GAOLYARD GRAVES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20254, 14 May 1929, Page 9

GAOLYARD GRAVES.

DESECRATION IN MELBOURNE

BONES REMOVED BY WOMEN.

ACTION TAKEN BY GOVERNMENT*

No precautions were taken in the weekond following the first removal of "souvenirs" by the public to prevent further desecration of graves in the yard of tho old Melbourne gaol, where excavations aro being made for foundations of extensions to the Working Men's College. Throughout the week-end crowds of persons gathered in the yard and gazed with morbid interest at two shallow coffin-shaped holes. One, which is said to have been the grave of Ned Kelly, the bushranger, was again desecrated by souvenir hunters. The second grave which has been uncovered, it is believed, may be that of Deeming, the notorious wife.murderer. It was raided by small boys. One boy was seen to leave the place with portion of a skull in his pocket. On a rock near the excavation several small bones were left lying by the contractors on .Saturday morning, and they were appropriated on Sunday afternoon by some women who visited the spot.

The Argus says:—"jit is now agreed that provision should have been made for removing the remains of executed criminals, of which there are a number in the yard, before building operations were begun. Apparently the necessity for this was overlooked in the formalities which preceded the transfer of the area from the Chief Secretary's Department, by which it was formerly controlled, to the Education Department and the council of the Working Men's College.

" It seems unlikely that the responsibility for the omission will be allotted until there is an investigation, as officers of each of the three departments concerned—the Chief Secretary's Department. the Public Works Department and the Education Department—disclaim responsibility. Arrangements have been made to ensure that the remaining bodies are removed to some appropriate place."

In the course of an address Archbishop Mannix said he was greatly distressed at the happening in the yard of the old Melbourne gaol. It was atrocious conduct to desecrate the remains of a man who had paid the penalty of the law for his misdeeds. No one had a right to interfere with the grave and remains .in such a shameful way, and he gladly joined with the Premier, Sir William McPhei-son, in expressing his strong protest. It was stated a couple of days later that immediate action had been ordered by the Chief Secretary, Dr. Argyle, to prevent any further tampering by unauthorised persons with the bones in the

graveyard. After having expressed regret at what had happened, Dr. Argyle said that an officer of the penal department had been directed to take charge of any other bones dug up, and it would be decided later whether these bones should be cremated or buried in another place. ' Under the Crimes Act, those who removed the bones were liable to imprisonment. The Crimes Act provided that any person who interfered without authority with the remains of personn legally buried was liable to imprisonment for three years.

Dr. Argyle advised those who had removed tlie bones to return them at once to the inspector-general of penal establishments. He would consider a recommendation to the Cabinet that the Crimes Act should be amended to provide for the cremation, instead of the burial, of condemned persons after their execution. Operations at t'.ie graveyard are now being supervised by a constable.