The Sun.
London, England, 1853-05-20 00:00:00

[PRICE SD.

building the houses of Parliament was entirely under the
control of Sir Charles Barry ?
Sir W. MOLESWORTH replied that the works were
placed under the direction of Sir C. Barry, and the expen-
diture was under the control of the Treasury, but all the
bills were submitted to the Board of Works to test their
accuracy.
Mr. JAMES WILSON said that nothing could be more
unsatisfactory than the state of the expenditure upon the
houses of Parliament, and the matter had for some time
past occupied the anxious attention of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer and himself. They had directed Sir C. Barry
to furnish them with such accounts as would enable them
to lay before Parliament a clear statement of this expendi-
ture. Certainly things could not be allowed to go on any
longer as they had done.

Mr. BRIGHT did not rise to complain of the venti-
lation, bad as that was, but of the immense quantity
of dust which was allowed to remain constantly in
suspension in the atmosphere of the house, and which
being constantly inhaled by honourable members, was
found to be very prejudicial to health. If a sheet of wet
paper was placed upon the wall, in an hour it became like
a sheet of sand paper, so great was the amount of dust.
And so intolerable was the evil to those who sat night
after night there for the whole of the session, that ho had
felt himself constrained to give notice of a specific motion
to the effect that that house should meet in some other
building for the despatch of business until a remedy had
been provided.

Mr: BAILLIE was afraid that the evil of which the hon.
member for Manchester complained was only one of the
inevitable results of the present mode of ventilation adopted
in that house.

The vote was then agreed to.
The next vote proposed was a sum of 10,0001. to defray
the expense of providing accommodation for the Comptroller
of the Stationery-office.
In answer to a question from Mr. WILLIAMS,
Mr. WILSON stated that he belived a further vote of
10,0001., in addition to the present sum, would be required
to finish the alterations now being made in the Stationery-
office.

The vote was then agreed to.
The next vote was a sum not'exceeding 91,2791. for
works connected with the Harbour of Refuge at Holy-
head.

Mr. THORNELY inquired whether the original estimate
of 628,0001. for the improvements at Holyhead would cover
the whole of the expenditure that would be required for
the works, or whether any other estimate had subsequently
been made ?

Mr. WILSON was not aware of any other estimate hay-
ing been made ' • but he could not undertake to say that in
a work of that magnitude the original estimate would in
no degree be exceeded.

Colonel DUNNE said that the original plan had been
departed from, and it was well known that the first esti-
mate would not be sufficient to complete the works.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said that when he came into
office ho found the votes for harbours of refuge in a some-
what anomalous position. The expenditure was certainly
brought under the notice of the Admiralty, but the imme-
diate responsibility and control were vested in the Treasury.
With respect to t his particular work, ho had been assured by
Mr. Rendell, the engineer, on whose opinion from his great
professional talents he could confidently rely, that the
original estimate would be sufficient to cover the entire
cost of completing the works at Holyhead.
Mr. BUCK desired to call the attention of the Govern-
ment to the want of a harbour of refuge in the south-west
of England ; and said he hoped the subject would at no
distant period engage their attention.
Sir J. GRAHAM said that, considering our maritime
position, there could be no doubt that the subject of har-
bours of! refuge had been too long neglected in this coun-
try. Between Harwich and the Tyne there was not a
single harbour for which a ship could run in boisterous
weather, except the Humber under some circumstances.
He was quite aware that some harbour of this kind was
wanted in either Cornwall ors Devon, but it was necessary
to proceed by degrees. There would be a considerable
expenditure required upon the works now in course of
construction at Holyhead, Portland, and Alderney, which
must be finished first ; and we must then enter upon the
construction of other harbours, which were much re-
guyed. _

- Mr. WILSON explained that the works originally
contemplated at Holyhead would be completed for the
original estimate of 628,0001., but that there would be a
further outlay of 180,0001. for a steam-packet pier, which
was not embraced in the first plans.
The vote was then agreed to.
On the vote of 226,000/, for constructing certain har-
bours of refuge,

Mr. W. WILLIAMS asked whether the sum of 34,0001.
for Dover Harbour, which was included in this, would be
all that would be requisite for the completion of that im-
portant work

Sir J. GRAHAM said that this 34,0001. would complete
the works as far as they had been hitherto sanctioned.
It was, however, proposed to extend the works 800 feet
further into the sea, which would, of course, entail a con-
siderable additional expense, for which the sanction of
Parliament would be. asked next year.
In answer to Colonel DUNNE,
Sir J. GRAHAM said that it was intended to carry the
works of the harbour in the south of Jersey much further ;
but that the Government had, after much deliberation,
determined to proceed with the harbour at Alderney.
Mr. HASTIE called:attention to the fact that there was
no harbour between the Tay and Peterhead, and observed
that the recent loss of the Duke of Sutherland steamer at
Aberdeen showed the absolute necessity for some improve-
ment in that harbour.
Sir J. GRAHAM said that this accident arose not so
much from any deficiency in the harbour, as from the
want of ordinary precaution on the part of the authorities
with reference to the provision of the means for saving
life.

In answer to Mr. PELLATT and Captain SCOBELL,
Sir J. GRAHAM said that at the present rate of pro-
gress, which was the greatest practicable under the cir-
cumstances, the completion of the harbour at Alderney
would occupy seven years from the present time. The
estimated cost would be about 600,0001. It was proposed
to carry out the works so as to obtain a depth of five
fathoms water at the ebb of spring tide. When the works
were completed, ten or twelve steamers of the largest class
would be able to moor there.

The vote was then agreed to.
On the vote of 2,556/. for works at Portpatrick harbour,
Mr. WILLIAMS asked when the expenditure on this
harbour would terminate ? Some years since an assurance
had been given that no more money would be asked for on
this head.

Sir J. GRAHAM said that this vote was not asked for
any new works, but in order to defray the expenses of
repairing existing works which had been damaged by the
storm of last year. Considering that 100,0001. had been
already expended there, and that it was possible that if
the railway were constructed from Dmnfries to Portpatrick
steamers might again run to Ireland from the latter port,
he thought it would be very bad economy to allow the
harbour to go to ruin.
The vote was then agreed to.
MAYNOOTH.

On the vote of 45,6001. for the expense of maintaining
and repairing public buildings in Ireland,
Mr. SPOONER moved that this vote should be reduced
by the sum of 1,2351. 13s. which was asked for the repair
of St. Patrick's College, at Maynooth. He still retained
his opinion that it was a national sin for a Protestant
country to support Popery in any shape or in any way, but
considering the very full discussion which this subject had
recently undergone, he should, in opposing the present
vote, confine himself entirely to the pecuniary question.
In 1845 the house granted 30,0001. to build a new college
at Maynooth, and charged the Consolidated Fund with a
nearly equal annual sum for its maintenance ; and yet the
Board of Works came year after year for grants for the
repair of this new college, which had been constructed out
of a parliamentary grant. In 1846, 5781. was granted for
this purpose; in 1848, 2,685/. ; in 1849, 1,1251. ; in 1850,
1,240/. ' • and in 1851, 1,2361. There was no grant in 1852,
and ho had heard that the Treasury then refused to apply
for one on the ground that 2,0001. of the original grant of
30,0001. still remained unexpended. -Under these circum-
stances he thought that, although the grant was not large,
it was not a reasonable ono in a pecuniary point of view.
There was no analogy between this and any other vote,
and he therefore expected, on that occasion, to receive the
support of those gentlemen who had opposed the motion
which he had brought forward on the subject of the May-
nooth grant, on the ground that he ought to have made
that motion general, and to have applied it to all grants
for religious purposes, instead of confining it to a single
case. (Divide, divide.)
Mr. KENDALL having briefly stated his intention to
support the motion.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS said that he also should support
the proposition of the hon. member for North Warwick-
shire, on the ground that when the grant was obtained in
1845, Sir R. Peel promised that not a single farthing more
should bo asked from Parliament for this college.
Sir J. GRAHAM said that his recollection of what took
place on the occasion of the grant being made to May-
nooth in 1845, by Act of Parliament, was entirely different
from what had just been stated by his hon. friend the
member for Lambeth (Mr. Williams.) Ho would, how-
ever, in the first place, refer to some of the statements of
the hon. member for North Warwickshire. It was not
the fact, that this was a new building ; on the contrary.
it was an old one, and until Parliament granted 30,0001.
for its restoration, it was one of the most dilapidated
buildings in the country. Every farthing of that 30,0001.
had been expended on the responsibility of the Govern-
ment on the repair of the building, only a very inconsider-
able sum having been devoted to its enlargement. The
annual grant was expended, not in maintenance of the build-
ing, but in that of the students and professors. When the
Government of Sir Robert Peel made the proposition to
fix a certain sum as an annual charge upon the Consoli-
dated Fund, it was a question whether they should name
30,0001., a sum sufficient for the maintenance of the stu-
dents ad of the establishment apart from the repairs of
the building, or whether they should add to this amotilnt ( _
a sum sufficient to cover the annual repairs of thwbnl 1
ho
i t lg
was a n
not
0 ti tw
mistaken,a s then
it decided ewe iade e
silt a
tbythestated
either
b y
himself Government, aenrdbiyf
his late right hon. friend (Sir R. Peel) that they deemed it
expedient that this college, so endowed and so upheld by
Parliament, should be annually brought under its review,
in connexion with the veto to cover the expense of re-
pairs. It did not appear that the annual repairs would
-average more than 1,200/, a year, and unless they desired
to starve out this establishment—(hear, hear)—to have it
no longer waterproof, and to expel the professors and stu-
dents, some such sum as now required was necessary.
Mr. PELLATT objected to all state endowments, whe-
then to the Church of England olrle.
Mr.ratottaennytioonthetlcltihurechsp,and
on that ground would support the proposition of the hon.
member e foro RNorthßy
beggedlV a r w it cok s
ohai
contended
that made by Sir Robert Peel when the presentan
made for the support of Maynooth College,
that the inference to be drawn from that 813 dgm
speech was that
the sum necessary for repairs should be paid out of the an-
numalra.llmowttuancLe.
thought that
hear.)
Mr.
vote against all those ecclesia47.l
fore, he would support the r Y Were
for North Warwickshire.
Mr. S. HERBERT called the
of
Ma should be prepared to
grants whatever might
be the pretence on which
.the
put on ;and, there-
proposition °position of the hon. member
attention of the committee
to a passage in the speech
Sir Robert Peel, when he put
the establishment of
Yllooth on its present footing, in