I move: "That the Bill do now pass."
Private Business. - Huguenot Cemetery Dublin (Peter Street) Bill, 1965—Fifth Stage.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Before I deal with my objections to the enactment of the Bill I should state briefly the purpose intended to be served by it. It relates to a small graveyard—Saint Peter's Graveyard—in Peter Street, adjoining Messrs. Jacob's biscuit factory. This graveyard, which contains some 250 to 300 bodies—there is some doubt about whether or not it was consecrated— was first bought in 1711 by some Huguenots who had fled to this country from France in the years after 1685. They set up a church there, where services were held in French for very many years and interments continued until around the year 1879. Since 1879 there have been no further interments and it is in effect a disused graveyard.
The proposal in the Bill is that the six trustees—who in 1917 were appointed by the High Court to look after this graveyard and also certain funds which form, I think, all the Huguenot funds which I shall deal with later—propose to sell the graveyard to Messrs Jacob for the purposes of their business. The payment is £20,000 and, under the Bill, this is to be used for the purposes of the Huguenot Fund. I should say, of course, that for this procedure sanction in the form of a Private Act of the Oireachtas is required.
This Bill was first introduced last year. It was discussed fairly briefly in this House on 3rd March, 1965. I spoke on the matter, as did a few other Senators but the general consensus of the House was, I think, in agreement with Senator Michael Hayes and Senator O'Brien who said, in effect, that this matter should be allowed to go in the normal way to a Private Bill before a Joint Committee of the two Houses, be discussed by them and, if it came back to us, we should decide what further action to take. The matter went through the Joint Committee, who had evidence and were addressed by counsel for the opponents of this Bill and also for an objector who put in a petition. A Huguenot put in a petition against the enactment of the Bill. The Committee have accepted the Bill, making certain improvements which I must say I am glad to see with regard to the method of transfering the bodies and detailed matters of that kind, and it now comes back to us.
In spite of the various improvements in the details of the Bill made by the Committee, I think it would be generally accepted that the general principle at stake remains the same. The objections to this Bill relate essentially to the views which very many people—I think nearly everyone—will hold about the sanctity of graveyards. We do not normally think a great deal about graveyards, but so far as we do, we accept that the graves of our ancestors, and in due time our own graves, should be left undisturbed. That is not merely a Christian belief or a belief that we hold in Ireland. It is a belief that is held, I think, in nearly every country in the world. We believe that graveyards should be left undisturbed and undesecrated, unless their is some great and urgent necessity for their disturbance. That necessity with which I shall deal later has not arisen in this case to my mind.
There is a further point which relates to this particular proposal. The Huguenots who came here and sought the hospitality of this country in 1711, bought this graveyard, and set up trustees to look after it, and set up a fund for the purpose, among other things, of the upkeep of the graveyard. We should be slow to upset the wishes of those Huguenots of long ago who, as they thought, had made provision for a permanent resting place for their bones in this little graveyard in Dublin.
Apart from the immediate question at issue in this Bill, there is the very important question of public policy which we must consider, and which could affect not merely this graveyard but all the other graveyards in the country. We cannot consider this proposal in isolation. We must realise that if we pass this Bill, whether we like it or not, we are creating some kind of precedent which could have, and I think would have, an influence on future matters of this kind.
I know that I will be met with the rather shallow and facile argument that the living are more important than the dead. It is easy to say that, but I wonder how far we are prepared to bring it. Obviously, the living are more important than the dead. That is a truism. Let us take one of the big graveyards, the graveyard at Deansgrange, for example, where there are big areas that are already filled and in which no further interments can take place. Supposing someone made the proposal that the Corporation were always looking for sites for housing and that they should build a big scheme like the Ballymun scheme on this graveyard. No one would consider it for a moment. It would be regarded as a ridiculous suggestion if it were propounded. There are limits beyond which the argument that the living are more important than the dead would go.
The question at this stage is: if we are going to upset the arrangements which our ancestors made for interment, what is the boundary line? At what stage do you say: "All right, the needs of the living are pressing and the dead must take second place?" In the case of Deansgrange the argument that the living are more important than the dead would not apply, and perhaps in regards to St. Peter's, it is a more borderline case.
No adequate reason has been propounded for desecrating the graveyard in this way. Obviously, there have been, and there will be, cases where it is necessary to move graveyards. There have been some cases in the relatively recent past. An obvious one was the little graveyard at Poulaphonca, and when the lake was being filled the graveyard had to be moved. Otherwise it would have been under the lake. There was a similar case in connection with the hydro-electric scheme on the Lee. Those are obvious cases of the public interest being at stake and I do not think anyone could say that the action taken in those cases was not correct. There are a few other cases. There were one or two in Dublin city. I think they were St. Thomas's and St. Bride's. Other graveyards were removed altogether or partly removed or corners were taken away in order to allow roads to be built or widened. Those are one or two cases where space for the general public has been made available. There was a graveyard near Athlone, St. Mary's, where a road-widening scheme was taking place. A corner of that graveyard was made available. The bodies were removed to the remainder of the cemetery. All those cases are not cases where private commercial interests were involved. Public interest and the public at large were concerned in all of those cases.
Counsel for the proposers of this Bill made, I understand, a search for precedents. This was very important. As I understand the statement from counsel he could not find any precedent. The nearest he could get was some Railway Bills in England where an Act of Parliament was needed to permit some railways to be built. A cemetery was taken over to enable the railway lines to be laid. The railways were privately owned in the past. It is important for the public at large that railways should be built. That is a different matter entirely from this particular proposal. It is fair to say that there is no precedent at all— certainly not in this country—for a proposal to take over a graveyard specifically to improve the operations of a commercial undertaking. There is certainly no case in this country and, as far as I understand, no case in Britain where an Act of Parliament has specifically authorised a precedent of this kind.
Two main reasons are advanced as to why we should agree to uproot this old, historic graveyard. The first is that the £20,000 would be used for the purpose of this particular charity. The second is that the taking over of the graveyard would be used for the operations of Messrs Jacob. I should like to say a little about each of those in turn. First of all, I accept completely, and without any hesitation, the good faith of the trustees in this matter. The trustees were offered this very big sum of money by Messrs Jacob. They could accept it or refuse it. They decided to accept it and use the funds to help poor Huguenots, or people of Huguenot descent in Ireland. I think they were wrong but I completely acknowledge that they were accepting the money in good faith in order to continue the work they are doing. I hope anything I should say in criticism of them will be listened to in the light that however wrong it may be they were acting in good faith.
In 1948 there was a proposal by the ESB to take over a corner of this graveyard compulsorily for the purpose of setting up an electricity substation. There were four trustees at that time. They are still trustees and two more have been added since. Those four trustees took a very strong line at that time. They brought a certiorari order to the High Court to have the compulsory order quashed. In paragraph 9 of the affidavit which was submitted to the High Court they had this to say:
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 land by the Board as constituting a desecration of a Christian burial ground and an improper and unjustifiable appropriation of the property of the charity.
That, to my mind, was a very proper attitude for them to take. I can only regret that they did not continue to take that attitude with regard to the present proposal. Of course, they would be the first to agree that there was a very great difference between the £200, which was all the ESB offered in 1948, and the £20,000 which Messrs Jacob offered in 1964. A period of ten years is not a long time. The trustees were extremely sane people but there is a very big difference in the sums of money involved. One of the trustees, during examination before the Joint Committee, had this to say on the question:
I think a man who has a sense of proportion will think this wonderful sum of money stands on a different footing from the £200, mere chicken feed, offered by the ESB
That is a very fair statement of the attitude of the trustees. A sum of £200 was, of course, chicken feed.
The question arises, with regard to the very large sum offered by Messrs Jacob in 1964, that the trustees were forgoing half of their trust, that is to look after the graveyard, in order to do better by the other half, that is this particular charity. I have no doubt they will be able to put the money to good use. They hope to be able to put young persons of Huguenot descent through the university or to set them up in business. They will be doing very good work.
This matter, of course, applies to any graveyard. Anyone could buy a graveyard for a large sum of money, no matter who owned it. The money received for the graveyard could be put to good use. I do not think that should necessarily influence us here. In any event the existing charity, which has been changed from time to time, is a very different matter from that set up by the Huguenots in the 1700s. The fund was set up then for the upkeep of the church and the poor of the parish. The present fund, while it had to be altered by the court, because of changing circumstances, is a long way removed from the type of fund the original Huguenots had in mind.
The second main argument for this Bill is that the graveyard is needed for Messrs Jacob's Factory. It is quite obvious it is of use to them. The graveyard is a very small part of the total block occupied by Messrs Jacob. Their block is completely surrounded by public highways and it extends over four acres. This little graveyard is about one-ninth of an acre. It is about three per cent of the total area occupied by Jacobs. Jacobs occupy 97 per cent of the total area. Obviously it is of use to them to have it. In their evidence to the committee Messrs Jacob produced firm arguments that I think I should mention. They said the Government had asked them, like other Irish industries, to increase production. This is necessary for industry as a whole in order that we should be ready to compete with the possible Common Market countries in the event of our entering the Common Market. This is very true but we should be realistic about it.
It was not in 1964 that Jacobs decided to buy this graveyard. The first offer was in 1917. In 1917 there was no Common Market and no free trade. There was no Irish Government at that time. We should be realistic about this matter and we should forget about this talk of the national interest, the Government and so on. It would be a good thing for Messrs Jacob to get this graveyard. They said there would not be any guarantee of increased employment. It is not a matter of giving more work. It is a matter of producing more economically. It will certainly make more profits for them. That is what is involved. Mind you, I say, all power to them. They have done well by the citizens of Dublin and by Ireland.
But let us be clear about this. From their point of view it is a means of improving their business and let us forget about everything else. They said they want to increase the length of their biscuit ovens and so forth. They also admitted that if they do not get this site they have alternative plans which, perhaps, will not be as good but will enable them to expand by moving in other directions.
We should have regard to the fact that there are other disused graveyards in and around Dublin and in various other parts of the country. Whatever we do here, we may be perfectly certain it will be watched by various interests. If we enact this Bill there will be insurance companies, there will be factory owners, there will be all sorts of commercial interests casting covetous eyes on little graveyards of this kind. There are eight such graveyards in the city of Dublin, in extremely valuable central positions. We will have multi-storey office blocks built on these enormously valuable sites. Religious bodies will be faced with the same problem—that huge sums will be available to them with which to build churches, schools and with which to help charities.
Do we want this? Are we willing, anxious or prepared to give a headline of this kind? We should not be. It is entirely wrong to say that an old graveyard, just because it is a graveyard, should be left there, but we can limit it to one straightforward proposition: we are not prepared in any circumstances, as far as it is in our power, to allow the desecration of graveyards for purely commercial purposes. That is the basis of my opposition to the Bill. It is not that the graveyard is being moved. I am prepared to see any graveyard moved if it is in the public interest to do so but I am not prepared to support the proposition that it is right that for purely narrow commercial purposes a graveyard of this kind should be uprooted and the bodies removed simply because biscuit ovens are to be erected on the site. It is quite wrong and I do not think we, as a House of the Oireachtas, should give a headline in this way.
Senator Yeats has made a very reasoned case against this Bill. The sentiments he has expressed ran through the minds of the members of the Joint Committee who sat on this Bill and before whom the trustees and the objectors gave evidence. I can quite easily realise the apprehensions he has with regard to the future—that this Bill might create a precedent. We all feel, quite properly, that we owe respect to the dead and to the places where their last remains lie. That was dominant in my mind and in the minds of the other members of the Joint Committee. The Committee heard the evidence at considerable length and I think the matter which probably influenced us most was the fact that this proposal had been given very long and very anxious consideration by the trustees of the little cemetery. They had been finding certain difficulties in the maintenance of the graveyard. Indeed, the graveyard had been in a very derelict condition during the years and had been put in a more respectable condition in recent times by Messrs Jacob.
The Committee had regard to the fact that the trustees, who were descendants of the Huguenots, had consented to the proposed change. I think it is correct to say that the fact that this money, made available from the sale of the plot to Messrs Jacob, will be made available for the necessitous descendants of the Huguenots is something that cannot be overlooked. It is something of which Huguenots who had gone before, who had not an opportunity of dealing with it, would approve of—the fact that their necessitous descendants would benefit.
It is also true to say that the Joint Committee inquired very fully into the manner in which the remains were to be removed and I have little doubt —the House can be assured of this— that the way in which the remains will be removed and the searches that will be made will accord with the sentiments or the susceptibilities of all right minded people. One of the things that swayed me in the course of the Committee proceedings was that in the meantime the distinguished Prime Minister of India died and his body was put up on a bier and the ashes cast on the waters of the Ganges. It seems to me there is no inherent disrespect to the dead in that because we know that is a method of burial common to very many millions of people. In dealing with the remains concerned here, a much more reverent method in accordance with our notions will be employed.
Senator Yeats and the House will realise that what is really important is the approach, the mental outlook people had towards the dead and towards burial places. They know exhumation and reburial are approached with due respect and reverence and that there is no outrage to public feelings or to the dead. In the light of the fact that this is the approach that will be adopted—that the trustees have been at considerable pains to get a minister of a religion as close as possible to the belief of the Huguenots to preside at the reinterment—from the point of view of religious feeling and sentiment the Bill makes very adequate provision.
I understand Senator Yeats feels that other small disused graveyards may attract the attention of business interests. That matter was adverted to in the course of the discussions that took place before the Committee. It was pointed out that the same trustees are the owners of the Huguenot cemetery in Merrion Row, a couple of hundred yards from this House, and it was made quite clear that no proposal such as that of Messrs Jacob exists in relation to Merrion Row and that as far as the Committee could bind a future Committee it was made quite clear that any similar application would not be welcome.
That may serve to allay the fears of Senator Yeats that this Bill may be regarded as a precedent. The Bill was passed by the Joint Committee in the particular circumstances of the location of the graveyard and for the reason that some benefit will accrue to the necessitous descendants of the Hugeunots. A variety of other factors were also taken into account but they do not arise here today. We should make it quite clear, as the Seanad, that this Bill is not to be taken by any other body of trustees who may be approached for the acquisition of similar graveyards as in any way establishing a precedent. I agree with Senator Yeats that it is undesirable that disused graveyards should, save in exceptional circumstances, be interfered with.
That was a view common to all the members of the Joint Committee. One may agree or disagree with the view taken as to the circumstances. The Committee felt it was desirable in the particular circumstances to grant this Bill and it was granted purely in relation to the consideration that it was not to be taken as a precedent. For these reasons I recommend that the Bill be accepted by the House.
Like Senator O'Quigley, and I am sure other Members of the Seanad, I understand and respect the views expressed by Senator Yeats. We all have to try to reconcile conflicting reactions many times in our lives and this is one of them. I was very impressed by the Report of the Committee on this Bill and the care with which every aspect of the proposition was gone into and the insistence in the Report that due respect be paid to the remains in this graveyard and to their ultimate disposal.
I have been convinced, on the other hand, that the benefits accruing from the Bill would far outweigh the objections to it and the possible disadvantages which might arise in the future. We have, on the one hand, a small fund which had a considerable draw on it and portion of this fund must be diverted to the upkeep of the graveyard. I mean that the charity of Messrs Jacob would not continue indefinitely and this is to the disadvantage of those living whose interests should be served by the fund. On the other hand, we have the prospect of a much larger sum accruing from this transaction, if I may say so, and the reduced expenditure, of course, on the upkeep of the graveyard. So, the balance to me is quite definitely based on the point of view strongly in favour of the Bill.
I am quite satisfied that there is no real disrespect shown in this proposal for the remains of the people buried in this graveyard. As Senator O'Quigley has pointed out, various people have different customs for the disposal of their dead and cremation is one of the possibilities in France. That is not possible in Ireland just now. It is quite possible that many of those people might have chosen to be disposed of otherwise than they are if they lived today.
We have various other examples of changes that have taken place in the usage of what was sacred ground. Not very far away from that graveyard is the site of a church which is now occupied by a commercial building. I think we have to accept that changes take place and so long as, when the time comes, we give every consideration to each particular proposal and keep in our mind the respect that is due, we do not do any real harm.
I do not mind about creating a precedent so long as I know what it has been created about. I think this is a precedent arising out of the careful consideration of a particular proposal. I do not mind how often this proposal comes up provided on each occasion it is similarly carefully considered.
I do not think we are creating a precedent for the easy transfer of burial ground for commercial purposes. We are creating a precedent for the very careful consideration of proposals such as this and I see no great objection to that.
I should like to congratulate the Committee on the amount of work they put into the report on this Bill, and for the excellent conclusions and suggestions they have offered us and I support them on this.
I only want to say a few words to clear up some points. Like Senators Jessop and O'Quigley, I should like to congratulate Senator Yeats not only on his advocacy of this matter but for the fact that he has raised it at all. I take the same views of his raising it here as the petitioner against the proposal. It was very important in the public interest that these steps were taken so that everything that was done was thoroughly done and seen to be done.
Senator Yeats referred to the trustees' different approach years ago when the ESB wanted this property for less money—£200. I must say, in fairness to the Senator, that he did not try to draw any wrong inference from the different approach now. May I suggest to the Senator that the trustees were in much the same position as Senator Yeats: they were putting everything they could think of into their argument then.
May I correct Senator Yeats on one or two points which might lead to misapprehension? The trustees were not originally the trustees of the graveyard who were given charge of a charitable fund. It was the other way round. These were trustees of a charitable fund to whom the care of the graveyard was given. It is a distinction with a difference, if you like. I think there is an inference in it that their first and most important function was the administration of this charitable fund. Certainly in the Committee this was the view I took. This was their primary consideration and the terms under which they operated are quite clear. The first charge on their funds was the charities and it is only when they had funds available that they could be spent on the upkeep of the graveyard. Of course, it is quite clear they never had money available for the graveyard. Consequently, the graveyard got into a shocking state.
On a point of correction, the graveyard was in a shocking state when there were no trustees. There were no trustees up to 1917.
I suggest that is a question of opinion. I suggest the trustees had not sufficient money.
There were no trustees.
If there had been trustees the income was not sufficient to pay for the upkeep of the graveyard—7/- a week is the sort of money they were able to give. This is the sort of money they were able to administer. I do not give a hoot whether it is Messrs Jacob, or a shipyard, or anything else that is involved, there is a chance to make money. I look at it in the light that here is a way for the trustees to get money which would be useful to their fund. It is true they were only able to do it because there is a firm like Messrs Jacob who are willing to pay the fantastic sum of £180,000 an acre. That is money. There is the possibility that one could look at it another way and say that the trustees should not sell even at £230,000 an acre.
In a few years' time land values may tend to rise but I do not see very much chance of a better offer in the future. I think it is proper that the trustees should take this opportunity and I think this is the view that matters. It matters not who gets it or whether it is used for commercial purposes. The most careful consideration is given where any remains that are discernible are being disinterred and every possible precaution is to be taken so that they will be reinterred with every reverence.
The Bill was amended at the request of the local authorities to ensure that everything was done under proper supervision. It was amended with every goodwill on both sides and I have no hesitation in saying that I believe the petitioners are satisfied that the Bill as it now stands takes care of everything with one exception. It is fair to mention this as to my mind it is not obvious from the Report. There was a suggestion from the petitioner that a portion of the ground in Mount Jerome should be cut off; that room should be left for future interments and the proposal was agreed, the only difficulty being how much; but the Committee did not agree, though both sides had agreed. The reason that they did that was that they felt that it was no function of the trustees of a charitable fund to decide who might or might not be buried in a particular plot. It appeared to be a shocking burden to place on these people that they would have to decide whether or not any particular person had a right of interment, and if they had, when it would stop. Supposing they left room for six, and a seventh turned up, what position would they be in? The whole thing appeared to be both morally and legally insufferable to the trustees, and, therefore, the Committee disregarded the amendment that had been agreed on both sides.
I did refer to the fact that the trustees were trustees of a charity originally and they got this graveyard only as a sort of added duty. It is quite clear from the terms that the added duty was subject to their having any money available to do anything to it.
In regard to precedent, I agree with Senator Jessop that I can see no precedent in this except that the fullest examination will obviously be given to any proposal that comes up. The Committee has made it clear, and so has the Seanad, that this is not something that happened by chance. As far as burial grounds belonging to any religious community are concerned, they cannot be touched because they are safeguarded by the Constitution. It is only in this particular graveyard that no religious community is the owner. These trustees are trustees of a charity and not a religious community so that there is this broad distinction to be made. I would not agree with Senator O'Quigley that it is clear to the trustees that no consideration will be given to a proposal that might come up regarding another graveyard under their control. I do not think that we can say what any future Seanad or Dáil or Joint Committee might do. That would be going much too far. It was, however, made reasonably clear that we were dealing with a very special circumstance and no precedent had been created.
As far as commercial interests are concerned, I have no interest in that at all. I look at it purely from the point of view of which way this is going to operate for the best. If this Bill passes the trustees have the chance —though there is still a case before the Courts—of acquiring a sum of money which will enable them to do some good. If this Bill is thrown out they are back with a graveyard which they do not want and no money to administer. It is as simple as that. People ought to disabuse their minds of the question of a commercial concern, and the trustees should have money for a charitable purpose.
I could not disagree more with Senator O'Quigley and Senator Jessop and to a certain extent with Senator Sheldon about this not being a precedent. Of course, it is a precedent, and purely and simply a precedent. It boils down in my opinion to this simple proposition, that a commercial interest, if they give enough money to a charitable organisation—though it sounds a rather horrible way to put it—can remove a graveyard as in this instance. It will, of course, be a precedent for Bills going through this House and for similar applications being made perhaps for the other graveyard of the same type in this city, or other graveyards.
I must say that Senator Yeats has put a case that I feel a great many Members of this House in their heart of hearts really feel was a good and proper case. Certainly it was to my mind a very proper case to make. All human races, whether Christian or not, have this great respect for the burial places of their dead. It is one more of the principles, that maybe some people would see as sentimental, in this country in any case, and I think a principle of Christian peoples in particular. If one more of the things that we have always held dear is going this is a precedent in Dublin city. There have been similar cases elsewhere perhaps for different reasons, perhaps for the public good, but that is not the case here. It seems that gone is another of the notions we have always held dear. It is perhaps a step towards the removal of those sort of things if there is a commercial reason for doing it.
I go back to the point where Senator Sheldon stressed very much the charitable side of it. I do not think that the charitable side has ever been brought to our notice until the commercial side arose first. That is a very simple and obvious way to put it. The trustees, if they really wanted to raise this charitable fund, could have raised it some other way. Possibly this is a step towards the removal of memorials, plaques and anything you like, things that former generations have put up as a memorial and historical evidence of their times for future generations. This is one more graveyard going, one more of the historical parts of this city going, if you pass this Bill, and I feel that I must support Senator Yeats's position, and I will not take part in the removal of it.
This is not a Government Bill and there are no political issues involved. That probably makes it more difficult for us because we cannot make up our minds according to whatever political party we support. We have to try to make up our minds and judge it on the basis of our conscience on what has been said here and what we have read in regard to the proceedings before the Joint Committee. I have listened to the previous speakers and to the case made by both sides, and I find that I must support Senator Yeats. I do so because I do not think that a case has been well made for allowing this Bill to go through and for allowing the disinterment and reinterment of the remains of the people who purchased this plot of ground as their graveyard. I do not think that commercial interest or charitable interest outweighs that consideration.
We have heard Senator O'Quigley say that the proposers of this Bill were told that another graveyard which they own in Merrion Row was not affected and that this measure should not be regarded as a precedent —that no matter what offer of money they might be made for the other graveyard they could not regard it as being likely to be approved by the Houses of the Oireachtas. What is the real argument in favour of the charitable purposes? If they are to be offered a million pounds, which is fantastic, then according to a member of the Committee that dealt with this Bill this should not provide a decisive factor. It is a very difficult choice for the trustees of this fund, who are responsible for this graveyard. I certainly would not like to be faced with this decision, this problem of being offered a comparatively huge sum of money which they could use for charitable purposes in order to give over this graveyard for which they are responsible. If I were one of the trustees, I would be in favour of it. If I were in the situation that I was offered the use of this money for charitable purposes, I would tend to favour it but I do not think we, as a House of the Oireachtas, should allow these people to be put under that sort of pressure. This is what we would be agreeing to. Are we saying —if it is £200,000 it is not enough or if it is £500,000, then they should be allowed to take it? I say "no".
I do not think, no matter what the amount of money offered to them for charitable purposes, that should decide the issue. We should not allow them to be put under that sort of pressure, because we are not dealing with the sale of a plot of land. That is not the problem. We are not dealing with the maintenance of a graveyard. I have seen graveyards turned into children's playgrounds—a very good thing—I am not against that but what we are concerned with here is really the uprooting of remains of people who decided they were purchasing this plot of land as their graveyard or for the reinterment of someone else. No matter how properly it is done, I do not think we should favour it. I do not think we should allow this body of trustees to be put under this very heavy commercial pressure by way of this offer of a large sum. I favour Senator Yeats. I have tried to listen to the arguments and have tried to be impartial. We are in a difficult position trying to judge the issues as they are put up to us as individuals and my conscience would favour the case made by Senator Yeats.
(Longford): I supported Senator Yeats when this Bill came before the House originally and, because of that, I want to express my view briefly again. I do not want to give a lecture on this matter to the House but I am prepared to say that the Huguenot people here were a minority who suffered oppression. I suppose, because of that fact, they tried to protect themselves as a minority both while alive and dead. Like all minorities, I suppose, they suffered from pressures from many quarters. That would appear to me to be the reason they were compelled to choose private cemeteries. They may not have been allowed to mingle freely with the rest of the community here at that time. I know very little about the Huguenots but I do know of one particular family and I think members of that family might still exist. Compared with many of the landlord class the Huguenots seemed to have many good qualities in their administration of property which could have been copied by other people in the same social class of that time and that might have prevented many of the things which happened in Ireland.
I am saying that those people appointed trustees to administer property which included a cemetery. I am not prepared to agree fully with Senator Sheldon when he says that the cemetery was an addition to the trusteeship. I would say that all the property vested in the trustees was, in the opinion of the people forming the trust, equally important. I would be prepared to take the view that the people when setting up the trusteeship to administer a charity or look after a cemetery intended it to be undisturbed and to be used for the purpose for which it was intended. It is clearly my view that the purpose of the trusteeship, when it was set up, was that the cemetery should be kept as a cemetery.
I take issue with Senator O'Quigley when he says there is no precedent. He tried to guard against a similar occurrence in Merrion Row where there is a little Huguenot cemetery, by suggesting there is no precedent involved and what happens here in regard to this cemetery will not happen to the cemetery in Merrion Row. But who is he to say that in 25 to 30 years from now a similar situation may not arise? I think there is a precedent being established and I do not like it.
One comes down on one side or the other in an issue such as this, depending on one's outlook. It is the sort of thing about which people can feel very strongly. My views may be coloured in this matter because of the fact that an ancestor of mine was buried in a private cemetery which became part of a farm. Any time I go past that particular place, even though it was a long time ago, I remember that simple fact and it does not please me to remember it. That is what colours my view in this matter. Therefore, I support Senator Yeats.
I think we all agree that Senator Yeats made a moderate case yet a strong case for his point of view. We would all agree that respect for the dead is a common human attribute. I speak as a humanist, believing that when you are dead, you are dead. This does not, however, alter my attitude towards the dead or towards that respect which is a natural human attitude towards those who are gone. I think, nevertheless, if we face the actual situation here, we can see that the outward symbols of this respect can perhaps be carried too far, if, for the sake of outward symbol, some positive real modern benefit to living people is allowed to be outweighed on the other side of the scales. It is to the credit of Senator Yeats that he has not been prepared to cast a cold eye on life and death, and to pass by. He would like to halt here. The realities of the situation, however, would suggest that, while recognising the respect due to the dead—and this is one of the important factors both in the Bill and in the amendments proposed by the Committee—nevertheless, we should be prepared at this stage to pass onwards.
It should be recognised that the Huguenot Church in Peter Street was actually pulled down in 1840—quite a long time ago. This has not been mentioned here today. The last interment in the graveyard took place 87 years ago, in 1879. It has been made public also that no inquiry concerning any person buried in the cemetery was received by the trustees for at least 20 years before the application to the court.
There has been some confusion about the situation of the trustees which has not been mentioned today. It was probably mentioned on the previous occasion. The trustees of the cemetery were also the trustees of a fund which before 1891 exceeded £8,000, which was a considerable sum then. At that time it was possible to pay what would now seem rather small annuities of £30 or £40 a year, but at that time they represented a fairly effective purchasing power. Unfortunately a firm of stockbrokers went bankrupt and the funds from over £8,000 dropped to £900.
Subsequently all the trustees died and consequently the trust lapsed, and it was not until 1902 that a scheme was brought in again for the administration of the seriously reduced funds available in part for the upkeep of the burial ground. This was approved by the High Court and new trustees were appointed. This was further amended in 1917 and provision was made for a variety of things: payment of rent, repairs, keeping the ground in good condition, the giving of relief to deserving Protestants of Huguenot descent by weekly allowances not exceeding 7/-mittee—nevertheless a week. They could also give grants to advance such persons in education or business, and they could make small grants towards funeral expenses where a person was eligible.
Unfortunately, owing to the protracted bankruptcy proceedings, the fund was by then considerably reduced, and the income was reduced to a mere £130 a year. If that were spent entirely on maintaining the graveyard there would not be anything left for the relief of the descendants of the Huguenots who might be in financial difficulties.
An arrangement was consequently made with Messrs Jacob, years ago, under which they were to lift all the fallen tombstones and erect them around the walls. They were to turn the cemetery into a small garden in which their employees could sit during their short breaks. So, many of these headstones were already out around the walls, and Messrs Jacob in fact have spent quite a bit of money on this graveyard. They are now offering a considerable sum of money to take it over completely.
It has already been stated, but it should be made perfectly clear, that the trustees themselves are getting nothing out of this £20,000. This £20,000 is to make it possible for them to revise their capacity to pay the wretched 7/- a week to a handful of annuitants. At present three annuitants receive 7/- a week, and two receive 5/- a week. That is the reality of the situation which would weigh with me more importantly in the balance than the symbol of maintaining the graveyard in its present place.
Provision is made by the Bill for a memorial stone or tablet on the new plot which would record all the details of the reinterments. It is also agreed that the remains of any person buried in the Peter Street cemetery may, if their descendants or relatives so desire, be removed and reinterred at any other cemetery they care to choose. Therefore, I do not agree with Senator Yeats's phrase that the cemetery is being "desecrated". I do not think that is really fair to the provisions of the Bill and in particular of the Bill as amended in Committee.
This offer of £20,000 would make it possible to raise the limit of 7/- a week which was placed on the trustees in 1917. The trustees also say they are satisfied that there are plenty of people who would qualify for such increased weekly pensions. They already have a waiting list. When I heard Senator Cole saying that we must not sacrifice what we hold dear, and so on, I feel we should ask the question: "At whose expense are you being asked to make a real sacrifice?" If we decide not to allow the cemetery to be sold, and thus prevent an increase in the annuity payments in order to preserve this derelict cemetery we are making impoverished people sacrifice real money. It is not costing us anything, but we are asking someone else to sacrifice for an outward symbol something which they might legitimately hold dearer to-day.
It should furthermore be noticed that the trustees were unanimous in recommending acceptance of Jacob's offer. It is quite obvious that if it were merely a question of £200 which would not enable them to increase the annuities, or to help in any real way, they would be justified in refusing it. This large sum, however, gives them a real opportunity of giving far greater assistance to the living. With all the provisos in the Bill, as amended, they are prepared to proceed with the disinterment and reburial of the people who are buried there, most of them for 100 years or more.
I also notice that it is recommended in the Bill as before us now, that the new burial ground should be consecrated and the reburials carried out in accordance with the rites of the French Reformed Church, that is the French Protestant Church. Furthermore, I notice that exhumations will be carried out under the supervision of an officer of Dublin Corporation, and that re-interments will be carried out under the supervision of an officer of the sanitary authority in whose functional area the place of re-interment is situate.
I feel, therefore, that on balance the human needs of the situation are represented by this Bill. One has a certain emotional sympathy with Senator Yeats's case. Nevertheless, the realities of the situation, and the fact that it will be possible to help the living descendants of these Huguenots oblige one to come down on the side of the Bill. Any of us here having to decide whether we would like a certain amount of money to be spent on our own grandchildren or descendants, or to be spent on the purchase of elaborate headstones or the perpetual care of our own graves, would choose in favour of the living, who might actually be in distress, and who would be more greatly helped by the passing of such a Bill as this than by its rejection.
There are obviously two points of view on this Bill, both held with great conviction and sincerity. Both points of view are certainly deserving of special consideration. It seems to me that we have approached the trustees in a slightly unfair way because the tendency has been to regard them as being in some way prejudiced, being on the one side, as opposed to the other point of view held on the other side. The trustees are as representative of the Huguenot community as it is possible for them to be. They are also probably better informed than most people as to the considerations which should be borne in mind in this matter. It is not suggested that the trustees are acting with anything but the best of motives. That being so and having regard to the fact that the trustees have advocated that this Bill should be passed, I would certainly be very slow to put forward my personal view in opposition to what they advocate should be done.
The second thing that influences me is that the Seanad referred this Bill to a Committee of this House which went into all the details and heard the arguments on behalf of the trustees. This Committee, having heard all the arguments, have recommended to this House that we should accept the Bill. That being so, it seems to me that when the trustees, on the one hand, favour the Bill and when our own Committee, having heard all the arguments, recommend that the Bill should be passed, I feel the House should support the Bill.
The first thing we want to realise is that this cemetery is really the property of private individuals. It is not a cemetery of a religious denomination. The last burial that was made in it was in the year 1879. After that nobody apparently took the slightest interest whatsoever in it. As far as was generally then known nobody owned it. Nobody claimed any ownership to it. None of the descendants of any person buried in it took the least interest in it. The funds that are in the hands of trustees were originally the funds of religious communities which were divided into two parts. You had the Huguenot conformists and the Huguenot non-conformists. In 1917 trustees were appointed for those funds by an order of the court. A scheme had earlier been settled in 1902. In the 1902 scheme nothing was dealt with but the funds. When the scheme was settled in 1917 for administering those funds for the benefit of the descendants of the two communities of whom I am speaking there was also vested in the trustees certain lands, including this graveyard and the graveyard in Merrion Row.
I should think, therefore, that Senator Sheldon is correct when he states that from a practical point of view this was an additional obligation that was put on the trustees. The total income from the funds in the hands of the trustees in 1917, and since then, was only £130 per annum. As nobody had claimed any ownership, and as nobody had shown the least interest in this cemetery from the year 1869, it was in a state of dilapidation, ruin and decay—a complete wilderness. It was a place that could not be said to be treated with the slightest bit of respect.
When this cemetery was vested in the trustees in the year 1917 the funds did not permit them doing anything towards rectifying the dilapidation and decay. One of the first charges imposed on them by the conditions of the trust was to contribute towards certain persons in very needy circumstances and towards certain educational purposes. They were limited to a weekly sum of 7/-. From 1917 to 1924 not a single thing was done to improve the condition of this cemetery because the trustees' funds did not permit them to do so. Daily it was getting worse.
In 1924 it was such a complete eyesore that it was really a disgrace from the point of view of the respect which should be held for the dead. It adjoined Messrs Jacob and Messrs Jacob got permission from the trustees to take it over under a caretaker's agreement. It really cast a reflection on any property in the immediate vicinity. When Messrs Jacob took it over they cleaned it up. They levelled the sites. They took up the broken tombstones that were scattered all around the place. They put them up against the wall. They levelled the site and they made it into a sort of recreational park for the employees. That is what it then was. That was in 1924.
In 1948 the ESB offered to erect certain power lines, pylons, on the graveyard but they offered a small sum to the trustees for doing this. The trustees did not take it, not because it was a small sum, but because in their view it would be a desecration of the dead since what the ESB proposed to do was to erect pylons right plumb in the middle of what was now converted into a pleasure ground without disinterring or removing any of the remains that were there. Although Messrs Jacob made it into a kind of pleasure park under the caretaker's agreement, that is as far as they went at that stage.
In 1963 there was a big high wall on one side of this cemetery which had become dangerous, so much so, that a notice was served on the trustees under the provisions of the Dangerous Buildings Act. The little income which the trustees had, the £130 per annum, was completely and absolutely inadequate for the purpose of pulling down this wall and rebuilding it. Therefore, the trustees, in 1963, offered this cemetery to Dublin Corporation under the provisions of the Open Spaces Act, 1906, so that Dublin Corporation would themselves undertake this expense which the trustees were unable to undertake. Dublin Corporation refused. At that stage Messrs Jacob came back again and said: "We will purchase this site." When Messrs Jacob made that offer at that time they were actuated by their own motives.
As appears from this Report, the acquisition of this plot by Messrs Jacob would enable them to expand their business very considerably because they could expand laterally instead of vertically. They gave evidence that it would enable them to expand so much that they could get a very serious grip on the export market and thereby expand very considerably the employment of their staff. From that point of view, it would be a benefit to the general public, to those who would be employed and to future generations. This, of course, is a completely selfish motive.
Messrs Jacob then offered the trustees a sum of £20,000. The trustees were all descendants of the people who were originally of the Huguenot faith but no persons, as far as is known, of the non-conformist Huguenot denomination are now in this country. After much heart-searching, the trustees came to the conclusion that they would be properly and more fittingly performing their trust if they went ahead with the sale to Messrs Jacob. To do so, a Private Bill was necessary.
Now we are told it will establish a precedent. I should point out that the precedent is already there. In 1898, there was disinterment from St. Bride's in this city and reinterment in another cemetery. In 1925 and 1926, the remains of what were understood to be 422 people were removed from the cemetery of St. Thomas and reinterred elsewhere. The offer made by Messrs Jacob was: "We shall have this plot deconsecrated by a minister of the Huguenot faith"—he must be brought into the country because I understand there is no such minister in the country and no such denomination here at the present time—"We shall acquire a certain plot in one of the Dublin cemeteries. We shall have the remains reverently reinterred in that plot. Again, the services of a minister of the religious faith of those people will be brought in and he will be present at the reinterment. The plot will be kept in good condition ad infinitum.”
Let us therefore consider the question of respect. One hesitates to do anything which might hurt the feelings or the susceptibilies of the descendants of any person who is interred in a particular place. In this instance, apparently no one can trace relationship to any person who is interred in that plot. If anyone could so trace relationship, even to 40 or 50 years ago, he would have to be heartily ashamed of himself for the condition of decay and dilapidation which the graveyard had got into. There is no hurt to the religious susceptibility of any person because the remains are being reverently disinterred, reverently reinterred. It is much more desirable, I think, that the remains of the dead should be kept in a cemetery and not in a playground, and in such a manner in that cemetery that the plot in which they are buried will be kept in good condition for all time.
One must respect the plot where lay the remains of the dead, but in this case that plot is being deconsecrated and the remains are being buried in another plot which will be consecrated in accordance with the faith of the people being buried there. Therefore, having heard the arguments offered here today, I was impressed by the respect which Senator Yeats showed towards burial grounds, towards the dead—that when a person is dead, that is not the end of all things. Despite that, and weighing all the circumstances, weighing the respect now being paid to the remains, I feel the Seanad should pass the Bill.
Very rarely do I find myself in agreement with Senator Yeats but I do on this occasion. I have listened to the arguments for and against the Bill and with particular attention to the arguments put forward by those Senators associated with the Joint Committee, and I must confess to be anything but impressed by the strength of the case put forward by these Senators. When all things are weighed up in this—principles, respect for the dead, sanctity of burial places, guarantees of respectful removal and reinterment—and one puts money on the other side of the scale, the money wins. It is as simple as that. I must ask how far do principles go or stand when £ s. d. are on the other side.
The money is to be well spent.
I am coming to that. On the basis that the money is to be well spent, and we agree with the idea that sanctity of burial places is to be respected—it is an age old respect common to all Irish people who believe it is wrong to interfere in this way with burial places—where do we proceed? The Irish people regard it as an evil thing to interfere in this way with the remains of the dead. The argument being put forward here is that out of evil cometh good. On that basis you could establish houses of ill-fame in the city of Dublin and on the proceeds set up scholarships or other things that would bring good results.
I do not think that argument is one that Senators or others would agree with. I agree that the living are more important than the dead but I am sure in this case the interests of the living can be met without in any way interfering with the sanctity of burial places. There were other ways open to the trustees. It is all right to say that financially this was a very tempting offer. It was, but as Senator Murphy said, it would be unfair to this House to allow the decision to be left finally in the hands of the trustees. They examined their consciences, I feel sure, and found in this a way to provide benefits for the descendants of the people whose remains lie in the graveyard. The Seanad, however, must take a wider view because a precedent is being created, no matter how we erect a smokescreen to hide it.
Two points arise here. First of all, the upkeep of the graveyard had become a difficult matter and Messrs Jacob had taken care of it over a period of years. The first I knew about Dublin Corporation's interest was from comments here that Dublin Corporation offered to look after this graveyard. Dublin Corporation on that occasion refused to live up to their responsibilities and it remains at this stage because the Corporation do not see things in a proper fashion. Messrs Jacob should be given the choice of taking over the graveyard. Without going into detail, we know the mentality of the Dublin Corporation when it comes to Georgian houses and when it comes to canals. We know there is not a greater set of primitives in the country than the Dublin Corporation when it comes to things of historical value in this city.
Let us look upon this graveyard in another regard. Dublin is an ancient city and one containing many historical remains. Dublin's past goes back into history. If the argument can be put forward in this House successfully that money is the main object because it can do a certain amount of good, on that basis many of the most precious possessions in this city will be wiped out on the grounds that certain people will reap good from it. But, we are destroying something of an historical nature in the country and we will leave Dublin purely a commercially modernised concern. We are inviting foreigners to Dublin on the basis that this is an ancient city with ancient history, ancient monuments and ancient cemeteries. I believe people would come from all parts, from France, Germany and so on, to look at cemeteries like this. But again there are pounds, shillings and pence coming in in this way. I, at any rate, having listened to the arguments put forward here, am satisfied that the very reasoned case put by Senator Yeats is one that would impress many people outside this House, and especially in this country which respects its dead.
Senator O'Quigley made a point which puzzles me. He said he was greatly impressed by the funeral arrangements of the late Prime Minister of India.
That is not the exact quotation but let the Senator carry on.
May I say that Senator O'Quigley was impressed by the funeral pyre and the scattering of the ashes of this man on the River Ganges. I have great respect for that Prime Minister but what I want to clear here is that that particular arrangement, shall we say the obsequies there, is totally different from what is in operation here.
The same thing was done with George Moore in the west of Ireland.
With regard to the situation in the west of Ireland today, what would be thought of the remark of Senator O'Quigley in making comparison with a different type of religion and a different outlook, for which of course we all have the greatest respect?
I am being ecumenical.
I should like to be ecumenical in this regard. When it comes to people of different religions here we should go out of our way to see that not alone is justice done to minorities but that they themselves should be protected from some of their own representatives being tempted by mammon.
Did the Senator read the Report?
I am interested purely and simply in the arguments put forward in this House. This chamber is here so that we can hear views for and against, and I must say that Senator Sheldon, who looks upon himself as a very ecumenical person, especially when he is away from Donegal, as on this occasion, has shown, to my mind at any rate, that he is stretching it a little too far.
That has nothing to do with the point as to whether the Senator has read the Report or not.
Sufficient points have been put forward here by people and Senator Sheldon must stand over the Report himself. I do not think it is a question of having studied the Report in detail before I communicate my views in this House.
I presume the Senator has read the Report; that is why I did not quote from it.
Messrs Jacob have stepped into the breach and have acted in a kindly fashion. Back in 1924 it was stated—and I do not think I have to go to the Report for this—that this was used as a recreation park for the workers in Messrs Jacob. Have we gone so far that the idea of recreation goes by the board and instead we shall build offices for the Managing Director of Messrs Jacob and a few other people?
Let us get on with the debate.
According to some Senators, it is ovens that will be going in there and, according to another Senator, Messrs Jacob are listening to the exhortations of the Government to expand in such a fashion that they will be able to get into the Common Market. When the Common Market has to be brought in on the basis that you have to close a cemetery it is goodbye.
The cemetery was already closed.
But the Senator wants to remove the remains in kindly fashion in order to get into the Common Market. One of the greatest things that Messrs Jacob, as well as other factories like them in present circumstances, could do would be to spend the big money they have available outside the city of Dublin.
The Senator must confine his remarks to the Bill.
I mentioned that purely in passing because I am not in the slightest impressed by the arguments put forward by Messrs Jacob that the Government exhorted them to expand and get ready for the Common Market.
In conclusion and in order to keep this on a proper level, I should like to say that I was greatly impressed by the fair comments of Senator Yeats and I wish to support his view.
Question put and agreed to, Senators Yeats, McQuillan, Brosnahan and Cole dissenting.