THE SCHOOL OF AGRICULTURE.

Press, Volume L, Issue 8481, 12 May 1893, Page 3

THE SCHOOL OF AGRICULTURE.

PROPOSED REPAYMENT OF FUNDS.

At the monthly meeting of the Committee of the Canterbury A. and P. Association, held yesterday, Sir Jous Hall moved, according to notice—"That the President be requested to address a letter to the Minister of Agriculture, oalling his attention to the report of the Royal Commission of 1888 on the Lincoln School of Agriculture, in which it is shown that the sum of £7900 is due to the Institution from other departments of the Canterbury College, and requesting that the Government will during the eusuing session take such steps as may lead to this sum being made available for scholarships or other purposes connected with the School of Agriculture." He said the facts were well known to members, and he would not delay them. A Commission, consisting of Messrs D. McMillan, H. Overton, and M. Murphy was appointed to enquire into the general question of the School of Agriculture and its management. Two important recommendations were made by the Commission, one with regard to the management, and the other with regard to the £7900, which had been derived from the sale of endowments for the Lincoln School of Agriculture and used for the erection of the School of Art and the main wing of Canterbury College. The Commissioners' report, made in February, 1889, contained the following sentence:—"The terms of the trust as set out in the Crown grants, viz., for the purpose of an endowment for the School of Agriculture, are so distinct that no doubt is left in our minds tnat it is clearly a violation of the trust to apply the fund of the School of Agriculture in the manuer above, stated, and we consider that steps should be taken to have the money refunded with interest." Upon that report the then Government took the matter into consideration, and introduced a Bill which provided for a refund of the sum mentioned. The Bill was introduced by the Hon. E. C. J. Stevens, but for certain technical reasons it had to be withdrawn that session. The Government then went out>, and the matter dropped. Another Bill was brought in, providing that £5000 should be set apart for the School -of Agriculture, and it was thrown out. The money would be most useful for the purposes of scholarships, &c. Scholarships had been made available for scholars in primary schools, but he consisidered they should be available for other places also, and that the sum of £7900 should be utilised for the purpose. He suggested that the attention of the Government be called to the matter, as the difficulties 'in the way of a private member bringing in a Bill would be so great and it was therefore better that the Government should take it up. It was of great importance to the farming community, and the Association should therefore interest itself in the matter. They should not expect a private individual to take it up, and enter into a contest with the Board oi Governors of Canterbury College. It was proper that an Association of that kind should take up the matter, and press the Government to see that justice was done. He had not asked any gentleman to second the motion, buc would leave it in their hands.

Mr Rhodes said that if Sir John would cut out his figures and moke the amount £5000 he would second the motion.

Sir John—You admit that a debt is due, and you propose to pay 15s in the £. If the'money is due the whole of it should be paid.

Mr 1). McMillan seconded the motion. As a member of the Commission which went thoroughly into the question he was satisfied there was a misappropriation of the fund. Last year the Board bi 1 Advice of the Lincoln School of Agriculture, when in consultation >with the Board of Governors, had the matter under consideration. The establishment of scholarships was proposed and funds were wanted. The Board agreed to bring in a Bill, under which they "would be empowered to pay £5000 to the School of Agriculture. Mr Rhodes as a member of the Board of Governors would like to say a few words. He was not a member when the mistake was made, but he believed the members were acting legally and in good faith. Sir John Hall and the Hon. Mr Stevens were members of the Board at that time. He believed the money was taken legally, but perhaps a mistake was made, though it could not be called misappropriation.;.. They could not, however, legally pay back tshe money.' He did not think it was right to take" it in the first instance, and if aome reparation could be made by statute he would support it. He did not think, however, that they should endanger the other trusts, and considered £5000 would be sufficient. If they took £7000 for Lincoln College, it would mean that £4000 would have to come from the School of Art, Museum and Public library and £3000 from the other trusts, and chose who were interested in such trusts would oppose the proposal. If there had been a misappropriation, why not proceed against the parties who had done wrong ? He hoped Mr McMillan would see that no misappropriation had been made. The PREBiDENT(Mr J. Grigg) aaid there wss a good deal in Mr Rhodes , remarks. A Committee of the Board of Governors, consisting of Sir John Hall, the Hon. E. C. J. Stevens, and another, had reported upon the matter to the effect that the money could be used. The Governor gave his assent, and there was no misappropriation. He believed it was one of those cases where a compromise was better than to obtain the whole of the amount. There would be considerable opposum if they went for the full amount. The agricultural community had a vested interest in Canterbury College as » whole, and they should be satisfied with £5000 or they might injure other institutions which were of con* siderable value to the whole proviuc9. ' Mr H. Overton said he felt in an awkward position. He as a member of the Commission felt very strongly that the Board should pay the £7900. After the report of the Commission had been made a Board of Advice was appointed, and though the members were the nominees of the Board of Governors they 'were perfectly independent in their opinions. They had considered the question very closely and passed the following minute :—" That after careful consideration of the draft Bill, by which it is proposed to give legislative sanction to the refund of £5000 by the Canterbury College to the trust funds of the School of Agriculture, the Board of Advice, while agreeing to accept the above proposal, regret that jour Board cannot see its way to approve of a larger refund, and wish to point out that their concurrence with the proposed arrangement of fixing the sum to be refunded at £5000 in lieu ot' £7954, is largely influenced by the immediate necessity that exists for the establishment of a system of scholarships, and in the hope that any further delay and uncertainty may be thus avoided." He asked if Sir John Hall would accept £5000. He had not changed his mind since he sat upon the Commission, but while there was co much doubt about getting the full amount he would accept the £5000. Sir John Hall, in reply, said, admitting , that a wrong had been . done, and . that he J and the Hon. Mr Stevens had gat upon the Committee of the Board of Governors, it was all the more reason why he should try and undo that wrong. The President remarked that the Committee's report did not contain any recommendatione to the Board. They had left the matter entirely to the Board. Sir Jons said the reason why that Committee did not make any recommendation was because it was outside their province. With regard to the wrong that mighvbe done to the other departments of the College, he did not think that the sum should be repaid, but the interest coutd be paid upon'it. 'Since the claims had been made for the repayment of the : m6ney the rents of the College endowments had been considerably raised, and the Board had spent large sums in additions to the College, and in the creation of professorships, &0., showing that they could have refunded the amount. With regard to the reduction of the amount he could not se*3 any justification for it. If any other gentlemen thought so they should move an amendment, aad he would bow to the decision of the Association whatever it might be. ' The Hon. J. T. Peacock said the School of Agriculture should stand in the wuae position as the other institutions in making contributions to the erection of the' main building. It might have paid more than its share, but it should be content with the , smaller amount asked for. The Board were

agreeable to thia sum being fixed, and it would be better to accept it than to have the Board of Governors against them. Hβ moved that the motion be amended by substituting the figures "£5000" for " £7900."

Mr Rhodes seconded the amendment, and said that last year he had charge of the Bill in the Houso, bub when he found Sir John Hall and othor Canterbury members were against him and woro pressing for the larger amount he had dropped tho Bill. Their only hopo of success was in being unanimous.

The President said it would perhaps re* move a wrong impression from some mombers , minds if he explained that the College could not refund the £5000, but they could pay interest upon it. The amendment was carried, Sir John Hall dissenting. The motion as amended was then put and agreed to. The meeting then terminated.