SECOND READING. (Hansard, 1 March 1881)

§ MR. FINIGAN
said, he objected to the second reading of this Bill, which concerned a large area of land, being taken at that hour (1.50). Of late there had been a great deal of jobbery with respect to the purchase of land, and it was quite open to suspicion that the Bill might practically be due to that cause. In the absence of any explanation, he did not see why the Bill was brought forward, and was, therefore, opposed to the second reading.

§ MR. HEALY
pointed out that hon. Members had been induced to postpone their Bills, and the time was now being used by the Government for the purpose of putting forward a Bill of their own. As no explanation of the measure had been offered, he objected to the second reading.

§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH
said, he should have certainly made some explanatory statement had he not believed that the Preamble of the Bill contained all information that could be desired. The circumstances were that the India Office bought the land in question for their own purposes; and, having decided that they had no further need of it, they offered it to the Government in connection with the extension of Public Offices. It was agreed that the question should be referred to arbitration. Accordingly, arbitrators were appointed, and an award was made, settling the amount of money to be paid. It had been subsequently discovered that the India Office was unable to sell the land without an Act of Parliament, and the present Bill was introduced to complete the arrangement.

§ MR. REDMOND
I beg to move that this House do now adjourn, and my object in doing so is this—that if the Bill is of any importance—

§ MR. SPEAKER
The hon. Member seconded the Motion for the adjournment of the debate, therefore is not entitled to speak again.

§ MR. SEXTON
said, he would move the adjournment of the House. So far as the substance of the Bill could be gathered from its title, only a very inadequate idea of the measure could be obtained. He had very much desired to understand the noble Lord; but though the noble Lord's statement was evidently offered with a wish that it should be comprehended, he (Mr. Sexton) was completely in the dark as to its meaning. ["Oh !"] Well, he congratulated hon. Members opposite upon the possession of more penetrative intellects than his. It was opposed to the interests of careful legislation that any Bill, even one of this trivial character, should be proceeded with without the House having a full appreciation of the propriety of the course it was taking.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
said, the House would agree that the explanation given by the noble Lord the Financial Secretary to the Treasury was insufficient—

§ MR. SPEAKER
Does the hon. Member rise to second the Motion?

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
replied in the affirmative. The House would agree that the noble Lord's explanation was of a very "scrappy" character. He had said little more than was to be found in the Preamble of the Bill, which was totally insufficient to give the House an adequate notion of the proposal. So far as he (Mr. O'Connor) could understand it, the case was this—some land having been purchased some years ago as a site for an office, when the building was completed a portion remained unused. This land, unless he was under a wrong 2023 impression, was paid for out of the Re-venues of India. The Revenues of India were not protected here; the people of India had been made to pay many millions without that protection being afforded to their Revenues and resources which was afforded to the Revenues of Great Britain. It was due to the people of India that a great deal more scrutiny and examination should be given to everything connected with the Revenues of that Empire than hitherto had been afforded. What he wished to ask was whether this proposed purchase by the Commissioners of Works would inflict a loss upon the Revenues of India—whether the sum now to be paid over to the Indian Revenue was greater than, equal to, or less than, the sum originally paid for the land now to be sold? He would also like to ask whether any attempt had been made to place this land in the open market, or whether there had been some quiet transaction between one Department and the other for the purpose of meeting departmental convenience; whether the open market had not been passed by, thereby inflicting upon the Revenues of India a considerable loss?

§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH
was glad the hon. Member took such an active interest in the affairs of India; and was pleased to be able to inform him that the arrangement was not susceptible to the charges he had made.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
I made no charges.

§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH
said, that at the suggestion of the India Office itself the valuing of the piece of land in question had been referred to one of the most eminent and able valuers in the Kingdom. The valuer had been jointly appointed by the India Office and the Board of Works, and the sum to be paid was the sum appointed to be paid by this gentleman. If the hon. Member opposite wished to protect the Revenues of India he would support this 2024 Bill, because, from a financial point of view, he could conceive nothing worse than that the India Office should be compelled to keep this piece of land.

§ MR. FINIGAN
wished to know what amount of money was paid in the first instance for this piece of land; whether it was £68,000, or more, or less? A great deal would depend upon the original cost.

§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH
was afraid he could not inform the hon. Member, as this piece of land was what had been left after the building. The other part had already been utilized.

§ MR. HEALY
asked to what hour tomorrow the House was adjourning. He understood that it had been usual to adjourn until 2 o'clock on Ash Wednesday instead of 12 o'clock as on other Wednesdays. The noble Lord (the Marquess of Hartington) had said nothing on the subject; and if he continued silent he (Mr. Healy) would move that the House adjourn till 2 o'clock to-morrow.

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON
I stated yesterday that if the House agreed to the Motion I had to make today, to the effect that the state of Public Business was urgent, we would not ask the House to meet on Ash Wednesday at a later hour than usual. I propose that the House should meet at 12 o'clock to-morrow.