled to accept the offer of Jacobs, they will have a sum of £20,000 and, with that sum, they will be able to look after living people. They will be able to pay substantial annuities, certainly substantial in comparison to 5/- or 7/- per week, to people who are in need and who are the descendants of Huguenots.

We must bear in mind, therefore, the scheme proposed in the Bill cares for the necessitous and poor who are living, as well as for the dead. Of the dead, let us not forget that for 85 years there has been no burial in this cemetery. I very much doubt whether there is anybody alive today who can remember any person buried in that cemetery with any clarity or any personal feeling.

Finally, Senator Yeats makes the point that the Bill is contrary to public policy. This in many ways is the most difficult problem. Obviously, any Private Bill of this kind must be considered on its merits and the merits in this particular case are strong. I do not, for one moment, want to suggest that disused burial grounds are to be available for industrial, commercial or other developments without the very greatest consideration but the greatest consideration, I think, has been given in this particular case.

We cannot suppose that the trustees have not considered this over the years with the greatest care and the greatest concern and with much thought for the greatest good for all the people and interests concerned. Furthermore, we cannot accept that a judgment of the High Court has not been given with the greatest care. We too must similarly consider the merits of this Bill with the greatest care because I believe this is an exceptional case.

Let us put even the matter of public policy into perspective. In many other countries I believe the position is that a graveyard which has not been used for 30 years can, without very great legal difficulty, be converted to other uses. These are continental countries in which there is probably greater land hunger than there is here, but we must face that there is, perhaps, a case of industrial land hunger in this case.

Senator Yeats gave us figures of the percentage of Jacobs present premises and of the graveyard in relation to the whole area. He said that Jacobs hold about 96 per cent of the whole area, including the graveyard, and that the graveyard represents only four per cent. I do not think that these figures in relation to an industrial site really have any meaning at all and we should not be led astray by them. If, as happens in this particular case, a small area of ground, even though only four per cent of the whole, makes a solid wedge into a long line of production, the effect on that line of production will be very much greater than a four per cent disruption.

We should not be misled by the size of this small plot. Certainly, in considering the effect which its acquisition would have on their production, Jacobs have obviously gone into the matter in great detail. They wish to extend their oven lines into long, economic lines which would run across this area rather than have broken production lines or lines in some other place which would certainly be very much more disruptive and very much more difficult to operate.

This plot is worth £20,000 to Jacobs and if we look at the Bill, we see that the entire sum will go to the trustees to look after the living. Jacobs have undertaken a great number of things as well as the payment of £20,000. They have undertaken the whole legal expenses, the cost of taking up the remains and reinterring them, the purchase of the plot in Mount Jerome cemetery and, in the case of any individual relative who is able to identify the bones of any ancestor, they have undertaken to give a grant of £50 towards the cost of reinternment.

The £20,000 will go to the trustees for the benefit of the living. I am told that a well-known Dublin valuer placed an open market value on that plot of less than a quarter of that sum. £5,000 would probably be fair value for such a plot, comprising approximately 7,000 square feet, but the trustees would have £20,000 to look after the living. At the same time, in their agreement with Jacobs, they have taken the greatest possible care any such group of people could take to show proper respect for the dead. For those reasons I feel we must accord this Bill a Second Reading.

I am inspired to intervene in this debate by the statement made by Senator Hayes. I feel Senator Yeats was quite right, when he had scruples about this Bill, to make the statement he did and to inform the Seanad what the position was, as he saw it. It is well Senators should know, before the Bill goes to a Committee and before there is any further examination of it, what it is all about because too many private Bills are given very little attention by anybody except those directly interested and it is a good thing the Seanad should show itself aware of certain things which trouble many people.

I find it very hard to make up my mind on this Bill. I am quite prepared, however, to agree with Senator Hayes that it should go to a Committee in the normal way for close examination and a report in due course. Apart from the references to the possible desecration of holy grounds, Senator Yeats omitted to mention one thing which troubles me. I regard these Huguenot cemeteries as links with the historic past, as important national landmarks about which, unfortunately, due to the lack of proper teaching of history in all schools from primary to university level, our people know very little. When one of these cemeteries is closed down or is about to be closed down as in this case, we should remember it is a link with the past which should be recalled by our people because only these landmarks can make them remember the days when this country was a haven for those who fled from religious persecution in other lands to find shelter here.

It is a pity that the march of time, the industrial expansion should involve the closing down and obliteration of historic places such as this. These matters should be mentioned because of the unfortunate attitude many of our people have towards graveyards in general. Anyone who travels throughout the country and sees the way graveyards are allowed to fall into decay must feel sad, and, indeed, cynical, when they think of the great reverence paid to people at their funeral to be replaced after their death by lack of care for their graves. This is a case where we should allow the Bill to go to the Committee. In airing his opposition to it, Senator Yeats has done a public service and a service to the Seanad.

There is very little left for me to say. I agree with Senator Hayes that to refuse to give this Bill a Second Reading would be prejudging an issue. It is a matter which should be investigated by a Committee of both Houses of the Oireachtas. Such an investigation was authorised by the High Court and were we to refuse that we would be preventing people from having their affairs legitimately investigated. Certain Bills could on their face be so objectionable that we could not authorise them to go any further. Having heard Senator Yeats speak so eloquently and strongly, I do not think this Bill falls into this category.

The matters involved are proper matters to be investigated by a Joint Committee. The very fact that we have had this debate, lasting more than an hour, shows that there is a difference of opinion and that this is a proper subject for such an inquiry. We can always sympathise with people about their ancestors but I submit there is nothing new in a graveyard being built over. Many graveyards throughout the country have been built over and in many cases the remains have been removed. In this case, it seems to me, there is less objection than in others. There has not been an interment for more than 70 years.

I agree with Senator Ross that the place is simply used as a children's playground. It is to be utilised for the purpose of extending a factory. It is ground which is no longer an active burial place. Therefore, it is just a matter of what is best and how it ought to be done. They are matters to which the Joint Committee can have regard. I do not see why it should not be used as a factory. The result of its use as a factory would be that the trustees would have a considerable sum at their disposal.

The last point I should like to make is this. Refusal to pass this Bill will really be almost a vote of censure on the trustees. The trustees have agreed to these proposals and for us to say the Bill should be rejected at this stage is really casting a slur, if we can assume that the trustees who considered this matter would not have given their consent until they were satisfied it was the right thing to do, that they were doing nothing to dishonour the dead and that they were putting the space at their disposal to advantageous use.

It seems to me that the Bill on the face of it is not so objectionable that it should be rejected at this stage out of hand. That is what Senator Yeats has tried to do, to prevent the matter being investigated. I for one have learned since I came here with an open mind that this is a matter which should be investigated by a Select Committee and, therefore, the rejection of this Bill would be depriving the trustees and the other people concerned of their rights to have their affairs debated in the correct parliamentary manner. Therefore, I also join with the other speakers in supporting the Bill.

I should like to support this Bill. Senator Yeats has made a strong case against it but has been fully answered by Senator Ross. Senator Ross has spoken in defence of Messrs. Jacob. To my mind, they have made a generous offer. I am probably not mistaken in suggesting that people of Huguenot blood had something to do with that offer. It was not a purely commercial matter between hard-fisted business men on the one side and an innocuous community on the other. If one looked into the pedigrees of both sides, one would find Huguenot blood, I imagine.

I should like to say a word which would, I believe, be the views of the descendants of Huguenots in so far as I have been able to ascertain them on this matter. Those I consulted were on the whole in favour of the Bill, on the same principle as was adopted by the High Court, that the interests of the living were to be preferred to the interest of the dead. They put it to me so, and I agreed with them — and I have Huguenot blood in my veins. The people whose remains are buried in this cemetery belonged to a very charitable and public-spirited body of citizens. Those whom I consulted believe that if the dead whose bones are now buried in this graveyard could be asked, they would accept the view which the trustees and the High Court have accepted: when there are members of the Huguenot community impoverished in this city of Dublin and elsewhere, they would endure, cheerfully and gladly, we believe, the removal of their remains with due dignity and care in the interests of their descendants.

With regard to the letters which Senator Yeats read, I feel that the attitude shown in them was merely negative — simply no, no, no. If the people who wrote these letters had written them earlier and had recognised earlier the poverty of their kinsfolk in this city and the neglect of this cemetery for many years, and had taken active steps to meet that situation sooner, then they would have had a strong case now. But to come in at the last moment and object only then does not give them a very strong standing in the matter.

There is one point made by Senator Ó Maoláin which I should like to answer. I am very sympathetic with what he says about the historic landmarks in our city and throughout the country. May I put it to him that the cemetery in Peter Street is far from being an important historic landmark or monument? Until recently it was in bad condition and it was virtually impossible to see into it. Very few knew of its existence. I personally never visited it, nor did any of my family. It is virtually unknown.

There is a contrast between this cemetery and that in Merrion Row which we can all see as we pass by. I would strongly object to the handing over of Merrion Row cemetery to a chain store, as Senator Yeats suggested. That would be wrong. It has been a landmark for many years, open and clear to all. I think it would satisfy Senator Ó Maoláin to some extent if I suggested a possibility that might be put into effect later on, that some of the money got from this obscure and virtually unknown plot of ground in our city might be used to put the Merrion Row cemetery into better condition. I repeat that it is not a fair comparison to compare a well-known landmark like Merrion Row with this very inconspicuous space.

I support this Bill on the principle that the interests of the impoverished living are to be preferred to those of the long-departed dead. I am convinced that every generous-hearted Huguenot in the past would support the same sentiments.

I have no objection at all to this measure being referred to a Select Committee but I do think, however, that if one has a view to express on it, one should express it. Unfortunately, I did not hear Senator Yeats's statement on this measure. I heard other speakers but, because I have a view of my own, I feel I should express it.

It is not a question, in my view, as to whether it is a Huguenot cemetery or any other. The fact is it is a graveyard. Christian people have been buried there. It may be a long time ago and the graveyard may not have been well kept. Many old cemeteries in Ireland have not been well kept because of the shift of population and other factors. But we should not lose sight of the fundamental fact that it is a place of Christian burial. I do not know much about the Huguenot population but I know sufficient to recognise that they were people who suffered in their own country and who because of the climate existing here, had relevant peace in this country. They were trained people and they had arts and crafts and anything they brought to this country was an asset to it.

In regard to the selling of the cemetery, as far as I know, it is the first time a cemetery has been so sold by statute. If this Bill is passed, we will be closing a cemetery by statute, selling it for use for industrial purposes. What I fear is that it is the beginning of a trend. I have a particular view on this because it so happens some distant relatives of mine are buried in a particular farm in a certain county, and it is not normally regarded as a cemetery. I shall not go into the reasons and the history which led up to that being so, but I know if I saw that particular little area which is surrounded by trees in a particular county being sold, even though those people are buried there a long time, it would annoy me. I would feel annoyed if it were used in a way in which I feel it should not be used.

I further know that there are many private cemeteries up and down the country on farms being taken over by the Land Commission. Once we begin to provide by legislation, as is proposed to be done by this measure, I feel it is the beginning of a trend, one which, in my view, is not a good trend. We are all aware that many of the older cemeteries in Ireland have been taken over in some cases by local authorities, even though large numbers of people in the area might use them as cemeteries. Very often they were good cemeteries, much better than the modern ones. Many of the people buried in these cemeteries have been over 1,000 years there. They were places where people could be buried with respect. In modern times we have cemeteries nearer the towns and in areas where modern churches have been built. Very often, while the area might be suitable for a church, from a convenience point of view, it is not suitable as a cemetery.

In my view, if we make provision in Dublin, where there is congestion, that cemeteries can be built on, we will also find down the country that older cemeteries which have been closed by local authority action or as a result of action by the Department of Local Government who close them because of the passage of time, although they did not intend to interfere with them, will be built on for factory purposes.

In County Leitrim where cemeteries were closed because of overcrowding even though people may have been buried there over 1,000 years, it was never the intention that they should be used for any other purpose, when they were closed, than as cemeteries. I did not hear Senator Yeats speaking on this Bill but I still would like to express my views on this. I am not convinced this is a good thing to do. As far as I know it is the first time this has been done. We will probably find in 50 years' time, as Senator Ross said, that Jacobs might move to a completely new site for development.

On a point of correction, I did not say anything about Jacobs moving.

I am suggesting to Senator Ross that this is a development. This opens up a new principle. There is another point I should like to raise and it is the question of who really owns cemeteries? As I am not a lawyer, I had always the view, irrespective of who owned the whole land, whether there was a deed of the actual land from here to the far side of Kildare Street, in real terms the real ownership of the particular part of the cemetery belonged, by squatter's title, to the people who had the right to bury their dead there and that no local authority could take away from that. The fact is the owners of the graveyard were the people buried there, even though the land might be vested in particular persons. The particular plot in the final analysis belonged to the family or the successors of the people who are buried there. I am not a lawyer but that is what I always thought was the legal position. If that is so, I would not like to do anything that would create a new situation. Therefore, I would not like to support a Bill which would have that effect.

Question put and agreed to, Senator Yeats dissenting.
Barr
Roinn