DOCSLIB.ORG

MINUTES of ORAL EVIDENCE Taken Before the OPPOSED BILL COMMITTEE on the HIGHGATE CEMETERY BILL Tuesday 2 March 2021 (Morning) In

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
MINUTES of ORAL EVIDENCE Taken Before the OPPOSED BILL COMMITTEE on the HIGHGATE CEMETERY BILL Tuesday 2 March 2021 (Morning) In MINUTES OF ORAL EVIDENCE taken before the OPPOSED BILL COMMITTEE On the HIGHGATE CEMETERY BILL Tuesday 2 March 2021 (Morning) In Committee Room 4a PRESENT: Baroness Hallett (Chair) Lord Aberdare Baroness Garden of Frognal Lord Trefgarne Baroness Whitaker _____________ IN ATTENDANCE Nicholas Evans, Parliamentary Agent _____________ WITNESSES: Dr Ian Dungavell, Chief Executive, Friends of Highgate Cemetery Trust Martin Adeney, Chair, Friends of Highgate Cemetery Trust David Jones, Petitioner Paula Swift, Petitioner PUBLIC SESSION INDEX Subject Page Submissions by Mr Nick Evans ........................................................................................4 Evidence of Dr Ian Dungavell ........................................................................................16 2 (At 11.04 a.m.) 1. THE CHAIR: Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the first session of the hearing by the Opposed Bill Committee into the Highgate Cemetery Bill, and thank you, to those of you who have been waiting, for your patience. Our proceedings will be broadcast on the web and a full transcript taken. As far as possible, our proceedings will be analogous to a court hearing but, as a remote hearing has been forced upon us by circumstances, we’ll do our best to ensure things run smoothly. Please indicate if you have any problems and please do not forget to mute yourself when not speaking. The plan is for us to sit today from now until about 1.00, then from about 2.00 till 3.30, and then 3.45 to 5.00. When we take a break during the day, please do not disconnect your Zoom link. Leave it running until we return. That’s breaks during the day. 2. Having explained the procedure, may I ask my fellow members of the Committee if they would declare any matters of interest? Lord Aberdare, I think you have an interest to declare. 3. LORD ABERDARE: Thank you, Chair, yes. I only discovered as a result of being on this Committee that, apparently, an ancestor of mine, John Singleton Copley, is buried in Highgate Cemetery. 4. THE CHAIR: Thank you. And Baroness Whitaker, I think you have an interest to declare. 5. BARONESS WHITAKER: Yes, thank you, Chair. Just to say that I used to live in what was then the Hampstead and Highgate Constituency. 6. THE CHAIR: Thank you very much. I’ll in a moment be handing over to Mr Nicholas Evans, who I think is presenting the case for the promoter. Overall, the scope of the hearing will be that the promoters will put forward their overall case for the Bill and call the two witnesses that we have heard sworn. The Petitioners, Ms Swift and Mr Jones, representing the Jones family, can cross-examine if they wish or suggest questions that the Committee may wish to put. Mr Jones will put the case against clause 4.7. The promoters can reply. Ms Swift will put the case against clause 5.3 and the promoters can respond. And then the Committee will turn to the unopposed clauses and amendments. So with those notes, I would ask Mr Evans to present the promoter’s case 3 for the Bill. Submissions by Mr Nick Evans 7. MR EVANS: Thank you, My Lady, and good morning. Can everybody hear me clearly? 8. THE CHAIR: Yes, thank you. 9. MR EVANS: Thank you. My name is Nick Evans of BDBP Pitmans. I am the parliamentary agent for the Friends of Highgate Cemetery Trust. They are the promoters of the Highgate Cemetery Bill. I’ll be calling two witnesses who we’ve just seen sworn in, Dr Ian Dungavell, who is the Chief Executive of the Trust, and Martin Adeney, who is the Chair of the Trust. 10. Can I start by checking that the Committee and petitioners each do have a hard copy of the bundle of papers and the filled-up Bill that we submitted on 12 February? Good, I’m glad. That bundle has now been supplemented following some further discussions with the counsel to the Committee, who helpfully suggested some further amendments beyond those contained in that filled-up Bill, and so we produced a second paper of amendments. I believe that was emailed around either last evening or this morning. I hope that’s correct. And the House of Lords publishing team has also kindly produced, late last night, a tracked changes version of the filled-up Bill. And I don’t know whether any of these will have found their way to Mr Jones or Ms Swift, but that tracked changes version of the Bill is now on the parliamentary website for this Committee, so you should be able to locate it there. 11. THE CHAIR: Mr Jones is nodding. Ms Swift, can I check whether you have had the tracked changes copy of the Bill? 12. MS SWIFT: Yes, I have; thank you. 13. THE CHAIR: Thank you very much. 14. MR EVANS: I should note that the counsel to the Committee has identified a few further typographical corrections that could be made to that second paper of amendments, but, because none of those affects any of the opposed provisions of the 4 Bill, we would propose to circulate a further paper dealing with those amendments after we have finished with the opposed provisions of the Bill. I hope that’s acceptable in the circumstances. Thank you. 15. Before I call Dr Dungavell to give evidence, perhaps it would help if I set out the background to the Bill and who the promoters are, why we say the Bill as a whole is needed. I would then propose to give an outline of the case for the two opposed clauses of the Bill. That’s clause 4, which contains a power to extinguish rights of burial and clause 5, which contains a power to disturb human remains. Strictly speaking, as Lady Hallett mentioned, only one sub-section of each clause is opposed, but it probably makes more sense if I describe the whole of each clause rather than just those opposed provisions. I would then call Dr Dungavell, who can explain why those powers are needed in more detail. Mr Adeney’s evidence relates more to the unopposed provisions of the Bill and, of course, I’m in the Committee’s hands as to whether you would prefer to hear him at the outset or to wait until we reach the unopposed sections before asking him to give evidence. 16. THE CHAIR: If you could explain a little more, Mr Evans. Would Mr Jones or Ms Swift have any interest in what Mr Adeney would have to say? 17. MR EVANS: Mr Adeney’s evidence isn’t related to the provisions of the Bill that they have opposed; it’s related to who the Trust are, how they came to be the owners and the operators of the cemetery. And as their petitions don’t touch on those points, it would be outside the scope of their right to cross-examine in any event. 18. THE CHAIR: Even if they wouldn’t be cross-examining, they may be quite interested in the background, so I suggest you call your witnesses together. 19. MR EVANS: Very well. Thank you, My Lady. After our witnesses have given their evidence, they would be available for cross-examination by the petitioners in relation to points that they’d raised that are relevant to the petitions and, of course, available for questions the Committee might have. 20. And so, turning to the case for the Bill, as I mentioned before, the Bill is being promoted by the Friends of Highgate Cemetery Trust. The Trust is a charity and its objects are: to promote the public benefits in relation to Highgate Cemetery by any 5 means appropriate and likely to preserve it as a place of historic and other interest and beauty; to permit the cemetery, or such part of it as may be available for the purpose, to be used as a public burial ground; and to secure the repair, restoration and preservation of the cemetery, its monuments and buildings and other artefacts, and their setting for the public benefits. And everything that the Trust does must be done for those objects. That includes its operation of the cemetery and, if the Bill is passed, it includes the powers that it would have under the Bill. 21. The Trust is the owner and operator of Highgate Cemetery and has been since the 1980s. Highgate Cemetery itself is, in the words of the Attorney General’s report to this Committee, ‘A site of national importance and unique cultural heritage’. It’s one of the Magnificent Seven cemeteries created in the second quarter of the 19th century in response to the growing population and the pressure on burial space in churchyards, and it is now a Grade 1 registered landscape and, we would say, one of the best-known cemeteries in the world. 22. However, while the cemetery is a much-loved place of historic interest and beauty, attracting over 100,000 visitors a year in pre-pandemic times, it is more than that; it is a working cemetery and its status as a working cemetery is crucial to its status as a place of interest. Mr Adeney will give some more detail on this but, in outline terms, the cemetery was laid out in 1839 by the London Cemetery Company, and it used powers granted by the Act of 1836, which was included in your bundles, and that bears the very descriptive name, ‘An Act for establishing Cemeteries for the Interment of the Dead, Northward, Southward, and Eastward of the Metropolis, by a Company to be called “The London Cemetery Company”’.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Magnificent 7 Seminars: 'Diversity in Cemeteries' 11.00-4.30 PM
    Magnificent 7 Seminars: ‘Diversity in Cemeteries’ 11.00-4.30 PM | Small Crematorium Chapel, West Norwood Cemetery 10.30 Registration, teas and coffees 11.00 Welcome and the Future of Magnificent 7 | Greg McErlean, Ruth Holmes , Nigel Thorne | The Royal Parks Panel 1: Challenges to Diversity in Cemeteries 11.15-11.30 Rules, glorious rules: Challenges in introducing Diversity at Highgate Cemetery | Ian Dungavell Friends groups are often founded to protect cemeteries. You can protect cemeteries by keeping people out, but also by welcoming them in. There is no consistent set of rules to govern appropriate behaviour in cemeteries, and notions of what is ‘respectful’ vary enormously. Having too many rules risks alienating visitors and creates problems for those who have to police them. Having no rules invites mayhem. 11.30-11.45 Diversifying Audiences in Abney Park Cemetery | Tom Simpson | Abney Park manager For those of the Magnificent Seven that no-longer operate as working cemeteries, increasing the diversity of park users and uses is crucial in preserving and protecting these unique sites. However, encouraging people to engage with spaces that are ‘full of dead people’ can be challenging. This presentation explores how Cemeteries can diversify audiences and the challenges faced when trying to attract new users to a cemetery. 11.45-12.00 Q&A: Challenges to diversity in cemeteries with Ian Dungavell and Tom Simpson. Chaired by Nigel Thorne Panel 2: Biodiversity in Cemeteries 12.00-12.15 The Green Reaper - bringing life to a Cemetery | Kenneth Greenway - Cemetery Park Manager The Friends of Tower Hamlets Cemetery Park have been involved in site management since the 1990's.
    [Show full text]
  • An Audit of London Burial Provision
    An Audit of London Burial Provision A report for the Greater London Authority by Julie Rugg and Nicholas Pleace, Cemetery Research Group, University of York 1 Contents List of tables 3 List of figures 3 1 Introduction 4 2 The demand for and supply of space for burial 6 Introduction 6 Demand for burial space 6 Supply of burial space 12 Conclusion 21 3 Reclamation and re‐use 22 Grave reclamation and re‐use 22 Re‐use under faculty jurisdiction 23 Conclusion 25 4. Recommendations 26 Borough summaries 27 Table conventions 27 Owner 27 Name 27 Date 27 Area 27 Status 95 27 Status 10 28 Total burials 95 28 Total burials 09 28 Capacity 28 Barking and Dagenham 29 Barnet 30 Bexley 31 Brent 32 Bromley 33 Camden 34 Croydon 35 Ealing 36 Enfield 37 Greenwich 38 Hackney 39 Hammersmith & Fulham 40 Haringey 41 Harrow 42 Havering 43 2 Hillingdon 44 Hounslow 45 Kensington and Chelsea 46 Kingston upon Thames 47 Lambeth 48 Lewisham 49 Merton 50 Newham 51 Redbridge 52 Richmond upon Thames 53 Southwark 54 Sutton 55 Waltham Forest 56 Wandsworth 57 List of tables Table 2.1: Projected total burials and required burial space for inner London boroughs for the period 2010/1‐2030/1 11 Table 2.2: Projected total burials and required burial space for outer London boroughs for the period 2010/1‐2030/1 12 Table 2.3: Operational capacity of private and borough cemeteries, 1995 and 2009 13 Table 2.4: Borough capacity status 17 Table 2.5: Additional burial grounds 20 Table 2.6: London Borough provision outside Greater London 21 Table 3.1: Reclamation and re‐use summary 24 Table 3.2: Grave types and re‐use applicability 25 List of figures Figure 2.1: Projected death rates in London, 2010/11‐2030/31 6 Figure 2.2: Cremation numbers in London 8 Figure 2.3: London boroughs by the projected proportion of all estimated burials that will be Muslim people, 2010/11‐2030/1.
    [Show full text]
  • South East London Green Chain Plus Area Framework in 2007, Substantial Progress Has Been Made in the Development of the Open Space Network in the Area
    All South East London Green London Chain Plus Green Area Framework Grid 6 Contents 1 Foreword and Introduction 2 All London Green Grid Vision and Methodology 3 ALGG Framework Plan 4 ALGG Area Frameworks 5 ALGG Governance 6 Area Strategy 8 Area Description 9 Strategic Context 10 Vision 12 Objectives 14 Opportunities 16 Project Identification 18 Project Update 20 Clusters 22 Projects Map 24 Rolling Projects List 28 Phase Two Early Delivery 30 Project Details 50 Forward Strategy 52 Gap Analysis 53 Recommendations 56 Appendices 56 Baseline Description 58 ALGG SPG Chapter 5 GGA06 Links 60 Group Membership Note: This area framework should be read in tandem with All London Green Grid SPG Chapter 5 for GGA06 which contains statements in respect of Area Description, Strategic Corridors, Links and Opportunities. The ALGG SPG document is guidance that is supplementary to London Plan policies. While it does not have the same formal development plan status as these policies, it has been formally adopted by the Mayor as supplementary guidance under his powers under the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (as amended). Adoption followed a period of public consultation, and a summary of the comments received and the responses of the Mayor to those comments is available on the Greater London Authority website. It will therefore be a material consideration in drawing up development plan documents and in taking planning decisions. The All London Green Grid SPG was developed in parallel with the area frameworks it can be found at the following link: http://www. london.gov.uk/publication/all-london-green-grid-spg .
    [Show full text]
  • LBR 2007 Front Matter V5.1
    1 London Bird Report No.72 for the year 2007 Accounts of birds recorded within a 20-mile radius of St Paul's Cathedral A London Natural History Society Publication Published April 2011 2 LONDON BIRD REPORT NO. 72 FOR 2007 3 London Bird Report for 2007 produced by the LBR Editorial Board Contents Introduction and Acknowledgements – Pete Lambert 5 Rarities Committee, Recorders and LBR Editors 7 Recording Arrangements 8 Map of the Area and Gazetteer of Sites 9 Review of the Year 2007 – Pete Lambert 16 Contributors to the Systematic List 22 Birds of the London Area 2007 30 Swans to Shelduck – Des McKenzie Dabbling Ducks – David Callahan Diving Ducks – Roy Beddard Gamebirds – Richard Arnold and Rebecca Harmsworth Divers to Shag – Ian Woodward Herons – Gareth Richards Raptors – Andrew Moon Rails – Richard Arnold and Rebecca Harmsworth Waders – Roy Woodward and Tim Harris Skuas to Gulls – Andrew Gardener Terns to Cuckoo – Surender Sharma Owls to Woodpeckers – Mark Pearson Larks to Waxwing – Sean Huggins Wren to Thrushes – Martin Shepherd Warblers – Alan Lewis Crests to Treecreeper – Jonathan Lethbridge Penduline Tit to Sparrows – Jan Hewlett Finches – Angela Linnell Buntings – Bob Watts Appendix I & II: Escapes & Hybrids – Martin Grounds Appendix III: Non-proven and Non-submitted Records First and Last Dates of Regular Migrants, 2007 170 Ringing Report for 2007 – Roger Taylor 171 Breeding Bird Survey in London, 2007 – Ian Woodward 181 Cannon Hill Common Update – Ron Kettle 183 The establishment of breeding Common Buzzards – Peter Oliver 199
    [Show full text]
  • We Remember Those Members of the Lloyd's Community Who Lost Their
    Surname First names Rank We remember those members of the Lloyd’s community who lost their lives in the First World War 1 We remember those who lost their lives in the First World War SurnameIntroduction Today, as we do each year, Lloyd’s is holding a But this book is the story of the Lloyd’s men who fought. Firstby John names Nelson, Remembrance Ceremony in the Underwriting Room, Many joined the County of London Regiment, either the ChairmanRank of Lloyd’s with many thousands of people attending. 5th Battalion (known as the London Rifle Brigade) or the 14th Battalion (known as the London Scottish). By June This book, brilliantly researched by John Hamblin is 1916, when compulsory military service was introduced, another act of remembrance. It is the story of the Lloyd’s 2485 men from Lloyd’s had undertaken military service. men who did not return from the First World War. Tragically, many did not return. This book honours those 214 men. Nine men from Lloyd’s fell in the first day of Like every organisation in Britain, Lloyd’s was deeply affected the battle of the Somme. The list of those who were by World War One. The market’s strong connections with killed contains members of the famous family firms that the Territorial Army led to hundreds of underwriters, dominated Lloyd’s at the outbreak of war – Willis, Poland, brokers, members and staff being mobilised within weeks Tyser, Walsham. of war being declared on 4 August 1914. Many of those who could not take part in actual combat also relinquished their This book is a labour of love by John Hamblin who is well business duties in order to serve the country in other ways.
    [Show full text]
  • Triendi3 of Lr{Ei3f 12Orwood Jlemefery
    }triendi3 of lr{ei3f 12orwood Jlemefery NEWSLEITER NO 4: DECEMBER 1990 THE MEETING OF LAMBETH COUNCIL, 17th October 1990 At a typically lively and noisy meeting of the Full Council in October, Councillor John Whelan, and Nicholas Reed, FOWNC Chairman, asked questions of two Committee Chairmen. Councillor Stewart Hunter, Chair of Lambeth's Public Works Corrmittee said his officers were doing a splendid job, and 'Went on to take a completely political stance, accusing his first questioner of wishing to turn. the Cemetery back into a private company (something he had never mentioned). Yet in view of Lambeth I S apparent eagerness to demolish so much in the Cemetery, simply in order to provide more burial space, and thus increase the revenues received by the Cemetery, one begins to wonder if things are so very different from when the old Cemetery Companies used to maximise their burial revenues. One would have expected such behaviour from capitalist Victorian businesses 100 years ago, but one hardly expects it nowadays from a left-wing Labour Council! Lambeth declared the Cemetery a Conservation Area in 1978, This makes it also a matter for the Planning Coomittee, since tedmically, any changes made to such an area should be notified to, and approved by, the Planning Committee. In her reply, Councillor Arma Tapsell, Chair of Lambeth's Planning COIlII1i.ttee, pointed out that many Lambeth Councillors may not be aware of the decisions taken many years ago to carry out "lawn conversion" in the Cemetery. And "in view of the criticisms raised by the Friends of the Cemetery," she is asking for a detailed report on all three cemeteries to be prepared by her officers, after consulting all parties.
    [Show full text]
  • 12179 Greenchainnature Reserve- 16 5 14 PROOF
    Visit 12 nature reserves along the Green Chain Walk Take a walk on the wild side The Wider Landscape This guide introduces you to Now it’s over to you. Whatever the Sensitive sites such as these cannot time of year you will find survive in isolation. The wider landscape some of the very best nature and something to delight you. Use the wildlife sites on the Green Chain. of the Green Chain - some 2,500 hectares checklist to tick off the sites you of open space in south east London (the have visited and anything that Each one has something special about it. All have been selected size of 3,400 football pitches!), provides inspired you on your visit! an important role in their survival. As because they are easy to get to by train or bus. As well as maps well as acting as a buffer to urban for each site we have also provided information that will make Crossness page 6 - 7 encroachment and the increasing your visit more interesting. demand for more housing, the Green Lesnes Abbey Woods page 8 - 9 Chain supports the mobility of wildlife so that alternative sources of food can be Take a walk found within the wider landscape. Oxleas Woods page 10 -11 Working together Maryon Wilson Park page 12 - 13 In the future our open spaces will need to be more resilient to threats such as on the wildside Sutcliffe Park page 14 - 15 climate change, floods, droughts and sea level rises. The vision of a connected and Grove Park page 16 - 17 robust living landscape can only be achieved by organisations working together.
    [Show full text]
  • New Southgate Cemetery Bill [HL]
    [HC] New Southgate Cemetery Bill [HL] EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM This Bill is promoted by New Southgate Cemetery and Crematorium Limited (“the Company”). It confers powers on the Company and the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha´’´ıs of the United Kingdom (“the Baha´’´ıs”), who are between them the burial authorities responsible for New Southgate Cemetery (“the cemetery”). The purpose of this Bill is to authorise the Company and the Baha´’´ıs (“the burial authorities”) to extinguish rights of burial in grave spaces, and to disturb and reinter human remains in graves, in their respective sections of the cemetery in order to increase the space for further interments in such graves, as well as powers to use appropriately or remove altogether from the cemetery any memorials on such graves. It would provide the burial authorities with the same powers that are already available in respect of local authority run burial grounds in London. Clause 1 gives the short title of the Bill and provides for it to come into force 28 days after it is passed. Clause 2 defines certain expressions used in the Bill. Clause 3 provides the burial authorities with the power to extinguish rights of burial in grave spaces in the cemetery where a right of burial has not been exercised for 75 years or more from the date of the latest burial in the grave space or, if there has been no burial in the grave space, from the date of the grant of the right of burial in the grave space. Clause 3 is substantially based on section 6 of the City of London (Various Powers) Act 1969, and section 9 of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1976, which provide the equivalent powers in respect of publicly run burial grounds in London.
    [Show full text]
  • Nunhead, Honor Oak and Peckham Rye
    Nunhead, Honor Oak and Peckham Rye 1st walk check 2nd walk check 3rd walk check 26th June 2018 Current status Document last updated Friday, 27th July 2018 This document and information herein are copyrighted to Saturday Walkers’ Club. If you are interested in printing or displaying any of this material, Saturday Walkers’ Club grants permission to use, copy, and distribute this document delivered from this World Wide Web server with the following conditions: • The document will not be edited or abridged, and the material will be produced exactly as it appears. Modification of the material or use of it for any other purpose is a violation of our copyright and other proprietary rights. • Reproduction of this document is for free distribution and will not be sold. • This permission is granted for a one-time distribution. • All copies, links, or pages of the documents must carry the following copyright notice and this permission notice: Saturday Walkers’ Club, Copyright © 2018, used with permission. All rights reserved. www.walkingclub.org.uk This walk has been checked as noted above, however the publisher cannot accept responsibility for any problems encountered by readers. Nunhead, Honor Oak and Peckham Rye Start: Nunhead Station Finish: Peckham Rye Station Length: 8.0 km/5.0 mi Ascent: 170m Time: 2 hours Transport: Nunhead Station is served by Thameslink services to Sevenoaks and by Southeastern services from Victoria on the Dartford via Bexleyheath line. Peckham Rye Station is served by the East London (Overground) Line, Thameslink and Sutton & Mole Valley services; trains go to Dartford, London Bridge, Victoria, Highbury & Islington, Blackfriars, Sevenoaks, West Croydon, Beckenham Junction and Clapham Junction.
    [Show full text]
  • Southwark Liberal Democrat Group
    Ward, Lucy From: Mayers, Mishka on behalf of reviews Sent: Tuesday, 05 April, 2016 10:44 AM To: Ward, Lucy Subject: FW: Lib Dem group submission for LB Southwark draft wards consultation Attachments: Detail of proposed changes to draft wards LBS.pdf; Draft comments LBS review.pdf; New wards 1 to 7.pdf; OPTION 1 Nunhead and Queens Rd.pdf; OPTION 2 Nunhead n and nunhead s.pdf; Supporting Notes.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged From: Roger Giess Sent: 04 April 2016 01:15 To: reviews <[email protected]> Subject: Lib Dem group submission for LB Southwark draft wards consultation Dear Sirs, Please find attached the response from the Southwark Council Lib Dem group to the consultation on the draft warding arrangements for the London Borough of Southwark. The submission includes an explanation of the amendments to the draft we would make together with our calculations of new projected electorates. We would be pleased to provide further details of the calculations if that would assist. We also include some sketched maps to illustrate the changes we are proposing. These show the ward as we intend tinted yellow with those areas we propose removing edged red and those new areas to be brought in edged green. I would be grateful if you would acknowledge receipt. Kind regards Roger Giess on Behalf of Southwark Borough Council Liberal Democrat group. 1 Southwark Council Lib Dem Group comments on draft ward boundary review Ward Comments 1 Camberwell Green We support this ward except for a small amendment. We would move the border with St Giles to the west to run along D'Eynsford Rd and Camberwell Green to Camberwell Church St.
    [Show full text]
  • Casualties of the AUXILIARY TERRITORIAL SERVICE
    Casualties of the AUXILIARY TERRITORIAL SERVICE From the Database of The Commonwealth War Graves Commission Casualties of the AUXILIARY TERRITORIAL SERVICE. From the Database of The Commonwealth War Graves Commission. Austria KLAGENFURT WAR CEMETERY Commonwealth War Dead 1939-1945 DIXON, Lance Corporal, RUBY EDITH, W/242531. Auxiliary Territorial Service. 4th October 1945. Age 22. Daughter of James and Edith Annie Dixon, of Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire. 6. A. 6. TOLMIE, Subaltern, CATHERINE, W/338420. Auxiliary Territorial Service. 14th November 1947. Age 32. Daughter of Alexander and Mary Tolmie, of Drumnadrochit, Inverness-shire. 8. C. 10. Belgium BRUGGE GENERAL CEMETERY - Brugge, West-Vlaanderen Commonwealth War Dead 1939-1945 MATHER, Lance Serjeant, DORIS, W/39228. Auxiliary Territorial Service attd. Royal Corps of Sig- nals. 24th August 1945. Age 23. Daughter of George L. and Edith Mather, of Hull. Plot 63. Row 5. Grave 1 3. BRUSSELS TOWN CEMETERY - Evere, Vlaams-Brabant Commonwealth War Dead 1939-1945 EASTON, Private, ELIZABETH PEARSON, W/49689. 1st Continental Group. Auxiliary Territorial Ser- vice. 25th December 1944. Age 22. X. 27. 19. MORGAN, Private, ELSIE, W/264085. 2nd Continental Group. Auxiliary Territorial Service. 30th Au- gust 1945. Age 26. Daughter of Alfred Henry and Jane Midgley Morgan, of Newcastle-on-Tyne. X. 32. 14. SMITH, Private, BEATRICE MARY, W/225214. 'E' Coy., 1st Continental Group. Auxiliary Territorial Service. 14th November 1944. Age 25. X. 26. 12. GENT CITY CEMETERY - Gent, Oost-Vlaanderen Commonwealth War Dead 1939-1945 FELLOWS, Private, DORIS MARY, W/76624. Auxiliary Territorial Service attd. 137 H.A.A. Regt. Royal Artillery. 23rd May 1945. Age 21.
    [Show full text]
  • PECKHAM SOCIETY NEWS INDEX of LETTERS (To Issue 158 2019)
    PECKHAM SOCIETY NEWS INDEX OF LETTERS (without addresses, phone numbers or emails included ) (to Issue 158 2019) Season/ Title/Author/Subject all entered in Alphabetical Order Year Month Issue Page INDEX TO LETTERS IN PECKHAM SOCIETY BULLETINS, NEWSLETTERS, AND PECKHAM SOCIETY NEWS Notes: Complete up to and including number 158, Autumn 2019 PLEASE READ THESE NOTES FIRST THEY WILL HELP YOU SEARCH MORE EFFECTIVELY 1) Only people’s names appear in the first column (and in the case of married women, I have cross referenced their maiden names). I have deleted all email addresses, phone numbers and addresses of all letter writers for reasons of privacy. 2) If Jane Smith (née Jones) writes a letter which include subjects such as the Surrey Canal, Rye Lane, and Waverley School, it will be entered under Smith, Jane (where it will include her contact details, where given), and also under her maiden name, and then under Surrey Canal, Rye Lane and Waverley School, with her name as author in the second column. Should I have inadvertently missed any such cross-references, please let the Editor know who will pass the information on to this Indexer! However, if someone writes a letter saying “I support the idea of Peckham Rye Railway Station being opened out”, I have not included it under Peckham Rye Railway Station because it’s not telling us anything other than the idea has been supported. 3) Where there is more than one letter written about the same subject this Indexer will list the authors in alphabetical order under the given subject.
    [Show full text]