BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—AFFAIRS OF POLAND—THE IRISH CHURCH—THE EXHIBITION VOTE. (Hansard, 15 June 1863)

§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON
in moving, Sir, that you now leave the chair, I would appeal to the hon. Member for Tipperary (The O'Donoghue), who has given notice of his intention to bring the Question of the Irish Church under consideration this evening, to postpone that Motion to the day which is already occupied by my hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard—Friday week—for the discussion of that question. The House is, I believe, anxious to go into another question, and the hon. Member for the King's County (Mr. Hennessy) has been good enough, and with great courtesy, to postpone his Motion on the subject of Poland to this day week. I hope the hon. Member for Tipperary will show himself not less courteous than his countryman, and will postpone his discussion till the day when the subject is to brought under the discussion of the House by the hon. Member for Liskeard.

THE O'DONOGHUE
Sir, I have to state that I have no notice on the paper with respect to the Irish Church; but I 900 also regret to say, that after the way the noble Lord has treated the Irish Church question, I should not feel justified, if I had, in giving way. The noble Lord has shown no kind of courtesy to me when, night after night, I asked for a night to discuss the question; and therefore, without in the least degree departing from that courtesy which my countrymen proverbially are said to possess, I should have felt myself bound to go on. On Friday night the hon. Member for the King's County said, in reply to a request from the noble Lord, that he would postpone the discussion on the Polish question provided other Members would give way. Upon this my hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard said he would go on with the Irish Church question, and then the hon. Member for the King's County said that in that case be would go on with the Polish question-Relying upon that, my hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard did not to-day come down to the House prepared to go on with the Irish Church question. I was certainly under the impression that my hon. Friend would go on with the Polish question, as I consider he is bound to do.

§ MR. HENNESSY
I do not think I am bound to go on. I told the noble Lord on Friday night that I was perfectly willing to accept his wishes as law, and that with regard to the question of Poland I was prepared to give way, provided other hon. Gentlemen would also give way. I believed that the other Gentlemen, including the hon. Member for Liskeard, had given way. [Mr. BERNAL OSBORNE: I beg your pardon.] Of course; therefore if my hon. Friend and the other hon. Members have given way, I feel myself bound to do so too.

§ MR BERNAL OSBORNE
I do not know, Sir, whether I am in order, nor am I aware whether the word "duped" is a Parliamentary word. If it is not, I will not use it. Nevertheless, I conceive that I and many other hon. Gentlemen have been duped in this matter, and I cannot understand the wonderful anxiety to bring on this Motion for the purchase of the Exhibition Building. When I left this House on Saturday, I fully understood the hon. Member for the King's County to have pledged himself to me, in the lobby of the House, that he would bring on the question of Poland to-night. I never was more surprised than, on my arrival in town, to receive the short missive from my hon. 901 Friend the Secretary to the Treasury, which I shall read to the House, as it is necessary that I should explain my pan in this transaction, which would otherwise look as if I had been "fighting a cross." The note was to this effect— Lord Palmerston hopes you will not object to his proceeding with the Kensington Vote tins evening, and would be obliged to you to reserve yourself for Friday week, when he is glad to perceive you have secured an opportunity of bringing on the Motion of the Irish Church. Not a word is said about Poland. Of course, under these circumstances, I did not come prepared to bring on the Motion relative to the Irish Church; but I must say, I think the hon. Member for the King's County has broken his pledge to me. ["No, no!"] Well, that may not be your opinion, but it is mine. For my own part, I do not know why the noble Lord is so anxious to buy this Exhibition Building. I do not think we possess the papers and information requisite for discussing the subject properly; and I am at a loss to understand the reason why the question is being in decently hurried and huddled through this House. I desire to assure the House that I am no party to this transaction, and that I consider myself to be a miserable dupe.

§ MR. HENNESSY
As a matter personal to myself, I desire to assure my hon. Friend that I have broken no pledge. I hold in my hand the voluminous papers and notes with which I came down prepared to make my statement about Poland. But finding that my hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard had put off his notice with reference to the Irish Caurch, I was bound in honour not to go on.

THE O'DONOGHUE
When the hon. Member for Liskeard says, that the hon. Member for King's County broke his pledge, it is easy for hon. Members to say "No, no!" but I do think, after what passed between the two hon. Members, that the hon. Member for King's County was bound to go on.

§ MR. HORSMAN
I wish to remind the House of the position in which the question now stands. The hon. Member for the King's County agreed to give way, provided other Members agreed to do the same. The hon. Member for Liskeard refused to give way, and of course in that case the hon. Member for the King's County was to go on with his Motion. But it is now found that the hon. Member for Liskeard has postponed his Motion—that he has 902 taken it off the paper for to-day, and put it down for Friday week. He did that before he received the note which he has read; and as soon as I saw that change on the Votes on Saturday morning, I concluded that the hon. Member for the King's County would give way, because the hon. Member for Liskeard had postponed his Motion. We have nothing to do with conversations which took place in the lobby. The hon. Member for the King's County stated publicly in the House that he would give way if other Members would do the same; and the hon. Member for Liskeard having put down his Motion for Friday week, the hon. Member for the King's County was bound to fulfil the pledge which he gave.

§ MR. MACEVOY
said, that probably, if the noble Viscount would say that he would give a day for the discussion of the Irish Church question, his hon. Friend the Member for Tipperary and the hon. Member for Liskeard would give way.

§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY
said, he wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for an explanation of the circumstances under which a large sum of money—£150,000—was asked some years ago for a portion of the lands at Kensington, and whether the House did not retain a lien of some description over that propery.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, that the transactions referred to by the hon. Baronet were entirely gone by, but there was no difficulty in giving the required explanation. During the Government of the Earl of Derby in 1852, or else in the subsequent year, a sum of £177,500 was voted for the purchase in fee of one moiety of the Kensington Estate, to be held jointly between the Commissioners of 1851 and Her Majesty's Government. A Minute was forwarded to the Treasury arranging the form of partnership, so to speak, and as to the management and control of the estate. No proposals, which were made for turning that estate to useful purposes, were made for some time, and when proposals were made they were not successful; and it was thought better—he believed during the Government of the Earl of Derby, in 1858—that the partnership should be dissolved, and the money repaid which had been contributed by the State. Accordingly, arrangements were made for repayment, and a sum of £181,379 was accordingly restored, but the whole of that amount was not paid in cash; £121,000 was actually paid in money, and £60,000 903 worth of land was given, consisting of about twelve acres, now forming the site of the South Kensington Museum. He believed that £60,000 was much below the estimated value of that piece of ground, and consequently it Was not sold unconditionally to the Government, but with a proviso that the land should only be applied to purposes connected with science and art; and if applied to any other purposes, that the right of the Commissioners to receive a sum of money equivalent to the sacrifice which they made in parting with the land should revive. In order to meet a portion of their engagements in 1858, the Commissioners had been obliged to mortgage their lands to a certain extent. The Government, however, had no claim or lien of any kind upon them, and the Commissioners, in the face of the Government, were the sole and absolute proprietors. The difference between the sums of £177,500 and £181,379 was accounted for by a moiety of the rents which had been received up to the dissolution of partnership in 1858–9. That was the whole of the information upon the question raised by the hon. Baronet, and he hoped he had satisfied him that these transactions left the present subject, which now stood for discussion, entirely disembarrassed and free.