RESOLUTION. [AJOURNED DEBATE.] (Hansard, 15 June 1888)

§ MR. JORDAN (Clare, W.)
said, he could not get satisfactory information with regard to this Bill. He had asked a Question about it yesterday, but could not obtain a satisfactory reply. He had requested to be informed who were the sponsors for the Bill in the House, as there seemed to be no one promoting the measure whatever; but his query remained unanswered. Now, in 1879, the promoters of the Donegal Extension Bill obtained Parliamentary powers on condition that they made a railway within five years. Those promoters paid on deposit a sum of £3,275; but this, in 1884, was forfeited by reason of the non-performance of the conditions upon which the Bill was obtained. Now, after nine years had elapsed, some parties unknown to him came to that House and sought a Bill to obtain the repayment of this £3,275 already forfeited to the Treasury, and as one of those who came from the centre of the district that would have been largely benefited commercially by the railway, and as Chairman of the Town Commissioners in that locality who aided the promoters at that time to obtain the Bill, he thought it was only fair that he should be answered when he asked if all the necessary conditions had been fulfilled. The Chairman of Committees was the only person in the House who could give him any information yesterday, and, of course, that was not satisfactory. 237 He wanted to know had the necessary notices been inserted in The Dublin Gazette, and he desired, also, to know whether any claim for compensation had been made, and if any payments had been made in respect of compensation? He also wished to ask to whom the money was to be repaid? One gentleman, Mr. McBirney, Dublin, who was connected with the promotion of the former Bill, and who, he (Mr. Jordan) was almost sure, had paid the whole of this £3,275 by way of deposit, was now dead. Another gentleman, Mr. Bloomfield, who was connected with the railway, and who had, he believed, paid no money by way of deposit, however, was alive, and he (Mr. Jordan) should not like to see the money go into the wrong hands. He should like to see it paid to the proper person—that was to say, to the heirs and succesors of that gentleman who had paid it originally in the form of a deposit. It was only fair, at any rate, that he (Mr. Jordan) should have information upon the subject, being interested in the part of the country to which the original Bill applied. He would move, if it were competent for him to do so, that the Resolution be reported upon this day three months.

§ MR. SPEAKER
I must remind the hon. Member that it is not competent for him to make that Motion. The hon. Member can move that the debate be now adjourned.

§ MR. JORDAN
said, he did not wish to delay the Bill. All he wanted was some satisfactory information in the matter. It would be as well for him, perhaps, to move the adjournment of the dobate.

§ THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. COURTNEY) (Cornwall, Bodmin)
said, that if the hon. Member moved the adjournment of the debate, he would prevent him (Mr. Courtney) from giving him an answer. As to the Motion now before the House, he could satisfy the hon. Member and give him all the information he sought in the matter. The hon. Member had correctly stated the facts. This railway was one of the many projects sanctioned by Parliament, and subsequently abandoned. When Parliamentary powers were applied for, a deposit was paid in as an earnest that the railway construction was to be carried out, and in order to meet any claim which might arise in consequence 238 of the action of the promoters of the Bill. That deposit, in the present instance, as the hon. Member had stated, owing to the non-fulfilment of the conditions upon which Parliamentary powers were given, was forfeited to the Crown. This Bill was a release on the part of the Crown of the money so forfeited. The hon. Gentleman wished to be assured as to whether any demands for compensation had been settled, and he also wished to be certain that the money would be paid to the persons rightly entitled to it. This Bill, which was in the strictest accordance with all previous measures dealing with such questions, released the claim of the Crown, and ordered the High Court in Dublin to pay the money deposited, subject first of all to the payment of all claims established against it to the persons who were entitled to it, and who paid the money in the first instance, or to their survivor or survivors. The first thing the High Court did in a case of this kind was to advertise for any claims, and when claims were established, after a certain interval there was a settlement, and the Court proceeded to distribute the money to those entitled to it. Whatever guarantees the hon. Member wished to have rested with the High Court, which followed the ordinary course in regard to sums paid into Court, first in advertising for claims, then in examining those claims, and paying those which were genuine, and, subsequently, in paying the remaining money to those entitled to it.