HL Deb 31 July 1860 vol 160 cc412-4

Order of the Day for the House to be put into a Committee on the Maynooth College Bill read.

Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into a Committee on the said Bill.

THE EARL OF MAYO

said, it appeared to him that the authorities of the College would have power, as the Bill was framed, to apply the whole sum voted by Parliament for the benefit of the students to re pairs of the College.

LORD REDESDALE

wished to know on what principle the Bill proceeded. The measure involved questions of great importance. By the Maynooth Act, it was provided that the senior students, as the time drew near for their admission to the University, were allowed £20 beyond the ordinary allowance, and he understood that by this Bill the whole charge of the repairs of the College buildings was to be thrown upon that fund. The 4th section of the Act provided for the setting aside of £6,000 a year for the President, Vice President, and Professors of the College; and the 5th clause allotted £40 a year to the superior students on the foundation. It seemed very unfair that when all the members of the College were almost equally concerned in the matter of repairs, the expense of them should be borne by one fund. He thought some explanations ought to be afforded by the Government as to the arrangement proposed to be made.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

said, that the proposed arrangement emanated from the trustees of the College, who were not all Roman Catholics, and the outlay must be sanctioned by the Commissioners of Public Works.

LORD REDESDALE

said, it was important to know the gross amount which was to be thus diverted from the purposes for which the grant was voted by Parliament.

THE DUKE OF LEINSTER

was understood to say it would not be possible to estimate the amount precisely.

THE DUKE OF SOMERSET

said, the Bill had included the two charges under one head because of the bad feeling created year after year by discussions respecting the grants to Maynooth. The funds were voted for the College, but it was evident there would be expenses for repairs, and to avoid the excitement consequent upon the annual bringing forward of a Bill for those expenses the Government had thought it most advisable to embody the charges for repairs and for maintenance in the same Bill.

Motion agreed to: House in Committee accordingly.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 (Commissioners of Public Works to advance Money on Security of Portion of Grant applied towards Buildings and Repairs).

VISCOUNT DUNGANNON

objected to the wording of the clause, which would empower the trustees to borrow money for repairs to an indefinite extent. No less than £32,000 had already been laid out on the buildings, and he did not know how much more might be required. If the trustees were left to borrow as much as they thought proper, on the security of the income diverted from the students, they would soon be making an application to Parliament on account of the diminution of their income from that source. He thought that the sum to be thus borrowed should not exceed £15,000. He would move the rejection of the clause.

EARL GRANVILLE

thought that one of the main grounds of opposition to the clause was disposed of by the fact that no expenditure could take place under its operation without the sanction of trustworthy persons.

THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBY

said, he considered the arrangement of Sir Robert Peel with regard to Maynooth most beneficial, and, therefore, he should support a similar principle now, especially as the money would be spent under the vigilant inspection of trustworthy Commissioners.

After a short discussion,

VISCOUNT DUNGANNON

said, he would not press his Motion against the feeling of the House.

Motion, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

On the Motion of LORD REDESDALE, a clause was added, giving to the Commissioners of Public Works the control of the proposed expenditure.

Bill to be read 3a1 on Thursday next.