way from somewhere about Heigham in | the north-west corner to the foot of the Cattle Market. Norwich being the Metropolis of a large agricultural district, and one of the principal Cattle Markets in the Kingdom, it would be of great advantage not to Norfolk only, but to the Northern and Midland districts, to have this station constructed. It was because the Bill proposed to give to Norwich the prospect, and also the assurance, of a central station that the people of Norwich were strongly in favour of its being sent to a Committee. In 1845 the Great Eastern Railway Company, or rather the Associated Companies that were afterwards amalgamated under the name of the Great Eastern, did actually project an extension of this railway to this very spot, or near to it. They applied to Parliament for a Bill in 1845, and obtained the sanction of Parliament to it. They thereby recognized that it was important and desirable for their own interests and the interests of the community that this central station should be made. But from 1845 down to the present time not a single step had been taken in the direction of carrying out that which was the implied purpose of the Railway Company. And now that Norwich saw the chance and the promise of a central station, the inhabitants were very anxious indeed that the House should not allow the Bill to be strangled in the way now proposed, but that it should be sent upstairs and be inquired into, so that the real interests of the public and the real interests of the agriculturists might be considered in the matter, and that it should not be made a mere question of bargaining between the Dean and Chapter and the promoters of the undertaking. He held it to be exceedingly inconvenient that questions should be raised upon the details of Private Bills in this way. The House was already overcharged with Public Business, and questions of urgent importance in which the entire nation was concerned could hardly be advanced a single step. There were now before the House some 180 or 200 Private Bills upon which questions of this kind could be raised and the Business of the country be almost put a stop to. That would not only be a source of great inconvenience to the House, but it would be a source of injustice to the country, because hon. Gentlemen would attend the Sitting of the House at 4 o'clock who had received private letters and been invited to discuss these questions upon ex parte statements, without having been able to hear the evidence of the engineers or to look at the proper plans. If this course were to be sanctioned, there was extreme peril that undertakings of the greatest importance to particular localities and to the community at large might be put an end to by an opposition raised in this way. He had no wish to pronounce an opinion in favour of every detail of the present Bill. If it could be shown that it was not necessary for the line to go through the precincts of the close; if there was a wanton and unnecessary invasion of what was called the sacred close; then let a Committee ascertain the fact on the evidence of the engineers, and let them decide accordingly. But the question ought not to be decided by the House upon a one-sided statement. He was able to confirm the assertion already made, that this railway did not propose to go within a quarter of a mile of the Cathedral at the point where it passed the property of the Dean and Chapter. He believed that 400 yards, or thereabouts, was the distance' at which it passed the meadows, and it did not touch a single building upon the property of the Dean and Chapter. It came up to a street called Cathedral Street, at a distance of more than 300 yards from the Cathedral. He was prepared to concede that if the line unnecessarily intruded upon the privacy and seclusion of the Cathedral precincts, it ought to be resisted; but that was a question for a Committee upstairs, and he should not complain if, after hearing all the evidence, a Committee arrived at the opinion that such an objection was a fatal objection to the Bill. What he objected to was, that in that (House, upon mere ex parte statements, they should be called upon, without having before them the substantial facts of the case, to reject the Bill. MR. E. STANHOPE said, that, by the indulgence of the House, he wished to say one word in regard to the compromise which had been offered by his hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff). He was afraid that he was not able to accept that compromise. The proposal of his hon. Friend was, first of all, I thought that the compromise suggested that the line authorized to be con- by the hon. Member for Portsmouth structed by Part No. 6 of the Bill should (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) would have be withdrawn for the present year. So been in many respects a reasonable one, far he had no objection to make. But because the railroad would then be his hon. Friend went further, and pro- carried on the opposite side of the river, posed that he (Mr. Stanhope) should and there could be no very great objecgive an undertaking that no opposition tion to the slight invasion of the Catheshould be given by the Dean and dral property which would then be Chapter, or any other person in whose necessary. The junior Member for interests he had been speaking, next Norwich (Mr. Tillett) said the great year, when a Bill was to be brought object of promoting the line was to bring forward for a railway which would cut the station into the Cattle Market in the the Cathedral close in two different centre of the city. He should have places. [Sir H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: thought that the Corporation of Norwich Only two corners.] It must be obviously would themselves have been extremely clear that he could not accept a con- jealous of having this space in the centre ditional scheme of which he knew of the city occupied by a station of that nothing whatever upon a mere state- kind, and that they would have prement of this kind by his hon. Friend. ferred a station in another and more conSuch a scheme, when submitted to venient place, exactly opposite the station Parliament, might be found to be in of the Great Eastern Railway Company, the highest degree objectionable; and, which led to Yarmouth and the Eastern therefore, he must reluctantly press the Coast. He felt it necessary to point Resolution. out that if the Bill was to pass in its present form, and if this was to become a great cattle line, passing cattle through Norwich to the Northern and Midland districts, it was quite obvious that an increase of station accommodation would be required as the cattle trade developed, and if that accommodation could not be found in the city it must be found somewhere close at hand. They would not be able to obtain this increased accommodation in the direction of the river, as the hon. Member for Norwich had shown; and if it was hereafter found necessary to provide it, the provision must be made not on the river side, but by further encroachment upon the precincts of the Cathedral. thought that was a fatal objection against allowing the Bill to pass in its present shape. At the same time, he would repeat that the compromise which had been suggested was not an unreasonable one to consider. As to the question in dispute being one between two Railway Companies, he had nothing to do with that. He had no interest in either of the Companies, and he ventured to think that getting two railroads into Norwich might, after all, be of no very great advantage to the citizens of Norwich, so far as competition was concerned. Hon. Members knew very well, from past experience, that even where the public had two Railway Companies to deal with, those Companies had only MR. BULWER said, he should not have troubled the House if it had not been for the speech of the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. Tillett), who had stated that no Member who had any connection with the county of Norfolk had been found to put down his name in opposition to the Bill. Now, when he looked at the Notice Paper, and found that three Notices had already been given for the rejection of the Bill, he considered it unnecessary, although a Norfolk man, to add another, or otherwise he should undoubtedly have done so. It was scarcely necessary to remind the House that this was not a case of opposition to the whole Bill. The Company promoting the Bill had a station already at Heigham, and the opposition was only directed to a portion of the present scheme-the portion delineated on the map by a red line. No objection was raised to the construction of a line to Norwich from the station at Heigham, but only to that portion of it which ran through the precincts of the Cathedral. He agreed with his hon. Friend on the Front Bench, the Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Stanhope), in all the objections he had so eloquently urged against the invasion of the precincts of the Cathedral, and also to the contemplated appropriation of open places in that already crowded city. At the same time, he should have He to put their heads together, and the public found themselves ground between two millstones instead of by only one. DUBLIN CITY MARKET COMPANY. MR. SEXTON asked the Chief Secre tary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, under a Bill obtained some years ago by the Dublin City Market Company, authorising them to buy houses in South Great Georges Street, Dublin, Mr. Joseph Fishbourne was appointed arbitrator, but resigned with MR. LYON PLAYFAIR said, he thought the promoters of the Bill must see that there was a strong feeling in the House against interfering with the precincts of the Cathedral more than was absolutely necessary. The compromise suggested by the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) was practically a new suggestion, and was altogether outside the limits of de-out making the awards; whether Mr. viation contained in the Bill. He would suggest that the promoters should withdraw Part 6 of the Bill, which authorized the construction of the works that were objected to, and go on with the other parts of the Bill against which there was no contention. If this suggestion were accepted the Bill might be read a second time, and the promoters would be able to bring forward a Bill next year without any pledge on the part of the Dean and Chapter. He would, therefore, suggest that the promoters should give an undertaking that Part 6 of the Bill should be withdrawn, and that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Stanhope) should then withdraw his opposition to the Bill. SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF said, he had no right to speak again; but, with the indulgence of the House, perhaps he might be permitted to say that the promoters of the Bill authorized him to state that, in accordance with the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees (Mr. Lyon Playfair), they would withdraw that portion of the Bill which affected the precincts of the Cathedral. SIR WILLIAM FFOLKES, as Vice Chairman of the Company who were promoting the Bill, said, he would be happy to give a guarantee on their part that that portion of the measure which referred to the precincts of the Cathedral of Norwich should be withdrawn. MR. E. STANHOPE said, that, upon that understanding, he begged leave to withdraw the Amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Posnet was appointed arbitrator in the room of Mr. Fishbourne, and, in several cases heard by him about a year ago, has not yet made awards; whether the Market Company are throwing down houses adjoining those in respect of which, after a period of a year since hearing, awards have not yet been made; and, whether he can say how soon Mr. Posnet may be expected to discharge his functions? MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, that he had no responsibility in the matter, which lay within the province of the Board of Works. He believed that as much progress was being made as possible. LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND) — MESSRS, CROTTY AND OTHERS. MR. SEXTON asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that seven persons, namely, Messieurs Crotty, O'Brien, Clune, Scanlan, Hogan, and Marogire, of Scariff, county Clare, and John Gregg, of Tulla, in the same county, were arrested under the Coercion Act on the 17th ultimo, and confined in the lock-up, or "black-hole," of the Police Barrack at Tulla from about 11 a.m. on the 17th ultimo, till about 3 p.m. on the following day; whether, during the time referred to, none of the seven men were permitted to leave the "blackhole" for any purpose whatever; and, whether this "black-hole" is a place that measures eight feet by seven? MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, these men were not arrested under the Protection Act. They were arrested on a charge of treason-felony. They were brought to Tulla on the 17th ultimo, and were committed on the 18th. In com- the meantime, they were detained in the Tulla police barracks. He was sorry to say that the room in which they were kept was a small one; but there was no probability of obtaining cars on the same day to remove them, the police having been "Boycotted" by the car-owners. They were removed to Ennis the next day on cars brought out from that town. During the time they were in the barracks at Tulla they were allowed to see their friends, and relieved of as much restraint as was consistent with their safe custody. STATE OF IRELAND-OUTRAGE AT DERRY. MR. REDMOND asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that a serious outrage, said to have been committed upon some of the servants at Government House, Derry, during the visit of the Irish Society to Derry in August 1880, was reported to the Constabulary; whether said outrage was ascribed as a party one to the Roman Catholics of the neighbourhood; whether, during subsequent inquiries by a detective into an alleged larceny of spirits and wine, the property of the said Society, it transpired that no such outrage had been perpetrated; whether the supposed outrage was not an act done by the servants themselves; and whether this is the first occasion that strong suspicion has attached to some of the employées of the Society in connection with serious party outrages in Derry not long since; and, whether, in view of the stigma placed upon the Catholics of Derry, he will order an independent investigation into the circumstances? MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, the occurrence referred to in the Question took place in August, 1879, and was believed at the time to have been a party outrage. A magisterial investigation, however, failed to elicit any evidence implicating any parties. He believed some wine, the property of the Irish Society, was alleged to have disappeared at the railway station at Londonderry; but it subsequently transpired that it had been correctly delivered. He saw no necessity at present of ordering an investigation. INLAND REVENUE STAMPING DE PARTMENT (SCOTLAND). DR. CAMERON asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to the inconvenience suffered by persons in Glasgow requiring forms to be stamped, through the necessity of sending them to Edinburgh, and the great delays which frequently occur through the inability of the Edinburgh office to overtake its work; whether it is a fact that on the 9th of March the Controller of Inland Revenue at Edinburgh advised the Department at Glasgow, that, owing to the demand for penny forms, consequent on the adoption of limited liability by the Scottish banks, large orders for one penny" forms could not be supplied from Edinburgh in less than three weeks, while by sending them to London or Manchester for stamping they could be obtained in one week; and, whether he will consider the propriety of establishing in Glasgow an independent stamping department? LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: I regret to learn that there has been some delay in obtaining the necessary stamped forms in Glasgow. It was due, I am informed, to the adoption of limited liability by the Scotch banks; and, in order to meet it, the assistance of the Stamping Departments in London and Manchester has been called in. arrangement, it is believed, is approved by the principal persons concerned. The pressure due to temporary causes would not, in my opinion, justify the expense of a Stamping Department at Glasgow, in addition to that at Edinburgh. This DR. CAMERON: Would the noble Lord recommend the Committee to send the press of work to London, or somewhere else, where it could be done, so as to enable the work to be got through? LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: That is what I have stated is being done. The work is sent to Manchester and London. PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PRO PERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881-MR. MR. REDMOND asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that Mr. James Dooley, at present detained under the Coercion Act in Clonmel Gaol, had at the time of his arrest a licence for the sale of arms; whether such licence was revoked fourteen days after his arrest; whether all his arms and ammuni tion were at once given up to the police; whether he has since been unable to obtain payment, as provided by the Arms Act, for such arms, although four months have elapsed since they were surrendered; and, whether he will inquire into the cause of this delay ? MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, that this prisoner was arrested on the 18th of November, his licence for the sale of arms was revoked on the 19th of November, and the arms and ammunition which belonged to him given up to the police on the 14th of December. The person acting on his behalf sent in a bill for the price of the arms, £54 odd, and he was asked for the invoice, which he failed to produce. That was the reason of the delay. MR. REDMOND asked if the man was to be left without the price of his arms until he produced the invoice, which, perhaps, was lost? MR. W. E. FORSTER said, he could get another from the person from whom he purchased the arms. VACCINATION ACT (1867), SEC. 31. MR. BURT asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he is aware that section thirty-one of the Vaccination Act of 1867 was obtained from Parliament on the express understanding that it was needed in order to give jurisdiction over children born before the new Act came into operation, but since the Act of 1853; and whether, as the section is no longer needed for its original purpose, and as there are no children now to whom the rest of the Act does not apply, he will consider the propriety of ordering the use of Section 31 to be discontinued? MR. DODSON: The Question of my hon. Friend is based upon an erroneous assumption. There is nothing in the Act of 1867 limiting it to the children referred to; and, so far from there being any understanding that Section 31 should be limited as suggested, it is so drawn as to include all children, whether born before or after the passing of the Act. I cannot, therefore, assent to the conclusion that the section in question is no longer required for its original purpose. I am desirous that the powers of the section should not be abused; but I have no authority to order the use of it to be discontinued. PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881 - MR. RICHARD HODNETT. MR. HEALY asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that Mr. Richard Hodnett, suspect, while in Cork Gaol, was called on by two gentlemen on the 3rd February; whether the gentlemen were informed by a warder that Mr. Hodnett refused to see them; whether he is aware that Mr. Hodnett denies having given any such message; but, on the contrary, states that he was anxious to see his friends; and, what notice the Government propose to take of the matter? MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, that two men called on Mr. Hodnett, while in Cork Gaol, on the 3rd of February. He was informed of their arrival, and he stated to the warder that he could see no visitors that day. The warder informed the two visitors accordingly. MR. HEALY said, the truth of this statement was altogether denied by Mr. Hodnett. INTERNATIONAL LAW-THE SPANISH STEAMER "LEON XIII." DR. CAMERON asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is a fact that the master of the Spanish Steamer "Leon XIII." having been imprisoned by the British authorities at Singapore for refusing to produce the engineers of the vessel, British subjects, whom he had arbitrarily placed in irons, the vessel a fortnight ago "escaped" from Singapore, carrying off the engineers in question; whether, before escaping, she complied with the Law as to clearance at the Custom House; if not, whether he will insist upon the Spanish Government restoring to British jurisdiction the British subjects thus piratically carried off; and, whether he will instruct our representative at Manila, whither the Leon XIII." is bound, carefully to watch over their interests? SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The statement of my hon. Friend with regard to the imprisonment of the master, and the escape of the engineers, of the Leon XIII. is substantially correct. No Custom-house exists at Singapore; but the engineers in question have been handed over to the British Consul at Manilla. |