HC Deb 11 June 1852 vol 122 cc509-10

said, he wished to put a question to the right hon. the Secretary of State for the Home Department, having a bearing upon the College of Maynooth, though not at all connected with the discussion which had recently occupied that House. In 1845, when the Act of Parliament was passed for the permanent endowment of the College, the late Sir Robert Peel stated that it would not make provision for the annual expense of the repairs, but that item would be the subject of an annual Estimate to be laid before Parliament. He believed, in every year since that Act was passed, a Vote had been taken, to the amount of 800l. or 900l., for the purpose of defraying the expense of keeping the buildings of the College in repair. This year he did not see any proposition for continuing that annual Vote; and he would be glad to know whether that omission was an accident, or whether the Board of Works considered no sum was this year required for the purpose. He was quite sure the Government ought not to anticipate any decision of the House, and before any inquiry had been made to place the College in a different position than in other years.


said, he could assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government had no wish to anticipate the decision of the House. The reason why there was no Vote this year for the repairs of Maynooth College was, that the late Government did not consider there were any circumstances which required such a Vote being asked for, and therefore omitted to place it in the Estimates which the present Government had adopted. The House would recollect that last year, when the annual Vote was proposed, it was carried by a very narrow majority of only one or two; and in the present state of parties the Government would have had little chance of passing that Vote, unless they could have shown a very strong case of the necessity of repairs.


said, he understood there was imminent necessity for repairs of the buildings of Maynooth.


said, he thought the Government had exercised a very wise discretion in omitting that Vote from the Estimates. It was his duty to oppose it last year, as he believed no sufficient grounds had been shown for the former grant. He wished the Government had exercised the same sound discretion with respect to other Votes of a similar nature.

Subject dropped.

Back to